Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

[deuse]

But, but there are no lies.

Apply Occam's razor to it. What's the simplest explanation? That terrorists hijacked some planes and smashed them in to the WTC? Or that there's some global conspiracy of all major media and western governments to make people believe that plans crashed in to the WTC when in actual fact they were carefully demolished in such a way to make it look like a terrorist attack. This of course has to include all of the eye witnesses being brainwashed, the demolition or missiles (?) being planted / fired without anyone blowing the whistle or noticing anything, and all the plane manifests being forged and bodies planted etc etc. also without anyone noticing.

I mean, come on. Really?

The USA Government\NIST\Commission made so many mistake and never put them right it's just silly.

Like NIST said that flight 93 that crashed and killed those poor people, left a 20ft hole and a big gash in the field.

Trouble is the gash and the hole was there in a 1994 U.S.G.S (United States Geological Survey) map of the reclaimed mine.

No wonder no one believe's the US

 

[anything I don't mind]

But, but there are no lies.

Apply Occam's razor to it. What's the simplest explanation? That terrorists hijacked some planes and smashed them in to the WTC? Or that there's some global conspiracy of all major media and western governments to make people believe that plans crashed in to the WTC when in actual fact they were carefully demolished in such a way to make it look like a terrorist attack. This of course has to include all of the eye witnesses being brainwashed, the demolition or missiles (?) being planted / fired without anyone blowing the whistle or noticing anything, and all the plane manifests being forged and bodies planted etc etc. also without anyone noticing.

I mean, come on. Really?

It is difficult to accept i do not deny that. But you can not simply dismiss something on the merit that "its too difficult to believe". The fact that it is so difficult to believe is one of the very reasons how they manage to get away with it.

The simplest explanation is the official narrative? realy? This is definitely not the case, it is only the case if you have never looked in to it.

People have been blowing the whistle, that is the thing. six of the 911 commission report individuals have come out and said the investigation was a sham. This is significant. Countless experts have come out and shared their expertise on the official narrative being incorrect.

 

[anything I don't mind]

so the thousands of people who saw the plane are lying??

all the video evidence doctored??
even the live footage?????????????????????

These witnesses where are they? well lets say there are 1000s of eye witnsses to the plane. Who says they have to be lying, they could simply be mistaken, they thought they saw a plane and the tv told them what they saw and they just went a long with it.

All the videos showing the plane impacts are fake.

The live footage? there was only 2 or 3 live shots all these are fake. Watch the second and fourth documentary i posted for detailed analysis of the media footage and amateur footage.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Strangely with wtc7 they didn't even need a fake plane impact story everyone just believed the non sense that some fires led to a complete free fall symmetrical "collapse". Just shows in hindsight people are so gullible when it shock that they probably could have just started a fire and then people would have believed the pan cake non sense theory.

Right, lets think about this a bit more clearly.

Lets imagine that you are actually right, the whole thing was a horrible conspiracy and the towers were brought down by the government (I think this is complete rubbish, but we'll go with it for my next point).

Exactly where is the motivation for then destroying, deliberately, an adjacent building? Whats the point? The act is done, the goal is achieved. Why conduct a controlled demolition on another building? And why give news outlets like the BBC advance notice that its going to happen? It just makes no real sense, it would be a completely pointless act, even if your views were true.

All of the events that day were so massively over the top I can't see the rationale for it being a 'false flag'. The potential 'aims' of such an operation could have been achieved through far, far simpler actions that would have proven just as shocking to the public. The conspiracy itself would have had to be so ridiculous complex, required so much planning, the involvement of so many people, at least a proportion would have thought 'WTF?! This is seriously wrong'. it would have been far too risky to work.

 

[robbiemc]

Yep.
The amount of people who would've been involved to make this work would be huge, yet everyone involved has kept quiet about it.
I guess every single person involved thought murdering their fellow countryman was a good idea then?

This is really as simple as it gets. An operation this huge and divisive could never, ever be kept quiet.

These witnesses where are they? well lets say there are 1000s of eye witnsses to the plane. Who says they have to be lying, they could simply be mistaken

I find that naive and insulting. I have many friends in New York (my dad lived there for 13 years) and two of them saw the plane hit. You realise that airplanes are quite easy to identify, right?

Many lols this thread.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The amount of people who would've been involved to make this work would be huge, yet everyone involved has kept quiet about it.
I guess every single person involved thought murdering their fellow countryman was a good idea then?

