THE TOP 40
REASONS TO DOUBT THE OFFICIAL STORY OF SEPTEMBER 11th, 2001

... An outline in simple talking points ...


We are continuing to compile the best documentation links for every single point on this page, and intend to post the updated version as soon as possible, and create teaching tools and more from the info. This is a significant and time-consuming process--if you have useful links, please send them to janice[at]911truth[dot]org. Thanks for your help!
If you use the search function with title key words, you will discover that 911Truth.org is home to articles backing virtually every point made below. Much of the basic research is available at the Complete 9/11 Timeline (hosted by cooperativeresearch.org), the 9/11 Reading Room (911readingroom.org), and the NY Attorney General Spitzer petition and complaint (Justicefor911.org). For physical evidence discussion, see Point 7.


THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

1) AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.
2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?


THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS

6) Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

7) Demolition Hypothesis
What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)
to continue.....

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041221155307646

Gotta love conspiracy theories.

Can you make a thread about the "fake" moon landings as well?

Roswell too?

did you know NORAD were scrambled 67 times, yes, sixty seven times, in the 6 months before 911. but did not intercept any of the 4 aircraft on 911 from the first hijack to last crash...

NORAD was actually told to STAND DOWN....!

no one was sacked for the security failures of 911. there were actually promotions....

wow

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 3:58pm:

did you know NORAD were scrambled 67 times, yes, sixty seven times, in the 6 months before 911. but did not intercept any of the 4 aircraft on 911 from the first hijack to last crash... NORAD was actually told to STAND DOWN....! no one was sacked for the security failures of 911. there were actually promotions....

Imperial,

About 9/11...

What do you believe?

what do i believe...? good question. i have an open mind about it. however, i dont believe the official yarn. there are lies hidden between truths.

who benefits? the military industrial complex, oil industry, those with an agenda to tighten laws governing citizens, the elite, etc. do they all come under one umbrella? if so what is that umbrella? there are a few candidates where all these interests meet. bilderberg, illuminati, club of rome, or some gathering that i havent heard of...

but no. al ciada, and OSB didnt plan it....

...and you know all this because.....??

i know it as you know the official yarn is a fact.

the difference is......i made up my own mind. you were spoon fed.

I've read some of the more popular theories. They tend to either focus on faulty technical arguments, or they play up the inevitable inconsistencies and confusion in initial accounts while ignoring the consistent eyewitness evidence.

9/11:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1205664741

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 4:29pm:

i know it as you know the official yarn is a fact. the difference is......i made up my own mind. you were spoon fed.

How did you make up your own mind?

what??? the eyewitness evidence of bombs exploding in the buildings? the foyers being blown out? people standing in the wound of the towers on the floor that was supposed to be so hot it melted steel....?

read professor jones paper on 911...

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse

.

How about you take a deep breath and start presenting your arguments a little clearer?

For starter imperial, you cannot 'see' a bomb going off. What you can see is an explosion. And a desk jockey isn't likely to be able to tell the difference between and explosion caused by a bomb and one caused by a jumbo hitting a building at high speed.

Talk to a policeman. In any major event like a shooting, you will get wildly varying eyewitness accounts. That you get a few strange ones from 9/11 is to be expected. It's not exactly solid ground to build your case one.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 4:45pm:

For starter imperial, you cannot 'see' a bomb going off. What you can see is an explosion. And a desk jockey isn't likely to be able to tell the difference between and explosion caused by a bomb and one caused by a jumbo hitting a building at high speed. Talk to a policeman. In any major event like a shooting, you will get wildly varying eyewitness accounts. That you get a few strange ones from 9/11 is to be expected. It's not exactly solid ground to build your case one.

FD. hehehehe. thats really funny...and i have no idea what you are talking about...

jordan. what do you want me to explain?

free movie. really excellent... http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=129

Actually, nevermind.

and i have no idea what you are talking about...

It was a response to your rpevious post imperial.

uuhhhhhhh. witness said bombs had exploded in the foyer...do a google.. watch the link i posted. watch loose change final cut. http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=129

the foyer is tens of stories from where the aircraft hit......

Loose change? There are as many sites debunking loose change as there are supporting it. Why do you believe it to be true?

There are plenty of shafts etc in a building that could create the impression of a separate explosion on a different floor. Obviously it would take something big on the other end - like a high speed jumbo hitting the building.

