Zeitgeist

[Zarxrax]

I've seen estimates that it would take approximately 18,000 lbs of thermite to produce the amount of melted metal seen on the WTC site. You honestly think someone was able to sneak in 18,000 lbs of anything into an office building that had lots of workers and so on? Really? Watching video of two planes hitting WTC (one of which was broadcast live worldwide) trips your bullshit sensor but thinking 18,000 lbs of thermite was snuck into the building and hidden doesn't sound at all strange to you?

I was lying in bed thinking, and that thought came to my mind! You beat me to it! If people had been sneaking explosives in, don't you think it would have been noticed? And how far in advance would they have placed them? If it was too long before 9/11, surely the explosives would have been found just by some idiot trying to sneak away for a cigarette where his boss won't find him.

It's been said that the explosives were probably in a form that could be painted on. What if workers just thought that they were applying some sort of fireproofing or something?
I visited the world trade center during the year 2000 as part of a class trip. A huge section of the building (maybe about 30 floors) was completely closed off due to renovations.

[godix]

But I am convinced that the government most likely had full knowledge of exactly what was going to happen.

Considering that the 9/11 commission report itself comments on how our secret service agencies had plenty of warnings in advance that something was going to happen, I wouldn't say believing this means you believe in the conspiracy theories...

[guy07]

It's been said that the explosives were probably in a form that could be painted on. What if workers just thought that they were applying some sort of fireproofing or something?
I visited the world trade center during the year 2000 as part of a class trip. A huge section of the building (maybe about 30 floors) was completely closed off due to renovations.

I think I've seen interviews where people said they heard construction or something while they were working in the building.

[Garylisk]

BTW Successful troll was successful.

[Phantasmagoriat]

meh. I should probably reply instead of just disappearing for a month :/

I appreciate the info you brought up godix, I really do. Yet this could go on forever, and it probably won't make a difference either way. I guess I'm kind-of in the same position as Zarxrax here. No matter what evidence is brought forth, anything can be debunked/explained in some way, yet it just leads to more questions. For instance, why would the gov't be so reserved about releasing the photographs of the pentagon airplane debris you mentioned. A LOT of people have suspicions about government involvement in the incident-- just to copy what wikipedia said: A poll taken in 2006 by Scripps Howard and Ohio University showed that, "More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East." I know the government has it's faults... but it can't be blind and deaf to this... so you think they would do something about it-- or at least be more open with the evidence.

But I am convinced that the government most likely had full knowledge of exactly what was going to happen.

Considering that the 9/11 commission report itself comments on how our secret service agencies had plenty of warnings in advance that something was going to happen, I wouldn't say believing this means you believe in the conspiracy theories...

While I can't speak for Zarxrax, I don't think the issue is whether to believe the theories, rather... it's about "not being able to rule them out."

BTW Successful troll was successful.

ha.

[BurningLeaves]

I have yet to watch this documentary so I cannot comment on that one. However I can recommend this one, while they do call in experts and site evidence it's unclear how bias their experts might be. Loose Change

Whether 9/11 was orchestrated by the government or not one thing is clear and that is our government did, and continues to use the fear instilled in us on that day as a motive for limiting our rights through the patriot act along with unlawful spying on it's citizens and limiting our rights citing 'terrorism' as a get out of jail free card. As well as enter us into a war by trying to confuse the citizens into thinking it had anything to do with 9/11 when in fact if Iraq played any role in terrorism it was minor compared to that of other nations. It's been almost 10 years and Bin Ladden is still out there, his head is not on the plate promised to us years ago but Saddam is dead instead. And from everything I've read there's not a single thing linking him directly to the 9/11 attacks. After the backlash of the Desert Storm war along with Vietnam our government knew it would need a pretty good excuse for the American people to allow our military to invade another country. 9/11 gave them the opportunity to take down the Iraqi regime, whether they created that opportunity for themselves or just used it to their advantage is still unclear to me, but either way it seems wrong.

Terrorism is real, but that doesn't excuse the amount of fear mongering the government uses to control us with that word along with the 'weapons of mass destruction" phrase uttered every time Bush was seeking approval for another one of his misguided missions.