And what makes it more incredible is that apparently the ENTIRE media were involved, too. The media. We've seen what they'll do to get 'the story' and 'the scoop' yet apparently they've all kept this completely hush the entire time, not even anonymous leaks to unrelated sources, etc? The threat of repercussions doesn't seem to have stopped newspapers happily printing all sorts of Wikileaks stuff, so why would it stop them revealing something as huge as this?

For some of this rubbish to be true, part of the plan had to include 'Inform the BBC in London that WTC7 will fall at some point'. Why on earth would that ever be part of the plan?!

 

[anything I don't mind]

Right, lets think about this a bit more clearly.

Lets imagine that you are actually right, the whole thing was a horrible conspiracy and the towers were brought down by the government (I think this is complete rubbish, but we'll go with it for my next point).

Exactly where is the motivation for then destroying, deliberately, an adjacent building? Whats the point? The act is done, the goal is achieved. Why conduct a controlled demolition on another building? And why give news outlets like the BBC advance notice that its going to happen? It just makes no real sense, it would be a completely pointless act, even if your views were true.

All of the events that day were so massively over the top I can't see the rationale for it being a 'false flag'. The potential 'aims' of such an operation could have been achieved through far, far simpler actions that would have proven just as shocking to the public. The conspiracy itself would have had to be so ridiculous complex, required so much planning, the involvement of so many people, at least a proportion would have thought 'WTF?! This is seriously wrong'. it would have been far too risky to work.

The sense is there you just have to see the larger picture. I recommend you watch the third documentary i posted it is very good at explaining why 911 was done and so on.

On 911 there was multiple motives and multiple objectives.

Firstly there was the insurance fraud on the wtc 1 and 2. these buildings were built in the 70s and had asbestos, they were also quite poorly designed in terms of floor space, for the size of the buildings footprint they had relatively small amount of floor space due to the design. Thus the buildings were prime candidates for being taken down. Larry silverston bought the towers for a relatively cheap price as result of the state of the building, as i explained. HE took out a new insurance policy on the buildings before 911 adding in a clause for terrorist attacks. They knew that the work to bring down the buildings slowly would be too cost and disruptive and time consuming and the tenants would move some where else. Thus the decision was made to control demolition the buildings as the only option. They couldn't evacuate new york for a few days at that would prove practically impossible (although in hind sight obviously new yorkers would have done it). So that is one aspect.

Secondly, there was the cover up of massive financial fraud, the firms hit by the first and second missile were actually law firms investigating multi trillion dollar security fraud, all this financial investigative evidence was destroyed during the attacks.

thirdly, the vaults at the bottom of wtc 1 and 2 were looted during the attacks.

fourthly, they wanted to use fear of the day to implement the patriot act and change the discourse of the military to be against terrorist threat and so on. Read pnac (project for a new american century) document.

fifthly, they wanted justification to start a multitrilion dollar war with iraq and afghanistan and the 911 was used as a new pearl harbour.

sixth, there was the put options on the air lines and other trading that occurred that led to people making a lot of money on 911.

This is all explained in more detail in the third documentary i posted.

As for wtc 7, they brought that down at 5pm because it also had financial fraud evidence in the building and was also most likely used to cover up the crimes of 911 as the theory goes that there was a command bunker in wtc7 that was used on the day. They said that wtc 7 was set up with explosive during construction, in the event the building was taken over by terrorists they would destroy it. The reason bbc reported it early was because the word went out on the ground that afternoon that the building was "coming down". this is confirmed by video evidence and fire fighter witness testimony. That over the walkie talkie there was people who said that the building was coming down before it did.

 

[[TW]Fox]

That's about 6 separate motivations. The sheer amount of involvement that would have been required for the people affected by those 4-5 issues to get together and work.. wait, why am I wasting my time? This is just ridiculous. You don't kill 3000 people in an audaciously over the top attack using outlandlish never tried before methods because you are a wealthy person who fancies some insurance fraud, just what on earth?

The Iraq angle is ridiculous, they didn't need 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq, infact it wasn't really used for such a thing anyway. The Soviets didn't need a bonkers-massive terrorist attack to go into Afghanistan so the idea that the Americans needed to make one up to do the same thing the Soviets did 15 years prior is also just stupid.

The sheer existence of what is at least 6 completely unrelated motivations for the 'attack' demonstrates the problem with these theories. They can't all have been the reason behind it, even in the case it was a conspiracy at least some of those factors were coincidental. So if some were co-incidental where is the evidence that the others were the cause, and not also coincidental?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Simon Shack sounds like a genius.

Did I say genius, I meant moron! So he's also suggesting that every single eye witness, what, didn't see anything?!?

