Some unanswered questions

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

1. Will someone who believes that the Twin Towers were brought down by explosives please explain:
a) the reason for the double attack on each of the towers - attack by plane and attack by explosives - when one alone on each would have sufficed to have had a spectacular effect.
b)If the explosives had been set off without warning, the loss of life would have been many times larger. So why crash planes into the towers as well?
c) The collapse of the Twin Towers does not look like any controlled explosion that I have ever seen on TV. Controlled explosions of buildings always explode or implode the lower layers of buildings so that the upper layers of the buildings then collapse into the void created by the removal of support. Controlled explosions of buildings are always bottom-up collapses. But, as everyone could see for themselves when the Twin Towers collapsed, the collapses were top-down collapses beginning at the levels where the planes entered the buildings.
d) Bottom-up collapse of the Twin Towers could have been achieved by simply blowing out the lower layers of the Twin Towers. This could have been achieved far more easily and cheaply than to plant explosives at different levels and then to set them off by some complicated electronic method. So why go to the triouble of placing explosives at different levels?
e) How many people would have been needed to plant explosives and wire them all up? What has happened to them? Why has not a single one broken ranks to come forward to explain what happened so as to make millions of dollars for their story or to relieve the very bad conscience many of them must have?
Or have they all been put up against a wall and shot without anyone noticing their disappearance?
2. Will those who believe the Pentagon was attacked by a missile or small plane ignore the eye-witness testimonies of numerous people, from all walks of life (and therefore not in the pay or under the control of the Pentagon or the CIA) who witnessed a large airliner crashing into the Pentagon?
I could go on and on. I have read a lot of the bizarre theories held by those who believe 9/11 was set up and carried out by the Bush govenment. I am a sceptic. That does not mean I believe we have been told everything that government knew, and they probably had some forewarning of the imminence of an attack. But I find it impossible to believe that the US government allowed 9/11 to happen and to kill potentially tens of thousands of Americans, many of whom could have been their own relatives and friends.
Not even the CIA is that cynical and amoral.
I actually believe there is a gigantic conspiracy, a conspiracy by a lot of clever people to makes lots of money by selling their books and CDs to gullible people.

[paulrobins]

hi
well there is masses of evidence for bombs being used in the twin towers like witnesses saying they heard of felt bombs, the witnesses include the police, firemen, citizens and the media, you can also hear the bombs in the 911eyewitness video, the squibs or horizontal ejection of pulverized concrete many floors below the supposed pancaking floors indicate bombs or cutting charges, and reports of molten metal weeks after 911 possibly indicates thermite or thermate (its milltary version with sulphor)
the fact that all the concrete in the building was turned into fine dust (ive heard betwenn 50 and 100 microns), only explosives can explain where the energy came from to cause this

the top down demolition does not mean it wasnt bombs, the key word in controlled demolition is controlled, they set the charges of in any order they please, in this case they had to make it look like the impact area is where the collapse started

proffessor stephen e jones worked out how many people it could take to plant enough explosives his work can be found on www.st911.org
and considering that bushes cousin and brother were on the board of the company that ran security at the wtc they had the means to set them up, and we know there were strange evacuations and power downs on parts of the towers weeks before 911,

as for the pentagon i am still undecided as to what hit it, but the official lacks any evidence to say for sure a 757 hit it as no ntsb investigations were allowed on any of the crash sites

i would suggest you do some further research as the evidence is there
if you havent seen loose change 2 nd edition that would be a great start

Paul

[Jim]

The whole WTC complex was destroyed, not just WTCs 1 & 2 - in terms of physical damage, Larry Silverstein et al. mostly benefited here in terms of insurance payouts.

The whole impact on the collective psyche was magnified when the two towers (and Pentagon i.e. military psyche) were hit. Also, when one tower is hit and nothing else (and when all evidence is destroyed, moved and buried) it is harder to justify the attack as a terrorist event - with two and/or more hits you are 100% sure that the attacks are deliberate.

