With the BBC programme about the possible 9/11 conspiracies it seems as good a time as ever to bring up the subject of a possible cover up. Did anyone see the show? What did you think? I know there are a few on here that don't think it all adds up.

I thought it was laughable. Good programme though, and it was nice to have a documetary of that sort which actually gave both sides of the argument.

Too much Money made by a select few.
Too much power gained.
Too many coincidences
Too many annoying little problems solved i.e. Oil/Gas through Afghanistan and Iraqi Oil
Not near enough proof of it happening the way we have been told.

I'm not saying we have been told everything. I don't know the reasons but sometimes things do need to be witheld from the public. However, people are very quick to believe 'theories' that don't have much basis behind them.

I missed it but have taped it. Have watched Loose Change a couple of times though. Convincing stuff.

I havent watched loose change yet but will do tonight.

The one thing that i still don't understand is why has cctv pictures from I think a hotel and a petrol station near to the pentagon never been released. It was siezed by the FBI within minutes of the attack and could prove what exactly it was that hit the pentagon.

Very interesting programme. Good arguments on both sides, really does make it hard to know what to believe. I am not naive enough to believe that cover ups and such don't go on.....but the "fake" theorists who create the rubbish don't help the real theorists cause. Like about 4000 jews not being there that day. They take an innocent thing and twist and turn it and build it into something to incite more hatred for Israel.

In my heart I don't believe this was something planned by the US government to give it reason in the eyes of the public to get their foot in the middle east, maybe thats just me not able to comprehend the horror of that idea!

The programme focused a fair bit on the way the buildings actually fell, more like a controlled demolition, and I must admit it always struck me as odd the way they just sort of crumbled down in that way. They showed you images of the towers going down and as they were crumbling they were trying to show you little explosions all the way down, implying these were set explosions. Interesting idea but with buildings of those magnitude crumbling I would image there would be a lot of natural explosions going off?

These theories will go on and on but like JFK, Marilyn Munroe, Princess Diana, don't think we will ever know what the real truth is.

It might have been the dunnies then?

New York should just be thankful you weren't there that day eh! I would image there would have been far more "explosion" damage.

I don't believe the US set it up, but I do believe they knew exactly what was coming and let it happen. Not too many would need to know about it, therefore easier to keep quiet.As the PNAC had said a couple of years before, to strengthen its position as a World Superpower, it needs a new Pearl harbour........How "fortunate" was that.

There should have been no source for "natural" explosions, as there was no gas in the building. A lot of comment was made at the time by news Crews, firefighters etc that there were secondary explosions after the planes hit, including some apparently in the basement. Prof Steve Young has an interesting theory about the use of thermite/thermate as there was 2500 degreee heat in the rubble some 6-8 weeks later. That though, means someone deliberately set thermite in the building beforehand, which would mean an inside job. Good thing there is absolutely no suggestion of anyone in power controlling security in the Towers and Washington Dulles Airport.........erm apart from GW's younger brother, Marvin, and I believe his uncle or cousin, who were in charge of the security company.

Ridiculous theories put up on Websites would be a definite tactic of the CIA if they thought people needed leading away from uncomfortable questions.

I watched the programme and although some of the theories had a certain amount of weight I wasn't convinced by any of them. However I'm not completely convinced that we've been told the whole truth.
I've always wondered why their security services claimed to know nothing about the intended plans when they're considered the best in the world (if only by them!).
I also remember reports of planes being shot down by the American Air Force on 9/11, and comments about 6 or 7 planes being hijacked. I often wonder whether that was inaccurate reporting or a cover up.
These conspiracy theories will never go away though, and I think that it's healthy to question what we're told.

I missed the prog on tv and I wanted to watch this one!. Don't know if it's the same story but I watched a dvd over in Liverpool - supposedly banned but not sure. It shows some of the events in slow motion with explosives going off, it also shows pictures of the point of entry in to the Pentagon and how there is a hole where the fuselage went through the wall but no holes where the wings should be.

Is this the same prog that was on tv?

Or indeed anti american/anti west groups would also inflame any theories so people believe in such theories.

I dunno Fitz, I just can't see them letting something like that happen. If it was all about getting into the middle east there were other ways you know. I just can't believe they would sit back and let something on that scale happen.

With regards the explosion, who is to say that explosive devices hadnt been set in place to bring them down by other members working with the high jackers? Would make sense that they would go for maximum effect.