Do you actually think that jumbos did not hit the building?

yes jumbos hit the towers, but not wt7. only 3 towers in history have fallen due to fire....

have you actually watched loose change, the final cut? have you read professor jones paper? discuss points...

did they debunk eyewitness reports?

Have you visited debunking loose change or popular mechanics?

Discuss.

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:12pm:

yes jumbos hit the towers, but not wt7. only 3 towers in history have fallen due to fire.... have you actually watched loose change, the final cut? have you read professor jones paper? discuss points...

No.

Perhaps you'd like to raise the most 'damning' point, or piece of evidence, for discussion? I don't see much value in simply linking to sites or reports that make competing arguments and expecting people to read it.

if you dont want to read professor jones paper, or google and watch the many seminars hes done, or look at evidence presented in a professional manner buy the many intelligent journos and scientists out there, im sure i cant help you......NNNNEXT  !!

In other words, you are incapable of putting his argument into your own words? Not even the most crucial aspect of it? That is never a good sign. You can't expect people to waste their time reading up on every dodgy conspiracy theory that is posted to this forum. You first need to get them interested.

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:20pm:

if you dont want to read professor jones paper, or google and watch the many seminars hes done, or look at evidence presented in a professional manner buy the many intelligent journos and scientists out there, im sure i cant help you......NNNNEXT  !!

Why, in your mind, must 9/11 not be the work of Muslim extremists?

extremists dont drink in bars....

What an odd remark.

I suspect it was a response to helian.

sorry, my mistake. it is easy to assume the knowledge of others..

the 'extremists' aparently were drinking in bars and servicing ho's the night before. seems they couldnt wait for the 40 virgins, and considered a hangover as good preperation...

So, people who fly planes into buildings behave in unusual ways? Is that it?

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:27pm:

extremists dont drink in bars....

Is that your reason for discounting the possibility that 9/11 was the work Muslim extremists?
It sounds more like a line from a Get Smart episode.

Like one where Max and 99 are looking for a Chaos el Presidente stooge in a Venezuelan bar full of Castro and Che Guevarra lookalikes (a couple of them brawling in the corner) but Max is OK with it and sees nothing suspicious cos he's convinced extremists wouldn't drink in bars.

bbeeeepp. FAIL.

helian. go back and read. next time i wont even bother with a reply to such a nothing post..

LOL, helian's post was a 'nothing'??

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:39pm:

bbeeeepp. FAIL. helian. go back and read. next time i wont even bother with a reply to such a nothing post..

Don't look now Max, but you just replied... In less than T minus 60 seconds.

nice chatting with you all.

kids need attention...cheers.

Don't go Imperial! This was just getting interesting.

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:42pm:

nice chatting with you all. kids need attention...cheers.

See ya!

Drop by later. Kubrick's coming over to give us the good oil on the moon landing. He ain't dead you know... he ain't. Check out this documentary on how he cheated death.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104070/

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:32pm:

sorry, my mistake. it is easy to assume the knowledge of others.. the 'extremists' aparently were drinking in bars and servicing ho's the night before. seems they couldnt wait for the 40 virgins, and considered a hangover as good preperation...

How many pilots over 100 years do you reckon have had a bit of pissup and a good root in LA the night before flying back to Sydney?

Come to think of it, if you were determined to kill yourself by 10AM the next day... Why not a bit a nosh up? Chuck in a bit of whizz as well... why not?

Damn. I think we scared him off. He's still a noob, so be nice if he comes back.

Could anyone please explain to me how the planes black boxes could be destroyed, yet, the passports of the alleged bombers could be miraculously found a block away.

Must of been damn tough passports.

And whilst there at it, could they please explain how the towers steal beams could melt under the heat produced, when a planes fuel fire's heat falls well short of the tempertures required.

oh, and while there at it, could you also explain why one of the building collapsed when no plane crashed into it.

Perhaps they were domino's..and not really buildings. Maybe...

Could anyone please explain to me how the planes black boxes could be destroyed, yet, the passports of the alleged bombers could be miraculously found a block away.

Perhaps it's because the passport ended up a block away in the initial explosion, while the black boxes stayed put.

Must of been damn tough passports.

They are rpetty tough actually.

And whilst there at it, could they please explain how the towers steal beams could melt under the heat produced, when a planes fuel fire's heat falls well short of the tempertures required.

