If there had been a real conspiracy with connections with the White House, 14 Saudis wouldn't have been used in the 9/11 attacks. The Saudi connection was deeply embarrassing to Dubya in the weeks after the attack and much spin was (successfully) devoted to downplaying the role of the Saudis in the attacks.

Dubya himself obviously knew nothing ahead of time (big surprise!) as his famous deer in the headlights footage at the elementary school clearly indicates. He's not a good enough actor to fake that reaction.

I've read a bunch of the conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and they all fail the test of Occam's Razor, not to mention the fact that there are obvious reasons why the proponents want to deny the reality of what happened. The only theory I've seen with a shred of plausibility is that some portion of the intelligence community (and whoever pulls their strings) knew the attacks were going to occur and kept quiet about the fact for reasons of their own. I don't personally believe this, but at least that theory doesn't stretch the bounds of reality out of all recognition.

Can anybody tell me how incredible it is that 3 of the 4 planes scored direct hits, with only simulator-trained "pilots". Not only that, but the plane that hit the pentagon slammed precisely into the side of a 5 story, flat building ?? My college roomate is now a pilot for Fed-Ex, flying the jumbos. He agrees that the pentagon hit would be an incredible feat for a seasoned captain of many years flight time, let alone a one time pilot !! Can you honestly say that these "pilots" , all on their first "solo" flight behind the controls of such a complex machine were that good ?? You'll have to convince me that they did not have help up there.

Based on my extensive time in PC flight simulators , it doesn't seem hard at all. Landing is hard. But pointing the nose at a building and flying straight into it isn't.

Besides, both WTC pilots didn't score direct hits. The second one clipped a corner.

__________________
Man up.

Why is it so hard for some people to entertain the notion of 9/11 being an inside job? The direct results of 9/11 perfectly serve the Bush regime's agendas. If anyone has the capabilities of pulling off this tremendous deception, it is our government. Many instances of similar events have been proven, and with any luck if this theory is true, it too will one day be proven.

I would like to believe our country did not sabotage itself, but in reality a lot of the evidence points to the contrary.

Screw that bogus website posted to discredit the theory of an inside job with its ridiculous Tony Soprano story, and screw that loose change video he thinks the theory stands alone on. Want to watch something of real value? Want to gain some powerful insight? Care about truth and the United States? Watch this video I am not going to say with definity that it was an inside job, but it is foolish to take the opposite stance as well. Either scenario is possible, and once you accept that truth and take a look at many of the underlying details, the theory becomes far more palatable.

Please watch that video (I am sorry about the 5 minute introduction shoved in the beginning of that by some random person, but it is the only copy I could find for you guys online. I am sure there are others, but it does not matter. All that matters is you watch that film.) and then watch the second half of it.

After you skip past this youtube user's five minute intro and watch the remainder of that video file, you have the second part to enjoy:
Video Part Two

Maybe after watching Alex Jones' work you can grant a higher possibility to the notion of 9/11 being an inside job.

__________________
Some lies are so well disguised to resemble truth, that we should be poor judges of the truth not to believe them.

it couldn't have been supported by the bush administration.

that's a fallacy

__________________
http://houseofpolitics.com - Political forum
http://www.collegeaces.com - college admissions information

Have any of you seen the 9/11 conspiracy episode of "South Park?"
It basically solves this debate once and for all. If you havent seen it, you need to go to I-tunes and buy it, it is definatly worth the time and money to find out who is actually behind 9/11.

__________________
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." -V

The following was posted on another forum and I tought you people might be interested in it.....


"This is all about facts. Where I have speculated or made asides, it is obvious and not to be confused with the facts. Will such speculation and comments be reason enough to push this to the UUU board? I take the fact that this thread has remained on this board as an acknowledgement that 9/11 is not just about conspiracy theories, but about legitimate questions as to what happened. If any of the facts presented here are disputable, feel free to debunk anything I've stated as fact--but please use facts in turn, not innuendo and smear tactics.

The small white jet following Flight 93 was owned by Warren Buffet (he acknowledged much later), the guy Bush was meeting with on 9/11 in Omaha along with some of Buffet's top employees who would otherwise have been at their jobs in the WTC. Coincidence. (<-Hmm, is that a comment or a fact?)