 

[Danny75]

Exactly where is the motivation for then destroying, deliberately, an adjacent building? Whats the point? The act is done, the goal is achieved. Why conduct a controlled demolition on another building? And why give news outlets like the BBC advance notice that its going to happen? It just makes no real sense, it would be a completely pointless act, even if your views were true.

All good questions, to which there may actually be answers. Thing is, there's no guarantee the answers (conjecture, even if surrounded by facts) will be accurate, unless you were in on the plot, if there was indeed a plot.

But anyway, find out which organisations had offices in Building 7. You might raise an eyebrow, or both. The Command centre for the WTC complex was there. The CIA had a whole floor to themselves. The SEC (Securities and Exchange commission) which was investigating a number of big companies for irregularities (i.e. crimes) had an office there. The SEC lost most of their files on these cases, apparently. Someone benefited, whether by chance or intentionally.

As for the BBC matter, there is always the possibility that giving them advance notice wasn't part of the plan. Who knows, perhaps someone in the know believed that sending the news out ahead of time "accidentally", so that people would at least wonder about it and investigate further, was the only safe way they could "blow the whistle".

As for people keeping quiet, bear in mind who they'd be up against. Not just murderers, but murderers with the best resources in the world, that can make murder look like an accident or natural death. And everybody has loved ones.

Like I said... conjecture, surrounded by facts. Just trying to show that it's not as cut and dried as it might appear.

Perhaps a government official from the CIA, Department of Defense, the IRS, the SEC branch investigating the infamous Wall Street corporate fraud cases, the Secret Service, or New York City's Office of Emergency Management (OEM) knows something about Building 7's odd collapse. All of those agencies strangely had offices in Building 7. The presence of OEM is particularly disturbing. They occupied a recently reinforced bunker-like space on the 23rd floor. Equipped with bulletproof windows, bomb-proof walls, and hurricane resistant windows, the office housed a sophisticated command center with top of the line military communication and logistical equipment. Perhaps Building 7 was a command center of a different kind, used as the true Ground Zero for the operation carried out on 9/11. A command center that became a crime scene after 8:46 a.m. that morning. A command center that needed to be destroyed.

Perhaps this OEM department could also explain the miraculously coincidental fact that on September 10, FEMA officials, in conjunction with NYC authorities, had arrived in the city and set up a command post near the World Trade Center for an extensive simulated terrorist attack operation to be carried out on September 12. Perhaps Mayor Rudolph Giuliani could shed some light on this subject. He confirmed this miraculous coincidence in his own testimony to the 9/11 Commission, all of which, unsurprisingly, never made it into their 'official' Report. "... the reason Pier 92 was selected as a command center was because on the next day, on September 12, Pier 92 was going to have a drill, it had hundreds of people here, from FEMA, from the Federal Government, from the State, from the State Emergency Management Office, and they were getting ready for a drill for biochemical attack. So that was gonna be the place they were going to have the drill. The equipment was already there, so we were able to establish a command center there, within three days, that was two and a half to three times bigger than the command center that we had lost at 7 World Trade Center. And it was from there that the rest of the search and rescue effort was completed."

...

Perhaps this is just wild conjecture. Perhaps there is a simpler answer to the questions raised by Building 7's collapse. But ultimately these questions are not an investigator's responsibility to answer. They are the responsibility of the investigator to raise. The responsibility in answering those questions lies with the official storytellers. They are responsible for plugging any holes in their narrative. Questions that arise regarding Building 7 are simply part of the natural speculation inevitably aroused by its suspicious collapse. They are important questions. They are the type of questions that, as stated before, the 9/11 Commission was formed to answer. But, incredibly, the Commission did not even allude to the existence, nor the absurd collapse, of Building 7.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_07.htm

 

[The Running Man]

Complete and utter ******** and an insult to those who died

See this is the kind of remark I was talking about. Yet as soon as someone says, im religious (and therefore must believe in miracles, dinosaurs, etc) they cannot be attacked in such a manner, despite having even crazier unconfirmed beliefs and certainly don't have their threads locked for doing so.

So millions, billions believe in miracles, magic, hocus pocus, yet they get a 'by' into normative realms, but when someone disputes something, be that the twin towers, or even dinosaurs walking with men - but not from a religious perspective they are thought of as crazy.

I think the mods did a bad thing in not allowing free discussion.

 

[anything I don't mind]

That's about 6 separate motivations. The sheer amount of involvement that would have been required for the people affected by those 4-5 issues to get together and work.. wait, why am I wasting my time? This is just ridiculous. You don't kill 3000 people in an audaciously over the top attack using outlandlish never tried before methods because you are a wealthy person who fancies some insurance fraud, just what on earth?

