9/11 Conspiracy

[David Brent]

To all those with an open mind, check out the following website -

www.letsroll911.org

The site is dedicated to the theory that America attacked itself on 9/11.
I was a bit sceptical when I first read the "evidence" listed on the site. Since then though I have returned to actual documentary footage and newscast film taken on that terrible day and have found many unanswered questions. These are -

Early news coverage of the Pentagon crash show little or no plane wreckage. The early footage also shows that the top section of the Pentagon building that suffered the impact was still standing when firemen arrived (firemen were actually filmed standing at the very top of the hit structure). The top structure collapsing much later.
The impact area on the building was very small, much smaller than the size of an impact from a passenger jet hitting it. There was also no evidence of the usual jet fuel fireball that occurs at crashes.
The Pentagon was apparantly one of the most protected buildings in Washington. Why then has the US Government only revealed to the public footage from one security camera? Why does that released footage show no evidence of a jet airliner hitting the building? Why did early witnesses near the scene describe a "missile" hitting the building.

A trained Fox news reporter and a number of bystanders described the low flying planes that hit the Twin Towers as "having no windows"and not looking like any known commercial airliner. Early news reports described the planes as being like cargo planes.
Photographs and film of the second plane hitting the Tower clearly show something attached to the underbelly of the plane. Military drone planes are known to have such apparatus on their underbelly - not commercial flights.

Trained firefighters inside the Twin Towers and media and bystanders outside all described a number of explosions going off in the buildings some time after the planes impacted and just prior to the Towers collapsing. The explosions were so loud that they shook the surrounding streets. Firemen reported that it seemed like "planted bombs" were inside the building.
Two firemen being interviewed at the scene described the explosions as being like demolition charges going off.
The Twin Towers had been built to withstand the possible impact of a Boeing 707 yet they both collapsed quickly and in a "controlled" manner.

The lack of plane wreckage at the Shanksville, Pennsylvania crash site. No tail, no wings, no luggage and from first hand news reports - apparantly no bodies.

There are many other questions that need answering.
Why would the US attack its own builings at the cost of thousands of lives? I cannot comprehend the answer. It is a fact though that based on the happenings of 9/11 President Bush started the "War On Terror" and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq - again at the cost of thousands of lives.

Do not take my word for it. Read the website I've listed and then take the time to go back over news and documentary film footage taken at the time of the initial impacts.

As I see it, even if the US Government has told just one lie connected to 9/11 then you have a conspiracy on your hands.

Dave.

[penfold]

Originally Posted by David Brent To all those with an open mind, check out the following website - www.letsroll911.org Photographs and film of the second plane hitting the Tower clearly show something attached to the underbelly of the plane. Military drone planes are known to have such apparatus on their underbelly - not commercial flights.

Look at the angle the light is coming from in that shot....raking along the underside of the wings at a shallow angle. What looks like a pod is a combination of the wing root bulge (visible on the model) and the shadow of the starboard engine nacelle...IMO.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by David Brent A trained Fox news reporter;) and a number of bystanders described the low flying planes that hit the Twin Towers as "having no windows"and not looking like any known commercial airliner. Early news reports described the planes as being like cargo planes.

To 'drone' a commercial airliner would be a massive task and from the fighters I've seen droned they struggle to maintain uniform flight.

It's nonsense from very bored people.

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by DB7 To 'drone' a commercial airliner would be a massive task and from the fighters I've seen droned they struggle to maintain uniform flight. It's nonsense from very bored people.

Mmm intersting. Droning airliners is easy peasy. They flew a 707 for those famous fuel/explosion tests decades ago. If you walk around farnborough airshow any year you'll see plenty of viable, and well used drones on display. This is not new technology.

I am usnsure about the pictures (can't get the video to run) but I am unconvinced that it is the shadow of a normal aircraft, but I am sceptical of this bit of conspiracy theory. Firstly why fly 2 airliners into the WTC - one would have same condemnation. Why put a drone pod on the outside of a plane? all the kit could be inside. Thirdly why use a laser guided system when anyone can remotely fly a 737 into the WTC.

I AM of the theory that the Pensylvania plane United 933 was shot down. We know that the US and UK have a shoot it down policy, so it would be no surprise if they had implimented it. It is also no surprise that if they had the opportunity to shoot it down in secret they'd take it, and attempt cover up if viable. We have not seen any witnesses, the flight recorder data was slow to be released, the site was rarely shown, the transcripts are lacking for the last seconds. The 'make them heros' approach to explaining the crash seems a gift to the US Govt.

Pentagon...funny how we have no where near the footage that the WTC got. I remain unconvinced that it was an aircraft hit.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by spinalman Mmm intersting. Droning airliners is easy peasy.

