Conspiracy film rewrites Sept. 11

I disagree. While it certainly would be scary if any of these conspiracy theories were true, you're coming at it (I'm assuming) from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe them. I don't either, but I think that kind of person who does finds the notion of lack of control more scary than reptilian aliens running the world.

Coincidence means there's nothing we can do about anything. If the world and events within it are really beyond our control, we're stuck and powerless. But if it's the case that it's all a vast conspiracy, that every last bad thing that happens is on account of a grand plan, well, then there's the possibility, at least, that the conspirators can be exposed and brought to justice. The little guy can prevail. "Truth" can win out over obfuscation.

All I'm saying is, you spend time watching the people championing theories such as these and you'll quickly see they're not the most well-adjusted guys and gals.

I do believe that there was something quite odd about 9/11. I don't believe the administration, however useless it seems to me, would ever do anything like that, but then I don't know who would. It's all really confusing.

Well, excpet the terrorists would have had control of the bomb sniffing dogs who were removed from the WTC the days before the attack.

You are also assuming a level of sophistication that we haven't seen from Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups before or since. And frankly, if they could pull off something like that, I don't understand why they haven't struck again. (And please, if you argue against that by saying that the Bush Administration is keeping them out, cite your references. I won't believe you.)

There are definitely facts that are missing, or don't make sense together with regard to the event, but I can't put my figure on it. There's no doubt though that a real, unbiased and non-governmental investigation needs to happen.

I think that the government needs to release more evidence regarding 9/11. I mean they won't release the gas station surveillance tape, they released those calls, then didn't let you hear the people inside the buildings. It seems like if they didn't have anything to hide they would release these.

Ah, but the TRUE conspiracy theorist would just say that they edited the footage / calls, information before we ever saw it. :)

Hmm. I just realized that Conspiracy theories are self-enducing. Any attempt to put down the theory only gives more opportunities to call for a conspiracy. So, I guess we'll never know for sure unless someone BIG actually stepped forward and said: "Caught me. I did it!"

The film (at minute 45... oops, should have watched another minute before posting), suggests that the elevator shafts were hermetically sealed and that a fire could not enter them. I find this to be somewhat unbelievable.... but assuming its truth, there is no proof that an elevator door wasn't open on one of these floors upon impact. If it were open, one would assume that the so-called hermetically sealed doors were no longer... well, you get the point :)

Wait... you don't want to discuss the details? What do you mean by that? How does that further the idea of "eliciting the truth"?

If you don't want to discuss the details, what was the purpose of posting this seed?

One thing about the elevators......There were no elevators that went directly from the top to the bottom of the building. They were divided up into "segments" of seperate shafts with "sky lobbies" to allow people to transfer to the next elevator.

So, a 9 second freefall "bang" would not have been caused by either freefalling elevators or by debris/explosion traveling down the shafts. It might have been possible had there been one continuous shaft all the way from top to bottom but this was not the case.

Very interesting point! Could there have been non-elevator shafts (HVAC, net, elec) that caused the free-fall of jet fuel from point of impact to basement? This would negate the point of hermetically sealed elevator shafts.

As a Captain of the Boeing 737, and a Naval Aviator fuel is only explosive when in a vapor. So if there was a projectile of some sort that could penetrate the elevator shaft how does fuel from the wings get down the elevator shaft and then explode. A fuel air bomb would do it, but that requires the vaporization of fuel over a large area and a systematically timed ignition. I saw the film and they do raise for me a lot of interesting questions.

basilbub wrote
One thing about the elevators......There were no elevators that went directly from the top to the bottom of the building. They were divided up into "segments" of seperate shafts with "sky lobbies" to allow people to transfer to the next elevator.

So, a 9 second freefall "bang" would not have been caused by either freefalling elevators or by debris/explosion traveling down the shafts. It might have been possible had there been one continuous shaft all the way from top to bottom but this was not the case.

Hmmm.... from my memory of visiting the WTC, it was a looong elevator ride straight to the top of the building (excluding the observation deck). My ears popped, and I was amazed that I could travel 107 floors that quickly.

From wikipedia:

Next, visitors were whisked to the 107th floor indoor observatory and greeted with a 360 degree view of the New York City skyline. Weather-permitting, visitors could take two short escalator rides up from the 107th floor and visit the world's highest outdoor viewing platform.