The Iraq angle is ridiculous, they didn't need 9/11 to 'justify' Iraq, infact it wasn't really used for such a thing anyway. The Soviets didn't need a bonkers-massive terrorist attack to go into Afghanistan so the idea that the Americans needed to make one up to do the same thing the Soviets did 15 years prior is also just stupid.

The sheer existence of what is at least 6 completely unrelated motivations for the 'attack' demonstrates the problem with these theories. They can't all have been the reason behind it, even in the case it was a conspiracy at least some of those factors were coincidental. So if some were co-incidental where is the evidence that the others were the cause, and not also coincidental?

The biggest problem it sounds like is you lack the imagination to understand how practically something like this could be pulled off.

firstly i would point out that we know that there has been large scale operations over a several decades involving 1000s of people at different levels that has remained classified. For example operation northwoods. Not everyone at each level knows the whole picture or all the objectives, its called compartmentalization or as they say in the movies, need to know. I think only a small amount of people had the full understanding of what was going to happen that day and i would be money on it that there was more people but they were taken out as a aprt of the cover up operation, low level techies that hacked the media and the FFA and so on. Anyone that was disposable that knows too much they will either pay off or get rid of but getting rid of is easier but in many cases not always possible due to the public exposure and other factors that i won't go in to.

I think the main driving force was the new pearl harbour as the military objective that i would say even the likes of president bush was aware of "at an attack of some kind will be done to justify the upcoming wars" the anti-war movement before 911 was quite big and even after 911 it was big in run up to iraq, but thanks to 911 they had the necessary means to push any spending through in that regard, which made the military industry very rich.

using the attacks to also claim on insurance is a no brainer, taking out the law firms and the fcc evidence and looting the vaults all made sense. The put options was probably completely different people who just found out that "something was going to happen on the day involving the airlines in question."

I highly doubt that the likes of president bush was aware of the full scope of what they were going to (ie controlled demolition) and i highly doubt that if he was, he would have allowed it to happen. Maybe that is me being optimistic.

Whether you disagree with the objectives that i pointed out in a previous post of not. There is clear evidence of western foreknowledge of the attacks. The likes of norad not doing anything, the put options on the airlines. These all point towards more than the official story being true.

In hindsight the official story is actually quite unbelievable to say the least. The official has little to any evidence to back it up and is highly unlikely to have occurred or been possible at many levels.

end of day it was an attack on new york that was disgusting and it is out of this tragedy that people want to find justice for the victims and prevent such atrocities in the future. I do not accept the official story, as far as i am concerned the investigation is still on going.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The biggest problem it sounds like is you lack the imagination

I agree that imagination is very much the biggest problem here.

firstly i would point out that we know that there has been large scale operations over a several decades involving 1000s of people at different levels that has remained classified.

Did any of those involve the murder of 3000 members of the domestic public and the total destruction of one of the biggest landmarks in the country?

I suspect not. Which rather changes how likely is to keep such a thing secret.

For example operation northwoods. Not everyone at each level knows the whole picture or all the objectives, its called compartmentalization or as they say in the movies, need to know. I think only a small amount of people had the full understanding of what was going to happen that day and i would be money on it that there was more people but they were taken out as a aprt of the cover up operation, low level techies that hacked the media and the FFA and so on. Anyone that was disposable that knows too much they will either pay off or get rid of but getting rid of is easier but in many cases not always possible due to the public exposure and other factors that i won't go in to.

And I guess everyone is basically just too dumb to see this, right? Yet of course you are totally enlighten - you can figure out the truth everyone else is so blind too, yea?

I think the main driving force was the new pearl harbour as the military objective that i would say even the likes of president bush was aware of "at an attack of some kind will be done to justify the upcoming wars" the anti-war movement before 911 was quite big and even after 911 it was big in run up to iraq, but thanks to 911 they had the necessary means to push any spending through in that regard, which made the military industry very rich.

What was it about Afghanistan (the only war that was directly justified by 9/11) that was worth the absolutely insane cost involved in carrying it out PLUS the huge cost of 9/11 itself? Are you going to roll out the shaky 'OMG OIL PIPELINE' one? Because that's about the only one really.

Might as well have blamed it on the Saudi's and taken all the Saudi oil, at least there was some credible benefit to doing that

using the attacks to also claim on insurance is a no brainer,

'Hey Larry, we need a huge terrorist attack so we can invade some country nobody cares about, fancy being in it for the insurance job?'

'Sure guys, that sounds great'

taking out the law firms and the fcc evidence and looting the vaults all made sense.