They didn't have to melt, only weaken.

could you also explain why one of the building collapsed when no plane crashed into it.

Which one? Maybe a building fell into it.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

could you also explain why one of the building collapsed when no plane crashed into it. Which one? Maybe a building fell into it.

He is refering to WTC 7 which is immediately adjacent to WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed after building 1 and 2 went down. Most likely because it's foundation was severely weakened when millions of tonnes of steel and concrete fell right next to it. The seismic shock would have shaken it's foundations. Cons[iracy theorists would have you believe that WTC 7 held the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank, and also the offices of the FBI and CIA.

Wouldn't the rubble have covered a fairly large area anyway? I'd be surprised if any of the neighbouring buildings survived in a usable form.

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 9:43pm:

Cons[iracy theorists would have you believe that WTC 7 held the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank, and also the offices of the FBI and CIA.

And the actual body of Jesus Christ that Pope John Paul II had moved there from the Vatican while he was on a Papal mission to the US to secretly meet with the President. The Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi had uncovered a plot instigated by the Pontiff to reclaim the Papal States for the Church (now part of Italy) using the Swiss Guard comprising of several thousand Russian soldiers personally hand picked by Vladimir Putin who had been hidden in the catacombs under St Peters Basilica (the soldiers.. not Putin). The Pope had cut a deal with Putin to allow the Russian military to protect the Papal States once they had been reclaimed. Berlusconi threatened to storm the Vatican and reveal the shocking truth about the real fate of Jesus (which every Italian Prime Minister and President is made aware of after taking the oath of office) if the Pope ever attempted to carry out his plan.

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 9:43pm:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2008 at 8:40pm: could you also explain why one of the building collapsed when no plane crashed into it. Which one? Maybe a building fell into it. He is refering to WTC 7 which is immediately adjacent to WTC 1 and 2. It collapsed after building 1 and 2 went down. Most likely because it's foundation was severely weakened when millions of tonnes of steel and concrete fell right next to it. The seismic shock would have shaken it's foundations. Cons[iracy theorists would have you believe that WTC 7 held the vaults of the Federal Reserve Bank, and also the offices of the FBI and CIA.

ohhhhhh. thats why.....funny...the official yarn said it was because of the fires....?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

imperial wrote on Aug 17th, 2008 at 5:32pm: sorry, my mistake. it is easy to assume the knowledge of others.. the 'extremists' aparently were drinking in bars and servicing ho's the night before. seems they couldnt wait for the 40 virgins, and considered a hangover as good preperation... How many pilots over 100 years do you reckon have had a bit of pissup and a good root in LA the night before flying back to Sydney? Come to think of it, if you were determined to kill yourself by 10AM the next day... Why not a bit a nosh up? Chuck in a bit of whizz as well... why not?

aaahhh yes. 911. just like a flight back to sydney.......

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 7:36am:

ohhhhhh. thats why.....funny...the official yarn said it was because of the fires....?

Haha! One would have to be a fool to accept any official version for anything at face value without first forming their own opinion from their own investigations. But then, I'm sure that you know that already.

;)

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Perhaps it's because the passport ended up a block away in the initial explosion, while the black boxes stayed put.

haha...yeah, thats sounds really logical.  ::)

So we are to believe that passports not only survived the explosion, but also conveniently ended up a block away. But for some unknown reason, the black boxes, which were in the very same explosion for some reason stayed put. And these were destroyed, yet these super passports somehow survived an explosion which brought down two buildings.

FD..thanks for the laugh.


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

They are rpetty tough actually.

Makes you wonder why they don't wrap the black boxes with passport plastic. Perhaps then they may have survived the explosion.  ;D


freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

They didn't have to melt, only weaken.

Really. There are plenty of engineers with more knowledge and experience then you that disagree.



freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Which one? Maybe a building fell into it.

Tower 7. No building fell into it, yet it mysteriously collapsed approx. half an hour after the second tower collapsed.

And strangely enough, no other buildings in its vicinity collapsed? Why is that?

Lestat wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 9:59am:

freediver wrote on Aug 17th, 2008 at 8:40pm: Which one? Maybe a building fell into it. Tower 7. No building fell into it, yet it mysteriously collapsed approx. half an hour after the second tower collapsed. And strangely enough, no other buildings in its vicinity collapsed? Why is that?

