A discussion has started on another thread about the horrific events of September 11th, often referred to as '9/11' .


Janimal has made some points that require consideration, I think:

'and please please leave 9/11 out of any religious discussion. it was a political act and has nothing to do with anyone's god. and for the record we should not assume that it was an islamist act. far greater benefits were reaped by christians and jews after that day.'


'have a closer look at the financial movements around that date and you'll see what i mean. the put options are just the start. many institutions made vast amounts of money as a direct result of 9/11, and i've always believed that if you want to uncover who is behind a conspiracy you should start by looking at who reaped the greatest benefit from it, and that most certainly was not the islamists. there is still far too much pussyfooting around 9/11, and people seem to forget that that as amny as 120,000 people may have died in iraq. it doesn't take a genius to see that this was an obvious result of the attacks on the towers.

like them or not, terrorists tend to be pretty clever people and wouldn't take action which would result in the annihilation of their homeland.

i don't suppose we'll ever find out the whole truth, but there are too many glaring inconsistencies and loose ends for me to be convinced by the conventional version of the truth.i think the attacks were a self inflicted publicity stunt, and the only reason that islamists got the blame is the masses of oil sitting under their homelands. like i said - political act and not religious. '


'sorry, but i am serious. by homeland i was not referring to iraq in particular rather the middle east at large. there is a whole catalogue of irrefutible evidence of prior knowledge of the attacks by both the american and british administrations, and there are many glaring inconsistencies in the attacks on both the pentagon and the towers.

i worked as an industrial research chemist for 15 years, so i know my onions when it comes to researching things, and just for starters, many eminent artchitects agree the towers could not have fallen as a result of the attacks, as burning kerosene cannot melt steel. its like trying to melt lead with a hairdrier.

with regards to the pentagon, show me a single picture that shows even a scrap of plane wreckage. i have yet to see one, but there was an exit hole on the inside courtyard characteristic of a cruise missile. not my words, but those of defence analysts.

furthermore, the flightpath of the 'plane' which apparently hit the pentagon took an almost impossible arc to hit the south of the building, which was closed for renovation, and far from the more critical areas of the building which would have been far easier to hit. i have a good friend who is a retired raf test pilot, and he assures me this would have been a completely impossible manouvre to complete in a boeing.

another interesting fact is that the pilot which the american administration identified as having completed this impossible flightpath was described by his contmporaries at the training camps as being such a poor pilot that no-one would even get into a cessna with him.

i could go on for months like this, but i have a feeling i'd be wasting my time as most people are happy to be spoonfed the official truth and swear by every word.if we are being told the truth why are there so many glaring inconsistencies and impossibilities in the stories?'


'i'd like to make it clear to everyone that i don't set out to upset or wind up, but not to ask these questions is the greatest insult to the innocents who sadly lost their lives. '

To see the comments in their original context, look here:

http://www.wineintro.com/forum/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=000215;p=5

Somsuj gave links to videos which tend to support Janimal's view:

9/11 : The Truth : Loose Change :
Part 1 - http://novakeo.com/?p=262
Part 2 - http://novakeo.com/?p=263

well - it is a video where you can manipulate many things. [Somsuj]

Just out of interest Lisa has a page:

'Urban Legends and Hoaxes:
The Urban Legends of September 11th'

http://www.lisashea.com/lisabase/urbanleg/sept11.html

For theories, debunking and, indeed, debunking the debunkers, see these:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

http://www.geocities.com/killtown/flight77/debunking/paulboutin.html)


There's quite a lot on this issue:

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

Oh dear, is this the "missile fired just before impact" theory?

Or the "Its a fuel pod under the wing to make a bigger explosion" conspiracy.

Also heard the "The towers were blown up by controlled detonation, thats the only way they fell like they did"

"The pentagon was hit with explosives, not a plane, because look, the plane and explosive/impact damage dont correlate"

Now the real truth - Elvis piloted the first plane and JFK the second cause they were both stilll highly upset at the way MM (no not Mary Magdeline, Marylin Munroe) was dealt with. All paid for from Black Ops budget out of Navada. Jimmy Dean was drunk and didnt see the Pentagon (that icon of satanic symbolism) until it was too late.
True, honestly

and Jimy Hoffa is buried in that courtyard.

shall we start a thread on these "real truths" too ?