Speaking of those calls from the plane, one of them was made by a man in the back who said there was an explosion and he saw white smoke. An attack on the cockpit with a dinner tray doesn't usually produce this effect. If I recall correctly, about 45 seconds later the plane crashed. One engine was found about a mile away, while the other disintegrated to almost nothing at the crash site. So one disintegrates while the other 'bounces' a mile away? Other light debris is found up to eight miles away, even though the wind that day is 10mph or less (try keeping your kite up). If the engine detached while still airborne, and a lot of papers and magazines and broken-open luggage is blown out as well, then the debris pattern makes sense. And that is why a missile makes sense, too. The only odd thing is that no military jets are observed by anyone (although they could have been very far away, even over the horizon, and still shot 93 down). The other thing is: how does Buffet's (illegally unmarked and illegally unidentified to any control towers) plane just happen to be so close to Flight 93's off-course flight path that it is able to follow it to its doom? More coincidence.

Cheney was overseeing a top secret 'terrorism exercise' that happened to happen on 9/11 and happened to confuse what was real and what was fantasy (a hallmark of the Bush Administration) in the minds of the air traffic controllers. Cheney had been given full command over all the United States military forces for that day, an unprecedented situation. But, of course, just an amazing coincidence that terrorists and the government would pick the exact same day to run the same scenarios--just as happened later in the London bombings, when a 'terrorist exercise' of bombing the exact same places happened to be going on when those places were bombed for real. I guess these sorts of coincidences happen all the time in governmentworld.

The aircraft scrambled by NORAD, once they got around to it, flew at speeds comparable with the aircraft they were supposed to pursue, rather than at speeds reasonable to catch the hijacked planes. Apart from whether they could, would or should have shot them down, they were guaranteed not to catch them. Cheney was aware of the Pentagon flight's whereabouts--being tracked on radar--for at least 30 minutes prior to impact. It was possible for the planes to whom he had issued orders to shoot down the flight to do so--if he had ordered them to fly fast enough to do so (supersonic). Even Flight 175 could have been overtaken had the planes from Otis been ordered to fly faster than 600mph. Aren't interceptors supposed to intercept, not just go through the motions?

Andrews AFB, about 10 miles from the Pentagon, was said to have no planes available to scramble on 9/11 to protect DC--which was their stated mandate prior to Sept 12. However, seeing that no one in charge in the White House was contacting Andrews on 9/11, some naive Secret Service person did indeed contact them just before Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Three minutes after impact planes from Andrews were circling the Capitol area. Furthermore, Andrews had only to launch a single airplane or helicopter loaded with an air-to-air missile and the jetliner could have been brought down while still dozens of miles out. No need to even see it visually. But they had no orders. Or maybe they did.

The FBI seized 85 videos that were possible witness to the Pentagon crash. Before releasing only two, from the Doubletree Hotel and the gas station across the street, they said those two did not show the crash of Flight 77. The other 83 they have still not released despite promising to do so under an FOIA request once the trial of Zacharias Moussaoui was over. The FBI also seized all flight data and computer records of the flights from the airports, placed a gag order on all airport personnel re the Press, and confiscated all video records from the various cameras, including the parking lots. These records would give unmistakeable proof that the hijackers passed through the airports. It is impossible to move from your car to your boarding area without being caught by these cameras numerous times--that's what they're there for--especially when we're talking about 19 people. Yes, one short video was released from the airport in Maine with Atta and a companion on it, but even on that the time was doctored to make it appear he had more time to catch his flight to Logan than he did. Why? Did someone (who would be able to doctor this video prior to release to the Press, do you suppose?) not want us to wonder why Atta would place his whole plan so cavalierly at risk by almost missing his flight to Logan? Of course, we all know why he was in Maine since the Press told us. Didn't they? And don't you wonder by what reason the other tapes are kept impounded by the FBI? National security? Please.