Are you sure about no elevators going directly to the top?

How did the President lie to get us into a war? I have only seen circumstantial evidence to this point.

Oh come on, you're being sarcastic right? Here's an easy run down.
First he said it was because of Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq. That was untrue, or fabricated—more commonly refrerred to as a lie. Then he said it was because Iraq was pursuing a chemical weapons program, which had already been proved by UN inspectors working under Hans Blix to be false. Then, the justification changed to a program for the development of the now-famous "WMDs", which was never true and had also been disproved months before by UN inspectors on the ground. You see, when you know something isn't true and you say it anyway it's called a lie. So the statement is true: Bush's various justifications for entering into a ground action in Iraq were all fabrications, colloqually referred to in most circles as lies.
Gee, I kind of feel bad falling for such a blatant trolling attempt. Oh well.

Well, take it for what you will, but I was actually asking for clarification... not trolling. Hoping I can get more info on some of what you said:

First he said it was because of Al Qaeda training camps in Iraq.

Where did he say this? I've honestly never seen this claim before.

@ Shadybird, more information has come to light recently about the CIA prisons in Europe. Here's the NYT story; the EU has said that there is no proof for such a claim.

Bush, in a February 2003 radio address, said: "Iraq has sent bombmaking and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases. We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad." — Washington Post, Friday, June 18, 2004; Page A09

It bears pointing out, again, that all of this was ever disproved by the CIA, MI6, and many other intelligence groups. Bush has a rich fantasy life and tried to draw another link in his letter to Congress on 3-19-2003:

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. — Full Text @ CNN.com

To your credit I suppose it is easy to miss or forget any one of the dozens of justifications given for what is most likely an illegal military operation. There's lost more on the illegality of our various military actions in the Middle East here in case you're interested in the full galley. Besides, given the contents of both Downing Street memos, it hardly seems like Bush really needed any real justification. He just wanted to go to war, so he did by pulling his old "you're with us or against us" trick. I'm just ashamed that so many Dems went along with it.

Bush was relying on questionable intelligence, which happened to be trustworthy at the time. But given Saddam's history, any leader would have been comfortable using it. Over 70 percent of the population wanted to go to war. Only the blame-America-first crowd was against using proactive measures to prevent another 9/11.

I think we should have waited longer and gathered more concrete (human) intelligence, but Saddam gave us no indication he was willing to comply with the demands he agreed to end the war he started 12 years earlier, and there was more to lose by allowing him to remain in power.

Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, signed into LAW that the goal of US foreign policy was to change the regime in Iraq. Do you think that was going to come about on its own peacefully?

The guy wanted to assassinate George Sr. for revenge for crissake. What makes you think he wouldn't try to get back at us another way? What was Bill Clinton so concerned about?

There was good reason to believe that Saddam was capable of doing us harm in one way or another, and that regime change in Iraq was good for the entire world. It has been a difficult struggle, but we're there now and we have to make it work. Making false claims that Bush lied to get us into war is not helping the cause of a free Iraq and a stable democratic Middle East.

If Bill Clinton or Gore took us to war in Iraq, we wouldn't be having all this second guessing and conspiracy theories. It's a battle over ideology. The Left doesn't want Bush to succeed. Plain and simple.

Bush won't succeed whether the left wants it or not. He's a clueless idealogue.

It's not about outdated intelligence. I would be the first to accept that if it were true. The fact is that the same amount of evidence that existed to suggest Al Qaeda would attack the WTC did not exist to justify a ground war in Iraq. All this murky stuff people keep advancing about Clinton wanting to do the same thing, as if suggesting that will make "liberals" shut up, is a load of hooey. What Clinton, and Bush's own dad, did was working: no fly zones and heavy embargoes. These tactics have worked time and again. Of course Clinton had an Iraq plan; he had one because he had a nuanced foreign policy. For an example of Bush's foreign policy, see:

Check One:
Bomb __
Ignore __

If Bush is so concerned about "spreading freedom" why hasn't he done anything about the Sudan, Darfur, North Korea, China, or any one of a dozen other regimes that are a thousand times more dangerous to American interests or who are actively commiting genocide? The "Left" desperately wants Bush to succeed as do millions of Americans "plain and simple". The fact is that hes proven over and over again that he is violently inept. That isn't my fault as a democrat. It is my fault if he continues to get away with it.

"He's a clueless idealogue."