The Pearl Harbour statement was made by the ultra right wing think tank which counted Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others among its contributors.

Terrorists getting in to the WTCs to plant explosives would mean bypassing Marvin Bush's security company...........

GW described OBL as the most wanted man on earth, but as soon as the Taliban were removed as a threat to the pipeline, GW didn't even think about him any more.......?

Richard Clarke, the Anti terrorism advised tells how he was stopped by Wolfowitz after 9/11 and told to find the link to Iraq. Clarke said it had nothing to do with Iraq, but Wolfowitz insisted he find a link.
Clarke knew AL Queda and Saddam didn't co=operate at that stage, but he was ignored.

Terrorists would have to bypass the security company......but they managed to nab planes you know, I mean it is possible and not to be ruled out!

I am not saying they didn't use it to their advantage to get into the middle east, but knew this was going to happen and let it? I haven't seen anything even close to proof of that.

Exactly. They certainly have used it to their advantage, and have twisted certain things to make their case, but jumping from that to saying that they knew about it is a BIG jump. It also seems that there are a lot of conspiracies out there, and whenever one is disproved then the 'theorists' move onto another. Whenever any evidence is placed in front of them all they can seem to say is "well, believe that if you want".

The same terrorists that 6 or 7 have been found to be alive and well and in no way connected to terrorism? Yet are still named on the FBI website? The same terrorists that don't appear on any of the plane manifests, not even any muslim/mid-eastern sounding names? The same terrorist whose passport conveniently floated out through the window of one of the planes and was found in the rubble unmarked? Why did someone bet on the Stock market that United and American would have really bad news, making $40Million on those transactions alone?

Problem I see is, there are holes big enough to drive a truck though in the official story. Conspiracy Theorists try too hard to make all incidents fit into one neat bundle, discrediting some of their own believable ideas.( planes diverted and shot down over the Atlantic etc, all planes landed and unmanned drones sent up)

But, I don't believe a plane that size hit the Pentagon and went through 6 walls. Too small a hole on entrance, too thin in construction to penetrate 3 rings of the Pentagon. But if it wasn't a plane, what was it? And why lie? No mark on the Pentagon lawn despite a 100 tonne+ jet coming in at 500mph and apparently hitting the grass first? There are 7-10 cameras on that side of the Pentagon alone, between garage forecourt, The Sheraton(?), and traffic cameras, yet to "prove" it was a plane they release 4 frames of footage?

Also, the official line says ATC could not identify the hijacked planes as they turned off the transponders - Would it not show up like a hooker in a convent that the only 4 planes on radar NOT transponding or answering were the ones?

Well I believe the Pentagon is vastly more sturdy in construction, like a mini plouging into a HGV truck, the strength of the truck would take on the force of the impact, I wouldn't expect a large entrance hole but the speed of the plane would certainly account for its penetration depth.

And what about the thousands of pieces of plane parts found all around. Confirmed by many eye witnesses, including the reporters on the scene. And the eye witnesses who saw the plane? Are we to believe all of these are in on it too?

And the eyewitnesses who saw something much smaller, silver, maybe a missile? And again the video that "proves" it was a jet?

Have a look at photos of the remains of the Lockerbie 747 at CAD Longtown and you'll see how thin the skin on aluminium is on those planes. Plus the fact that a plane with 125 foot wingspan, with a 6 tonne engine on each didn't leave a mark on the building, in fact didn't even break a window?
Why was the area sanded , and teams in Haz/Chem suits sent in next day?

I have looked for photos of identifiable wreckage from Pentagon and UA93. I have seen one pic of fuselage conveniently on the lawn, and a SMALL engine part that Boeing have confirmed isn't theirs. There is plenty of debris, but how anyone can identify it as being from the offices or the plane?

ATC said from the radar it was a military jet as it was pulling such manoeuvres, impossible on a commercial airliner, apparently.

Any why was wreckage found 6 miles from the crash site in Pennsylvania? One hole, no wreckage is all I've ever seen. Of course, if it was shot down, they wouldn't want pics of it broadcast.

I havent seen anything to prove it was a jet. As you say, eye witnesses on both sides, strange what the eye can and can't see? Government plants to say such things? Or your typical conspiracy theorist stirring it up? Can't prove or falsify either.