This map will give people an idea why it's such a conspiracy that WTC 7 fell (especially when other building didn't. One would have thought that WTC 3 would have gone down (being right in between the 2 towers). It did not. Instead WTC 7 collapsed which was a little further away and with WTC 6 shielding it from the collapse.

---

haha...yeah, thats sounds really logical.

It is logical. A passport is made of paper (and a bit of plastic or something). It is light enough to get blown a long way in an explosion. A block box on the other hand is probably designed to stay with the wreckage.

So we are to believe that passports not only survived the explosion

Why wouldn't they?

but also conveniently ended up a block away

Why wouldn't they?

Makes you wonder why they don't wrap the black boxes with passport plastic. Perhaps then they may have survived the explosion.

It was the heat that destroyed them, not the initial impact.

Really. There are plenty of engineers with more knowledge and experience then you that disagree.

They do not disagree. You just don't understand what they are saying.

anyone care to humour me and spend 2 minutes reading this..?

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

very good article by a mainstream paper by a mainstream politician...below is another excerpt of the same article. the full article can be viewed at the link..the author served as uk environment minister for 6 years......

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 11:28am:

anyone care to humour me and spend 2 minutes reading this..?

So it was Muslim extremists then?
Often government committees set up for disaster response are complacent, incompetent or both (particularly when an incompetent President appoint incompetent mates to key roles), but that doesn't mean they intended for the disaster to occur. Check out the shambolic Hurricane Katrina response.

Quote:

The House of Representatives Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina From the Committee's Executive Summary : "The Secretary Department of Homeland Security should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions." "DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response." "The readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response." "Long-standing weaknesses and the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed FEMA’s ability to provide emergency shelter and temporary housing." "FEMA logistics and contracting systems did not support a targeted, massive, and sustained provision of commodities." "Before Katrina, FEMA suffered from a lack of sufficiently trained procurement professionals." The President when he arrived five days after Katrina from his ranch in Texas made a point of praising Mike Brown (a close friend of the President) for his efforts asserting Mike was ‘doing one heck of a job’ and that ‘no one could have predicted the breach of the levees’. But they did. Experts on hurricanes anticipated it and told the President in a video conference before the storm hit. FEMA’s New Orleans head, Marty Bahamonde called it systematic failure at all levels of government. He continually sent Brown emails telling him that they were running out of food and water, that many would not survive the night and that the situation was past critical. Brown finally replied ‘Thanks for the update. Anyting specific I need to do or tweak?” Michael Chertoff the Homeland Security Secretary (another friend of the President) said that the hurricane had inconveniently come during a ‘second stage review’ of disaster planning and FEMA lacked the ‘skill set’ for ‘preparedness’.

we arent discussing katrina....

BYW. did you read ; the plot thickens...


Quote:

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

we arent discussing katrina.... BYW. did you read ; the plot thickens... Quote: A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Katrina was a natural disaster, the response to which was botched by complacency and incompetence. It may be more 'fun' to imagine that the inappropriate response to 9/11 was part of the plot hatched by a secret society, the Jews or aliens, but in the end it more probably boils down to complacency and a "lacking of the ‘skill set’ for ‘preparedness’ ".

How is there a necessary link between Afghanistan and the oil pipeline and 9/11? If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan (given also that the US had been hunting Bin Laden prior to 9/11 and tracked him to Afghanistan), then you may have an arguable point. But it is a non sequitur to infer that the Bush  Administration engineered 9/11 because they wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan.

[quote] If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan quote]

obviously you didnt read the article. it was a UK minister that suggested this.....READ THE ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!

how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff? or isnt a UK environment minister of 6 years good enough for you to at least consider his opinion????

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:24pm:

[quote] If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan quote] obviously you didnt read the article. it was a UK minister that suggested this.....READ THE ARTICLE !!!!!!!!! how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff? or isnt a UK environment minister of 6 years good enough for you to at least consider his opinion????

But what do YOU think? Or are you the "UK minister"? Are YOU suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan?

How can we see eye to eye if you don't have an opinion?

you are right...

george bush is a great leader. he must be. you agree with everything he says..

muslims threw kids overboard...

there were WMD..

all iraqis who fight americans in iraq are terrorists..

the russians started the war in georgia...

GW is the whole truth....

no use me and you debating these points.

how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff?

Actually, that would require you to give your opinion, rather than giving a news article as a substitute for your opinion. If you can't even form your own opinion, what benefit are others supposed to expect from reading all the literature you link to?

