ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 911 conspiracy theory

Reply
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:36 AM   #1
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
9/11 Conspiracy Contradictions and Inconsistencies

I was thinking of compiling a list that shows just how contradictory the 9/11 conspiracy is. Everything in the list should be something that is supported by 9/11 CTists.

1. A missile hit the Pentagon. Light poles were plucked out of the ground close to the Pentagon.

For these two statements to be true: Prior to striking the Pentagon, the missile pinballed off 5 different light poles without detonating.

2. A missile hit the Pentagon. There was a small amount of airplane debris found on the yard of the Pentagon.

For these two statements to be true: milliseconds after the Pentagon was struck, lightning-quick, possibly invisible gnomes ran around the yard and dispersed random chunks of airplane wreckage.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:41 AM   #2
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
3. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions.

Inconsistency: no such claim is made about WTC 7.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:41 AM   #3
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
4. NORAD stood down and didn't intercept any of the hijacked jets. Flight 93 was shot down.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:44 AM   #4
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by Mancman View Post
4. NORAD stood down and didn't intercept any of the hijacked jets. Flight 93 was shot down.
Nice.

5. NORAD stood down. NORAD had numerous test missions scheduled for that day.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:48 AM   #5
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
6. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints. The south tower ejected just enough material to minorly damage WTC7 and justify it's controlled demolition.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 07:49 AM   #6
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
3. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions.

Inconsistency: no such claim is made about WTC 7.
An offshoot:

7. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions. Thermite/ate reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.

Thermite/ate is not an explosive and does not sound like one.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 12:44 PM   #7
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
8: Rumsfeld/Willie Brown/Pentagon officials stopped flying commercially before 9/11

Surely Rumsfeld would know which flights were sceduled to be hijacked and would not book a ticket on them. They would know no flights out of San Francisco were part of the operation.
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd August 2006, 01:29 PM   #8
Segnosaur
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 9,066
The janitor in the basement of the WTC reported explosions (attributed to a bomb) in the basement of the building.

- The buildings were destroyed top-down; why bother planting 'extra' explosives that would not have been needed to bring down the towers?
__________________

Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer
I cheered when then the WTC came down. - UndercoverElephant (a.k.a. JustGeoff)
I cheer Bin Laden... - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Bin Laden delivered justice - JustGeoff (a.k.a. UndercoverElephant)
Men shop for lingerie the way kids shop for breakfast cereal... they will buy something they know nothing about, just to get the prize inside. - Jeff Foxworthy
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 02:56 AM   #9
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by TK0001 View Post
6. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints. The south tower ejected just enough material to minorly damage WTC7 and justify it's controlled demolition.

The towers fell neatly within their own footprints. Heavy steel columns from the towers landed as far away as 600 feet - indicating they were thrown outwards by explosives. Gravity can't make huge steel columns go sideways, only down.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 02:58 AM   #10
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI.

Why do you need to invade land that is totally controlled by your puppets?


-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 03:12 AM   #11
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,957
No way could planes and burning jet fuel alone bring down the WTC Towers. That’s why Al Queda – working as agents of the CIA -- flew the planes into both towers so the government could set off bombs inside the buildings to bring them down and make it look like foreign terrorists did it.

That's why it the CT makes so much more sense than to just use bombs and claim foreign terrorists planted them.

Firefighters and police were in on the conspiracy, "pull it," etc ...

That's why several hundred of them died rushing into the buildings.

Loosers have really uncovered something here.

That's why, as Maddox and other have pointed out, the same government that has no qualms about murdering several thousand citizens would let the leaders of Loose Change produce a video that exposes everything without any sort of consequences whatsoever.

Last edited by shuize; 23rd August 2006 at 03:34 AM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:29 AM   #12
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
 
Gravy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 17,072
Oops. Ignore my previous drivel.

I'm not an idiot.
–Except when I'm an idiot.
__________________
"Please, keep your chops cool and don’t overblow.” –Freddie Hubbard

What's the Harm?........Stop Sylvia Browne........My 9/11 links

Last edited by Gravy; 23rd August 2006 at 05:33 AM. Reason: I missed the point of the thread.
Gravy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:59 AM   #13
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Just remember everyone, this is meant to be statements from CTers that contradict each other - not CT claims that a contradicted by things CTers don't claim.

