Conspiracy Theories

The Bilderberg Group is setting World agenda year after year. The more they are exposed, the better. Sinister sonsabitches.

A conspiracy theory?

Global warming!!!

We all know they are out there, and some of them really are "out there".

I'd like to discuss some of the more popular conspiracy theories, and also find out if people think there is any truth to some of them.

Probably the most popular CT is about 9/11 and the aircraft crashing into the twin towers.

There is a wealth of reading material out there, some of which stands up very well to scrutiny.

The basic 9/11 CT goes like this - the attack was staged by the shadowy "under-government" in the US, for a variety of reasons, not least of which was the need for more resources, and to get a miltary foothold in the mideast in order to control regional resources.
It was also used in order to push through draconian "anti terror" laws, which could then be used for a variety of other purposes.

So, let's examine some incontrovertible facts.

Pentagon officials cancelled flights book months in advance because of "security concerns" on 9/11, there had also been intercepts spoken in arabic about "something big" happening on that day.
Jeb Bush (dubya's bro) ordered martial law implemented in florida (EXECUTIVE ORDER NUMBER 01-261) 4 days before the attack.

Insider trading worth billions was throwing the markets into turmoil in the days leading up to the attack, with many unknown "groups" short-selling United Airlines stock.
There have since been reports that some insider trading has been traced to senior people in the CIA.

Air defense forces inexplicably reversed SOP regarding hijacked flights, and despite the fact they said no planes were in the air until after the pentagon attack, they contradicted this a few days later.

The towers were in need of an overhaul due to the use of asbestos in the buildings - this was going to cost billions, but INSTEAD the buildings owners collected billions in insurance payoffs.

FAA delayed reporting the hijackings.

7 of the men the US accused of being involved in the hijackings are alive and well.

Osama bin Laden has repeatedly denied any involvement in the attacks - rather strange, given that terrorists usually queue up to claim responsibility.

Within hours of the attack, Bush went public to say that the attacks had been carried out by OBL - there has never been any evidence to support this, indeed when an FBI source was asked why OBL wasn't on their ten most wanted list, he replied "because we don't have and have never had, any evidence connecting him to the crime".

The authorities have always claimed that the burning fuel from the jets melted the steel, causing the buildings to collapse, however at the initial point of collapse, a woman (and others in other places) was seen waving from a hole in the building, pouring cold water on the theory that the heat was high enough to melt steel.

There are first hand accounts of underground explosions in the North tower.

There are photographs and segments of video which purport to show small explosions travelling UP WTC 7 - experts have stated that this was not a consequence of a pressure build up within the building prior to collapse.

Many experts have testified and written that a building could only fall within its own footprint by using controlled demolition, and that it was impossible for the buildings to fall as they did as a result of an explosion and fire.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on 9/11, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

It has now been admitted with little or no press coverage that WTC7 was brought down by explosives inside the building. This is simply the biggest 9/11 revelation since the event and "proves" to some there is a press blackout in operation.

Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said.

Many reports from survivors, eye-witnesses and firefighters tell of "bombs in the buildings". Firefighters also dismiss claims that the buildings were a raging inferno throughout.

So, there we have the basic bones of the conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
These is a LOT more reading, and quite a lot of it makes sense.

I don't subscribe to this theory, but at the very least there are MANY unanswered questions, and in the aftermath, there were a LOT of contradictory statements made.

Combine this with what happened afterwards and conspiracy theorists will point the finger at the US Military Industrial Complex (amongst others), which is still going strong and is worth tens of billions per year.

There's no doubt that certain people profitted from 9/11, from the mysterious people who short sold stock, to the owners who claimed billions in insurance.

The whole truth of what happened that day will never be known, and it's true there are some very grey area's, but at the same time, it's difficult to imagine a government (even one as corrupt as Bush's) deliberately planning and carrying out this act.

Carrying on with the 9/11 CT's, but shifting to the Pentagon, the hole left in the side that was caused by a 'passenger airliner' was WAY too small, even for someone to fly a Learjet in there. Maybe it was caused by a Tomahawk cruise missile fired from a B2 bomber, or a USN vessel sat of the coast? If a passenger airliner did fly into the side of the Pentagon, where was the wreck of the fuselage or the wings? and why was there hardly any scorch marks on the remaining sub sections from where the F-34 Jet Fuel would have ignited?

