Originally Posted by Barry

As I think that 9/11 was part of a spiritual battle currently being waged in the world, I am not surprised that faces of what many consider evil, appeared in the smoke.
I suppose it could be random smoke patterns, but I am not sure.
It surely was an evil act.

listen to this IT IS JUST SMOKE!

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

listen to this IT IS JUST SMOKE!

Some religions, the gnostics, for example, believe the Universe is flawed and was created by a demiurge (an inferior deity).

Originally Posted by DavidRose

Is it just a coincidence that scientists have discovered that the Universe's physical constants are fine tuned for the appearance of life?

No, it does suggest something more exists. But our understanding of the universe is limited by what little of it we can observe from our position.

Originally Posted by DavidRose

Strangely, would those faces still be there if there was no life to perceive them?

We're into tree falling in the woods territory here. The faces only exist because we have the photographic equipment to capture the exact frame (1 24th of a second) that the smoke has the appearance of a face. Therefore what is the real higher power here, a God in the form of a mythological deity, or the technology we create that improves upon the senses God gave us?

i have to say we have gone very

Originally Posted by DavidRose

Is it just a coincidence that scientists have discovered that the Universe's physical constants are fine tuned for the appearance of life?

Shouldn't this be viewed the other way round; life appeared because of the specific state of the universe rather than the state of the universe is fine tuned for the appearance of life? The latter hints that there is perhaps some underlying reason whereas the former is simply stating a fact.

Originally Posted by DavidRose

Strangely, would those faces still be there if there was no life to perceive them?

This is a fascinating point that I take in relation to quantum physics that shows that the position of quanta (quantum particles - even tho this is not really a correct term) remains in flux occupying many positions at once until it is observed. Thus the role of observer (or life) brings matter into existence. Would matter be 'there' without an observer - the answer according to physics is NO. Matter is merely information locked into place by the act of observation. The chair is not there until u sit on it! It would "exist" (perhaps) but its 'place' or exact location would forever remain undetermined. It really is a funny old world.

Originally Posted by Midas

Shouldn't this be viewed the other way round; life appeared because of the specific state of the universe rather than the state of the universe is fine tuned for the appearance of life? The latter hints that there is perhaps some underlying reason whereas the former is simply stating a fact.

Indeed. This is the underlying fallacy of the argument form design - well challenged

again,

It's a shame this is my second post on here, but being a straight speaking individual I have a few comments on this total waste of time I see taking up server space.

1. Cara, please look up the word HOAX in a dictionary, then modify the comments you make on a subject you clearly don't understand. The WTC collapsed, FACT not a HOAX. I saw it happen live on TV and a then friend saw it from his bedroom window..FACT NOT HOAX. A Hoax is something that did not actually take place.
   
2. The Moon Landings. These did take place, there is plenty of factual evidence to back this up. The Russians used triangulation to determin where the yanks were on the Moon. This triangulation would have proved they were not there if they had faked it. This is a FACT of physics and cannot be altered. I suggest those who believe it was faked get an education on the facts and then re-evaluate their beliefs.
   
3. Aliens: No Alien has landed on Earth in human history, and this can be totally proved since 1967 with the launch of the first Early Warning Satellites. Anything entering the atmosphere is tracked..the laws of physics apply here so you cannot hide. Also CIVILLIAN monitoring and science satellites detect thousands of tons of debris entering the atmosphere daily, space ships would be easy to identify.
   
4. Alien Life(As in life on Exo-Planets): It exists, Get over it.
   
5. Communism: A failed experiment in genocide by dictatorships run the psychotic and sociopathic under-educated fools of the planet who have a Napoleon complex.

I hope that makes my point on each part of this thread clear.

Hello Jim. I agree with most of what you posted. 2 things though. First, aliens COULD have landed BEFORE 1967 or after and avoided our 'early detection systems'. After all, traveling between galaxies or at least between star systems would have to involve 'tinkering' with the laws of physics anyway.

The second thing is, how can you state that life exists elsewhere in the universe as fact? That seems completely at odds with the reasoned, evidence-based approach of the rest of your post. People always say 'the universe is massve and we know of only a such a small part, therefore other life MUST exist'. What that view ignores is that the universe is also really OLD, and that the relative timeframe of human existence is incredibly small, therefre it is actually statistically more likely that aliens do not exist (in real terms anyway) as the odds of 2 civilisations co-existing within the same period of time are amazingly long.

Sorry for the offtopic rant but who cares about Cara's 9/11 hoax theories anyway? Remember, its life Jim, but not as we know it.

Originally Posted by DTE

Hello Jim. I agree with most of what you posted. 2 things though. First, aliens COULD have landed BEFORE 1967 or after and avoided our 'early detection systems'. After all, traveling between galaxies or at least between star systems would have to involve 'tinkering' with the laws of physics anyway.

The second thing is, how can you state that life exists elsewhere in the universe as fact? That seems completely at odds with the reasoned, evidence-based approach of the rest of your post. People always say 'the universe is massve and we know of only a such a small part, therefore other life MUST exist'. What that view ignores is that the universe is also really OLD, and that the relative timeframe of human existence is incredibly small, therefre it is actually statistically more likely that aliens do not exist (in real terms anyway) as the odds of 2 civilisations co-existing within the same period of time are amazingly long.

Sorry for the offtopic rant but who cares about Cara's 9/11 hoax theories anyway? Remember, its life Jim, but not as we know it.