......
WTC7, because no definitive answers were ever found, requires some speculation. The WTC7 does not have to have been 'brought down' by explosives. It had a massive fuel tank on one of the lower floors, if not the ground floor (don't recall), and an explosion of this would have created almost exactly the effect that demolition does, blowing out the lower floors and shearing away the understructure while also blowing out most of the windows and creating a vacuum inside, which sucks the structure down into itself. The only problem with this scenario is that the fires known to be on several floors of the building (not raging but quietly burning themselves out, with I believe the 12th floor completely gone out) were supposedly fueled by this large tank that was pumping the fuel up where it spilled out on the various floors, all of whose sprinkler systems had somehow failed. Considering this was going on all day, there wouldn't have been enough fuel left to provide for a big enough explosion when the tank blew up. Nevertheless, with so little known for sure about what was going on inside the building (no firefighters in there), the tank explosion seems a reasonable possibility and eliminates the need for a 'pull it' explanation. Of course, 'could be true' doesn't mean it must be true.

One thing that is certain is that WTC7 contained reams of evidence involving companies being investigated by the SEC, which also had its offices there. All of that was (conveniently) lost. Many of those investigations also involved companies who were headquartered in the towers. The SEC announced an investigation of 38 companies, including investigations of the famous PUT options, shortly after 9/11, but later expunged even the announcement from their own online archives. About four years later they quietly announced that this 'investigation' they had not spoken of for years had come to naught. Nothing to see, move along.

As covered in a four-part series on FOX NEWS, some 200 Israeli spies mostly posing as art students were arrested in the weeks leading up to and after 9/11. Some of these spies were attempting to get access to senior US officers, even showing up at their homes to 'sell' paintings and such, and also trying to gain access to US bases. (And knowing how base security was then, I can bet they were highly successful.) Some of them were also shadowing the men who would become the hijackers on 9/11, living within a couple of blocks of them and sometimes moving in to the places they vacated. No one knows what the spies' purpose was (of course, our government won't tell us or even talk about them). One possibility is that they knew the hijackers were 'spies' themselves and that was why they followed them around, while the others who were trying to penetrate our military were doing it for the usual espionage reasons. Another possibility is that they had discovered the hijackers' intent, to some degree at least, and were trying to warn our government (and perhaps they succeeded, just not getting the response they expected). We'll probably never know the truth, as they were all eventually rounded up and questioned and deported back to Israel. It is also true that the five men reported to be filming the attacks at the WTC and jumping up and down in celebration were caught and detained (with boxcutters found in their minivan) and found to be Israelis as well. They, too, were deported and two of them appeared on Israeli TV, explaining they had been happy that the US would now know what it was like to have terrorism on their own land, not that they were happy people were dying. But how did they know to have a movie camera set up to film the disaster? And why is our government still holding the film? If the film shows the first plane hitting, it would be crucial evidence of foreknowledge--and not by Arab terrorists. You can find the FOX NEWS coverage of this--with many more enlightening facts to the story--loose on the Internet, but you'll never hear FOX acknowledge it. If it's in their archives, I can't find it.

The bin Laden relatives were not flown out of the country during the grounding period for the rest of us. They were, however, all flown across the country to one spot during that grounding period, presumably by military aircraft so it was kosher--if that's the right word to use.

The government announced that DNA identification was made for all but one of the Flight 77 crew and passengers, including all the hijackers (that being 'unknown DNA', hence hijackers). 60-some tons of aircraft were 'vaporized' on impact, leaving some large parts and a few melted pools of aluminum from the frame, but DNA--which is easily destroyed by much less heat--survived somehow. A little for each and every person save one. Thank God for the enormous coincidences of 9/11. They're so convenient.

Rumsfeld was in the Command Center at the Pentagon when the crash took place. He was also on the concall with Cheney and Rice and the rest the whole time. Flight 77 was headed directly at that side of the Pentagon. He didn't leave nor order anyone else to leave, even though he was in what should have been the primary target of this years-in-the-making operation. How fortunate for him and all of us that the pilot elected to make a nearly impossible banking maneuver and fly just a few feet off the ground into the opposite reinforced half-empty side of the Pentagon, instead of simply diving straight into the side it was headed toward--and taking out the Secretary of Defense. Guess that wouldn't have been 'symbolic' enough.