According to the State Dept:
Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled

Thierry Meyssan - US Department of State

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by DB7 According to the State Dept: Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled Thierry Meyssan - US Department of State

Ha!. Well I have in mind the very famous pictures of a Boeing 707 being remotely controlled in the 80's...so I really don't care for any US government ambiguous statement. Yes, standard Boeings are not remote controlled - but they CAN be, just as a VW Golf does not....but that is very different to saying that they can not be modified to do so.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by spinalman Mmm intersting.

Not very

I remain unconvinced that it was an aircraft hit.

There's no need to feed the conspiracy theorists, they are self-sustaining.

Tell you what though, maybe all this talk of it being a conspiracy is really just a conspiracy

Steve

[DB7]

Originally Posted by spinalman Ha!. Well I have in mind the very famous pictures of a Boeing 707.

Afaik the '707' on Youtube was a Nasa 720 transport plane and it performed a basic 9 minute manouvre - if you watch the cockpit view it struggles to maintain level flight and plunges into the ground rather than any semblance of controlled landing. I seem to recall it was to test aviation fuel etc.

The idea that two planes can be snook away, wired up with remote hydraulics etc, then returned to an airline without anybody querying it is just too far fetched.

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by DB7 Afaik the '707' on Youtube was a Nasa 720 transport plane and it performed a basic 9 minute manouvre - if you watch the cockpit view it struggles to maintain level flight and plunges into the ground rather than any semblance of controlled landing. I seem to recall it was to test aviation fuel etc. The idea that two planes can be snook away, wired up with remote hydraulics etc, then returned to an airline without anybody querying it is just too far fetched.

Hi DB7, Indeed, I did say i find it difficult to understand this conspiracy - in why two planes not one, why use laser guided not remote, why a pod - but I don't like being told by US governments that Boeings can't be controlled when they can.

The 707 was flown 25+ years ago, and advances (certainly in the military) since then have made a quantum leap. With fly-by wire the defacto way to control in most new airliners now it doesn't really matter where that joystick is. The evidence provided is ambiguous, and I don't doubt the US Govt. could create a ghost airliner...if they wanted- but I don't believe they would.

Shooting down United 93 seems less of a issue for the conspiracists.

[Rowdon]

The thing which annoys me most about the whole conspiracy question is that there are clearly some valid questions which people on various websites are trying to answer when it should be up to the goivernments in question to answer them. What we have is some ill-informed people on one side shaking their fists crying"conspiracy" and some others equally ill-informed on the other side shouting ... erm ... "conspiracy theorists smell" or something. Why aren't we being informed? If flight 93 was shot down, tell us - I don't think anybody would be that shocked. If it wasn't, explain where all the bits are. And where the bits of the plane that went into the Pentagon are.
Why should this become a slanging match between ill-informed groups?
Now - if the governments refuse to answer the poeple's questions, and won't explain why, then these "conspiracy theories" will grow and grow - even if the governments have nothing to hide.

[penfold]

If, for the sake of argument, this is all a US Government conspiracy, do you honestly think that out of all the hundreds of people who would have had to be involved in it for it to have worked, none of them would have broken cover to the media about the cold-blooded murder of 3.000 of their own people ?? And is Osama a plant too, as he took the credit for it...and if the tower aircraft were unmanned cargo planes, why not the one that was 'shot down'?? Where are the 'passengers' then...they got on board, their families are missing them...? The world's biggest witness protection programme? or in a giant ditch somewhere?? And if the latter, what's the point of switching aircraft???
Sorry, the 'conspiracy' makes no sense whatsoever.

[Marky B]

I wouldn't trust Bush (or Blair) as far as I could throw him,but I think this conspiracy theory is just twaddle.
Ta Ta
Marky B

[David Brent]

The evidence tends to show that a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11.
The Pentagon "attack" happened on the same day that two planes hit the Twin Towers. I think everyone would agree that this is no coicidence.
That all three strikes were pre-planned and committed by the same group of people is obvious.
The US Government quickly released details to the world that a group of terrorists armed only with boxcutters had hijacked the planes and flown into the three sites.

If the US Government can show no evidence that an airliner actually hit the Pentagon then it is more than possible that the world is being told a lie.
If they lied about the Pentagon hit then it is more than likely that they have told lies surrounding the attacks on the Twin Towers.
Why would the US Government lie if a genuine terrorist attack had occurred?
A government lies to its people to hide the real story.
A cover-up begins. For whatever the reason is that lies behind the attacks - you have a conspiracy on your hands.

Dave.

[David Brent]

Originally Posted by DB7 The idea that two planes can be snook away, wired up with remote hydraulics etc, then returned to an airline without anybody querying it is just too far fetched.

Not too far fetched if the planes were not commercial airliners but military planes (marked to look like airliners) departing from a military base.
I know of no commercial airliners that operate "without windows".

Dave.

[David Brent]

The second plane to hit the Twin Towers.
Showing an underbelly unlike any other commercial airliner.

Dave.