IMHO there were numerous "beneficiaries" as a result of 9/11 - some benefited financially i.e. insurance and insider market trading e.g. "put" options on AA stock, some benefits were a matter of convenience e.g. demolish the WTC complex (full of toxic substances and a big liability) in the most cost effective way possible in order to build new buildings and, of course, those who developed the agenda put forwards in the PNAC report. To me it is clear that many groups, companies and individuals have personally cashed in on this event - a sweet deal all-round if you think about it. Except, of course, for all those who died and are suffering as a result of the process.

Then there are the lies we have all been expected to believe - a tell-tale sign of agenda, spin and criminal behaviour. The Anthrax, the incredible, incriminating hijacker evidence, Iraq's 45 min. strike capability re. WMDs, the lack of any credible evidence put forward by anybody in government re. events and players in 9/11 etc. - but that's another story ...

Here's something I posted about top-down vs. bottom-up a few days ago:

http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/board/viewtopic.php?p=5807&highlight=#5807

[Pikey]

I can totally relate to the blog supplied by CTS after all thats how my 911 truthseeking journey began. Its important to do your own truthseeking and research and come to your own conclusions.

Excellent constructive guidance from Paul concerning have a look at LC2
(accessible from the front page of the website) and also 911 eyewitness.

After you have done that CTS get hold of the 911 truthseekers bible David Ray Griffins book "The New Pearl Harbour" and thoroughly read it from cover to cover!

Dont forget that 911 was a crime and usually the key suspects for the crime are picked out on the basis of cui bono (who gains most!).

Did OBL and Al Q, those who were responsible for the crime according to the official version gain the most from it?

My truthseeking journey has been a long and arduous task but thankfully now for UK citizens new to this information there is a UK 911 Truth campaign and websites like this one will be helpful for those who do wish to pursue the truth, rather than rely on it being spoon fed to them by the key suspects, based on the cui bono principle.

Good luck and best wishes in your 911 truthseeking CTS. I look forward to reading your conclusion on this website when you feel that have done adequate 911 research to enable you to make an informed judgement.

Peace & truth

P.S dont forget the truth unites!

[orestes]

[Pikey]

CTS stated:-

[Andrew Johnson]

I would like to state the obvious:

1) This is not a site which primarily focuses on WHETHER 9-11 was an inside job or not.

2) This is therefore not primarily a site where original research is published (there are a few scattered bits and pieces here and there perhaps)

3) As we have pointed out before, we don't really debate whether 9-11 was an inside job or not - we all accept that it was. We don't particularly debate the motives for it being an insider job. The truck loads of evidence show that it was.

We are oriented around giving the information out as cheaply (or even free) as possible.

The notion that we are out to sell disks and DVDs to make money is not supported by evidence.

Someone recently sent me £44 - for this I sent them 100 copies of Loose Change (in plastic wallets) - it cost about £7 to post these as I recall. I know of few places in the UK where you get a DVD for about 37p (even less if you discount multi-1000 run newspaper and magazine promotions).

If you want to debate the issue, post to the Physics forum

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?s=f917a4506b240a0b6c698e09470a981e& showforum=12

or Urban 75 - they'll give you "much more fun for your money..."

People can still pretend it's a non-issue with no evidence - but I now like to call those people "gravity deniers" or "gravity revisionists".

[numeral]

When the North wind doth blow
And we shall have snow
What will the robin do then poor thing?
She sit in a barn
And keep herself warm
And hide her head under her wing.

She's a survivor.

[ianrcrane]

conspiracytheorysceptic wrote:

[scubadiver]

Conspiracytheorysceptic:

It has now been scientifically proven that the only way those towers could fall as fast as they did was a severe lack of air resistance, which can only be done through the use of explosives.

The reason why planes were used was to convince the public that it was a terrorist attack.