The sad thing is most of the terror threats are happening from people already inside the country. Last months time square car bombing attempt, the Christmas (I forget if it was JFK or Laguardia) airport bomber. Even the South Park threat was from an extremist group in NYC. Yet the citizens of this country get so up in arms when you talk about immigration as if it were a race issue when actually it should be controlled and tightened for our own protection. Yet we continue fighting pointless wars overseas when the threat is in our own backyard and we turn our heads to it so as not to be labeled racist or insensitive. Though immigration is an entirely different rant and I'm extremely biased on it due to my location so I'll cut this one here.

There was a special on the History Channel about debunking all the popular 9/11 conspiracy theories.

As for the history channel I tend to find them extremely biased and Pro American Government. I have watched their specials on 9/11, the JFK assassination and Moon Landing "hoax". In all of these they did the same thing. Instead of taking an outsiders approach to try and find out what actually did occur through examining the evidence, they instead took the theories and went through them one by one in order to debunk them. So instead of having experts analyzing the evidence to come up with a conclusion they gave a conclusion to the evidence presented and tried to find ways of disproving it. I'm not saying they wouldn't have come to the same conclusion anyway but it just seems biased to me. If someone came up to me with a box of evidence asking me to put the pieces together and come up with an answer I'm going to come up with whatever answer I come up with, if someone comes up to me with the same box of evidence and asks me to come up with reasons 'situation X' didn't happen, I'm only going to be looking at things that might counteract 'situation x' instead of the bigger picture.

I've already went on a tl/dr rant here as per usual with me but I was actually surprised to see so many people on the other side of this. It's odd that here in NY when this comes up as a topic of discussion most people seem to believe our Government had something to do with it, or at least had prior knowledge of it and did nothing. But on a forum with people throughout the world it seems the opposite is true.

One last (I'll try to make it short for those of you who are still bothering to read) thing I am surprised no one has brought up yet. While I am undecided about the cause of the WTC, I whole heatedly believe our Government shot down the plane in Pennsylvania. (Which if they would just admit would make them blowing up the twin towers much less likely as in 'Why would they bother to shoot it down if they planned it in the first place?') There were eye witnesses seeing it and calling into radio and news stations describing it as it was happening, which would be pretty hard to orchestrate dozens of people seeing and describing the exact same thing from different angles all at the same moment with no prior notice. It was all caught on security tape from a nearby business which the government confiscated and refuses to release to this day and stories about the passengers making cell phone calls to their loved ones before they went down would have been impossible if they were at the altitude the Government claimed they were. Which is something the video I linked above went into depth with. Once you believe they lied and covered up a portion of it, the rest of what they did or did not do comes into a bit of a different light. As in 'I caught my girlfriend sending naked pictures to a guy online, maybe she really did bang that guy last week.'

[Pwolf]

So instead of having experts analyzing the evidence to come up with a conclusion they gave a conclusion to the evidence presented and tried to find ways of disproving it.

sorry, but isn't that exactly what you and these conspiracy theorist are doing? You look at the twin towers and say "i bet the government demolished the buildings..." and you then look for signs of demolition. Then you have experts say "Oh yea, that looks like it could be a demolition!" and then you find reports of renovations taking place within the building and someone mentions explosive paint... OH SNAP! THE GOVERNMENT BLEW UP THE BUILDING... no... a plane crashed into the building and weakened the structure. That is what happened, look at the facts behind how that happened before making up your own. Saying the government uses fear mongering but what about conspiracy theorists? It's all fear mongering, the government is using it and so are these people who want to push their own political agenda's.