It is naive to expect people to agree with you merely because they read the same articles.

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:34pm:

you are right... george bush is a great leader. he must be. you agree with everything he says.. muslims threw kids overboard... there were WMD.. all iraqis who fight americans in iraq are terrorists.. the russians started the war in georgia... GW is the whole truth.... no use me and you debating these points.

Show me a post where I have asserted the above. I asked you for your opinion and you replied with a tantrum. Do you even have an opinion?

In order to debate, one must first have an opinion to form the basis of their argument. A link to an article is simply a link. It doesn't tell us whether you agree or disagaree with the link or more importantly, why.

in the short time ive been here, ive provided my opinion more than all others combined. im pretty sure you know where im coming from. how bout you give me your pure establishment view of things...or need i only watch cnn?

We have no idea where you are coming from. You just post links to conspiracy theory websites and expect others to read them. You have barely provided your opinion at all, which is why everyone is wondering whether you have one. You seem to avoid giving your own opinion as much as possible. You even go so far as to post a news report in response to a request for your opinion, claiming that it 'explains it all'. All you seem to do is insist people read the same thing you do.

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:43pm:

in the short time ive been here, ive provided my opinion more than all others combined. im pretty sure you know where im coming from. how bout you give me your pure establishment view of things...or need i only watch cnn?

It takes courage to have an opinion... and effort. You have to defend your own opinion with a reasoned argument and be prepared to be mocked or vilified. Posting other people's opinions in order to hide behind them (the opinion and the sayer) is an act of cowardice or just plain ignorance... or both.

Quote:

i first googled for an aussie political site, i was looking to mock the green, hairy legged, lesbian left, the leftist elite that does rupert and co's bidding, and give the gw liers a bit of stick..... instead i find an aussie political forum run by a muslim (no offence) with the topics largely muslims defending themselves against slander and attacks....(aint that the way?) ive been on a few muslim sites and debated yanks and jews in defence of muslims. the best defence is attack.....hehehehe one of the best people ive met online is jewish, and although i dont visit the same sites anymore, we still keep in contact.... my blue isnt with ordinary yanks, jews, poms, etc, etc. my gripe is the stranglehold media has on our lives, their lies, the nwo, the elite, and those that control our elected governments. there is no question in my mind that democracy is the best way....however, i lament that its been hijacked by corporate industrial interests and powerful wealthy world elite. its not even a conspiracy really. its just fact. politicians dont hold real power....so neither do we. these people have created a war on terror for their own goals. i mean, how can you conduct a war on a tactic...? iraq and afghan had nothing to do with 911. so why were they invaded? palestinians had their homeland stolen...so are they terrorists or freedom fighters? ask yourself what have muslims done to deserve the wholesale slaughter that has occured in palestine, iraq, afghanistan and soon iran? NOTHING.....!!!! yet the media has demonised them so effectively, that i give you yourselves as evidence as to their effectiveness at brainwashing..... i rarely write yarns as long as this as all it really gets is a flippant sentence in reply, and rarely do sheep like yourselves get all introspective........ dont know why i bother......oh..!! thats right.. i just love a debate.   Back to top

obviously you blokes cant read....i posted this this morning.

or is this forum for confession???????????????????

YOUR TURN.....!!!!

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:53pm:

Quote: i first googled for an aussie political site, i was looking to mock the green, hairy legged, lesbian left, the leftist elite that does rupert and co's bidding, and give the gw liers a bit of stick..... instead i find an aussie political forum run by a muslim (no offence) with the topics largely muslims defending themselves against slander and attacks....(aint that the way?) ive been on a few muslim sites and debated yanks and jews in defence of muslims. the best defence is attack.....hehehehe one of the best people ive met online is jewish, and although i dont visit the same sites anymore, we still keep in contact.... my blue isnt with ordinary yanks, jews, poms, etc, etc. my gripe is the stranglehold media has on our lives, their lies, the nwo, the elite, and those that control our elected governments. there is no question in my mind that democracy is the best way....however, i lament that its been hijacked by corporate industrial interests and powerful wealthy world elite. its not even a conspiracy really. its just fact. politicians dont hold real power....so neither do we. these people have created a war on terror for their own goals. i mean, how can you conduct a war on a tactic...? iraq and afghan had nothing to do with 911. so why were they invaded? palestinians had their homeland stolen...so are they terrorists or freedom fighters? ask yourself what have muslims done to deserve the wholesale slaughter that has occured in palestine, iraq, afghanistan and soon iran? NOTHING.....!!!! yet the media has demonised them so effectively, that i give you yourselves as evidence as to their effectiveness at brainwashing..... i rarely write yarns as long as this as all it really gets is a flippant sentence in reply, and rarely do sheep like yourselves get all introspective........ dont know why i bother......oh..!! thats right.. i just love a debate.   Back to top   obviously you blokes cant read....i posted this this morning. or is this forum for confession??????????????????? YOUR TURN.....!!!!