"If Bush is so concerned about "spreading freedom" why hasn't he done anything about the Sudan, Darfur, North Korea, China"

"he is violently inept"

Enough rhetoric. Your party is full of it. How about some real solutions for once?

Where have no fly zones and heavy embargoes "worked time and again"? If Bush's foreign policy was to bomb people first, why haven't we bombed all those countries? Why is he using diplomacy with Iran?

Please use a logical argument this time.

What's really funny is that this is a thread about a 9/11 conspiracy and it end up talking about Bush's case for war in Iraq. If we're still debating the topic several years into the occupation, how good could his justification be?

That Iraq comes into the discussion when we're talking about 9/11 should give people a clue what our justification for regime change in Iraq was.

mamaway - Admitting that our government, and by extension, we, have a problem is the first step to recovery. If Mr. Bush admitted for once that he made a mistake, his approval ratings, etc would go WAY up.

I agree - it was interesting that war games were occurring on the morning of 9-11. It would be interesting to get statistics on how often war games were exercised in the years before 9-11. It is plausible that this was a routine exercise.

A movie about "heroes" who brought down the 4th plane on 9/11.

Whether or not they caused the plane to crash to the ground before it hit a strategic target, why debate their status as heroes?

Am I the only one that finds it interesting that the only plane out of the 4 that magically was brought down was the one in direction of the White House?

Sure, I suppose that is interesting. The question is its significance.

Until September 11, 2001, NORAD conducted four major exercises a year. Most included a hijack scenario, and some of those involved planes as weapons. Since the attacks, NORAD has conducted more than 100 exercises, all with mock hijackings. (Wiki)

You know what's funny? Remember that old TV show called The Lone Gunmen on FOX? Remember the pilot episode?

In a foreshadowing of the September 11, 2001 attacks, subsequent conspiracy theories, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the plot of the March 4, 2001 pilot episode of the series depicts a secret U.S. government agency plotting to crash a Boeing 727 departing from Boston into the World Trade Center via remote control for the purpose of increasing the military defence budget and blaming the attack on foreign "tin-pot dictators" who are "begging to be smart-bombed." This episode aired in Australia less than two weeks before the 9/11 attacks, on August 30.

Well ain't that a bitch...

ps. mr. bmvaughn, i agree with your comments, I shouldn't debate their status as heroes. They were brave for trying. I still think that plane was shot down though.

Shot down contrary to the plane's cockpit recorder and black box data.

What makes you think that Flight 93 was shot down, or that the rest of 9/11 was a conspiracy?

Tell me something: out of the 4 planes, how many black box data were retrieved?

Yet they magically found one of of the hijackers' passport in the one of the wreckage.

Because of course, passports are made out of super indestructible titanium, meanwhile they still use wooden box for black box data recorders.

disclaimer: if you've never read Zaki before, this response might confuse you.

In fact, the documentary suggests that the calls were staged (repetitive short sentences, misconstruing AirFone for cell phone), and that the plane landed safely in Cleveland. The documentary goes on to mention a flight steward's log that he flew on the ill-fated jet years after its crash.

Possible? Most things are possible.

Probable? No. The evidence to the contrary is based on historical reference and not fact. If the plane is produced elsewhere, I'll buy in. If the bodies are produced elsewhere, I'll buy in.

No one is suggesting that Bush himself masterminded such a plot, were one to exist. Most of these scenarios have been kicking around for ages like Operation Northwoods, which hails from the Kennedy administration. A plan such as this could be carried out without much oversight, and regardless of the degree of ineptitude of the sitting administration.
I think the assertion being made by anyone credible is that the neo-cons—the same ones who took the 2000 election essentially by force, and who by collusion have managed to wage war on Iraq, Afghanistan, and (Coming Soon!) Iran—were able to manipulate events on 9/11.

You said it much better. I was a bit tipsy when I wrote mine :)

Sources?

Friend,

The operation was designed to leave The Superpower puzzled
as well as defeated.

Cordially,

jer

Friend,

It's a framework for perceiving, not a hard and fast theory.

The framework is not hard-and-fast mine. It can be tested
by all and compared with alternative frameworks.

The Washington cowards do not wish you or me to "have
proof." Therefore, we will each and all have to do our own
work.

Cordially,

Jer

Ummm... this seed is from USA Today. That's pretty mainstream.

Swamp gas.