Yes, off topic I know, but I'd agree far more with Jim on this one. Statistically the likelihood of Earth being visited by aliens is so small as to be almost indistinguishable from zero, but from what we're finding out about both the composition of life, the distribution of the necessary amino acids in comets and meteorites and on remote planetary bodies round other stars, and the number of stars which have planets round them, statistically the likelihood of there being extra-terrestrial life of one form or another throughout the universe is so close to being 100% that we can consider it so.

Originally Posted by DTE

Hello Jim. I agree with most of what you posted. 2 things though. First, aliens COULD have landed BEFORE 1967 or after and avoided our 'early detection systems'. After all, traveling between galaxies or at least between star systems would have to involve 'tinkering' with the laws of physics anyway.

You don't get to tinker with physics even to travel from star to star. You may manipulate the existing physical laws and processes, but not quite the same thing. I agree that any advanced civilisation would have abilities that would make them seem almost "Godlike" in comparison to us in all likelihood. However it doesn't matter how advanced you are, you may have the ability to "cloak" your vessel and thus render in undetectable, but what you won't be able to do is stop it from affecting the gas molecules making up the atmosphere, that would be heating by entry and thus radiate Infra-Red and Ultra-violet photons. This is how objects are detected entering the atmosphere. Further, unless (and it is possible I grant you) the craft is made from some exotic electrically inert substance, there will also be an impact on the Earth's local magnetic field due to it's presence, this is the same method used for detecting submarines. Further, related to this very phenomenon is the fact that the trail created in the atmosphere currently radiating in the Infra-Red and Ultra-Violet would be highly ionised, and this too would have a detectable impact on the localised magnetic field, and we can and do detect these anomalies daily by the thousand as grains of sand sized duct is accreted by the planet.

So the conclusion is, since 1967 it has not happened. Before then, I still do not believe as there is no incontrovertible evidence of such a momentous event. Any species that has come to dominate it's home planet is going to have many traits in common with man, whether we or they like to admit it or not, as a result in our basic thinking we will be similar. We did not go to the America's for a passing visit and to collect a few specimens, we settled and made it our own. I think it highly improbable that Aliens would arrive on Earth and not have a settlement here of some description that would ultimately have led to taking over the planet.

Originally Posted by DTE

The second thing is, how can you state that life exists elsewhere in the universe as fact? That seems completely at odds with the reasoned, evidence-based approach of the rest of your post. People always say 'the universe is massve and we know of only a such a small part, therefore other life MUST exist'. What that view ignores is that the universe is also really OLD, and that the relative timeframe of human existence is incredibly small, therefre it is actually statistically more likely that aliens do not exist (in real terms anyway) as the odds of 2 civilisations co-existing within the same period of time are amazingly long.

Simple statistics. There are some 50 known worlds that make up our solar system, the 8 major planets, few dwarf planets and the retinue of moons shared amongst them. Whilst it is highly unlikely that life is elsewhere in the solar system, we cannot conclusively state that there is no life on either Mars or Venus, although highly unlikely. We know that life is a rugged critter once it has a foot hold, we also know all three planet were a lot more alike 3 billion years ago than today. It is not unreasonable to believe life may have started on all three but as conditions changed it became increasingly difficult on Mars and Venus, but it does not mean it was snuffed out completely.

Now with regards to exo-planets, there are currently around 400 known and although the majority of these are "Hot Jupiters" it does not mean that the system they are part of does not have planets and/or moons that has environmental conditions conducive to life. Since I was a young child I have believed that life must exist elsewhere, and I had a many a postal exchange with Patrick Moore and others on this subject. Slowly we are seeing a true picture of the universe, instead of the old homo-centric one, and we need to realise that there is nothing special about Earth other than it being our home. It is a small ball of metals and silicates orbiting a pretty normal dwarf main sequence star that is about as interesting as watching paint dry (from an astronomical perspective). The simple fact is planets are a natural by product of the formation of a star, we are learning that now, and we will further learn that life, regardless of how advanced or primitive, is a natural by product of the formation of a planet if the environmental conditions on that planet are stable and conducive enough for complex chemical reactions to occur over a long enough period.

We have to remember we still do not know for sure what the spark was that created life initially on this planet, but we do know that inter-planetary and inter-stellar space is littered with debris containing vast reserves of amino acids and the other building blocks for life as we know it, I cannot begin to image what is there for the life we don't know.

Originally Posted by DTE

Sorry for the offtopic rant but who cares about Cara's 9/11 hoax theories anyway? Remember, its life Jim, but not as we know it.

That's OK..not really a rant. I just knew someone would say it sooner or later..

All very interesting Jim and Midas but the point I was making (and maybe it was not clear) was that time is the important factor, and that if life only exists in the universe outside of the timeframe of human existence (thereby making contact or detection impossible) then for all extents and puposes we could say it does not exist.

Right, enough quasi-atrononomical theology, might comment on something political...

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

It's a shame this is my second post on here, but being a straight speaking individual I have a few comments on this total waste of time I see taking up server space.

