BBC Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250

Maybe, just maybe, we can put all of this controlled demolition nonsense behind us.

You're welcome in advance.

They are supposed to pick a side and only present that viewpoint! What's with all this "both sides of the story" crap? Is this what the British call "journalism"?

I need my opinions spoonfed to me, while demonizing the other side.

I will add, but I'm certain that you will understand that many are skeptical of it.... duh..... Need I say more?

Mark someone from FEMA was brought in... duh... And why would I rely on anyone related to FEMA? Were these not the same shit asses that were responsible for Katrina?

And I do so love the conspiracy theorists. They are like the hydra. You come up with a completely logical answer and they deny it. You PROVE that it's the logical answer (like why BBC erroneously reported tower 7 was down) and they just say "yeah, well so what, that's 1 of 1,000 bits of (weak, unsubstantiated, unprovable, and illogical) evidence that shows this is a conspiracy.

You go and prove that, and they just say "well, of course they are going to say that; they are the government" "well, yeah, they've had 5 years to create evidence to support their case".

Whether they accept it or not, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are on par with evangelical christians who believe the Bible is 100% true in spite of mountains of evidence - and more importantly: logic, rational thought, and Occham's Razor.

And no, FEMA wasn't responsible for Katrina. The Earth's atmosphere was.

Sounds like you're using guilt by association to me to smear everyone who questions the official version of 9/11 (that's an original tactic).

Do you really believe you are being fair?

Try watching "Press for Truth" then come back to us and PROVE the White house didn't oppose and then obstruct a 9/11 investigation.

Or are you saying obstruction is another "conspiracy theory" you can PROVE isn't real?

Pareto Principle and all. Doesn't mean "EVERYONE" falls into that category.

The underlying fact is that there isn't sufficient evidence to support some far reaching 9/11 conspiracy, and those who do aren't thinking critically.

Distrust of government is fine. And it's based in fact that the government maintains much of their power by being secretive. But then making the leaps of logic and imagining up these wild conspiracy fantasies is akin to those who illogically believe in religion. It's merely not possible to rationally argue the facts. Because their faith just Trumps all.

theories are worthy of investigation?

But why the government (supported by my tax dollars) should re-investigate these attacks, when the CT folks already have made it very clear that they think the government perpetrated them is pretty pointless. Get private funding. Raise money yourself - investigate to your heart's desire.

Whatever the government says about this (again) will be discarded by the CT crowd anyway, so it would be a waste of time and money for them to do anything again.

What I don't get about the CT folks on this board is how they resolve the disconnect in believing this and many other far-reaching government conspiracies that would indicate the gov is evil and kills people and is hellbent on power and ect etc etc.

If you believe that, then why on earth would you want to increase the government's role and protection for healthcare, or social security, or medicare, or collecting taxes, or schools, police, courts, and so on.

If the government is so corrupt, then would you want as little government as possible, right? It just seems like the majority of CTers that I've met are anarchists or extreme Libertarians; not progressives.

I just wondered how serious you were about the less "far reaching" 9/11 questions, you seemed to give an impression from what you said there were some issues you would take seriously.

Now I know, you're not serious about anything that challenges the official theory.

Ah well.

about facts. Show verifiable facts. Not "well this one witness said this one thing 30 minutes after the attack and so I'm going to interpret that he means xyz" or "this one guy who was taking pictures didn't see the plane hit, so there must not have been any planes".

You are focusing on each little bit of data and trying to extrapolate giant conspiracies, but in general the 9/11 CT folks ignore giant logical holes.

1. That government has shown that they aren't efficient. Just look at the efforts to rebuild ground zero. They can't get anything done - now they are going to pull off the world's biggest conspiracy flawlessly?
2. That there would need to be thousands of people involved in it. Again, people have shown that they can't keep their mouths shut. And if anyone would come out and say they have actual tangible evidence (i.e. a paper trail or "real" videos), they would immediately be a billionaire selling their story to the press. Greed and the desire to divulge information are forces too powerful to keep this secret private
3. That the entire thing was videotaped from 50 different angles. Unless you think that somehow the government was able to a) remove every real video being taken from within a 3 mile radius and b) replace it with 40 fake videos within minutes, then it's impossible.

