9/11 "Conspiracy" Theories

tbergs

Full interview on Larry King a year later.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2014/09/10/intv-beamer-jefferson-file.cnn

lastexitlondon

I ĺove riot act. 

Drowned Out

Haven't been around in a while...
I have said it before and will again - people who believe the NIST report (based on models not available to the public), popular mechanics, and the commission report (6 of 10 commissioners said the report was hamstrung by the admin), are as much conspiracy theorists as anyone else with alternate theories.  You are not any more an expert on those topics than the people with opposing theories.  So you are doing the same thing as the ct's....'believing' based on faith in your source.  Personally, I've been down this road enough times to know that 9/11 agnosticism is the only way to go.  You are foolish if you BELIEVE much of anything about that day.

I wanted to link to an older thread because no one has brought up the video that I posted in it.  It is the most comprehensive vid out there - 5 hours, questioning the NIST report, popular mechanics, and the commission report.  
It covers virtually EVERYTHING mentioned in this thread.  No one would bother watching it when I posted it last time, and I'm sure no one will now...but it's worth a shot.  
Since this will earn the inevitable tin foil comment (thanks Gern for not letting us down in this thread), I'll throw out the statement I made at the end of the thread here:

'One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (...), only they feel no one has been brought to justice. 
All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots.'
Thread:
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/246475/not-even-a-mention-of-9-11/p2

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U#action=share
INTRODUCTION

0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl 
Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" 
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS

0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

PART 4 - THE PENTAGON

0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version
(wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field

0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete

0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

PART 7 - BUILDING 7

1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall

EPILOGUE

1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out

Cute selfie, believer.

Halifax2TheMax

Drowned Out said:

Haven't been around in a while...
I have said it before and will again - people who believe the NIST report (based on models not available to the public), popular mechanics, and the commission report (6 of 10 commissioners said the report was hamstrung by the admin), are as much conspiracy theorists as anyone else with alternate theories.  You are not any more an expert on those topics than the people with opposing theories.  So you are doing the same thing as the ct's....'believing' based on faith in your source.  Personally, I've been down this road enough times to know that 9/11 agnosticism is the only way to go.  You are foolish if you BELIEVE much of anything about that day.

I wanted to link to an older thread because no one has brought up the video that I posted in it.  It is the most comprehensive vid out there - 5 hours, questioning the NIST report, popular mechanics, and the commission report.  
It covers virtually EVERYTHING mentioned in this thread.  No one would bother watching it when I posted it last time, and I'm sure no one will now...but it's worth a shot.  
Since this will earn the inevitable tin foil comment (thanks Gern for not letting us down in this thread), I'll throw out the statement I made at the end of the thread here:

'One thing you guys should remember….even the most out-there, looney tune 9/11 truther’s heart is in the right place. They feel most of the same emotions you do about that day (...), only they feel no one has been brought to justice. 
All I believe enough to say unequivocally is that there are enough holes in the above mentioned reports to justify a REAL investigation. Independent. Peer reviewed science. Subpoenas. Grand juries. Adequate funding. If you guys don’t think so, fine. I won’t insult you or group you in with ‘the sheeple’ or any other group of idiots.'
Thread:
http://community.pearljam.com/discussion/246475/not-even-a-mention-of-9-11/p2

Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWUzfJGmt5U#action=share
INTRODUCTION

0.01:02 - 12 parallels between Pearl 
Harbor and September 11
0.14:10 - The debate: main issues

PART 1 - AIR DEFENSE

0.14:55 - Where are the interceptors?
0.16:12 - The "incompetence theory" 
(radars, transponders)
0.22:00 - The military drills
0.29:40 - Specific warnings
0.33:08 - The chain of command
0.38:10 - Promotions, not punishments
0.39:50 - The Mineta case
0.47:38 - Debunkers: "Mineta was mistaken"
0.53:18 - The Mineta case - A summary

PART 2 - THE HIJACKERS

0.57:15 - "Piss-poor student pilots"
0.59:38 - Marwan al-Sheikki (UA175)
1.01:52 - Ziad Jarrah (UA93)
1.03:06 - Hani Hanjour (AA77)
1.04:00 - The debunkers' positions
1.06:00 - 2 simulations of the Pentagon attack
1.13:10 - Someone knew?
1.16:40 - Airport security cameras
1.20.15 - The missing black boxes

PART 3 - THE AIRPLANES

1.26:50 - Passenger planes or military drones?
1.28:20 - Impossible speeds
1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
1.38:35 - The cellphone calls
1.48:30 - The debunkers' position
1.50:38 - If not from the planes, from where?