1. Cara, please look up the word HOAX in a dictionary, then modify the comments you make on a subject you clearly don't understand. The WTC collapsed, FACT not a HOAX. I saw it happen live on TV and a then friend saw it from his bedroom window..FACT NOT HOAX. A Hoax is something that did not actually take place.
2. The Moon Landings. These did take place, there is plenty of factual evidence to back this up. The Russians used triangulation to determin where the yanks were on the Moon. This triangulation would have proved they were not there if they had faked it. This is a FACT of physics and cannot be altered. I suggest those who believe it was faked get an education on the facts and then re-evaluate their beliefs.
3. Aliens: No Alien has landed on Earth in human history, and this can be totally proved since 1967 with the launch of the first Early Warning Satellites. Anything entering the atmosphere is tracked..the laws of physics apply here so you cannot hide. Also CIVILLIAN monitoring and science satellites detect thousands of tons of debris entering the atmosphere daily, space ships would be easy to identify.
4. Alien Life(As in life on Exo-Planets): It exists, Get over it.
5. Communism: A failed experiment in genocide by dictatorships run the psychotic and sociopathic under-educated fools of the planet who have a Napoleon complex.

I hope that makes my point on each part of this thread clear.

So speaks the man from the Ministry of (Dis) Information. Don't let him dissuade you Cara. Stick to your guns, so to speak. You know that 9/11 was all done with smoke (lots and lots of smoke) and mirrors (those buildings have mirrored curtain walls just for such "events"). Don't let a few inconveniences such as falling bodies get in the way of logic. The CIA probably paid magician David Copperfield big time to stage it. Notice how Copperfield has been strangely missing from the world stage since 9/11, or am I the only one to connect those particular dots?

On the subject of aliens, calm down octopus et al I don't refer to people from other countries who wantonly pollute the ethnic "Englishness" of your fair land, I understand from a very reliable source (me) that the new American TV program "V" is a very thinly disguised documentary based on true events kept from us, once again, by the evil empire (Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and company). Turns out that the Iraq invasion was only a diversionary tactic to keep us focused inward instead of "out there".

JIm, please admit that you work for CIA, no not the Culinary Institute of America, THE C.I.A.. either them or their paid lackeys at MI5.

Ps: I have plenty of tin foil for any of you who wish to borrow (Big Lots had a sale going on so I stocked up)

PPs: Please note that no animals were needlessly harmed during this production. Several were harmed big time, but not needlessly, depending, of course, on your definition of needless.

.......................

Originally Posted by Opinionated

.......................

"We" do try to please.

Originally Posted by DTE

All very interesting Jim and Midas but the point I was making (and maybe it was not clear) was that time is the important factor, and that if life only exists in the universe outside of the timeframe of human existence (thereby making contact or detection impossible) then for all extents and puposes we could say it does not exist.

Right, enough quasi-atrononomical theology, might comment on something political...

But I get the impression your speaking of Intelligent and evolved life, I was speaking about life in general, such as bacteria etc. Is there any evidence for Intelligent and Evolved life on Earth...Jury is still out on that one...read Cara's post again and you will see what I mean

Originally Posted by SocialistCara

ReOpen 911 - Welcome to 1984!
Compilation exposing 9/11 Truth
http://www.911hoax.com/domaincloak.a...%3D58h0LjdMry0

if anyone else is not convinced 9-11 was a hoax ask me and i will post many more links including quotes from experts.

If 9/11 was a hoax then how do you explain the debris? There were witnesses including those who saw the live newscasts. It is the hoax theory that is a hoax. This was real, and Bin Laden knows it.

just fell over this thread so to speak not being a big fan of conspiracy theory's but as i was a a friends funeral a the time of this event at the wake to be precise the TV was on in the pub at the time and the first comment I made on seeing the footage not understanding the events unfolding before me was, what film is this, is this a preview,followed by asking the barman to turn the sound up,followed by complete disinterest convinced it was a film.passably because I'm at a wake.

what i now believe is the importance of the statement is this, it did look like a film or more to the point a staged event a Media event if you wish
as i said i don't believe in conspiracy's but it did get me thinking and here's why without going into to much detail.
!)The way the buildings came down
2) The fact that the explanations were to contrived and so many specialist on the spot,
3)To many assertions that it was Bin-laden,so soon even before the dust had settled
4)WTS7 or the third building to be demolished it is so blatantly obvious that it was a controlled demolition that looking into the way it was demolished is the big giveaway or the big tell as i like to say
timing is the thing here, it takes time to organise and arrange permits to demolish a building it takes a professional group of people to lay the charges, it takes weeks to lay the charges,as all the support beams would have to be exposed and wired up to explode simultaneously,
the building fell into its own foundations,look at the Oklahoma bombing that building was bombed and it only riped the side of the building down,
and were led to believe that this 42 storey building was brought down by a fire in the boiler room,
WTS7 was a controlled explosion in my view given the facts just by looking at the video gives the impression of a demolition, if true is it just a little convenient that 9/11 happened on the very day of the demolition of this building but no one knew of this building ultimate demolition Great timing or what,
The very fact that all buildings fell into their own footing is suspicious to say the least.

Originally Posted by fubar

just fell over this thread so to speak not being a big fan of conspiracy theory's but as i was a a friends funeral a the time of this event at the wake to be precise the TV was on in the pub at the time and the first comment I made on seeing the footage not understanding the events unfolding before me was, what film is this, is this a preview,followed by asking the barman to turn the sound up,followed by complete disinterest convinced it was a film.passably because I'm at a wake.

what i now believe is the importance of the statement is this, it did look like a film or more to the point a staged event a Media event if you wish
as i said i don't believe in conspiracy's but it did get me thinking and here's why without going into to much detail.
!)The way the buildings came down
2) The fact that the explanations were to contrived and so many specialist on the spot,
3)To many assertions that it was Bin-laden,so soon even before the dust had settled
4)WTS7 or the third building to be demolished it is so blatantly obvious that it was a controlled demolition that looking into the way it was demolished is the big giveaway or the big tell as i like to say
timing is the thing here, it takes time to organise and arrange permits to demolish a building it takes a professional group of people to lay the charges, it takes weeks to lay the charges,as all the support beams would have to be exposed and wired up to explode simultaneously,
the building fell into its own foundations,look at the Oklahoma bombing that building was bombed and it only riped the side of the building down,
and were led to believe that this 42 storey building was brought down by a fire in the boiler room,
WTS7 was a controlled explosion in my view given the facts just by looking at the video gives the impression of a demolition, if true is it just a little convenient that 9/11 happened on the very day of the demolition of this building but no one knew of this building ultimate demolition Great timing or what,
The very fact that all buildings fell into their own footing is suspicious to say the least.