For example:

NORAD stood down.
UA 93 was shot down.

These two are both claimed as evidence by CTers of an inside job. Yet they cannot both be true.

Just about everything CTers say is, of course, contradicted by other evidence. I think the idea here is to show the stuff where CTers use contradicting claims equally as evidence of their CT.

-Andrew

ETD.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 05:27 AM   #14
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
 
MRC_Hans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 19,897
The government ruthlessly killed thousands of innocent citicens and threathened many more into silence.

vs

The government is powerless to stop CTers from disclosing the plot on the internet.

I quess the latter is only an implicit claim, still...........

Hans
__________________
Don't. Just don't.
MRC_Hans is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:20 AM   #15
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Thumbs up

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
Just remember everyone, this is meant to be statements from CTers that contradict each other - not CT claims that a contradicted by things CTers don't claim.

For example:

NORAD stood down.
UA 93 was shot down.

These two are both claimed as evidence by CTers of an inside job. Yet they cannot both be true.

Just about everything CTers say is, of course, contradicted by other evidence. I think the idea here is to show the stuff where CTers use contradicting claims equally as evidence of their CT.

-Andrew

ETD.
That's exactly the point, thanks.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:34 AM   #16
MikeW
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
No-one was fired for their failures after 9/11, which obviously means they behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job.

General Ahmad of the ISI was fired for sending money to Atta, which obviously means he behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job.
MikeW is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:34 AM   #17
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 878
The towers were destroyed by controlled demolition, at faster than free fall speeds.

Controlled demolition uses gravity to pull the building down. Controlled demolition does not exert downward force to push the building down.
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:43 AM   #18
sleahead
Critical Thinker
 
sleahead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 406
Pay heed to firefighters reporting they heard explosions in the towers. It is proof of a controlled demolition.

Pay no heed to firefighters reporting they were worried about the WTC7 collapsing long before it did collapse and not hearing explosions. It is not proof there was no controlled demolition.
sleahead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:47 AM   #19
Johnny Pixels
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,389
The fact of controlled demolition is obvious from watching videos.

vs

The collapse was designed to not look like controlled demolition.
Johnny Pixels is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:05 AM   #20
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
I'd update my original post, but I don't seem to have the ability to edit it. Anyway, I think we should stick to contradictions only, since they are especially damning to the CTists.

Updated list of CT contradictions:

1. A missile hit the Pentagon/Light poles were plucked out of the ground close to the Pentagon.

2. A missile hit the Pentagon/There was a small amount of airplane debris found on the yard of the Pentagon.

3. NORAD stood down/Flight 93 was shot down.

4. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions/Thermite (a non-explosive) reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.

5. The towers fell neatly within their own footprints/Heavy steel columns from the towers landed as far away as 600 feet, indicating they were thrown outwards by explosives.

6. 9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline/Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI (why the need to invade?).

7. Nobody was fired for their failures after 9/11, which obviously means they behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job/General Ahmad of the ISI was fired for sending money to Atta, which obviously means he behaved just as the US Government wanted: it was an inside job.

8. The fact of controlled demolition is obvious from watching videos/The collapse was designed to not look like controlled demolition.

9. It was controlled demolition/the towers and WTC7 fell faster than free fall speeds.

Last edited by TK0001; 23rd August 2006 at 07:28 AM.
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:20 AM   #21
juryjone
Refusing to be confused by facts
 
juryjone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 878
Might I ask why "It was controlled demolition; it fell at faster than free fall speeds" is not a contradiction?
__________________
"Humanity is slipping into the void of ignorance while you cheer and wave." - Tirdun, in reference to geggy and the 9/11 conspiracy theorists
juryjone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:27 AM   #22
TK0001
Muse
 
TK0001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 593
Talking

Originally Posted by juryjone View Post
Might I ask why "It was controlled demolition; it fell at faster than free fall speeds" is not a contradiction?
I don't rightly know.