PART 4 - THE PENTAGON

0.02:35 - Downed light poles
0.03:30 - The missing plane
0.04:30 - The official version
0.05:24 - Problems with the official version
(wing, ailerons, tail, engines)
0.13:09 - The mystery hole
0.14:10 - The debunkers' explanations
0.16:20 - Conclusions on damage analysis
0.17:00 - The missing tapes
0.18:30 - Security video analysis
0.23.40 - Pentagon summary

PART 5 - FLIGHT 93

0.24.15 - The empty hole
0.28.00 - The debunkers' explanations
0.33:00 - Plane crash or bomb explosion?
0.34:50 - The debris field

0.37.20 - The shootdown hypothesis
0.38:50 - The small white plane
0.41:40 - "Let's roll"
0.44:25 - Summary of Flight 93

PART 6 - THE TWIN TOWERS

0.45:10 - Introduction
0.47:45 - The Towers' small dirty secret
0.53:10 - Larry Silverstein
0.56:15 - NIST vs. Architects & Engineers
0.58:00 - Robust or fragile buildings?
1.04:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #1
1.05:45 - The initial collapse - Explanation #2
1.07:35 - Problems with the official explanation
1.18:00 - The full collapse - No official explanation
1.18:50 - Law of physics violated
1.20:50 - The Twin Towers and freefall
1.27:50 - Debunkers' response to A&E

(Twin Towers continued)

0.00:20 - The hypothesis of controlled demolitions
0.01:08 - Debunkers: "Impossible to place explosives"
0.07:34 - Explosions in the Twin Towers (witnesses)
0.15:00 - "Fuel in elevators shafts" theory
0.23:25 - Debunkers: "Explosions not recorded by tv cameras"
0.30:26 - Squibs
0.33:00 - Explosive force (montage)
0.35:00 - Ejecta
0.38:00 - Diagonal cuts
0.40:15 - What happened to the hat trusses?
0.42:20 - Extreme temperatures
0.45:30 - Debunkers' explanations
0.46:45 - Twisted and mangled beams
0.47:40 - Molten steel
0.51:05 - Molten concrete

0.53:50 - Pulverization
0.57:40 - Victims vaporized
1.02:20 - Conclusion on the Twin Towers

PART 7 - BUILDING 7

1.05:10 - Introduction
1.06:35 - Official version by NIST
1.09:36 - Collapse computer simulation
1.11:00 - Fire computer simulation
1.12:20 - Debunkers: "Building 7 weaker"
1.14:25 - Preknowledge
1.19:00 - Symmetry
1.20:00 - Freefall

EPILOGUE

1.22:30 - John McCain
1.24:35 - The last word

Nevermind.

Gern Blansten

I love the logic.  Pentagon pilot was a shitty pilot.  How could he crash into the Pentagon?  

Dude didn't have to take off or land.  All he had to do was crash.  

Also...it discusses his bizarre flight pattern on the way to the pentagon...at the same time it suggests he was a shitty pilot.

Hence the shitty flight pattern.

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

I love the logic.  Pentagon pilot was a shitty pilot.  How could he crash into the Pentagon?  

Dude didn't have to take off or land.  All he had to do was crash.  

Also...it discusses his bizarre flight pattern on the way to the pentagon...at the same time it suggests he was a shitty pilot.

Hence the shitty flight pattern.

Well, that settles it. 

my2hands

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

mcgruff10

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I"m definitely going to check it out.

Drowned Out

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I’m curious how you keep such an open mind about 9/11 but feel that all US/NATO accusations levelled against Putin in Syria and Ukraine are on the up-n-up....not the place to get into that...but I wish you were around in the other thread I linked to lol

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I"m definitely going to check it out.

I enjoyed our interactions in the last thread (linked above); you were one of the few people asking questions in a civil manner...
i posted the vid twice in that thread!  Hope you do watch it this time  
in all honesty I haven’t even finished it myself. It’s flippin looooooong.