Just a couple of points 1) A comparison it Oklahoma City is invalid due to the types of 'explosions'. The Federal building in OK City was hit with an explosion from a truck parked on the street. It is entirely reasonable that the side of the building facing the explosion would be demolished. The WTC buildings 1 and 2 were hit by airplanes that actually entered high up on the building. Entirely different circumstances. 2) Are you, in any way, qualified to make damage assessments of buildings hit by airplanes or to buildings in the immediate vicinity of buildings so damaged/destroyed? If so, would you please list those qualifications?

I haven't read the whole thread, but it occurred to me that 9/11 was an extraordinary terrorist attack. No other such attack was perpetrated before or after that was so well executed. Anything we have seen since looks like an amateurish attempt in comparison. So why was this one so different then the rest? Why was it so surgical, when the best they can do now is abandon a car in time square. Just wondering

Ok! I give the **** up! You guys win! Truth is the US actually flew fully loaded tanker jets into those buildings and then set off charges under the other buildings. The news media was forewarned so that they could have news crews standing by. As for the passengers that were on those 4 jets, they have been imprisoned in a Russian Gulag. The alternative 'true' story is that the buildings are actually still standing and have been surrounded by mirrors, by no less a personage than David Copperfield himself. The mirrors are positioned precisely so that the buildings no longer can be seen with the naked eye. If you are in possession of a secret decoder ring however, enter the numbers 666 and all will be revealed to you.

Happy now that you know the entire secret?

What a bunch of ****tards!

Ps: Your bunch of conspiracy theories cheapen the lives, and memories of, every innocent that died that day.

Originally Posted by crazylilting

I haven't read the whole thread, but it occurred to me that 9/11 was an extraordinary terrorist attack. No other such attack was perpetrated before or after that was so well executed. Anything we have seen since looks like an amateurish attempt in comparison. So why was this one so different then the rest? Why was it so surgical, when the best they can do now is abandon a car in time square. Just wondering

Remember that only three of the four planes hit their target so it wasn't executed as perfect as it could be. Also, the airplane that hit the Pentagon didn’t do as much damage as it could have due to the angle of attack.

The terrorists tried to do a bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 but blew it. They learned from their mistakes.

It was a good idea to use airplanes as bombs and they spent more than a year setting it up. There was some luck involved but it was good execution. I doubt it will ever happen again because I don’t think passengers will ever allow it.

Originally Posted by flash

Remember that only three of the four planes hit their target so it wasn't executed as perfect as it could be. Also, the airplane that hit the Pentagon didn’t do as much damage as it could have due to the angle of attack.

The terrorists tried to do a bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 but blew it. They learned from their mistakes.

It was a good idea to use airplanes as bombs and they spent more than a year setting it up. There was some luck involved but it was good execution. I doubt it will ever happen again because I don’t think passengers will ever allow it.

What airplane hit the Pentagon? I didn't see any wings, did you? I suppose they could of vapourized but wouldn't part of the building where they hit also have some evidence of damage? I always thought it was a missile that hit the pentagon. Can you link me to some evidence that there was a plane involved with that one? I remember the day very well, watched it unfold at work but didn't see any evidence of a plane involved in the pentagon attack.

To use Oklahoma a an example it seems to be a mistake but it's not, it just an example of how hard it is to bring a building down of this size without the correct placement of a bomb in fact it would have taken more than one bomb to demolish the whole building and that is the point it's not what the bomb did it's what the bomb didn't do is the point,
What your asking people to believe is these people were capable of is that thay can bypass the best air defense in the world knowing the possible risk of an hijacked airplane hitting the twin towers and that the defenses are down at that particular time is a million to one ,or you have the worst defense system in the world, you can have one or the other now which one is it you decide,

Another point to make is were is this enemy gone, would you not expect more attacks from such a determined foe as any one who can fly a plane into the world trade center could surly be capable of more atrocities but no not a one.Did it exculate into a full blown war No.

You have enough Muslims within the USA to start a war but that did,nt happen did it????? nore did the american people turn on the muslim population did thay ever wondered why that did't happen.

Originally Posted by fubar

To use Oklahoma a an example it seems to be a mistake but it's not, it just an example of how hard it is to bring a building down of this size without the correct placement of a bomb in fact it would have taken more than one bomb to demolish the whole building and that is the point it's not what the bomb did it's what the bomb didn't do is the point,
What your asking people to believe is these people were capable of is that thay can bypass the best air defense in the world knowing the possible risk of an hijacked airplane hitting the twin towers and that the defenses are down at that particular time is a million to one ,or you have the worst defense system in the world, you can have one or the other now which one is it you decide,

Another point to make is were is this enemy gone, would you not expect more attacks from such a determined foe as any one who can fly a plane into the world trade center could surly be capable of more atrocities but no not a one.Did it exculate into a full blown war No.

