What do you think about 9/11? Do you think it was Al-Qaeda or a set up from within the American power system? Don't forget the CIA and Bin Laden were mates back in the 80's. The most intriguing one is the fact that there was no plane wreckage from the Pentagon and the damage to the building doesn't have any wing marks.

Here's a link if you haven't heard this one before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

easel wrote on Mar 16^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:

What do you think about 9/11? Do you think it was Al-Qaeda or a set up from within the American power system? Don't forget the CIA and Bin Laden were mates back in the 80's. The most intriguing one is the fact that there was no plane wreckage from the Pentagon and the damage to the building doesn't have any wing marks. Here's a link if you haven't heard this one before. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

How do you explain the aeroplanes?

I don't have a real opinion, except that it seems dodgy. The plane wreckage from the Pentagon is not charred at all and is scattered, the FBI seized the security footage, and all the footage released shows is an object that doesn't look like a plane hitting the building.

I've seen the video footage and there were definitely wing marks. I've also heard the theory that you can see 'controlled explosions' in the footage rather than a tower collapsing. However you would expect it to look the way it did because the air would have 'exploded' out of each floor as it collapsed. The building fell from the top down, not the bottom up as is usually the case. You would expect this also, given the circumstances. Once the top floors started falling the momentum would have been too much for the floors below.

Also, plane wreckage is often scattered rather than charred, especially if it landed at a high speed or shallow angle. They only char all over when there is a runway crash.

Good point freediver, very scientifically sound.

The plane was standing still.
It was the building that rushed into it.
All depends where you stand in space.

I goota say I've read some very poor attempts at conspiracy theories around 9/11.  

I hope someone comes up with a better one someday.

I wonder how long it took to come up with the first good good Elvis conspiracy theory?


Bill

So I guess Bin Laden was lying when he took credit for it, maybe he just wanted to be the worlds most wanted man for the fun of it. I have seen a documentary or two about this and they all sound like rubbish to me.

The Mossad.

Of course it was.Government sponsored terrorism has been around along time.It will come out in 50 years like always.That's how governments get things done  that people don't want them to do & that's how they take all your rights away,the same as Hitler did.look what has happened since"who benefitted".It happened here in 1996 when they put the surfer kid in jail for the Pt Arthur massacre ,there's is no way in hell he did that.That's how they disarmed the country,Australians would have never given up its guns because once you do  that you never get them back and anything can happen to you.Do your own research into that one.You gotta know your history,that's why it won't be taught in schools for much longer,cause governments like you nice and dumb!Governments have killed more people than anything.Check it out.Don't believe me.

I believe you on the Port Arthur thing.

liko wrote on Jul 25^th, 2008 at 12:53am:

Don't believe me.

I don't.

Did somebody say "conspiracy theory"?
Well, as I love a good conspiracy theory (and a few of the poo ones), I'll have to put in my two cents worth.

I think that conspiracy theories are exploited to the max from what usually starts out as valid questions to inconsistencies and contradictions.
Eventually, those once "valid questions" become not even worthy of an answer because of the fabrications, exaggerations and lies that are associated with them.


The main theme that I see being discussed here seems to be about "false flag" operations and if the U.S. would actually sacrifice it's own people in order to enter a desirable war.
For the non-conspiraheads, a "false flag" is where an organization will itself stage (or take advantage of) an attack or provocation from the opposite side in order to gain support or justification for their intended actions.
Johnny's "Children overboard" stunt was a "false flag operation" of sorts.
The tactic has been used throughout the ages, it's nothing new ...but of course our squeaky clean western governments would never resort to such tactics?

IMO, if you want to understand the mindset of the rich and powerful, then you should cross out the question "Is it right or is it wrong (moral or immoral)?", and replace it with "Will it succeed or will it fail?"
Forget the images you have of politicians always attending church and paying homage to the good lord, that's all for the cameras. Their god is success and power...ditto the corporation.

On the question of "Would a government sacrifice it's own people for a wider cause"? I'd say that it's not even questionable. God does it all the time, and these
weasels consider themselves to be bigger than God. They sacrifice their trained killers (not so easy to obtain these days) day in day out, year after year, century after century. So what's a few thousand civies to obtian their ultimate goal? "Collatoral damage" is a term that the U.S. is all too comfortable with.

From what I have looked at, I certainly think that the U.S.(those who really own the U.S.) wanted to be involved in the WW2 opportunity and Pearl Harbour was
a foreknown and forewarned incident to gain plebs for their support.

Aslo, the "Tonkin incident" which initaited the Vietnam war is a proven "false flag" operation..it never happened.

We spend a good proportinon of our lives learning that politicians are liars...and then we believe them.