lol

Have just read the Griffin article Slarty - it certainly raises some interesting questions, although given my very sketchy knowledge of the issues involved, it would also be interesting to hear what an expert who concurs with the 'offical' explanation has to say about it all. I.e. how valid are his claims, how accurate are his facts and figures, which parts bear close scrutiny and which do not etc.

However, I certainly agree with your post that suggested it would be nice (although almost impossible) to have an independent inquiry.

One thing Griffin doesn't mention, at least not in that article, is what conclusions he draws from all the discrepancies/anomalies he believes he has uncovered.

For example, the main thrust of his argument seems to be that there is very little evidence to suggest that Muslim hijackers were responsible for crashing the planes. But he seems happy to accept that the planes were crashed.

Similarly, he expresses doubts that the alleged phone calls were made from the planes by the people purported to have made them, but he doesn't appear to contest the fact that those people were on the planes (the passengers I mean, not the alleged hijackers).

Another of his points is that none of the flight crews entered the hijack code in the transponder to alert air traffic control to their situation, despite it being likely (in his opinion) that they had the opportunity to do so.

So it seems to me that his theory is that rather than being hijacked, the planes were deliberately flown into their targets by the assigned flight crews.

If that is indeed his belief, then I guess my next question to him would be whether he believes the original flight crews were responsible - i.e. those who the official records show to have been on those planes - or whether he thinks they were covertly replaced (and presumably killed) by some sort of special forces suicide squad. And of course whether he has any information or evidence to support such a belief.

I would also like to ask him why, if the passengers were unaware that the planes had been hijacked, did Flight 93 (or whichever one it was) crash into the ground? The official story is that it was the result of 'passenger action', but if you accept all of Griffin's arguments then it seems that there would have been no reason for them to take any action because they wouldn't have been aware that anything was wrong.

There are a lot of different aspects of the official story being questioned, which is certainly no bad thing, but if you believe all of his arguments, the result makes even less sense than if you believe none of them. It is, of course, possible that some of the things he questions are fishy and some are not - I get the impression (especially since I gather that he has written several books on the subject and therefore presumably needs to generate as much material as he can in order to sell them) that he believes in some parts of what he writes more strongly than others. I.e. some of it is just padding. It would be interesting to know which bits are which.

Unusual activity at the World Trade Centre before 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB2fHqnqZaE&feature=related

Have just read the Griffin article Slarty - it certainly raises some interesting questions, although given my very sketchy knowledge of the issues involved, it would also be interesting to hear what an expert who concurs with the 'offical' explanation has to say about it all. I.e. how valid are his claims, how accurate are his facts and figures, which parts bear close scrutiny and which do not etc.

Griffin and his ilk depend on people having a sketchy knowledge of the issues. Have look at 911myths.com.


One thing Griffin doesn't mention, at least not in that article, is what conclusions he draws from all the discrepancies/anomalies he believes he has uncovered.


You will find that this is often the case.

For example, the main thrust of his argument seems to be that there is very little evidence to suggest that Muslim hijackers were responsible for crashing the planes. But he seems happy to accept that the planes were crashed.

Really? I thought he had a problem with the Pentagon plane.

Similarly, he expresses doubts that the alleged phone calls were made from the planes by the people purported to have made them, but he doesn't appear to contest the fact that those people were on the planes (the passengers I mean, not the alleged hijackers).

Don't laugh -  He believes the calls were faked using voice morphing technology.


There are a lot of different aspects of the official story being questioned, which is certainly no bad thing, but if you believe all of his arguments, the result makes even less sense than if you believe none of them.

This is very of the the case.

It is, of course, possible that some of the things he questions are fishy and some are not

Not really. It's all bollux.


- I get the impression (especially since I gather that he has written several books on the subject and therefore presumably needs to generate as much material as he can in order to sell them)

I think the count is now up to eight books, Eight, and the thing only happened 9 years ago. It's call milking the suckers.