Again with regards the debris, you may say it can't be identified as being from the plane, but you can't disprove it either. There are pictures of debris that appear to be from a plane...of which eye witnesses have confirmed.

And most importantly I don't see any motive here for doing this to the Pentagon themselves. If you believe this was all a set up, or known to be happening and nothing done about it, which in my mind is the same thing, then the World Trade Centre was enough to gain their so called plans. I don't think they would risk the over complication, and give the conspiracy theorist more evidence to go over and find flaws in.

As for Pennsylvania, I thought they had found wreckage 6 miles away via road, but was actually only 1 mile away as the crow flies, and they had confirmed that the wind was indeed going in the direction?

Again, still lots of ifs and buts.

Strange then with the terrorists being so well informed, they hit exactly the opposite side from Rumsfelds office.

With the Bojinka project formulated in 1993 to take out 13 American airliners in one day in Asia, why not one? If terrorists hit targets its usually a symbol. A few years ago terrorists were going to fly into the Eiffel Tower on a hijacked Air France jet. WTC is the symbol of american financial might, the pentagon military, and if we believe the 4th was also going to Washington, Capitol Hill or White House, centre of US Government.

And the motive for hitting the Pentagon? Why make more mess than you have too? And if you are going to do it, with all these potential flaws, do you not think they would have done a better job? And didn't Alqaeda admit to doing it?

As I said above, the Pentagon is the symbol of American military might. Sorry I don't understand this bit
" Why make more mess than you have too? And if you are going to do it, with all these potential flaws, do you not think they would have done a better job?"

if you're talking about the terrorists, the more mess the better for them, look at 7/7 and Madrid. If you're talking about them messing up by not hitting the right place, maybe the info they got was wrong?

AL Queda was a handy bogey man for the US. Why was a CIA official visiting him in hospital a couple of weeks before 9/11? Why did the GW permit over 100 members of Bin Ladens family to fly out from the US, when even ex Pres G Bush Snr couldn't fly? I don't speak Arabic, and therefore can't tell you if the video footage that they showed is correct. Why was GW Bush so friendly with the Taliban, inviting them over to Texas before he became Pres?
Why have the Bin ladens been bailing GW out of failed business ventures since he was a young idiot?

What I am saying is if indeed America was behind this, you keep it simple to avoid over complicating things. Hitting the world trade centre was enough, thats what was visually seen, those are the images the world remembers. They didn't NEED to do anything to the Pentagon, and by doing so would just create more conspiracy theorists looking for flaws in the damage. If killing one person gets the job done, you don't kill two....leaves twice as much evidence and twice as much chance of being found out.

I don't speak Arabic either but a hell of a lot of people in the world do, so if the translation was anything other than what was actually said I think that would have been found out by now.

To me, setting it up, or just knowing about it is the same thing, so as to quote you earlier "I don't believe the US set it up", i'd like to hear your arguments to support why you don't think they did.

You're both putting up convincing arguments for your beliefs but I am beginning to lean towards the theory that GWB was in on it.
Al Qaida ( or another terrorist organisation) would have claimed that they did it regardless of whether they had or not. Look at the support they have gained all over the world from it.
As I mentioned earlier I remember reports of several more plans supposed hijacked on 9/11 and also reports that civilian planes had been shot down by the military. I heard this on the live news feed on September 11th and waited for further news on it for weeks but none was forthcoming. You'd think that if it was bad information that that would have been clarified rather than just swept under the carpet.
The twin towers were thought to be impregnable, especially after the previous attack on the WTC so maybe George W thought that casualties would have been minimal if the attacks were left to go ahead. Maybe he thought that a few hundred civilian lives would be small change in return for billions worth of crude oil. How could he have lost? His popularity grew after 9/11, OK it's pants now, but he needed a reason to get at the oil and this was the perfect excuse.
Of course these are all just maybes but I've always had a lot of unanswered questions about the whole thing.

To turn your argument back on you, too many people to keep quiet. Start with the US Government, US Military, Giuliani, ATC, Norad, American Airlines, United Airlines, 250+ passengers (to then be secreted away for life), certain teams on the security desks at the airports....the list would run to thousands.
If they received credible intell about the plot (And remember approx 200 Israeli agents were quietly shipped out some months after 9/11, some of whom were trailing the terrorists), and Rice is supposed to have tried to warn GW about a threat, as well as 19 other Governments, it would require only a few to keep confidence, and they all "sing off the same hymnsheet" so to speak.
They could hardly ask Al Queda to keep the target down to just one. Remember, there are still a lot of people who think the US knew Pearl Harbour was coming too, just not to the scale they were hit, and chose to let it happen. Who said Every country needs a war every few years for the good of the economy?