The whole truth of what happened that day will never be known, and it's true there are some very grey area's, but at the same time, it's difficult to imagine a government (even one as corrupt as Bush's) deliberately planning and carrying out this act.

You never know mate, Kim Jong Ill kills his own people for fun....

Carrying on with the 9/11 CT's, but shifting to the Pentagon, the hole left in the side that was caused by a 'passenger airliner' was WAY too small, even for someone to fly a Learjet in there. Maybe it was caused by a Tomahawk cruise missile fired from a B2 bomber, or a USN vessel sat of the coast? If a passenger airliner did fly into the side of the Pentagon, where was the wreck of the fuselage or the wings? and why was there hardly any scorch marks on the remaining sub sections from where the F-34 Jet Fuel would have ignited?

Then there's the mysterious "doppleganger" jet as well, and the evidence which suggests the airliner which supposedly crashed into the pentagon had actually landed, and the passengers taken off, before it was given a new identity...

It has now been admitted with little or no press coverage that WTC7 was brought down by explosives inside the building. This is simply the biggest 9/11 revelation since the event and "proves" to some there is a press blackout in operation.

Of course it was an inside job but the above line took me by surprise. I know it's obvious but do you have a source for this admission?


I'd always thought that the official theory still stood by WTC7 being brought down by an office fire at column 79. (NIST final report 2008). While this is clearly nonsense I would be both stunned and delighted if there was finally an admission as to what really happened-there would seriously be some explaining to do because such a job would require planning ie foresight that 9/11 was going to happen.

'Kin hell. If you only read CT sites then those are the things you'll read.

Read something like the 9/11 board on the JREF forum.

'Kin hell. If you only read CT sites then those are the things you'll read.

Read something like the 9/11 board on the JREF forum.

Or if you think for yourself rather than be told what to believe.

Take WTC7-this building was NOT hit by a plane, was a block away from the towers, suffered little structural damage and had a few fires. Now watch it collapse and tell me that's not a controlled demolition.

Or read the official report that cost millions of dollars and take into account the raging fires that covered 20 to 30 floors and ultimately took out one of the main support pillars after the    Penthouse on the roof collapsed.

But I suppose people who want to believe the CT's will say oh no you can't believe the official report but won't provide direct evidence to the contrary.

Here's a CT. Why has finchie signed up to a Liverpool forum and yet his first two posts are in this thread? He's a rogue agent from the government trying to uncover there lies...

Kidding. Obviously. But still, I find some of that very hard to believe. And trust me, I'm a guy who will open myself up to any train of thought. Just doesn't fly for me. Especially the OBL not doing it stuff - didn't they take responsibility for it?

Or read the official report that cost millions of dollars and take into account the raging fires that covered 20 to 30 floors and ultimately took out one of the main support pillars after the Penthouse on the roof collapsed.

The official report (NIST 2008) has far too many inconsistencies in it to be taken seriously. Have a look at the animation the report produced-it looks nothing like the collapse-it's just a cartoon!
So taking out one support pillar (column 79) caused the whole building to collapse. What sort of architectural design is this? We're not talking about a house of cards. Buildings are designed with redundant structures so that if one part of the structure fails another part will ensure no collapse. There were over 80 columns in WTC7.

Here's a CT. Why has finchie signed up to a Liverpool forum and yet his first two posts are in this thread? He's a rogue agent from the government trying to uncover there lies...

Kidding. Obviously. But still, I find some of that very hard to believe. And trust me, I'm a guy who will open myself up to any train of thought. Just doesn't fly for me. Especially the OBL not doing it stuff - didn't they take responsibility for it?

I'm from RAWK but having been put off by over zealous moderation and am considering a transfer!
OBL certainly did not take responsibility for the attacks. There was a clearly faked video (eg different shaped nose) when an imposter claimed responsibility. He's not even wanted for 9/11 on the FBI most wanted website-they just don't have the evidence (despite Colin Powell's assurances that the evidence would be forthcoming)
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

I always thought it was Osama, they say Usama. Pretty crap name change if he's trying to hide his indentity.

Tell you what finchie.

Travel over to NY, find the families of the victims, and tell them it was all one big hoax. Go on.

No need Ross. 80 000 petition signers from New York city are already there (including family members)

http://www.nyccan.org/about.php

OK. If we're linking to websites, try this one. Click on every tab on the left-hand side of the page and read every word and I defy you to beat the facts on there.

http://www.debunking911.com/

OK. If we're linking to websites, try this one. Click on every tab on the left-hand side of the page and read every word and I defy you to beat the facts on there.

http://www.debunking911.com/

Ha ha!