Yes, the government taking out law firms and looting its own vaults made perfect sense. I can't think of a single way for a government to shut down an investigation it really doesn't like other than pretending to fly 767's into skyscrapers. It's all becoming obvious now, thanks for helping me see the light.

There is clear evidence of western foreknowledge of the attacks.

Clear evidence? Or random bits of information in Youtube videos? All there seems to be credible evidence of is knowledge that there were 'attacks planned'. Which is evidence of cockup rather than conspiracy. Familiar with the concept of Hanlons Razor?

the put options on the airlines.

Fancy putting 'put options' in airlines. I bet nobody ever does that normally.

 

[Glaucus]

Northwood was no more than a proposal, it wasn't even implemented, so no where near 100s of people, let alone thousands, just lol.

 

[anything I don't mind]

I agree that imagination is very much the biggest problem here.
Did any of those involve the murder of 3000 members of the domestic public and the total destruction of one of the biggest landmarks in the country?
I suspect not. Which rather changes how likely is to keep such a thing secret.
And I guess everyone is basically just too dumb to see this, right? Yet of course you are totally enlighten - you can figure out the truth everyone else is so blind too, yea?
What was it about Afghanistan (the only war that was directly justified by 9/11) that was worth the absolutely insane cost involved in carrying it out PLUS the huge cost of 9/11 itself? Are you going to roll out the shaky 'OMG OIL PIPELINE' one? Because that's about the only one really.
Might as well have blamed it on the Saudi's and taken all the Saudi oil, at least there was some credible benefit to doing that
'Hey Larry, we need a huge terrorist attack so we can invade some country nobody cares about, fancy being in it for the insurance job?'
'Sure guys, that sounds great'
Yes, the government taking out law firms and looting its own vaults made perfect sense. I can't think of a single way for a government to shut down an investigation it really doesn't like other than pretending to fly 767's into skyscrapers. It's all becoming obvious now, thanks for helping me see the light.
Clear evidence? Or random bits of information in Youtube videos? All there seems to be credible evidence of is knowledge that there were 'attacks planned'. Which is evidence of cockup rather than conspiracy. Familiar with the concept of Hanlons Razor?
Fancy putting 'put options' in airlines. I bet nobody ever does that normally.

I wouldn't say the biggest problem that we face is your lack of imagination. It is fallacy to say that because you do not understand or can not comprehend therefore it is not possible. Your lack of imagination is not a factor that the theory is dependant on. If you fail to make a conclusive understanding of the full events that day, that does not negate everything that i have said. You do not have to be completely convinced in order for what i have said to be valid.

Of course there are military operations that involves killing people in mass, that are kept a secret.

It is not about being dumb or smart. It is about information. Most people have not come across this information before. If they have come across this sort of information it has been tainted with conspiracy theory tin foil hat stuff like on bbc conspiracy files. They don't seriously present the best evidence against the official narrative. They just picked the worst ones and make a big joke about it and so on. Whether you agree with everything or not, this is a serious crime and all investigations and evidence should be considered.

It would not be the first time that fake terrorist attacks or flag flags have been used to further a military goal. This has been used for centuries and is used to get the public behind military actions. Don't see the controversy with this one realy. To me its seems obvious that 911 was used to start iraq and Afghanistan.

Its not "the government" this is to take a superficial understanding of the way the world works. This is people engaged is organise fraud at a very high level, probably involving the military in the private and public sector as well as the media. This is not bush and blair and a bunch of other people form the state department sit in a room and plan the next war scam. Even the president is tricked with the rest of the people....

there are no random bits of information in these presentations. video and audio evidence is analysed, the official pictures evidence is used against the official story. Coincidences is like when you meet your wife at the shop during the day. 911 is not a coincidence.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I wouldn't say the biggest problem that we face is your lack of imagination. It is fallacy to say that because you do not understand or can not comprehend therefore it is not possible. Your lack of imagination is not a factor that the theory is dependant on.

Yes, that's obviously the point I was making

 

[dirtychinchilla]

haha!

 

[Malevolence]

This is what most likely hit the towers.



An AGM-158 JASSM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM or equivlent.

Could have been a tomahawk as well. But recently ive been thinking its a jassm.

Do you not realise just how ridiculous that makes you sound? Hell, you should have just gone the whole hog and claimed it was this that hit the towers.

A certain line from 'Tropic Thunder' springs to mind if I'm being completely honest.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Even our normal CT posters have remained away from this thread because anything I don't mind is going too far.

 

[/\ndy]

Yes, that's obviously the point I was making

Fox, do you believe the official story? Do you honestly believe there was no foul play by the American government? Just a question.