One last (I'll try to make it short for those of you who are still bothering to read) thing I am surprised no one has brought up yet. While I am undecided about the cause of the WTC, I whole heatedly believe our Government shot down the plane in Pennsylvania. (Which if they would just admit would make them blowing up the twin towers much less likely as in 'Why would they bother to shoot it down if they planned it in the first place?') There were eye witnesses seeing it and calling into radio and news stations describing it as it was happening, which would be pretty hard to orchestrate dozens of people seeing and describing the exact same thing from different angles all at the same moment with no prior notice. It was all caught on security tape from a nearby business which the government confiscated and refuses to release to this day and stories about the passengers making cell phone calls to their loved ones before they went down would have been impossible if they were at the altitude the Government claimed they were. Which is something the video I linked above went into depth with. Once you believe they lied and covered up a portion of it, the rest of what they did or did not do comes into a bit of a different light. As in 'I caught my girlfriend sending naked pictures to a guy online, maybe she really did bang that guy last week.'

Considering the majority of the calls were made using airphones, the entire claim that the calls were faked, based solely on that cell phones wont work at high altitudes (which is semi true but not completely false), is complete BS. And that's the exact reason why I don't believe anything these conspiracy theorists spout. You take one fact about the events and then say that's what happened when in reality it's only partial fact which doesn't prove or disprove anything. Also, saying the plane was shot down because a handful of people said they saw it is BS cause you also have people who didn't see a plane get shot down. There's also claims that it was shot down because the engines and other larger parts were scattered miles away when in reality the entire wreckage was within a 200-400 yard radius (going off memory here could be a little more then that).

I also wanted to add that Loose Change went through several revisions after their claims were debunked and even went back on it's Flight 93 Claims TWICE! In the first film they said it was shot down, then they said it was switched out and the real one landed in Ohio (WTF?!), then they almost ditched it completely in the 3rd film. Not to mention other claims involving the twin towers and building 7. The film makers don't even know what the hell they are preaching so how can you take their word for it? "Oops, we might be wrong about the plane getting shot down BUT WE KNOW FOR SURE IT WAS SWITCHED OUT WITH A REMOTE CONTROLLED ONE AND THE REAL FLIGHT 93 LANDED IN OHIO DERP!"

[BurningLeaves]

sorry, but isn't that exactly what you and these conspiracy theorist are doing? You look at the twin towers and say "i bet the government demolished the buildings..."

I believe I said it several times and tried to make it clear that I do not believe nor disbelieve the claims. While I am open to the theory as a possibility I cannot be sure of it either way. Much like I am with religion I try to keep an open mind instead of believing everything that is said to me, whether it be by our own government or 'conspiracy theorists'. I don't believe the majority of people want to believe that our own government is capable of this or any other atrocity but I believe there are enough people out there that would like to fully understand the truth and with all this conflicted reporting we may never get it.

considering the majority of the calls were made using airphones, the entire claim that the calls were faked, based solely on that cell phones wont work at high altitudes (which is semi true but not completely false), is complete BS.

Which is semi true but not completely false?
I'm not basing my opinion on it off of one of the particular pieces of evidence but them compiled. I don't think they were faked I never said that, I said the cell phones wouldn't work at the altitude the plane was reported to be at when they were made, which would indicate to me that the plane was lower. Unless the government was able to intercept and hear those calls at the time they were being made they did not find out until later the passengers had fought back and perhaps were able to regain control of the flight. We don't know what happened but the story provided about that particular flight does not make sense to me. What would make sense however, is that washington received word of the twin towers plane crash along with the pentagon and believed another plane was on it's way to them. They did what they could, and what I would have done had I been in their shoes and shot it down. If they thought those people on the flight were going to die anyway why would they let thousands more civilians along with political leaders and possibly themselves go down with them? If that is what happened and they had been honest about it I doubt they would have even had much blame put on them, but because America has to always try and maintain the hero front killing their own citizens, even when they may have done it believing they were saving thousands more would never work in washington.

You take one fact about the events and then say that's what happened when in reality it's only partial fact which doesn't prove or disprove anything. Also, saying the plane was shot down because a handful of people said they saw it is BS cause you also have people who didn't see a plane get shot down.