It's all bollux.

Case closed then, that's a relief.

Unusual activity at the World Trade Centre before 9/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB2fHqnqZaE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B1OnhSucP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quQooEHq-w4&feature=related

Hmmm. kind of looks a bit more serious than the trade centre fires. Burnt all night until it was done. Didn't collapse. The Trade centres were unique though, built in the 60s, one off design. Thing is, building 7 was built in the 80s, and designed to house some of thr most important government agencies including the Federal emergency mangement authority headquarters control centre. Still, I'm sure a Hong Kong hotel would be of more sturdy construction.

"Oh, and another thing, we're going to fake some calls from the victims"
"Why?"
"Just...well, because we think it would make it all a bit more dramatic! Lend pathos, like"
"But could they even MAKE calls in flight?"
"Well yes, albeit inconsistently. There are people who know nothing about this who will swear blind such calls are impossible though"
"Oh well in that case, go for it!"

a pleasing thread

Gene you nutter you!

Or not!

Do you know about operation Northwoods?

Never heard of that but if its a conspiracy then fire away i like read these stories now you have me hooked

You need to watch it to the end

MM1
Anyone who has an opinion on 9/11 should be aware of Operation Northwoods.
If you think that the idea to attack your own,with the intention of
getting into a fight is far fetched,then think again.
Wikipedia will tell you all about it.

.
http://julyseventh.co.uk/j7-films-ludicrous-diversion-seeds-of-deconstruction.html

Not "they". Just some people. They are two completely different events (though there are some similarites). Whether one may be dodgy has no bearing on the other, though it may also be dodgy.

Gene - at last you have seen the light!

If he had he wouldn't still believe this 9/11 conspiracy crap.


Please try to understand the laws of reflection and you will know that the towers cannot be reflected in that windscreen.


This one has already been debunked on this thread. Go prove it for yourself. Look at a car windscreen from a low angle with a tall building behind the car.


Furthermore, even if they could, they would be distorted by the convex surface of the screen.


So you say. Prove it?

As I said before, anyone can try this for themselves. That's real proof, not linking to intelligence backed sites like Lets Roll & Rense.


True. Why don't you do what I said above.

I have proved through REAL physics that the Evan Fairbanks video is fake.

This is a blatant lie.


Poor old Sunset hasn't even addressed this fact.


Less of the old. You don't even know how old I am.You have established no such fact. Please do so now?

I hope those that have an open mind can see what happens on these threads. Same old idiots defending the indefensible.


You really need to work on your self esteem and stop putting yourself down like this.


The dumbing down of our education system has evidently been very successful.

Ha.


Finally a video for poor old canaryboy,instigator of this thread. You see,they were made of something stronger than glass and thin walls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__gUjUv1vvw



No one is saying that they were only built of glass and thin walls. You are attacking a straw man.

Clocky
I've had enough to be honest.

Why? It's been most enjoyable. I love a good scrap.

These people are quite willing to accept the "evidence" provided by the US government at face value every time,


You think that any evidence that doesn't fit your conspiracy theory comes from the US government. Like the plane wreckage found at the pentagon and the 100+ eyewitnesses that saw a plane. Prove that these people are planted and that the evidence is planted? You are begging the question.


yet when any alternative view is put forward
they dismiss it completely.


It is dismissed because there is very little evidence too support it and it creates more questions than it ever answers.

I was hoping that the more "clever" ones were going to debunk many of the theories,



Already been done on this thread. Stop being disingenuous.


(genuinely I do,I'm quite willing and will be happy to be proved wrong)

I think this is a blatant lie. You actions prove otherwise.

but they have done no such thing.


Another lie.

In fact,they haven't even made any sensible attempt to debunk any of the "conspiracy theories".

HaHa. I'm really beginning to think there is no hope for you.


I am wasting my time here.
I think I'll leave it to you and others


You are wasting my time. It's like talking to a brick wall.Take the blind fold off.