You assert that democracy is the best way. Why is democracy the best way? Rich and powerful people have always had enormous influence within a democracy and they don't have to worry about getting elected. Plato thought of democracy as mob rule, particularly after the Athenians condemned Socrates to death (read The Apology and The Republic). Surely if you're worried about powerful people controlling government, you'd be arguing for... what?... communism perhaps... at least for a regime that can arbitrarily confiscate wealth.

you got your opinion earlier. you just got it again. now you want more opinion o,..........................aaaahhhhhh.

tell me why you think blue is blue fool......bugger this im outa here..

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 1:03pm:

you got your opinion earlier. you just got it again. now you want more opinion o,..........................aaaahhhhhh. tell me why you think blue is blue fool......bugger this im outa here..

As I said, it takes courage to have an opinion... but... well... you're outta here.


Coward.

Oh look, helian. You've scared him away again.

:o

Acid Monkey wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 1:13pm:

Oh look, helian. You've scared him away again. :o

Although I notice he's still online...

Does anyone else feel like he's completely out of breath and sporadic? All over the place all at once.

Probably hanging around to see the reaction of his indignant exit declaration.

;)

jordan484 wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 1:15pm:

Does anyone else feel like he's completely out of breath and sporadic? All over the place all at once.

Like a bot? I think FD alluded that before. LOL.

:D

Imperial, I thanked you in that thread for thinking about what you posted and providing your own opinion. However, that hardly counts as doing it more than everyone else here combined. Giving your opinion is not something you do once and get it over with so you can move on. It's the norm here, as with any discussion board. Backing your opinion up with facts and references is great, but cutting and pasting from other sites with no point or context just wastes everyone's time. Expecting people to follow your orders and read them, without telling them why it might be of some benefit to them, is arrogant. Insisting there is some kind of conspiracy, while refusing to say what the conspiracy is, is a valueless contribution.

The whole point of these discussion forums is that they encourage independent thought. Copying and pasting from other sites, without any interpretation, requires no thought at all. As I pointed out, even a bot can do it. It defeats the purpose of having a forum. We are not here to trade news stories, we are here to question them. If you aren't willing to have your views questioned, you will get no benefit from this site.

There is no point questioning a claim on a third party website if no-one here takes it seriously anyway. It takes time and effort on the part of particpants - which you seem to expect of them for no return. It does little more than save the effort of creating your own strawman.

If you want people to think for themselves and not regurgitate what they read in the media, you should try leading by example. Thoughtless regurgitation of 'alternative media' is not an improvement. It is just thoughtless reliance on a source that is far more likely to be wrong. Unless you share your thoughts, we have no way of knowing whether you have thought at all, and will most likely conclude that you haven't.

FD, I think you're preaching to the um.... gone.

;)

I think he'll be back.

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:34pm:

you are right... george bush is a great leader. he must be. you agree with everything he says.. muslims threw kids overboard... there were WMD.. all iraqis who fight americans in iraq are terrorists.. the russians started the war in georgia... GW is the whole truth.... no use me and you debating these points.

Based on this childish response.........

Word of advise, Imp. Since by your own confession, you don't suffer fools gladly, might I suggest you avoid being alone at all cost. And as for you claim that you like debate, well I'm pretty sure the technique is a mystery to you. And while we can all replace argument with insult, only the base find it entertaining.

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

It is logical. A passport is made of paper (and a bit of plastic or something). It is light enough to get blown a long way in an explosion. A block box on the other hand is probably designed to stay with the wreckage.

haha. That is absolutely hilarious. An explosion that brings down a building, yet here you are arguing that it is logical that the passports survived this explosion.

You do realise that paper burns...don't you?


freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

Why wouldn't they?

