There have been a number of long HP threads on the possible conspiracy scenario behind the devastation of 9/11. People tended to be split about 50/50. But the subject just won't go away - probably no bad thing. Read this:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=17821
[COLOR="Blue"]The Washington Times is a newspaper that looks with favor upon the Bush/Cheney/Obama/neocon wars of aggression in the Middle East and favors making terrorists pay for 9/11. Therefore, I was surprised to learn on February 24 that the most popular story on the paper’s website for the past three days was the “Inside the Beltway” report, “Explosive News,” about the 31 press conferences in cities in the US and abroad on February 19 held by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, an organization of professionals which now has 1,000 members.
I was even more surprised that the news report treated the press conference seriously.
How did three World Trade Center skyscrapers suddenly disintegrate into fine dust? How did massive steel beams in three skyscrapers suddenly fail as a result of short-lived, isolated, and low temperature fires? “A thousand architects and engineers want to know, and are calling on Congress to order a new investigation into the destruction of the Twin Towers and Building 7,” reports the Washington Times.
The whole article is, IMHO, fascinating reading. This is an organisation of architects and engineers only, and it's growing by the day. They al say that the three towers simply cannot have fallen due to the two planes hitting two of them. They demand a deeper investigation.
V
I thought that since it cropped up in another thread, I'd resurrect this one.
Your question is such a massive one, with so much 'information' out there, I think that's why nobody responded... it is a case of where to begin.
So since you mention the mechancis of how the towers collapsed, I thought I'd link to this video montage of eye-witness accounts pointing to there being a bomb going off in the lobby seconds before the first plane hit. It doesn't answer who dunnit, but it does raise questions about what actually went on that day.
I thought that since it cropped up in another thread, I'd resurrect this one.
Sigh...
How incredibly predictable.
I was talking about the thread linked below (Bin Laden Lone Hunter), in case you thought I meant the Facebook one:
https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=72405
I have remained polite and respectful of your opinions, Sunkiss, there's no need to attack me personally on an unrelated thread just because we disagree on something.
Being kind and polite costs nothing and makes you feel good!
What a convenient topic to raise. Oh, and of course 'completely' unrelated to what we were discussing earlier.
Well it is unrelated, because we were discussing Islamophobia on the other thread, this topic is about what actually happened to the Twin Towers. I find your attitude unnacceptable and request the mods to step in at this point, because I feel you are attacking me personally and I feel very uncomfortable about it.
I find your attitude unnacceptable and request the mods to step in at this point, because I feel you are attacking me personally and I feel very uncomfortable about it.
Are you being serious? or is that meant as some kind of joke?
If you're being serious you are over sensitive and need to grow a back bone..
Remove this before moving back to main forum
Please see mods thread:
https://www.healthypages.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=640867&posted=1#post640867
Thanks for adding this, Tigerlily.
TBH I'm not clear about what it's trying to prove. I would expect the plane impact and resultant fire to travel right down the elevator shaft. But yes, there are statements there about multiple "bombs" going off. However a skeptic would just say they were a kind of aftershock. Or witness error.
What really still interests me, as mentioned on another thread, is that bin Laden himself on his videos for the remainder of that year was effectively saying, "Huh? That wasn't us, and nothing to do with me?" His actual words - not quite like that 🙂 are in the other thread about whether he is dead or alive.
Furthermore, some of the supposed "suicide pilot terrorists" turned up alive half a world away, and in fear said, "I wasn't there, that wasn't me!" Evidently not, if they were still alive!
As Bush and Co kept heaping blame upon him, he, or someone looking only vaguely like him by the following year, were accepting the "status" of being behind 9/11 as ... well, that's the word: it gave them status in the world. Bush elevated bin Laden to something he apparently never had been. And this was justification for doing what Bush's father had wanted all along: to invade Iraq. Though, er, Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 nor with al Qaeda.
As a leaked document states, they decided they needed "another Pearl Harbour" to get the public behind them in order to invade. And even Pearl Harbour itself was staged, since the White House knew it was coming, but allowed it, as justification for entering war in the Pacific, never telling their Hawaii military to prepare.
It's all very strange, and we know by now how much we were manipulated through the media. Or maybe we don't really know just how much.
Whenever it's politically expedient, it seems, the West still gets audio tapes from "bin Laden", to keep up the appearnace of a threat. I don't think many people pay much attention to these Western media reports anymore of supposed tapes. Do we even get to hear them?