You have enough Muslims within the USA to start a war but that did,nt happen did it????? nore did the american people turn on the muslim population did thay ever wondered why that did't happen.

All your speculation and conspiracies aside, what qualifications do you possess to make a determination?

Originally Posted by crazylilting

What airplane hit the Pentagon? I didn't see any wings, did you? I suppose they could of vapourized but wouldn't part of the building where they hit also have some evidence of damage? I always thought it was a missile that hit the pentagon. Can you link me to some evidence that there was a plane involved with that one? I remember the day very well, watched it unfold at work but didn't see any evidence of a plane involved in the pentagon attack.

I can’t believe you are a Truther.

There is quite a bit of evidence of the crash including substantial debris, eyewitness reports, and video tapes. It was carried out in the same manner as the other flights and it is a no brainer. Purdue University did a major great engineering simulation of the crash that mimicked the actual damage. I suggest you actually look at the facts instead of some mindless conspiracy theory. There is significant amount of information available.

On occasion I have taken the time to post the overwhelming information on the crash but I am not going to bother doing it today.

To me a Truther is in the same category as those people that believe the earth is flat and the idea that it is round is a government plot to cover up the truth. It is not worth my time to educate somebody that lacking in that much common sense, especially when they ignore all the evidence in favor of half ass theories that fall apart upon any scrutiny.

All your speculation and conspiracies aside, what qualifications do you possess to make a determineation?
what makes you qualified to determin i have no voice so to speak as you attack the man not the question,s asked do try to deal with the subject matter at hand rather than messenger it only goes to show how closed minded you are,
As to experience i have 30 years within the building industry i understand how building go up as well as down if thats a problem, so shoot me as this is a forum and a place of free speech please go directly to my first post and try to answer the the questions ???

Originally Posted by fubar

All your speculation and conspiracies aside, what qualifications do you possess to make a determineation?
what makes you qualified to determin i have no voice so to speak as you attack the man not the question,s asked do try to deal with the subject matter at hand rather than messenger it only goes to show how closed minded you are,
As to experience i have 30 years within the building industry i understand how building go up as well as down if thats a problem, so shoot me as this is a forum and a place of free speech please go directly to my first post and try to answer the the questions ???

My oh my, you are touchy aren't you. Why shouldn't I ask the qualifications of someone who makes such definitive comments on a technical subject? Before I start believing such comments I certainly want to know from what experience the commenter draws. Taking that further does your building experience of 30 years include the construction and destruction of very high rise buildings, or is in the housing sector, etc.? Even further is in labor, supervision, design? I sincerely think these are valid questions to ask when discussing a technical question of this import. The experience of the messenger, in this case does bear on the veracity of the message.

Who i am and what i do for a living is not relevant it obviously is to you but as you see my queries are not cut and pasted, yet are still relevant even if i was a Butcher or Baker their still relevant so as i gather your not qualified to answer so please make way for some one who is, Either try to grasp the basics or do your own research or let someone tell you what really happened ?? it's up to you, as it is your opinion is what,s needed not your job description. So what do you think happened Don ???

Originally Posted by fubar

Who i am and what i do for a living is not relevant it obviously is to you but as you see my queries are not cut and pasted, yet are still relevant even if i was a Butcher or Baker their still relevant so as i gather your not qualified to answer so please make way for some one who is, Either try to grasp the basics or do your own research or let someone tell you what really happened ?? it's up to you, as it is your opinion is what,s needed not your job description. So what do you think happened Don ???

Yeah, yeah, whatever

I agree with Don, not Fubar or the others on this one. I know that Fubar is a foreign fellow (I think he is possibly a Northern Irelander) as he said he was attending a wake. And Fubar sounds like a variant of the name Finbar to me, but he might be Spanish or Italian for all I know. I am going by that film by Sam Raimi called Drag Me To Hell in which there is a wake held and I think they are gypsies in that film.
Anyway, what I wanted to say was that although in this present world with all the doubts and lies flying around it is possible to doubt that the 9/11 attack was not a conspiracy within a conspiracy, that is, what is under discussion here, I think if common sense is used instead of anlysis or speculative What If?s, we can all agree that planes did fly into those buildings and were reported by News Crews all over the world, not just in New York, were seen and probably even filmed by substantial eyewitnesses who are now shocked at what they saw, and that their was genuine destruction of a hostile nature with wreckage found lying about the scene to identify the planes which left the airport on this "mission for martyrs". Also which airport they left, and the names of those who boarded including the terrorists.
It is possible but not probable that the extensive destruction was not caused just by planes flying into buildings but by bombs also carried on board by the terrorists. These would would be supplied as a safeguard in case the mission failed, I think.
Now onto whether it was orchestrated by the Bush admin. or by actors hired by the Pentagon, for example. I do not believe that they would have orchestrated this as a staged calamity. For a start, what was to be/did they afterwards gain from it? Did it further the NWO progress line on their proverbial graphs in an upwardly mobile direction or a downwardly mobile direction? It to my knowledge seems to have earned as much contempt for American politics now with the conspiracy theorists as it has done for number one suspect Bin Laden. Also, was not Bin Laden soon after boasting on his own TV channel against America, if my memory serves me correctly, that he/they would do the same thing again? Also, the terrorists have threatened something like this for a long time against The Great Satan before carrying out their ambitious fulfillment of such a threat.
Fubar I think mentioned that there was little reaction against Muslims in even their own country of America but I believe that the reason for this is a foreign policy they have, and that people were too shaken and upset by the hostile forces from without rather than an unseen enemy within which might be just paranoia. It was Bin Laden and Al'Qui-da who were claiming the responsibility for this one, and I think it is their every intention to follow through, so we'd best still be on our collective guard against him because he is not caught yet and still at large. It was also the New Yorkers who were the most upset so it depends how many Muslims were in New York at the time that would lead to them being despised by New Yorkers, I suggest.
Now to whether Bush orchestrated this: he did not. He was the President of the USA, and there is no way on God's green earth that an American would orchestrate the destruction of his own country or its policies and procedures. If Bush wanted to maneouvre terrorists to do anything on his behalf he would, knowing the man, have maneouvred them away from America and against some other country for strategic purposes, namely Iraq and then and only then gone in and taken command of the situation and got the oil under their jurisdiction. The American President has got too much on his hands to want to create more by encouraging the destruction of the WTC, and for this reason and that of basic common sense I see this as having been perped by Al'Qui-da and not the US government. Also, the Bin Ladens who were on speaking terms with Bush who he reportedly (by Michael Moore in his book Dude, Where's My Country?) flew out out by heli after the attack, were not involved with their family-member Osama at the time and so could not be blamed. So, I believe it was a genuine offensive move against the West by the East and that the danger of conspiracy theories is that they dull our vigilance to real and actual danger from its true source, whatever source that may be. But there will always be questions...