Again, I never claimed to know what happened, in fact I said I was unconvinced by most of it with the exception being Penn. And even with the part I do believe, I was never there I said many times that I believe.. If you looked at all the conflicting reports and chose to believe something different than that is fine. I am not trying to change your mind or make you think our Government is an all powerful evil machine that must be stopped. As I said before the one part I do actually believe, I would have done the same had I been in their shoes, however I would have been honest about it after the fact, and since I personally don't believe their story I don't think they're being honest. I stated my opinion and what I believe. I'm not trying to sway anyone, I don't think we'll ever know the absolute truth.

To me it would seem more likely that all the people claiming to see the exact same thing with no way to communicate with each other and form a 'story' before calling in to news and radio stations are more believable than a group of people who claimed to see nothing. For instance if there were a group of 5 people in a room and 2 of them start screaming about someone leering at them through a window yet the other 3 didn't notice it or wasn't looking through the window at the right time/angle I'd be more inclined to believe there was someone outside the window.

I've seen 2 of the 3 versions of Loose Change, I actually was unaware there was a 3rd one until you mentioned it. I think like anything else they would need to be taken with a grain of salt, I was not completely swayed by all of their arguments and chose to compile it along with others to try and decide what is truth, or what is at least close enough to it for me to believe. Loose Change however is not the only place in which you will find mention of the tape... I think it was a gas station but I don't exactly remember, security tape being confiscated by the government. So unless there's a conspiracy there and someone paid off the employees to say that why 9 years later can we still not see that tape? They let us hear the phone calls from the passengers, they replayed the twin towers plane crash over and over and over so what is so bad on this tape that we are unable to see it? Why is it still a secret?

You can make up your mind about it however you so choose and what seems right to you. It seems you already have and I'm not trying to debate or argue with you to change that, I can only tell you my opinion and to be honest you'd have to show me some pretty hard evidence to make me change my mind about the penn flight.

[Pwolf]

Errr, when I said "you" i was trying to be more general to encompass all those who believe in these theories. Sorry if I came across as attacking you're viewpoints personally as I did notice what you had said previously about what you believed. I'm all for people believing in what they believe but some people are just crazy about this shit and don't bother looking at the facts and let other people tell them what to believe, for example Loose Change.

considering the majority of the calls were made using airphones, the entire claim that the calls were faked, based solely on that cell phones wont work at high altitudes (which is semi true but not completely false), is complete BS.

Which is semi true but not completely false?

Maybe I should've explained a little more. You can use a cell phone at high altitude but the problem with that is you probably wont be able to hold a long conversation. The issue lies with how cell towers and cell phones work, not so much the altitude the plane was flying. This is one of those facts that has been used to push the "the calls were faked" or "the plane was lower then intended" ideas. The problem with those statements is that the majority of the calls came from the air-phones and not cell phones. IIRC there were about 35 total calls made and 2/3 of those calls on the air phones. Also, IIRC, all but 3 or 4 of the cell phones calls were immediately disconnected and even the ones that were able to stay connected those didn't last long.

To me it would seem more likely that all the people claiming to see the exact same thing with no way to communicate with each other and form a 'story' before calling in to news and radio stations are more believable than a group of people who claimed to see nothing. For instance if there were a group of 5 people in a room and 2 of them start screaming about someone leering at them through a window yet the other 3 didn't notice it or wasn't looking through the window at the right time/angle I'd be more inclined to believe there was someone outside the window.

I think you missed my point... My point was that there were people who saw the plane crash in it's entirety and never saw an F15 shoot it down. If the plane was shot down, the plane wouldn't of hit the ground in one piece and it would've most likely not look like much of an airplane by the time it did. I was trying to point out that these films used the "reports" from the people who said they saw it get shot down but didn't take into the account the other eye wittness' who reported otherwise. You also have to take into account that people make up shit to fill in the blank. If a plane crashes and they see a fighter jet up in the air, someone is going to assume it got shot down. Does that make it true? hell no it doesn't. How many people in the middle of penn know what a plane getting shot down looks like? common.