The true reason why the Twin Towers was demolished is because it had no use for anyone, they were expensive to run and were archaic dinosaurs that had no relevance to todays financial, globalised world with internet driven communications. Everyone benefited to their mutual destruction.

watch a film called "911 witness" which can be downloaded from www.question911.com.

It is superb.

[paul wright]

[Spectre]

[catfish]

Just to add to dh's comments, I think you have to imagine the elites as battery chicken farmers, and we are the chickens.

[orestes]

Governments and their agents don't kill innocents.

[xmasdale]

[paul wright]

[catfish]

I agree again. I've known people in my life who actually have good and evil swapped the wrong way 'round. Something good to them seems bad and vice versa something evil feels good, I'm sure these people can be redeemed as Xmasdale suggests but it's wrong to say they don't exist, like I say, I've met a couple. If you haven't already, please click on my signature.

[Newspeak International]

DH has my sentiments on the way things are panning out in the world,
I fear I'm so full of rage against the machine it is difficult to function for the profit of "The Corporation".


(FO was a bit strong to a fellow forumite)


And yes CDS is a spoiler, thought that was obvious.

[ian neal]

Hi Noel

I think you have misread what DH is saying. The idea that people are but cattle is what DH is attributing to GWB and the powers that be. Yes this notion (that we are cattle) is racist, but he is attributing to them not supporting it. By 'their' actions 'they' prove themselves to be murders, psychopaths and 'racists'. 'They', the people of power, are predominantly white and the people who suffer most in the system 'they' have shaped are predominantly people of colour. 'Their' rise to power can be traced back to slavery and racism and that institutional racism persists today.

So I have no problem in saying that 'they', the people who hold power in the world, preside over an institutionally racist system. They' created it so and 'they' continue to perpetuate it. For a start such artificial divisions between the people of the world (and they are totally artificial) along the (artificial) lines of race, class, religion, etc, help with the divide and rule principle that guides 'their' strategy to control 'us'. And, yes, 'they' do view 'us', people not like 'them', as inferior to 'them'. Of course 'they' try to avoid speaking 'racism' these days, but by 'their' actions 'we' know 'they' have not changed from the days of empire and slavery. 'They' have just got more clever in 'their' propoganda. But 'they' say 'they' are racist through 'their' economics, 'their' wars', 'their' media, 'their' lies. The system (and the people who shape it), is 'racist'. Pointing this out does not make DH a racist.

When describing 'them' I would not fall into 'their' trap of describing them with any of the adjectives 'they' use to divide 'us'. 'They' can be of any colour, 'race' or religion. Don't fall for that. So I won't describe 'them' as white or men or zionists or jews or americans or british or lizards or illuminati or whatever to describe them. With regards 9/11 I will use the names they give 'themselves' such as PNAC or neo-con or just call them by their own names starting with George W Bush. Just what did you know and when? Tony Blair, release the 'intelligence' and evidence that supports the Afghan war dossier that supposedly proves (but not in a legal sense you understand) that bin laden was responsible for 9/11. Answer the questions, account for the contradictions, tell the truth.

The bigger picture (of how corrupt and twisted the world is and who is responsible) will come out. Key to making this happen is public awareness of the 9/11 truth movement and building unity around truth and peace.

One last thing, CTS could be a 'spolier', but we should welcome 'our' critics here to debate the evidence. 'We' can choose to engage or not as 'we' like

One love

[John White]

[paul wright]

Cheers John White for getting this back to the original point, and to paul robbins, JR and those following in the first place
Thanks to those interceding and clarifying stuff, particularly Ian who broke this down with lots of inverted comma's and things, and made clear my muddy argument, I think
And apologies to the very lovely Noel, who's the strongest and most central guy I've met - well a couple of times. Hope you can take my fo as intended, from a friend and with a pinch of salt, comrade. I do understand what you mean about the dangers of dehumanising
One thing, as Andrew says, this forum isn't really about arguing the toss about 911, and the new pipsqueak clean website wont have a place for those with questions, scepticism or challenges, are we to offer no place where we can debate or explain the issues, for those who aren't with us, yet not entirely against us
Or do we inevitably accept that this will be the place? Well, I think Ian said it is

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

"We are oriented around giving the information out as cheaply (or even free) as possible.