I say "wide reaching" as a qualifyer on purpose. There are some theories which may hold water - though I've seen absolutely no evidence of them. Maybe the CIA knew of it before hand. I can buy that. Doesn't involve many people, and requires very few leaps of logic.

That the government flew cargo jets (or missiles or nothing) into the towers in front of thousands of people, faked hours of programming on numerous channels involving hundreds of broadcasters, planted explosives in WTC 1, 2, and 7 although no evidence has been found of such explosives, and faked the hijacking of 4 planes and sent hundreds of passengers on their merry way - well that's just a little to big of a fantasy to me.

I would like to see some CT folks actually spell out what they think DID happen. It's very easy for them to say what DIDN'T happen. But nobody comes out and explains what they think happened, involving who for how long, and tactically how the plan was executed and conspired.

Serious.

If you explain to me in no less than 500 words, exactly what you think happened that day. How many people were involved in a) the planning & execution b) the eventual cover-up and c) those who have since been exposed to the "facts" and have kept them quiet - make sure to provide this number from a bottom's up perspective (i.e. there would need to be a demolition team of at least 5 people, there would need to be knowledge from at least 1-2 security guards in each building, the 300 passengers on the planes, etc, etc).

It would probably be easiest to develop in a timeline (kind of like a movie script). Like:

January 21, 2001 - Cheyney calls up UBL and says "hey buddy, I've got a cool idea. How about I kill a bunch of Americans, ruin our economy, blame it on you, so that we can invade Iraq, kill Hussein and take over their oil." UBL agrees and has some chumps sign up for flight school.
January 22, 2001. Cheyney recruits 5,000 of his closest friends to administer this conspiracy only if they "promise to keep it on the down low."

Very odd!

I've watched numerous 9/11 conspiracy videos. I'm open to watching others.

But life is a negotiation. Why do anything for free? Tit for tat. I'll watch the video. All you need to do is explain to me what you actually think happened.

Why the inability to do so?

Odd.

Why the pre-conditions?

It's your loss.

I recommend you watch "9/11: Press for Truth", it's the best 9/11 video out there.

Don't watch it if you don't want to. Stay in the dark about government obstruction if you want to.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481&q=press+for+truth&ei=R4RzSJyeI4PWigLNjrmJDw

so you have absolutely no idea what happened on 9/11, you are just absolutely sure that the government did it.

Your reaction is very strange.

or a bot of some sort? Conversing with you is like talking to a magic 8 ball. I ask a simple question, you refuse and act all confused.

Why is it impossible for you actually communicate what you think happened? If you are confident that the official story is crap, then surely you have some ideas of what did happen, then? Who was involved. How they pulled it off. How they've kept is secret.

Don't you want to share?

I ask you to watch a video and you produce pre-conditions and then try and make out because I'm not interested in the pre-conditions I'm confused when all I did was ask you to watch a video.

Why don't you just watch the video.

Hell, don't watch it, I don't care either way, stay in the dark.

It's just that your reaction to a simple suggestion was a bit odd.

Not my problem.

You're asking someone to invest a couple of hours of his time into watching a video with an agenda, yet you appear completely unwilling to invest even a couple of MINUTES of YOUR time in providing your own take on the events.

If you are unwilling to spare a couple of minutes to present your own position on the events, why on earth should anyone spend an hour and half watching a video at your behest?

(I posted this in the wrong spot initially, sorry about that, so I've moved it here.)

"the govt did it".

There are a few govt individuals implicated in 9/11 and possible conspiracy with a few foreign individuals. That doesn't mean "the govt did it". Haven't you ever heard of a double-agent or mole or Manchurian Candidate?

You're asking someone to invest a couple of hours of his time into watching a video with an agenda, yet you appear completely unwilling to invest even a couple of minutes of YOUR time in providing your own take on the events.

If you are unwilling to spare a couple of minutes to present your own position on the events, why on earth should anyone spend an hour and half watching a video at your behest?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215143&mesg_id=215176">jpcrecom wrote, in reply to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215143&mesg_id=215170">a post by Bassman66:



You wrote this to Bassman66, who is not a no-planer. (See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=197802&mesg_id=197802">this thread in which Bassman argues against no-planes claims.)

In general, no-planes theories are not held by most people in the 9/11 Truth movement. (For some details on this matter, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=210030&mesg_id=215148">my post here.)