Halifax2TheMax

Drowned Out said:

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I’m curious how you keep such an open mind about 9/11 but feel that all US/NATO accusations levelled against Putin in Syria and Ukraine are on the up-n-up....not the place to get into that...but I wish you were around in the other thread I linked to lol

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I"m definitely going to check it out.

I enjoyed our interactions in the last thread (linked above); you were one of the few people asking questions in a civil manner...
i posted the vid twice in that thread!  Hope you do watch it this time  
in all honesty I haven’t even finished it myself. It’s flippin looooooong.

I'll give it a whirl as well but I find it interesting that by looking at the timeline you provided, everything seems to be explained, or pointed out as to why there should be questions, in 2 to 3 minutes. We're talking some highly complex, in some instances, issues and yet they can have holes poked in them or questions raised in a mere matter of minutes? I'm already a skeptic. Further, a highly complex "whatever you want to call it" (conspiracy, truth, event, happening, conjurring, nightmare, vision, hallucination, whatever) has only left the "whatever you want to call them" (truthers, questioners, seekers of truth, justice seekers, etc) with only 50 questions that "should make you doubt the official narrative?"

Drowned Out

Halifax2TheMax said:

Drowned Out said:

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I’m curious how you keep such an open mind about 9/11 but feel that all US/NATO accusations levelled against Putin in Syria and Ukraine are on the up-n-up....not the place to get into that...but I wish you were around in the other thread I linked to lol

mcgruff10 said:

my2hands said:

I may actually watch it, pass the tinfoil

I"m definitely going to check it out.

I enjoyed our interactions in the last thread (linked above); you were one of the few people asking questions in a civil manner...
i posted the vid twice in that thread!  Hope you do watch it this time  
in all honesty I haven’t even finished it myself. It’s flippin looooooong.

I'll give it a whirl as well but I find it interesting that by looking at the timeline you provided, everything seems to be explained, or pointed out as to why there should be questions, in 2 to 3 minutes. We're talking some highly complex, in some instances, issues and yet they can have holes poked in them or questions raised in a mere matter of minutes? I'm already a skeptic. Further, a highly complex "whatever you want to call it" (conspiracy, truth, event, happening, conjurring, nightmare, vision, hallucination, whatever) has only left the "whatever you want to call them" (truthers, questioners, seekers of truth, justice seekers, etc) with only 50 questions that "should make you doubt the official narrative?"

Maybe they thought they were going to lose ppl’s attention if they crossed the six hour mark? 🤷🏼‍♂️  Haha...I dunno man.  If memory serves, they aren’t trying to answer every question...just remind people that they are not adequately answered in the three reports.  Really, it doesn’t take much time (in video) to debunk a single point.  de-debunk?  There are 2500 words in a typical 5 minute speech.  That’s five pages of text, single spaced.  With visual aids, you can pack a lot of info in a short vid. This vid was a huge undertaking as it stands.  I don’t think it’s at all fair to infer that the filmmakers were lazy and/or lacking info....
And I never discourage skepticism, it’s my lifeblood

Drowned Out

I don’t recall much about motive or consequence...don’t think they touch on it.  That could probably fill another 5 hour vid

Gern Blansten

Doubting that a plane hit the pentagon is the same as doubting that one hit each of the twin towers.  It was all part of the same attack.

drakeheuer14

Probably decided at a Bohemian Grove meeting

my2hands

Operation Northwoods made it to the desk of the President for final approval...

And I'm the fool for asking questions? Lol, yeah ok

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

Doubting that a plane hit the pentagon is the same as doubting that one hit each of the twin towers.  It was all part of the same attack.

Believing the 3 reports contained the whole truth is the same as believing in Colin Powell’s yellow cake.  We can do this all day.

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Doubting that a plane hit the pentagon is the same as doubting that one hit each of the twin towers.  It was all part of the same attack.

Believing the 3 reports contained the whole truth is the same as believing in Colin Powell’s yellow cake.  We can do this all day.

Incorrect....Powell has since stated that his original speech was wrong.

Not comparable

Drowned Out

I guess we will have to wait for an admission that the reports are bullshit for you to believe that there are serious holes in them.

oh wait...as mentioned, six of ten commissioners said their report was stonewalled.  Knowing this, how can you not have serious doubts about the official story, and mock people that do? 

bootlegger10

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Doubting that a plane hit the pentagon is the same as doubting that one hit each of the twin towers.  It was all part of the same attack.