Janus, you say there is no doubt that planes hit the buildings but in the case of the pentagon there is more then doubt. I've asked for links to any proof that it was a plane and non has been provided and i've searched but only found strong evidence that it was a missile. If you could kindly point me in the right direction that would be nice.

I am sorry, crazylilting, but the only thing I remember hearing after the attack from someone was that a plane narrowly missed the Pentagon but did not hit it. It's also possible that this was a projectile from an organised terrorist group within America as an agreement to use in conjunction with the attack. The only other reason I can think of is that Americans did it to make the Al'Qui-da attack look more severe in order to elicit more sympathy with a retaliative measure. I sorry, I haven't a clue, but will try to find out for you later today by asking around or researching info.

This computer model pretty well shows what happen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

Here is the Perdue University simulation that shows how the plane was disintegrated. It corresponds with the actual damage to the building.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0zLBxvi9NM


It is a no brainer folks.

Yes, ain't it curious that the Conspiracy Theorists are still trying keep alive/peddle/convince/sell/convert the great Public that the destruction fo the Twin Towers World Trade Centre on '9/11' was a US Government conspiracy....... Oh Diddly Dearie Moi.

Oh yes, and the CIA, NASA, NSA and US Military do actually have secret bases on Mars...... I've just been there recently on the Shuttle 'Tiberian' to resupply the staff Cola and Ice Soda machines......

Some of the same good folks.... the Tea-Baggers, or is it the Tea-Party-ists are trying to peddle the same stories about Mr Obama..... that he is....

(a) Not an American Born citizen, so therefore sitting in the White House under false pretences.

(b) That he is the 'Anti Christ'.

(c) That he is not a Christian but a 'Secret Muslim'.

(d) The he devours human babies for breakfast, dinner and supper, and that he sleeps in a coffin like Count Dukula. (Yes, and there are good folks on the Christian Right who actually believe this garbage).

(e) That Mr Obama is not in fact Human, but an alien plant from the Klingon Federation of planets, and that Mr Obama actually comes from his Home World of the planet S'KolloB..!!

(f) That Mr Obama is actually Homer Simpson in disguise.

But I jest...... or do I....!

Might I also cordially inform you that he has also been accused, due to a story surrounding Laden's apparent absence and having not been caught and punished in the normative fashion and due to Obama's apparently mislaying or not possessing his birth cert (leading to speculation as to whether he is truly a US-born cit), of being Osama Bin Laden in disguise-that is, without the defining beard that Laden sports. This I found on that panoply of nonsense YouTube, and it makes me wonder whether Conspiracy Theorists on the whole suffer from some kind of mental deficiency, where they cannot see the wood for the trees!

How did this thread make the cut, seriously??
Someone that can't tell the difference between a Jew and a Muslim is absolutely sure that Muslims had nothing to do with 9/11? ...........get real.
No wonder people like Dylan Avery and Alex Jones are so rich.

Originally Posted by flash

I can’t believe you are a Truther.

There is quite a bit of evidence of the crash including substantial debris, eyewitness reports, and video tapes. It was carried out in the same manner as the other flights and it is a no brainer. Purdue University did a major great engineering simulation of the crash that mimicked the actual damage. I suggest you actually look at the facts instead of some mindless conspiracy theory. There is significant amount of information available.

On occasion I have taken the time to post the overwhelming information on the crash but I am not going to bother doing it today.

To me a Truther is in the same category as those people that believe the earth is flat and the idea that it is round is a government plot to cover up the truth. It is not worth my time to educate somebody that lacking in that much common sense, especially when they ignore all the evidence in favor of half ass theories that fall apart upon any scrutiny.

I don't know where did you get all those "evidence" picture.

1. Some wreckage having bright color, it looks that had never gone through an explosive fire.

2. That wheel looks like a brand new one compare with others.

3. All are partial picture which may take in somewhere else. None of the parts had been seen in whole scene picture.

Now look back at the original picture of Pentagon. Where are your "evidence" piece?