V
TBH I'm not clear about what it's trying to prove. I would expect the plane impact and resultant fire to travel right down the elevator shaft. But yes, there are statements there about multiple "bombs" going off. However a skeptic would just say they were a kind of aftershock. Or witness error.
I think what it's trying to prove is that there was an explosion at ground level before the first plane hit. But that might have something to do with the speed of sound... I'm not a scientist, so I don't know. I just thought it was interesting as it was something I hadn't heard before.
But I agree, 9/11 was quite clearly the 'excuse' for invading Iraq, along with (what I believe) the fictional WMDs. I think the mass protests that occurred in the UK at the time showed that the public were against it and we knew we were being treated like idiots.
I remember when I went on holiday to Egypt in 2002 , that I met an English woman who worked in the hotel I was staying in who told me some interesting things that weren't getting reported here in the UK. She categorically said that the US and UK would be invading Iraq and said it would happen around March time the following year. Which, if I remember rightly, it did happen around that time. The other thing she said which struck me was that Egypt was in regular receipt of aid from the US and that Bush was threatening to withdraw aid if Egypt didn't let the US use their land to locate strategic military bases. To be honest, I don't know whether they did use Egypt as a base, I just remember thinking the bully-boy tactics were distasteful.
It's a mammoth topic with many avenues. You could literally spend years trying to unpick it all, as I suppose many dedicated individuals are, rather than idle speculators like myself.
We have definitely been hood-winked over many things. Maybe the truth about 9/11 is that they simply didn't know who to pin the blame on, so bin Laden became the obvious scapegoat. Or maybe it's as sinister as the conspiracy theorists believe. Was it plotted or allowed to happen by the US government? I sincerely hope not...
OK, I don't want to get flamed - or maybe I do - but why does every major event have to have a conspiracy associated with it?
Regarding this group that was mentioned: yes, the members may be professional engineers, but that only means they belong to an organization that recognizes their qualifications. It doesn't necessarily make them smart or the top of their game. However, it's kinda fun watching how they try to explain the events that led to the collapse of the twin towers; sorta like how it's fun to watch the anti-moon landing crowd explain the photographs, or how the flat/hollow-earthers explain their belief.
OK, I don't want to get flamed - or maybe I do
No, please don't get flamed, Scott! It is a sensitive issue and you're right, conspiracy theories abound with things like this. Perhaps for some people the bare truth is hard to accept, they need to find reasons and answers.
I don't want to delve too deeply into it, because there's just too much 'stuff' out there. But I confess to a certain amount of curiosity. It is simply about trying to understand and get answers, I suppose.
The thing that struck me was something that I only found out this year as a result of another of V's threads, that bin Laden denied having anything to do with 9/11 in the early days, something which my friend has been telling me for years, but which I confess I thought that was just her opinion.
We have definitely been hood-winked over many things. Maybe the truth about 9/11 is that they simply didn't know who to pin the blame on, so bin Laden became the obvious scapegoat. Or maybe it's as sinister as the conspiracy theorists believe. Was it plotted or allowed to happen by the US government? I sincerely hope not...
IMHO it's up in the air and unproven just what happened on 9/11 - except that it certainly wasn't as told, and genuine attempts to investigate have been blocked time and time again.
One thing we know for sure, which is absolutely ludicrous of course, is that 9/11 was used as an excuse to get the American public largely behind an invasion of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was just an excuse. And it is a documented fact that the Bushes wanted to invade Iraq starting from a decade earlier, obvious speculation being that it was an illegal invasion just to get the oil.
V
One thing we know for sure, which is absolutely ludicrous of course, is that 9/11 was used as an excuse to get the American public largely behind an invasion of Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, it was just an excuse. And it is a documented fact that the Bushes wanted to invade Iraq starting from a decade earlier, obvious speculation being that it was an illegal invasion just to get the oil.
V
This I certainly agree with. Oh, yes, most certainly. No conspiracy there.
I'm not entirely sure oil is the reason, however. Oil may be a side benefit. I think the primary reason was for the U.S. to gain a hold on the Middle East in the form of permanent military bases - much the same way as the U.S. has military bases all over Germany...
Firstly I love a conspiracy. Diana and Madeline McCann to name but two.
However, we did witness planes flying into the World Trade Centre building didn't we, how is that explained away?