Believing the 3 reports contained the whole truth is the same as believing in Colin Powell’s yellow cake.  We can do this all day.

It seems pretty risky  to use a plane for some of the attack and then use a missile but claim it was a plane for another part.  

Gern Blansten

bootlegger10 said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

Doubting that a plane hit the pentagon is the same as doubting that one hit each of the twin towers.  It was all part of the same attack.

Believing the 3 reports contained the whole truth is the same as believing in Colin Powell’s yellow cake.  We can do this all day.

It seems pretty risky  to use a plane for some of the attack and then use a missile but claim it was a plane for another part.  

Exactly....especially when there were 103 EYEWITNESSES  to the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Gern Blansten

These ridiculous theories leave out all of the credible evidence.  Just completely ignore it...

mace1229

What I dont get with these theories is how to explain what happened to the plane then?
A plane went missing with hundreds of people. So if it was a missle, what happened to all the people and the plane, and how come there is not a single eye witness for what "really" happened?

Gern Blansten

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bdr_2IAJWU

I believe Immortal Technique

Gern Blansten

mace1229 said:

What I dont get with these theories is how to explain what happened to the plane then?
A plane went missing with hundreds of people. So if it was a missle, what happened to all the people and the plane, and how come there is not a single eye witness for what "really" happened?

Exactly....the planes were in the air, then they weren't.  There were people on those fucking planes that died.  They weren't riding a missile.

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

What I dont get with these theories is how to explain what happened to the plane then?
A plane went missing with hundreds of people. So if it was a missle, what happened to all the people and the plane, and how come there is not a single eye witness for what "really" happened?

Exactly....the planes were in the air, then they weren't.  There were people on those fucking planes that died.  They weren't riding a missile.

1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
(not mentioned in video....it was reported that the plane landed in Cleveland and was in a hangar, then the story was redacted)
- cell phone issues point to them being on the ground somewhere...scripted calls made under duress?
- huge holes in timeline of calls
- 'IT'S A FRAME' (passenger on voicemail)

Gern Blansten said:

These ridiculous theories leave out all of the credible evidence.  Just completely ignore it...

The theories in the reports contain complete contradictions and omissions.  Just completely ignore them. 

Gern Blansten

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

What I dont get with these theories is how to explain what happened to the plane then?
A plane went missing with hundreds of people. So if it was a missle, what happened to all the people and the plane, and how come there is not a single eye witness for what "really" happened?

Exactly....the planes were in the air, then they weren't.  There were people on those fucking planes that died.  They weren't riding a missile.

1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
(not mentioned in video....it was reported that the plane landed in Cleveland and was in a hangar, then the story was redacted)
- cell phone issues point to them being on the ground somewhere...scripted calls made under duress?
- huge holes in timeline of calls
- 'IT'S A FRAME' (passenger on voicemail)

Gern Blansten said:

These ridiculous theories leave out all of the credible evidence.  Just completely ignore it...

The theories in the reports contain complete contradictions and omissions.  Just completely ignore them. 

You've got to be fucking kidding me

Drowned Out

Gern Blansten said:

Drowned Out said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

What I dont get with these theories is how to explain what happened to the plane then?
A plane went missing with hundreds of people. So if it was a missle, what happened to all the people and the plane, and how come there is not a single eye witness for what "really" happened?

Exactly....the planes were in the air, then they weren't.  There were people on those fucking planes that died.  They weren't riding a missile.

1.37:30 - What happened to the passengers?
(not mentioned in video....it was reported that the plane landed in Cleveland and was in a hangar, then the story was redacted)
- cell phone issues point to them being on the ground somewhere...scripted calls made under duress?
- huge holes in timeline of calls
- 'IT'S A FRAME' (passenger on voicemail)

Gern Blansten said:

These ridiculous theories leave out all of the credible evidence.  Just completely ignore it...

The theories in the reports contain complete contradictions and omissions.  Just completely ignore them. 

You've got to be fucking kidding me

No you’ve got to be fucking kidding me
Childish, emotional responses are fun!

Bentleyspop

So let's say that what really happened didn't actually happen and that there was some sort of nefarious plot involving 1 or more gov't. agency. 
Can you imagine in this day and age something to back up the conspiracy theories not leaking at some point in the last 17 uears?
Something believable, provable,  and verifiable