Umm. I don't know, maybe because the extreme tempertures created from the explosion, which incinerated just about everything in its vicinity, including the black boxes, would also destroy the passports which believe it or not, being made of paper, does burn.


freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

Why wouldn't they? It was the heat that destroyed them, not the initial impact.

I didn't realise that passports are fire proof.


freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:24am:

Why wouldn't they?They do not disagree. You just don't understand what they are saying.

Oh I understand alright. I understand that you haven't even read the report signed by over 100 engineers questioning the official findings. Cause if you did, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim.

I don't understand what they were saying? lol. What they were saying is pretty clear cut. I suggest you read it before making yourself look foolish.

Lestat wrote on Aug 19^th, 2008 at 10:49pm:

Oh I understand alright. I understand that you haven't even read the report signed by over 100 engineers questioning the official findings. Cause if you did, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim. I don't understand what they were saying? lol. What they were saying is pretty clear cut. I suggest you read it before making yourself look foolish.

Which list of the 100+ engineers are you referring to? The ones I have found included up to 12 theologians and probably three quarters of the remainder are professors of law, English, sociology, political science, economics, mathematics, chemistry, medicine and history (i.e. not engineers of any kind). I did find, however, a list of over 1000 structural engineers certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, apparently none of whom dispute the well known 9/11 version of events. How do you account for this?

he(s)lian

Quote:

I did find, however, a list of over 1000 structural engineers certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, apparently none of whom dispute the well known 9/11 version of events. How do you account for this?

wheres your proof.....show me a LINK....for "1000 structural engineers.."

here is 428 Architects and Engineers that doubt the official lie....http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php

Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Phys
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=7524

how do you account for this..? he lian....

freediver wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 2:18pm:

I think he'll be back.

8-)

imperial wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 6:13am:

he(s)lian Quote: I did find, however, a list of over 1000 structural engineers certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, apparently none of whom dispute the well known 9/11 version of events. How do you account for this?   wheres your proof.....show me a LINK....for "1000 structural engineers.."

From the (US) Structural Engineering Certification Board

http://www.secertboard.org/Docs/Listing_by_Name_12-08.pdf

An explosion that brings down a building, yet here you are arguing that it is logical that the passports survived this explosion.

No Lestat, the explosion did not bring the building down. The fire did. The passports were not in the fire. It's simple really, the explosion sent all the light stuff flying, including passport, the fire destroyed what remained. Don't you recall seeing heaps of paper coming out of the building? It wasn't on fire.

I don't know, maybe because the extreme tempertures created from the explosion

Explosions do not create extreme temperatures (at least not on a large scale), fires do. Did you get your science degree from hollywood?

I don't understand what they were saying? lol.

Correct, otherwise you wouldn't be making these silly claims. Either that, or the signatories are not actually engineers or are simply wrong. Do you know that you can go through an entire engineering degree and not learn anything about fires or explosions? All someone has to do is make up 100 names and claim they have some kind of credentials, and suddenly everyone thinks it's serious. Remember, just because it is written down, doesn't make it true. You still have to think for yourself.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 8:46am:

imperial wrote on Aug 20th, 2008 at 6:13am: he(s)lian Quote: I did find, however, a list of over 1000 structural engineers certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, apparently none of whom dispute the well known 9/11 version of events. How do you account for this?   wheres your proof.....show me a LINK....for "1000 structural engineers.." From the (US) Structural Engineering Certification Board http://www.secertboard.org/Docs/Listing_by_Name_12-08.pdf

that could be a list of gay engineers......wheres it say anything about 911?????

imperial wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 12:57pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 20th, 2008 at 8:46am: imperial wrote on Aug 20th, 2008 at 6:13am: he(s)lian Quote: I did find, however, a list of over 1000 structural engineers certified by the Structural Engineering Certification Board, apparently none of whom dispute the well known 9/11 version of events. How do you account for this?   wheres your proof.....show me a LINK....for "1000 structural engineers.." From the (US) Structural Engineering Certification Board http://www.secertboard.org/Docs/Listing_by_Name_12-08.pdf wheres it say anything about 911?????

Yes. That's the point, so many structural engineers and thousands more around the world have not questioned the 911 report. Apparently none of those on that list have publicly questioned 911. Nearly all SE's worldwide have not. This would be odd if it was so 'obviously' clear that the towers could not have been brought down by two aircraft hitting the building.
When the entire body or the vast majority of structural engineers stand as one to dispute the 'official line', I will accept their findings.