ONE US contractor alone Halliburton , has received over $25BILLION worth of contracts since Iraq started - Ex-Ceo - Dick Cheney. Add in the rest of the cabinet with their ties to the oil and armaments industries and see how many have their snouts in the trough - all traceable directly back to 9/11.

Remember Governments lie all the time. Spanish Govt initially blamed ETA for Madrid, Russians said the two planes blown up in August 2004 were not terrorist related, C Rice lied to the Spanish Govt about Extraordinary renditions, and then had to admit she did. Yet the Irish Govt believe her.

Lots of supposedlys and maybes though. As I repeat, I still haven't seen or read anything to prove this was anything other than a terrorist attack, or that the US had some kind of involvement, be it orchastrating it or just keeping stum.

But interesting facts Fitz, not convinced me but given me new ways of looking at it.

I see what you are saying Wicky about it being the perfect excuse to go secure the oil reserves, but again, it didn't need to be on that scale, I just can't see it.

The US government has sent troops to assist the UN to everywhere possible for decades as it's the UN that picks up the bill rather than the USA. They win twice by saving money and gaining glory.

Like Fitz said about Pearl harbour, maybe they didn't envisage the scale of the attack but chose to let it happen anyway. George W couldn't wait to get into Iraq despite being told that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

Perhaps, but again if they had an idea that an attack was going to take place I think they would have found out a little about it. Plus Fitz was saying that he wasn't convinced that the Pentagon was even a plane, talks of missiles and things. This implies the US themselves were behind this.

I don't really know what to think about the pentagon tbh. I can't remember ever seeing pictures the wreckage of the plane on/in the Pentagon but I can't see why the US would want to cause damage to it unless they were trying to exaggerate the gravity of the threat against the 'civilised' world.

actually, found this which was interesting....go to the pictures part


My Webpage

Not working for me anyway.....be careful Cuppy, they may be after you..... :scarehair:

Anyway, early start in the morning for Dublino, then flying to LBA and meeting up with Mr Bread. Pick this up again Thursday if that's all right Cupsterinho?

This is a pretty good website, has some good links to other sites as well.

Have a read


now i'm not saying take everything it says as fact, but it is pretty convincing on a number of issues.

My thought (and mine alone AFAIK) is that they were hit with maybe a missile - Instead of looking stupid on a colossal scale with TWO very different incidents, package it neatly into one i.e. 4 planes, 2 airports.......Seems to me the lesser of two evils. The haz/chem suits, the sanded grass is what you would expect for something chemical. The fact that there is such a small entrance and exit hole certainly doesn't support a commercial plane with a 14 foot wide body and 125 foot wingspan. the idea that the wings neatly folded perfectly in, to me, is ludicrous.


With all this talk watched an interview with one of the architects of the WTC today. he said they were designed to take a hit from a "Fully Laded 707, the biggest jet at the time. While the 767 is bigger and heavier, that is fully laden, the plane that day was far from fully laden with few passengers, baggage and not full on fuel. Although he did say that designing for the fuel element was not their responsibility???????????

But of course m'duck.....my link was actually one supporting your theories, but I find it interesting. Safe trip, watch out for highjackers!! :scarehair:

I watched Loose Change last night

Biggest piece of crap I think I have ever seen as far as an investigation documentary can be.

Conspiracy?

The World Trade Centre, Pentagon and some field in the middle of nowhere were all attacked!

Thousands of families lost their loved ones and the skyline in New York has changed forever, trillians of pounds were wiped off the stock market in one fell swoop, people from many different religious beliefs were horrifically murdered through no fault of their own..

This is a daft thread and thoughtless about those who died (even though they were predominantly Americans).. RIP

I don't believe in any conspiracy on it, as I tried to argue but I don't think its being thoughtless CW nor daft. Its something that was so shocking and whilst I dont believe in any such conspiracy theory, if nothing was ever questioned we would never uncover all the untruths that go on.

I thought it was a sensible debate.....

This is a daft thread which is thoughtless and disrespectful for those who died (even though they were predominantly Americans).. RIP