Pashosh
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/...dentities.html
Read about the hijackers named. A small plus-point for Loose Change

New video in case it was not posted here. New camera angle.

Hi Bambi, a little bit of a description or opinion about the link wouldn't go astray - or the page that referred it. It said you have to watch it in its entirety, so I sat and watched the whole thing - in excess of 20 minutes. The plane impacts were missing as was the fall of the first tower. About 75% of the fall of the second tower was filmed, but from quite far away. This video would be of interest to anyone who wanted to see what was happening down on the streets at the time, or to reinforce the "shock value" of the event. As far as looking for clues, I didn't find anything new.

Just wanted to save the rest of you some time in case you get sucked in by the message on the front which says you have to watch the whole thing - fast forward is definitely ok!

Ok, I've just read through 60 odd pages of the official 911 commission report. On page 238 and 239 of the report (page 256 and 257 of the PDF) I see a list of 19 names and pictures of the alleged hijackers. The link to the PDF is here [gpoaccess.gov]. Now when I compare the names in the report to the names on the list of people who turned up alive (links supplied earlier) I can personally see five matches. I invite people who don't believe this to do it for themselves.

To me this is clear as day - no kidnappers resurrected? How can this be? I'd love someone to refute this for me, but as I've asked countless times before - if refuting please quote a link or a source - as I have always done.

I don't believe in any of the conspiracy theories regarding 9.11

excellent. I assume you know who shot JFK too?

Your post is somewhat pointless. You don't say why you don't believe and I'm assuming you have not looked at any material suggested in this thread and thus are commenting on what you have been "fed"?

Now now Lob... lets be kind to the newbies... Some people are happy to not believe in conspiricies, others (like me) would rather focus on rebuilding bridges and stopping this perpetual hatred and extremism, irrespective of which side it comes from. With the amount of passion and time spent in this thread 'finding' inconsistencies, I think it is a brave statement to come in and say well I dont believe in conspiricies. However, I too would like to know WHY you don't believe in them? Any reason in particular?

There is some excellent comment within this thread with good links and backing-up of claims.

Sorry if I cannot appreciate an "I don't believe" one-liner. To be honest, you'r better off saying nothing at all.

I cannot deny that my eyes tell me certain things happened; this is not refuted but the undisputed fact is that governments have secrets and even though 30 and 50 years later, some are released to the public [still with censored areas], the truth is still out there (thanks, Spooky).

Not everyone tells the truth, especially those in power. How'd Marilyn Munroe die?

That might not be so far fetched:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6073449/site/newsweek/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in644719.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Sep20.html

http://www.factcheck.org/article254.html

Basically, there's very strong evidence that not only had Bush dodged Vietnam draft by getting a job in the Air National Guard (courtesy of his daddy) but he then didn't even turn up for his fighter pilot duties (Who wouldn't take the chance to fly jet fighter planes????).

However, when CBS ran a story about that, it turned out that the evidence had been fabricated even though the 'fabricated' evidence was substantially corroborated.

ie. They faked 'correct' evidence to discredit the allegations and fed it to a major US TV network in the runup to the presidential election. Even though the faked evidence might have been factually correct, because it was faked and shown to be so, the whole case was effectively neutralised and it made the network very reluctant to investigage further misdemeanours. Very clever.

Gav

Great thread guys! I have spend a few hours on it and still haven't read it all - and that's excluding watching the movie.

On Sunday and Monday evenings BBC2 TV showed a US-made two-part drama lasting 2 hours each based on the 911 Commission called "Path to 9/11". Essentially it dramaitised the events and intelligence gathered from the first attempt on the Trade Center until 9/11. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=path_nine)

This demonstrated, whether rightly or wrongly, the total failure of the CIA and FBI to get to grips with what was going on in the 1990s - or even work together. Towards 9/11 they had so much information coming in that they didn't even have the translators available to get into English. The agents on the ground knew something big involving planes on US soil was going down, but politcal considerations again and again from both Clinton's White House and Dubyah's refused to take any action with "names, dates and places".

For me where conspiracy theories fall down is that they require conspiritors with a high level of intelligence - and I'm not talking about what the spies bring in, but IQ. Like a murder it also requires a motive. What was the motive? What would the murder of approximately 4000 people on US soil acheive for anyone other than EQ or other terrorist organization(s)?

Motive? Plenty. Spend a few hours checking the links we supplied. I think I even supplied a link on motive above. Oh - and watch the film...