I agree with you that the no-planes claims would require an impossibly vast conspiracy. But you should not take the no-planes claims as representative of the 9/11 Truth movement. They're not.

When an individual opposes a new investigation of 9/11, you know exactly what you're dealing with.

When the 9/11 Commission chairs themselves admit they were "set up to fail", when it's revealed that the final report was essentially co-authored by Karl Rove and another loyal Bush insider, there is simply no way a rational person can claim that the crimes of 9/11 have been appropriately investigated. Any new investigation into 9/11 would be the FIRST real investigation, assuming it were not also hamstrung by the usual methods.

Laughably, the excuses given are always the same: "not with my tax dollars" -- or, "you people would never be satisfied". The idea that an investigation into an event of such inestimably far-reaching consequences as 9/11 is not worthy of the same amount of money as, say, the investigation into the space shuttle disaster or Clinton's real estate dealings is stunningly irrational. If only such people would guard their tax dollars so closely when they're being pissed away on war! Equally irrational is the notion that we needn't bother with any real investigation because the skeptical public would never be satisfied. Imagine if all criminal justice proceeded this way... the mind boggles.

So I should be satisfied with nothing because some people claim I'd never be satisfied. Sounds reasonable -- I'll just lie down quietly and hand over my civil liberties now.

I think we get the idea. For people who passionately defend the Official 9/11 Fairy Tale, we CANNOT allow a thorough and unobstructed investigation into 9/11 because we might find out something entirely unacceptable. Whether consciously or not, such people would have us all submit to authoritarian oppression so that their delusions about this country can be preserved. Sorry, no can do.

Having the United nations investigate this whole 911 thing? Would you object to that?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215143&mesg_id=215168">jpcrecom wrote:



People who believe that "the government perpetrated them" are not, by any means, the only people calling for a new and more truly independent investigation, or who have problems with the conflicts of interest, etc., that plagued the 9/11 Commission.

Are you totally uninterested in government accountability? Or are you simply unaware of what was wrong with the 9/11 Commission? See, for example, the following threads:

• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=190636&mesg_id=190636">The Commission by Philip Shenon


• http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x198406">New Expose Shreds Credibility of 9/11 Commission Report

Heve in this forum, even most of the official-story defenders give at least lip service to the idea that a new and more truly independent investigation would be desirable. After all, even if the real story is nothing worse than incompetence or negligence on the part of some people in the government, shouldn't it be determined who made the bad decisions and why, and shouldn't those people be held accountable?

But you, on the other hand, seem to be an unreconstructed official-story defender version 1.0.



The crucial issues, e.g. what was known about the hijackers by various people in the government, cannot be easily investigated without subpoena power.

...and the comments above clearly relate to Dylan Avery's piece at the end in which he accuses Richard Clarke of having been "in on it".

So Clarke, who is very clear that the White House opposed and obstructed the investigation, is apparently one of the conspirators.

It's like a Twilight Zone, where only a few hundred people realize the conspiracy and everyone who opposes them must be part of the conspiracy.

have said everyone is in on it (i.e. the police, fire dept, govt etc), that is just BBC spin.

Most of the people involved in 9/11 (hijackers etc) may not have known the real purpose of the operation. Even people close to the administration like Ashcroft and Powell appear to be loyal "useful idiots" who believe what they're told at face value.

no sarcasm (I know I've been full of it in this thread).

I would be interested to hear detailed theories on exactly what CTers THINK (realizing that no one is omniscient and a theory is just that) happened that day.

I've seen a multitude of CTers focus on what DIDN'T happen (hijackers couldn't have pulled it off, Hanjour couldn't fly, planes/fire alone couldn't have brought those buildings down, etc)

But I haven't seen a full theory on "OK, if you don't believe the Official gov story, then what do you believe?" What do you think happened, and more importantly how many people do you think were involved that have all kept quiet?

I think when people actually start to work through all of the people that would need to be involved in something so grand scale, they'll begin to be less confident in any large scale conspiracy.

the CDers, no-planers, no-hijackers, laserbeamers etc...

because if you really want to know the real politics, geo-politics, financing and espionage of 9/11 it will take you a long time to look into. There are people who have been researching 9/11 for several hours a day for the last six years, I've read some their stuff on here - it is complex, very complex.