I honestly havn't heard any reports of there being a tape outside of the films so i really can't say much. It makes me wonder if there was one to begin with or if it was just something someone said. again, I dunno, so I wont come to any conclusions based on that. Even then I'm not terribly upset if there was a tape and the government has been holding on to it for this long. Considering it's evidence in a terrorist attack, i'm pretty sure they would like to hold on to it (or they lost it... which wouldn't be the first time), although 9 years is pushing it (which makes me wonder if they really have it or otherwise). The difference here with the twin towers footage and the phone calls is that these were already out in the open. Every news station had footage of the twin towers and reports of the phone calls were already out there. if the owner of the gas station had made a copy of the tape and sent it to some tv station, i'm sure we would've seen that a million times also. Honestly if it wasn't for the other evidence that suggests otherwise, I might be willing to believe the plane was shot down, but relying just on a missing tape and a some accounts of people saying they saw it get shot down... sorry, I can't do that.

I'm really not trying to attack you or anyone's belief in what happened but I really don't like it when people use these films as a bases for what they believe and then recommend other people to watch them to become "enlightened" about what "really happened". I'm only trying to point out that the facts they present are only a small piece of the picture that helps push their viewpoints. if there's one thing I do believe in that these films suggest is that I believe 9/11 was used to invade Iraq and bring down Saddam. I think we missed our chance to get Bin Ladden because of that and now 9 years later we are still fighting a war and still don't know where the guy is. I think after the dust settled, the Bush administration had preconceived ideas about Iraq way before 9/11 and thought 9/11 would be the perfect thing to push their agenda. But I really don't believe our government would go so far as to kill thousands of americans when they could've easily conjured up some other plot that didn't involve innocent lives (US citizens at least).

[godix]

What would make sense however, is that washington received word of the twin towers plane crash along with the pentagon and believed another plane was on it's way to them. They did what they could, and what I would have done had I been in their shoes and shot it down. If they thought those people on the flight were going to die anyway why would they let thousands more civilians along with political leaders and possibly themselves go down with them? If that is what happened and they had been honest about it I doubt they would have even had much blame put on them, but because America has to always try and maintain the hero front killing their own citizens, even when they may have done it believing they were saving thousands more would never work in washington.

I was going to let this lie because there's no point in arguing this, but come on. What people reported seeing was a white plane near Flight 93. Which is true, the official report mentions that the government did send a plane after flight 93. The plane was unarmed and could only observe.The government freely and openly admitted they did give an order to shoot down planes on 9/11, although the fighters couldn't intercept the hijacked planes in time so it did not happen. The fighters we sent after Flight 93, for example, did not arrive until after it crashed. Odds are those fighters would have shoot down Flight 93 if it was still in the air when they arrived though. As for witnesses, if I saw a plane crash and minutes later saw some fighters flying around then I'd probably draw the conclusion they shot it down too, even though reality is the fighters arrived too late.

If the government shot it down, the only reason they would hide it is that the did not want anyone to know they authorized killing US citizens, even in an extreme situation such as 9/11. However, the government openly admitted to being willing to kill US civilians. Read the 9/11 report, or hell, even news sources within a few months of the event. There is no secret made that a shoot to kill order was made. In fact, some conspiracy theories center around that Cheney, who has no Constitutional authority to give the military orders, gave the order instead of Bush (which may be true. At least, this series of articles published only 4 months after 9/11 left the impression that it was Cheney's call instead of Bush's). There would be no other reason to try and hide that we shot down Flight 93 if we had. Instead, it would have been a major propaganda issue if they did shoot it down. Something along the lines of 'Look what sort of extreme actions we have to take because of terrorism, we gotta give up some of our freedoms to make sure it never happens again!'

Loose Change however is not the only place in which you will find mention of the tape... I think it was a gas station but I don't exactly remember, security tape being confiscated by the government.

You probably mean this footage from a security camera of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Which, I might point out, was officially released to the public by the government...


I linked to it earlier, but read the 9/11 commission report. That is the official statement of what our government says happened, and reading it would immediately disprove half of the common conspiracy claims. You may or may not think the report is true, but come on, at least read the stupid thing before making up your own mind.

Semi-on topic, A BBC poll shows that British people put the 9/11 Commission report in the top 10 books they would like to pass their kids. I found that rather strange actually, but hey, read the report. The Brits want you to.