I have this two-parter on my Sky+. That's 163 minutes AND 121 minutes duration.....question is when to fit it in to watch!

Politically, many stood-to and have gained-from the attrocities of that day.

Let's not forget that the official account of 9/11 is a 'conspiracy theory' too: Except that the conspirators were a relatively small bunch of fanatics living in caves in Afghanistan.

Reason for 'The Powers That Be' to do it? A second term in office for a lame duck administration, the invasion of a country that had zip to do with international terrorism but was full of oil and carte blanche to curtail pesky (and previously irrevocable) personal freedoms in the US.

Just where did that 'Patriot Act' come from, anyway? It was like a wishlist of stuff that secret agencies had been trying to foist upon the US people for years but hadn't a hope in hell of getting past congress.


Gav

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_act - Americas answer to America's Constitution?

Can't believe that the government of the US,no matter what idiots they
are, would cause so much mayhem in their own country just to start
a war and gain popularity.So many innocent people lost their lives!

Dubyah started his first presidency on January 20 2001. Immediately he and his team set about securing a second term by devising the 9/11 conspiracy, pulled off less than 8 months later?

If so, surely he pulled the switch 2 to 3 years early, so the fall of Bahgdad could conincide with elections? And wouldn't he want to appear in charge, not dumbly sitting in front of a bunch of kids and reporters.

PS:
The Twin Towers collapse is nothing like the demolition of a building I have ever seen. Dropping buildings by explosive always starts from the foundations. The towers collapsed from the top downwards.


PPS:
I did watch the film (the time did not count watching the film), which was additional). The film proves you can prove anything with selective reporting.

Mary, please go back to the begining of this thread and read the very first post, which sets the ground rules for this thread. Then read all the posts on this thread up to this point. Once you've done this and you still feel like you'd like to contribute to the discussion then go ahead - otherwise please refrain unless you have something new (research, unique perspective, etc.) to bring into the discussion.

Well that assumes that Dubya and his team were behind it. That's one angle, but there could be others. We just don't know exactly who the insiders were, so it's just speculation, just as the fact that OBL was behind it is speculation (since there is not a single piece of real evidence)

That's correct. Number 7 exploded from the bottom just like a controlled demolition (got an explanation for that one??). It's not a normal type of controlled demolition, but there's no reason that you couldn't bring a building down by starting the point where the support structure is broken at a higher point, and progressively explode the charges running downwards. Sure, it's unconventional, but not impossible to do. A small point - the towers didn't collapse from the top downwards, but from the point of impact downwards.

True, we've said there are flaws, but the important thing is not to assume that it is ALL flawed. I posted a "viewers guide" in an earlier thread that sorts the wheat from the chaff. I think you'll find when you start examining the wheat it becomes a lot harder to dismiss.

My research is ongoing by the way, I don't claim to know all the answers, but at least I can try to narrow my list of questions. As the list gets narrower, each question gets tougher to answer.

One question might be - why was no forensic examination allowed of the rubble? It was shipped out of the country and recycled as soon as possible. Nobody got their hands on it to examine it. NIST spent years writing a report about how the towers might have fallen, yet if they had been able to examine the evidence surely this would have helped them with their report? I mean the theory was about burning jet fuel weakening the steel - so if I were coming up with that theory I'd like to get my hands on some of that steel to test it... Normally crash scenes, crime scenes etc. are examined and key evidence preserved and tested. Doesn't that strike you as very odd?

So the pilots had to aim for specific and different floors in the towers where the initial explosive charges were hidden. Then every floor below these initial and different floors had explosives hidden in strategic places all wired together to explode in a synchronized way....


Odd but not unusual with government/system obsessed with secrecy. Yes jet fuel can't melt steel and http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html give plenty of expert opinion in both directions including simply softening the steel until it could not bare the weight above.
Until the 'secrets' are made public - as they may be in 50 years - the blanks will be filled in every conceivable way...

Having charges connected to a central point (either by wire or radio) is normal. Changing the initial demolition point would simply be a matter of adjusting the timing (or order) that the charges are set with - just a matter of software I would think.

Sure, but the point is that the government didn't even investigate it and then cover it up - the usual departments weren't even allowed on the site - then the evidence was destroyed. And why would such secrecy be needed? If the weakened steel thing really was true, why destroy the evidence? Why would the government spend 23 million dollars on the NIST study after depriving NIST of the evidence?