Ask yourself - should the biggest most complex terrorist attack in history be easy to sum up in a few words?

I personally recommend as good starting points - "9/11: Press for Truth", David Ray Griffin's "New Pearl Harbor" and just look up Philip Zelikow on wikipedia.

And as for the "govt is incompetent meme" - just look at "shock and awe" on Baghdad...was that incompenent? No, in fact "the major combat operations" were successful.

"Ask yourself - should the biggest most complex terrorist attack in history be easy to sum up in a few words?"

And right there, we have the core fallacy of conspiracy theorists. There is no reason to think that just because some giant, impactful event happened which changed the course of our history, that it needs some complex impetus.

Yes, of the available theories, it seems sadly more likely that the simple answer of: 20 guys with knives got on planes, took them over, and crashed them into buildings is more likely than some far-reaching government conspiracy involving thousands of people all of whom have been able to keep any hard facts, smoking guns, or paper trail under wraps.

Have looked into the 9/11 money-trail?

In a court of law the financier of a hitman is just as culpable.

Now I know why everyone calls this the dungeon.

I ask for simple information and the CTers just ignore it and try to focus on something else. Why is no CT advocate able to actually spell out WHAT THE HELL they actually think happened that day? It's just that "the official story is wrong!"

Which financing are you talking about? The $500k it would have taken to pull of the planes operation or the $80 trillion it would have taken to pull off your wide-ranging government conspiracy involving space-age technology, fake videos, including thousands of people, and hush money to countless others?

Who are they allied to (politically and personally)?

What happened is very complex. Possibly HamdenRice is the guy who could do the best summation.

a) I'm at work so don't have time right now.
b) I come here to discuss with likeminded people who have a similar amount of knowledge of 9/11 (i.e. familiar with the 9/11 Commission Report, New Pearl Harbor, 9/11 Press for Truth etc). It isn't the job of any poster to sum anything up. Your one-line summary of 9/11 missed out the money-trail for instance. Any summation (that is readable on a message-board)will miss something out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215143&mesg_id=215212">jpcrecom wrote:



First, I take issue with the term "CT," but that's a topic for another post.

Second, HOW THE HELL is anyone supposed to know what may have happened behind closed doors on or before that day? To find that out, we would need subpoena power. That's one of the reasons for the call for a new and more truly independent investigation (like what the 9/11 Commission was supposed to be).



Yep, that financing. The 9/11 Commission dismissed that issue as being "of little practical significance." But how could it possibly be "insignificant" in terms of determining who all was involved in the attacks?



You're leaping to the conclusion that most people in the 9/11 Truth movement believe in a "wide-ranging government conspiracy involving space-age technology, fake videos," etc. I certainly don't. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215143&mesg_id=215381">See also this post of mine.

Yep.

I agree with the statement that "the white house obstructed the 9/11 invesigation".

Don't you?

that doesn't mean he was part of the actual 9/11 plan or even knows exactly what happened on 9/11.

the BBC have solved the "final mystery" of 9/11!

We can all go back to sleep now.

I have always maintained that there are better issues to work on and deal with. A hint to a couple is in every post I make here. (Barack Obama and the looming Iran war).

I am not advocating people "go back to sleep." I'm advocating that people wake the fuck up from this fantasies.

Who profited from the put options?

Who funded the hijackers?

Is Bin Laden actually a suspect in 9/11 or not (as per the FBI profile)?

When a crime is committed you don't just ignore it because you other bigger crimes might be committed in future.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F8LivSW9zLg

It makes it appear as if he got there after the second plane hit.

He wasn't able to descend in the elevator because the collapse of WTC 2 caused the power to go out in 7.

story is appears to be skewed as they intersperse him commentary with events that took place later. If it wasn't deliberately deceptive, it is deceptive none the less.

He was there before the first tower was hit, let alone when the second tower came down. Someone not seeing his direct interview could come to the conclusion that the explosions he heard were a result of the towers coming down. Poorly done.

Regardless of how he interpreted them on the day. He's only guessing at the timing of events outside his eyesight.

other part of his account was ignored. I have things to do now but will get back later.

It didn't happen.

Fox, CNN, ABC .....


"Maybe, just maybe, we can put all of this controlled demolition nonsense behind us."

no but we could put all the OCT nonsense behind us ....