I am assuming you are not a structural engineer. If this is so then do you have a reason why you choose not to believe the majority of SE's?

I noticed some of the so called experts who question 911 have issues with the US government.

As for theologians and lawyers etc having a clearer insight into 911 by virtue of their profession.....

so you got nothin.........NEXT.

imperial wrote on Aug 20^th, 2008 at 3:20pm:

so you got nothin.........NEXT.

Truth seeking requires more than irrational and paranoid commitment to conspiranut theories.

This is why you're an idiot.

hes lian again....

that the best you got fool?  ;D

Stop the insults please.

YOU stop the insults admin.

i can be civil...why cant you make the slanderous ones civil? because youre a bigot like them.

If you want to make me do it, I'll ban you. Or, you could just stop insulting people. Quit making it personal.

http://www.911missinglinks.com/

Now you will discover the definitive truth about 9/11 and learn why even the most popular movies on the subject have failed to address the evidence exhaustively presented in this video. The facts will make it abundantly clear that the so-called 9/11 “Truth” movement has been infiltrated and is ultimately controlled by the same criminals who orchestrated the attacks. As they say, 'if you want to control the dissent you lead the dissent.' Culminating evidence from the FBI, CIA, NSA, US Armed Forces Intelligence sectors, Foreign Intelligence organizations, local law enforcement agencies and independent investigators, Missing Links goes where no other 9/11 video has dared to.

A RAGING, long-burning fire caused the collapse of World Trade Centre building number 7, investigators say.

The building tumbled hours after hijacked jets hit the twin towers on September 11, 2001.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology  found that the 47-story building, which stood right next to towers 1 and 2, caught fire due to the debris that flew into it after the planes struck.

It eventually fell after seven hours due to instability caused by the fire, not by explosives as some conspiracy theorists have claimed.

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,'' said lead investigator Shyam Sunder.

"Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down,'' he said.

"Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7.''

He said debris from tower 1 sparked the blaze on at least 10 floors of the building, which burned for about seven hours while some of its sprinkler systems were non-operational due to a city water main cut.

"We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down,'' he said.

"This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses.''

He said the "collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the building".

A team of 50 experts from diverse fields, including engineering, explosives, fire, and construction took part in the probe.

The September 11 attacks on New York killed nearly 3000 people.


http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24222887-661,00.html

wrong section jordan........should be in the fringe...or humour section....

This is fringe?

the official conspiracy theory is fact for dummies......or humour for the informed....and fringe for those tired of the joke...

Pardon?

jordan484 wrote on Aug 22^nd, 2008 at 10:15am:

A RAGING, long-burning fire caused the collapse of World Trade Centre building number 7, investigators say. The building tumbled hours after hijacked jets hit the twin towers on September 11, 2001. The National Institute of Standards and Technology  found that the 47-story building, which stood right next to towers 1 and 2, caught fire due to the debris that flew into it after the planes struck. It eventually fell after seven hours due to instability caused by the fire, not by explosives as some conspiracy theorists have claimed. "Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,'' said lead investigator Shyam Sunder. "Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down,'' he said. "Video and photographic evidence combined with detailed computer simulations show that neither explosives nor fuel oil fires played a role in the collapse of WTC 7.'' He said debris from tower 1 sparked the blaze on at least 10 floors of the building, which burned for about seven hours while some of its sprinkler systems were non-operational due to a city water main cut. "We did not find any evidence that explosives were used to bring the building down,'' he said. "This size blast would have produced an incredibly loud sound that was not recorded on videos of the collapse nor reported by witnesses.'' He said the "collapse was also not due to fires from the substantial amount of diesel fuel stored in the building". A team of 50 experts from diverse fields, including engineering, explosives, fire, and construction took part in the probe. The September 11 attacks on New York killed nearly 3000 people. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24222887-661,00.html

haha...that is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh.

You do realise that no steel skyscraper has ever been destroyed by fire. Yes thats right...ever. The amount of heat required to damage the steel beams nearly enough to bring down the whole building would be enormous.

And there are plenty of building closer to the two towers which were not damaged.

Here Jordan....have a read. You might even learn something.

http://www.wtc7.net/

Why is it ludicrous?

How many other buildings have been hit by airplanes of that size with that fuel load?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.