9/11: Where is the Plane, Flight 77
Dailymotion - 9/11: Where is the Plane, Flight 77 - a News & Politics video

The pentagon was not hit by a airliner. See for yourself





YouTube - The pentagon was not hit by a airliner. See for yourself

Government says the fuel of the plane burned down WTC building. If there was a similar Boeing crashed at Pentagon, why its fuel even couldn't burn a monitor or book?

Those of you who think the Pentagon was not hit by a 757 are mental, you all need psychiatric treatment and are a disgrace to your race. Your bile is an insult to the innocent people who died there that day, whether they were in the building or on the plane.

You disgust me.

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

Those of you who think the Pentagon was not hit by a 757 are mental, you all need psychiatric treatment and are a disgrace to your race. Your bile is an insult to the innocent people who died there that day, whether they were in the building or on the plane.

You disgust me.

Calm down Jim, no one takes these truther and Dylan Avery groupies serious anymore.
Look at the demographic of his loony films on google vid and youtube. The views are huge, but they're not going up anything like as fast as they did 5 years ago.
I used to feel the same way about these truther idiots, now I just find them curious and ammusing.

A few things that struck me when I watched Avery's nut job film, as well as some of the others.
The two main claims are that the towers were not hit by comercial flights, and they were rigged with demolition charges.
Questions, and lets see if any of the truthers can provide an answer.
Lets take their stupid assumptions to be true for a moment...
Who did those planes belong to if they were not comercial flights?
What happened to the planes they were suposed to be if they didn't fly into the towers?
What happened to the passengers?
Who carried it out?
This would have to be the greatest and most complex conspiricy of all time, perpetrated by one of America's most incompitent governments of all time. See how laughable this is? The US government, military and secret services are basically cullenders, they hemorage secret and classified information all the time.

About the demolition charges.........
Who installed them?
For buildings the size of the towers it would take months to correctly install enough demolition charges to bring the buildings down. And they would have had to have done it wihout being noticed or questioned by staff and securty.
So, in order for their stupid conspiracy to work, we need dozens if not hundreds of government, military and CIA peopl working together an keeping it secret. Along with a huge team of demolition experts working unseen, and again keeping quiet.

On to the pentagon, and the claim is that it was either a missile, or a drone aircraft......
So, who fired the missile or opperated the drone? Are we to believe that these terrorists who in one part of the film they portray is incompitent managed to hijack a missile launcher or drone aircraft? Or was it the US doing it to themselves again?
Here's the problem if they are seriously claiming that the US government and military fired on the pentagon...............THEY HIT THE DAM TARGET FIRST TIME!!!

In fact, that's the whole probelm with this stupid conspiricy theory, it all went far too well for the Americans to be responsible for it.

Even though you asked some question only the murderer could answer, it doesn't mean there is no plot. Read this. There are a lot of detail in it.

Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!! A MUST READ!!!!!!

Posted by Bruecke
2010-08-23

Figuring out exactly how 9/11 was done is the work of crime investigators or conspiracy hobbyists who will endlessly go on discussing and debating every minuscule and intricate detail of the event to no avail. It doesn't take a structural engineer to tell you that two 110 story buildings and a 47 story steel skyscraper plummeting to the ground at nearly free-fall speed requires the assistance of explosives. All you need is two eyes that can see and a brain that thinks to come to that sound conclusion. This is why it is of my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the "who" instead of the "how". It should be obvious to anyone that discovering 'who did 9/11' is infinitely more important than discovering how they did it.

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/07/israel-did-911-all-proof-in-world.html

Originally Posted by kathaksung

Even though you asked some question only the murderer could answer, it doesn't mean there is no plot. Read this. There are a lot of detail in it.

Israel did 9/11, ALL THE PROOF IN THE WORLD!! A MUST READ!!!!!!

Posted by Bruecke
2010-08-23

Figuring out exactly how 9/11 was done is the work of crime investigators or conspiracy hobbyists who will endlessly go on discussing and debating every minuscule and intricate detail of the event to no avail. It doesn't take a structural engineer to tell you that two 110 story buildings and a 47 story steel skyscraper plummeting to the ground at nearly free-fall speed requires the assistance of explosives. All you need is two eyes that can see and a brain that thinks to come to that sound conclusion. This is why it is of my opinion that more emphasis should be placed on the "who" instead of the "how". It should be obvious to anyone that discovering 'who did 9/11' is infinitely more important than discovering how they did it.

http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2010/07/israel-did-911-all-proof-in-world.html

I've read some crazy stuff on this forum, but this takes some beating............you actually believe that Israel used Al Qaeda to attack their closest ally?? Sounds like something out of an Austin Powers script.

The who is simple, we know who did it, case closed.
The why is a little more complex, but we know why. Again case closed.
The how asks some very serious questions about why the US was caught napping.

Originally Posted by DaveUK

I've read some crazy stuff on this forum, but this takes some beating............you actually believe that Israel used Al Qaeda to attack their closest ally?? Sounds like something out of an Austin Powers script.

The who is simple, we know who did it, case closed.
The why is a little more complex, but we know why. Again case closed.
The how asks some very serious questions about why the US was caught napping.

No Dave we do not know why, care to elaborate?
The how was that it was impossible for anyone to guess that such an attack could ever be a reality, until the day of the attack the idea was beyond imagination, which is exactly HOW they managed to do it.