The notion that we are out to sell disks and DVDs to make money is not supported by evidence.

Someone recently sent me £44 - for this I sent them 100 copies of Loose Change (in plastic wallets) - it cost about £7 to post these as I recall. I know of few places in the UK where you get a DVD for about 37p (even less if you discount multi-1000 run newspaper and magazine promotions)."
Andrew

Dear Andrew

Thankyou for your reply.

Books and CDs may well be exchanged freely or at little cost, but the people who started off the 9-11 conspiracy theories - I’m talking of David vonKleist, Jim Marrs, that Frenchman - Paul Messyan (is that the name?), David Icke and, no doubt, others, have probably made lots of money fromn the sales of their books and CDs. A friend recently showed me a magazine devoted to the 9-11 cause, and on the last two pages there were a number of adverts for CDs and videos costing in the range of $20 - $40. Clearly, there were many other people also out to make a lot of money selling their wares to the converted.

I have read parts of the books published on 9-11 by those promoting the idea of a Bush conspiracy. Evidence is cherry-picked to support the idea of a conspiracy. Contrary evidence is simply ignored or dismissed.

I have seen Dave vonKleist’s “In Plane Site”. It is laughable. The claims are preposterous. In my opinion, Dave vonKleist, on the basis of what I saw on the CD, must be a charlatan. Certainly, not the kind of man I’d buy a used car from, let alone anything else.

I believe Dave vonKleist is typical of the breed. Cynical and clever people who have spotted the opportunity to make a lot of money.




[/quote]

[Justin]

Conspiracytheorysceptic said:

[brian]

What would be of more interest to those that have looked at the evidence in the round is what you consider to be -

"Contrary evidence (that) is simply ignored or dismissed."

[catfish]

Conspiracy Theory Sceptic
Andrew Johnson said:

[paul wright]

[Andrew Johnson]

ConspiracyS:

Um - NIST report for Collapse of WTC 7 - due December 2005 - still not published - now put out to tender.

Scientific Papers showing CD

My own proof of (essentially) free fall collapse:

http://www.checktheevidence.com/911/Collapse%20of%20Towers.swf

(Yes - this one's for free, don't ye know!!)

Which other comments didn't you grasp?

We try to be civil to people here - and you have been too, so far.

What is your objective in posting a commentary which we have all heard many many times before?

And no, not all of our 9/11 Truth members are "squeaky clean" either. As I say time again, their level of cleanliness or capitalist nature does not affect the laws of gravity.

And it isn't a "Bush Conspiracy" - plenty of others are implicated by the evidence too. Most of the democrats can be implicated for not doing anything for 4 years - as can Blair.

Thanks for understanding.

[catfish]

Point taken dh. And CTS makes a good point, charlatans could make money out of this, although in my experience all of the info and films have come my way free of charge via this wonderful t'internet.

[ConspiracyTheorySceptic]

Andrew Johnson said: Quote:
I would like to state the obvious:

This is not a site which primarily focuses on WHETHER 9-11 was an inside job or not.


I think you should leave this site and carry on with your happy life in this wonderful, honest, carefree world and don't let us trouble you anymore.
All the best xx

Dear Andrew Johnson

You really do betray your real nature - asking me to leave this site. Yours is the essential voice of the cultist. Cultists abhor dissenters. I am a dissenter. Therefore you patronise me and request that I leave.

I see no difference between the 9/11 cultists and the cultists of 1930s Italy and Germany - the fascists and nazis. They, too, were unwilling to enter into a debate. They, too, had a fixed agenda. But, I have to admit, they did more than request dissenters to leave. They either incarcerated them or put them up against a wall and shot them.
I do hope you have no malign intentions against me.
ConspiracyTheorySceptic

[ian neal]