The President's life was in danger (wasn't it?). The country was under attack by an unknown number (wasn't it unknown?) of hijacked planes and there was an airport just a few miles from the school he was in. For the only time in our history, the Secret Service did not immediately move him to safety and away from an obvious target (since his presence there was announced well beforehand). In fact, they didn't move him at all. He simply made his little speech 25 minutes after the second crash and left on AF1 as originally planned for their photo op. And AF1 flew for about an hour without any fighter escort--even though the White House claimed later that the codes used by AF1 had been breached and that was why it was sent hither and yon instead of returning the President to DC. All this, of course, is the result of 'confusion' and 'shock' (and awe?) over what was happening. This is the normal reaction of our leadership to crisis. Isn't it?

Were the WTC towers brought down by the jets and fire or by demolition charges planted earlier? There is no proof either way. NIST found that the most likely scenario did not fit the facts and so had to 'adjust' to a much less likely scenario that did fit them. They state this themselves. In fact, their own data posit temperatures that never exceed 250C, which is far too low to sufficiently weaken the steel structure to cause collapse (600C). In fact, forged steel requires temperatures about 1100C, meaning just to get it 'workable' to bend, yet NIST arbitrarily decides 250C is sufficient to weaken the steel to the point of failure. There is no physical evidence, let alone evidence in physics, to justify this. They simply 'adjusted' their conclusions to fit the fact that the WTC collapsed, ergo the steel must have weakened at lower temperatures than is physically possible. What scintillating intellects! And certainly NIST can be trusted not to sell its soul to the governm--oh, wait. I guess history is what you make it.

There is much eyewitness testimony to pre-collapse explosions in the lower levels, possibly even sub-ground level, none of which can be attributed to the planes or the furniture fires at the high floor levels. The windows were blown out of the lobbies, yet there is no evidence of fire there, so the jet fuel explanation for this is not tenable. Not to mention that the elevator shafts go below lobby level so why would the fuel stop and explode there anyway. And wouldn't it already have been on fire, so why 'explode' at all after dropping 50+ floors?

Another WTC question is where does the heat come from (surely not the furniture fires waaaay up above) to cause temperatures above the melting point of aluminum (over 2500F) that were recorded the next day and for a week after the collapses? Conveniently, the NIST report stops at the moment of collapse, so it never has to address such disturbing issues as this, or why the top floors' concrete turns to powder despite having no weight crushing down on those floors to cause that.

The government obviously does not believe that any of the above (and there is plenty more) is cause for their investigation in the first place, let alone for another one. Neither do the Administration's defenders on these (and other) boards. Facts may not change belief after the belief has been set in stone, but shouldn't belief be grounded in the truth to begin with? the whole truth? and nothing but the truth? It is undeniable that this Administration has not given us the whole truth. And to most of America it is also undeniable that they are spun way to one side of 'nothing but' the truth. But if anyone believes that it is only this Administration, remember that the first thing the Democrats announced after this past election gave them back the Congress was that there would be no investigations of the Bush Administration, at least prior to Iraq. In other words: "We won't touch 9/11." Instead of thinking in terms of Democrat and Republican or Conservative and Liberal, we should adopt Bush's advice and think in terms of good guys and evildoers when we think of politicians."
__________________

In nutshell: the citizens of the constitution own and dynamically determine the sub-constitutions of their constitution!!!

A message for the citizens of usa:
Here are some reasons for you to consider a constitution of its citizens in a post-9/11 world:
1. The citizens of usa need the citizens of the world.
2. It is all global and as such must be resolved.
3. Centralized globalization contributes to instability and has fail.
4. We must find a new structure to be in, this new structure must be relevant to all the citizens of the world and our differences are undeniable.
5. Here you can take a look at the H.R.6166 the Military Commissions Act AGAINST usa citizens, proving no check no balance in usa, as any of the 3 branches of powers deny the constitutional rights of the citizens!!!
6. Ye, and the commercial forces are very strong, more then any other, so the 4th branch of power, the media, has been overtaken, and so propaganda still can not let facts to challenge its course resulted from narrow interests not from any set of beliefs.
Here is the Despocracy USA 2006
and here is zogby about 9/11

BLAH BLAH BLAH-BLAH BLAH, maybe if some people would spend more time helping rather than day-dreaming this world would be a better place.

One thing for the conspiracy theorists, Is there any proof of any of this, I have only seen those that don't believe the 911 conspiracies show proof, not the other way around.

Warren Buffet worked in the WTC? really, had offices there with his employees?? really, I guess when one wants to make a conspiracy one needs not rely on fact.