I know that Osama Bin Ladin clearly stated his reason was the existence of US bases in Saudi Arabia(with the permission of the powers that be in Saudi, perhaps he should have taken up his beef with them) others claim all manner of what have you as the reason, US support of Israel and OBLs support of Palestine(highly unlikely given the different types of Islam followed by Palestinians and the Bin Ladin(non Sunnis are not regarded as Moslems by the wahibbi Sunnis and are generally considered to be worse than any other non Believer). Other arguments include Bin Ladin and Bush knew each other via their families links and the attack was based on Bin ladins envy at Bushs election........Unfortunatly this dosnt take into consideration the attacks on the USA by Bin ladins followers in the years before Bush was Elected. Osama Bin Ladin is a whack job, as are his followers but that dosent explain his need to repeatedly attack the USA, perhaps it is simply that he feels the need to hate and the USA worked as a target for his hate.

Originally Posted by Scooter

No Dave we do not know why, care to elaborate?
The how was that it was impossible for anyone to guess that such an attack could ever be a reality, until the day of the attack the idea was beyond imagination, which is exactly HOW they managed to do it.

Have to agree with that. Even other Terrorist groups were stunned by the attack, afterall, lets not forget that Hamas actually publicly condemned it as an attack against humanity rather than on the USA.

Originally Posted by Scooter

I know that Osama Bin Ladin clearly stated his reason was the existence of US bases in Saudi Arabia(with the permission of the powers that be in Saudi, perhaps he should have taken up his beef with them) others claim all manner of what have you as the reason, US support of Israel and OBLs support of Palestine(highly unlikely given the different types of Islam followed by Palestinians and the Bin Ladin(non Sunnis are not regarded as Moslems by the wahibbi Sunnis and are generally considered to be worse than any other non Believer). Other arguments include Bin Ladin and Bush knew each other via their families links and the attack was based on Bin ladins envy at Bushs election........Unfortunatly this dosnt take into consideration the attacks on the USA by Bin ladins followers in the years before Bush was Elected. Osama Bin Ladin is a whack job, as are his followers but that dosent explain his need to repeatedly attack the USA, perhaps it is simply that he feels the need to hate and the USA worked as a target for his hate.

This is a difficult one. Personally I have never seen any evidence for Al Qaeda involvement other than their public claims. Financially, the attack was bought and paid for by those who took part. All the training occurred in the US and their living expenses etc was all paid for by the jobs they did and the credit card that the leaders father had given him (Poor bastard). Whilst I think that Bin Laden probably was behind it, I do feel that it could potentially have been "home grown" by those who perpetrated the attack.

With regards to Bin Laden's hatred of the US, could it be connected to the fact the CIA and the US Justice department gave information to the Russians to enable them to prosecute him for what happened during their time in Afghanistan. The CIA have also tried and failed to kill him on several occasions. I think that could be sufficient reason to hate them!!

Originally Posted by Jim Franklin

This is a difficult one. Personally I have never seen any evidence for Al Qaeda involvement other than their public claims. Financially, the attack was bought and paid for by those who took part. All the training occurred in the US and their living expenses etc was all paid for by the jobs they did and the credit card that the leaders father had given him (Poor bastard). Whilst I think that Bin Laden probably was behind it, I do feel that it could potentially have been "home grown" by those who perpetrated the attack.

With regards to Bin Laden's hatred of the US, could it be connected to the fact the CIA and the US Justice department gave information to the Russians to enable them to prosecute him for what happened during their time in Afghanistan. The CIA have also tried and failed to kill him on several occasions. I think that could be sufficient reason to hate them!!

I would tend to agree with that Jim; there's been precious little factual evidence from any source that the vast majority of terrorist attacks around the world have been anything other than either home-grown or carried out by individual groups. The name 'Al Qaeda' has been bandied about simply as a cover-all for Islamic terrorism in general, conjecturally at times as a way of disguising failings within various western security services; it's very easy just to say "oh, it was Al Qaeda" rather than have to dig deeper and reveal home-grown dirty linen.

Having said that I've no doubts that the root cause of most of it has been America and it's allies' threats to, and invasions of, Islamic countries based on lies and deceit coupled with imperialistic ambition, and individuals and groups within those countries planning revenge against what they see as aggressor nations.

It was not an inside job. Do you honestly think a US Republican president like 'W' would have engineered/collaborated with the destruction and resultant mayhem of his own country-especially while he was still serving his time in office-and then have to help clean up the mess, the economic repercussions, the bad publicity, the questions, the controversies, etc? If Bush wanted to use Al Qu'aida to do an inside job for him he would have used them on one of their own types of countries, like Iraq, especially against mutual enemies that the terrorists also hated. Bush was teaching kids literary classes at the time it happened; it was business as usual for the President and his cabinet; they were not going to halt the daily grind just because of a threatened terrorist attack, were they, and sit twiddling their thumbs waiting for the sirens to wail? They could not have known the planes were hijacked once they were up in the air until it was too late. The only thing that could have caused suspicion was the change in their flight path-but then it was too late: what could anyone do, anyway, shoot them down, even if they saw it about to happen. It was a shock tactic, a surprise attack, that you could not stop even if it was an half hour away. The evacuation from the area would have taken much longer. They had little time to prepare. It was ambush! And then whoooooshhhh-the flames went up, and the people went to the ground!
The explosions inside the building were not caused by manmade detonators to serve a conspirators' purpose-they were the result of gas leaks/taps, mains supplies, pipes and wires all set off by the initial impact causing a chain reaction all through various levels of the building where they are connected. Pipes run thru or near walls. These could have easily blown out thru the outer walls if enough power was on that day to create the incendiary firework display.
There were also too many eyewitness accounts that concurred with the truth of a large-scale terrorist attack. Not all (or any) of these could have been actors.