Just had a look through that. Some in depth sh*t right there!

I defy anyone to read the lot and still believe the CT's.

Oh, that's right. There were no planes, it was missiles. Duh.

I defy anyone to read the lot and still believe the CT's.

Oh, that's right. There were no planes, it was missiles. Duh.

And Elvis pressed the 'launch' button

I gave you one page that contained quotations from victims' families (based on a previous post about families). You come back with a whole website and ask me to debunk the lot. Many debunking sites use straw men arguments-ie pick false conspiracy theories and debunk them then claim victory eg someone mentioned the no planes argument-obviously bo??ocks. Off to footie now but hopefully later will explain my problem with WTC7 later. I've touched on it above ie the NIST report 2008 but there is also the issue of free fall for 2.25s. I'll explain later.

Finchie:

Larry Silverstein, the owner of the WTC complex, admitted on a September 2002 PBS documentary, 'America Rebuilds' that he and the NYFD decided to 'pull' WTC 7 on the day of the attack. The word 'pull' is industry jargon for taking a building down with explosives.

We have attempted to call Larry Silverstein's office on several occasions. Silverstein has never issued a retraction for his comments.

Photos taken moments before the collapse of WTC 7 show small office fires on just two floors.

Firefighters were told to move away from the building moments before it collapsed.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!

Now OK, this is from infowars, but here's the video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7750532340306101329#

On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, Bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

There's plenty more out there about the FBI not wanting him over this crime.

let's not forget the US planned to stage an event in the 60's, using  planes, to simulate a terrorist attack, so that they could declare war on Castro.This was called Operation Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Wiki is just one link - there's plenty of others before people start moaning.

One question - given what we know (or should know if you're in this discussion) about Bush, Cheney et al would it be reasonable to asume that they resurrected Operation Northwoods, given Bush's ties to the CIA through his father.

Incidentally, Bush sr is the only ex president in I know of to take advantage of his right to have the daily intel briefs prepared for the President given to him as well.

Family ties?

OK-WTC7-Watch it fall-it looks like a controlled demolition. I don't think anyone disputes that. That alone should open up the possibility of a controlled demolition so keep your brains in gear and your minds open!

NIST's draft for public comment was released in August 2008. In his technical briefing on August 26 2008, NIST's lead investigator, Shyam Sunder, explained why WTC7 could not have come down in free fall. He said:

"free fall time would be an object that has no structural components below it"

When challenged about this (and after plenty of mumbling at the press conference!), the final version of the report was corrected.

NIST's final report on WTC7 accepted free fall
"a free fall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25s"

The final report also removes the statement "consistent with physical principles". (which is quite a bizarre deliberate act)

NIST's final report blames one buckling column (number 79) due to "normal office fires". It does not blame the damage caused by the collapse of the North Tower.

Lets put it this way-a thought experiment-in a race the section of WTC7 that is crushing the building structure beneath it accelerates at the same rate as an identical section falls through air. The building structure beneath behaves as if it isn't there. This is only possible if the section underneath had its columns simultaneously destroyed across the entire structure (like a bottom up controlled demolition). Any differences in timing would result in an asymmetric collapse.

so my question is

How does a building fall at free fall acceleration (no resistance) for any period of time if there are structural components below it?

Don't forget the lead investigator for NIST said free fall was not possible.

Thanks KennyIsKing for sourcing Silverstein as the admission. I think I know what he meant by "pull it" but it is open to interpretation based on an assumption that Silverstein's grammar is poor and by "it" (singular) he meant the firefighters (plural) in WTC7. Here's his exact quote:

"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

Pull is a term used by demolition teams for bringing down a building (originating from the use of cables to literally pull a building down I think). Looking at the last sentence its seems clear what he meant.

But this is not evidence-this is open to interpretation-the building falling at free fall across its entire structure for 2.25s can only be explained by a controlled demolition.

To be fair it's Operation Northwoods which intrigued me.

Now we know all kinds of sh*t went on under Kennedy, as him and his bro played James Bond and thought they could get away with it, but this "coincidence" is stretching it a bit.

Bush sr would also have known about Northwoods (having been CIA director) and there is (tenuous) evidence to suggest he advised bush jr during dubya's time in office.