BTW - it was John Denver piloting the plane to Pentagon.

ok, so the various architects, structural engineers, aviation engineers etc are all talking bull then while the impeccably honest mssrs blair and bush arent? do me a favour. there's no smoke without fire and there's a hell of a lot of smoke around here. i think you could be making a mistake when you choose to believe politicians above all the others.

the heads of any administration are the gatekeepers of the truth, and many things we now know as historically true about both world wars would have been ridiculed at the time.

I do not believe that Blair and Bush tell us the truth all the time - far from it, but if you were to believe every urban myth and conspiracy theory, would you really be any closer to the truth?

I agree that, if people think that something could be going on here, then it should be looked into, but the 'debunking' pages I have read so far do make sense, to me. However, I'm sure that - with my limited knowledge on the subject - the conspiracy theorists could 'prove' their point to me, as well.

I watched the first burning tower on TV; I then watched the second plane go into the second tower and couldn't believe my eyes; I read about the people on board those planes; the mobile phone & text messages from them. There are records of flights, crew, passengers.

Maybe the governments of our countries know more than they are telling - I'd be surprised if they didn't - but the world has been plunged into chaos since those atrocities - how does that benefit the West? It has made many of us extremely fearful and suspicious. I cannot see that it would make any sense for this act of terrorism to be carried out by government agents.

As my husband said, a meteorite can do immense damage - more than might be expected from its size, and with no explosives 'on board', so why wouldn't a plane, flying at speed, carrying kerosene, do more damage than the average person might expect of it?

I would like to know more about the training, background knowledge, qualifications, etc, of these 'various architects, structural engineers, aviation engineers'.
Just how 'expert' are these experts? Just how genuine is their testimony? Do we know the context in which their comments were made?

"there's no smoke without fire"

Conspiracy theorists rely on people believing this, when they start up their hoaxes.

there is another matter - since we talked about standards somewhere else - is there any standard test where a jet with almost full fuel tank has crashed as low against a block of building as possible and we have surveyed the damage ?

i don't know any one has ever done it.

if there is none - how these so called experts confidently opine that the damage is more than expected ?

i have seen the second tower being hit - i have seen both towers fall - i have seen the subsequent collapses too. i do not think whatever has been told to us so far is not truth - at least part of the truth. i keep an open mind - however to debunk what we already know - someone need to come up with really good evidence - not "suspicions".

Janimal---

I had to take a little while to respond to this thread. Unlike many of you I am from the United States. I heard on the radio driving to work about the plane hitting the first tower--and on my arrival at work I watched the 2nd plane hit the second tower. I am a travel agent--my father retired from American Airlines. I have close ties to the travel industry and have for the last 30 years. In addition I have clients(children of long time clients) who live in New York City--altogether I know about 20people who where in the city on 9/11. Three of them were about 5 blocks from the World Trade Center when the 1st plane hit and they actually saw the 2nd plane hit. I am aware of the multitude of theories floating around regarding the events of the day. I do not believe everything I am told by any government. I am an intelligent person and draw my own conclusions about events based on information I gather from a variety of sources.

I will tell you it makes me very angry (that is far to mild a term for what I feel) when people come up with these "educated" crackpot ideas about events that took thousands of lives. I heard the cause for the Tsunami--was India was experimenting with nuclear explosions in the India Ocean--not an earthquake. Does that mean it was true--Good God of course not. I heard the US government actually shot done the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania--does any one have any proof--NO. Since none of us were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon--I don't think any of us are qualified to discuss--angles of descent, turns damage or lack of damage etc. If there is information being hidden--I would say it probably has to do with the construction of the Pentagon and how well reinforced its outer walls are--to try and prevent damage from things like flying airplanes into it. To me coming up with these silly theories--belittles the event and the deaths of the people involved. If the events of 9/11 weren't acts of terrorism. How do you feel about the underground bombs in London on 7/11? Maybe those were manufactured by the governments as well?