off to add #9....
TK0001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:48 AM   #23
gfunkusarelius
Critical Thinker
 
gfunkusarelius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 442
these all amuse me, but the frustrating thing about arguing these points with a troother is that they immediately counter with "well we dont know what exactly happened, but it is clear there was conspiracy on several levels" or something to that extent. basically they say either one or the other is true, maybe a combo of both. its really a lot like cornering my parents about religion..."well the bible isnt literal...it was meant as symbolic or it was told in a way that people could understand and relate to, but when it says you will go to hell if you dont do x y and z, that part is definitely true..."
bottom line is, they want to believe the US govt had something really evil to do with 9/11 and they are trying to narrow down exactly how it played out.
__________________
---------------------
"you can't argue with crazy" -not sure
http://annoyed-skeptic.blogspot.com/
(my blog)

Last edited by gfunkusarelius; 23rd August 2006 at 07:52 AM. Reason: changed american to US as to not annoy those who realize the US isnt "america" haha
gfunkusarelius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 12:25 PM   #24
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 10,720
The picture could not possibly be from the crash of Flight 93/See-you can even see the outline of the tail section if you look closely
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 02:24 PM   #25
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,041
The announcement for people in WTC 2 (the South Tower) that it was safe for people to remain in or go back to their office was intended to maximize casualties; the fact that the planes were relatively empty was intended to minimize casualties.

People made insider trades from within the WTC towers to make money off the attacks; their hard drives were demolished in the collapse of the building, destroying any evidence of the trades.

That Betty Ong spoke calmly on her phone call is evidence that Flight 11 was not hijacked; that Mark Bingham made a nervous mistake on his phone call is evidence that Flight 93 was not hijacked.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 02:25 PM   #26
Class
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 257
There was no debris at the Pentagon and in Shanksville/The debris there wasn't matched up by serial numbers "bolt by bolt"
Class is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 03:54 PM   #27
Class
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 257
Another one I just remembered: Firefighters and police officers were given a gag order not to talk about what they experienced in the towers on 9/11, but many firefighters and police officers have conducted interviews about what they went through.
Class is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:09 PM   #28
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
The cell phone calls were faked using voice morphing technology yet, it's impossible to use a cell phone at altitude.
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 04:38 PM   #29
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
The picture could not possibly be from the crash of Flight 93/See-you can even see the outline of the tail section if you look closely

I think Killtown's contradictions deserve their own thread...

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 05:47 PM   #30
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,391
Flight attendant Betty Ong should not be believed because she sounded too calm in her telephone call, yet flight attendant Madeline Sweeney should not be believed because she did not sound calm enough in her telephone call.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 05:49 PM   #31
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
 
LashL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 35,391
The firefighters should be believed when they say that they heard explosions in the twin towers but they should not be believed when they say that they saw massive damage to the south side of WTC7, and they should not be believed when they say that there were fires on multiple floors in WTC7.
LashL is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 06:18 PM   #32
negativ
Graduate Poster
 
negativ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,904
Mark Bingham wasn't on the flight 93 manifest, so he and his "let's roll" isn't real.

The terrorists are on the flight 93 manifest, but they aren't real.
negativ is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:14 PM   #33
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
The engine part found at The Pentagon was from a Global Hawk, not a Boeing 757.

John W Brown of the Indiana Rolls-Royce factory states that the Pentagon engine part is not from any RR he is familiar with, and certainly not the AE3007H that is made in Indiana.

The Global Hawk uses the AE3007H engine.

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:22 PM   #34
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
The WTC was hit by planes flown by US government operatives
The WTC was hit by planes controlled by remote
The WTC was hit by planes guided by a laser
The WTC was hit by missiles disguised as airliners using holographic technology
The WTC was hit only by bombs and real time CGI of aircraft was added to live news broadcasts

Only one of these can be true

(Obviously none of them are actually true...)

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:41 PM   #35
shuize
Master Poster
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 2,957
OK, seeing as how my earlier post wasn't exactly on point, let me try again:

CTer: It wouldn't be difficult for the government to keep a massive conspiracy like this completely secret.

CTer: We've discovered the truth.

Last edited by shuize; 23rd August 2006 at 07:43 PM.
shuize is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 07:44 PM   #36
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by shuize View Post
OK, seeing as how my earlier post wasn't exactly on point, let me try again:

CTer: It wouldn't be difficult for the government to keep a massive conspiracy like this completely secret.

CTer: We've discovered the truth.

Nice. I was trying to find a way of summing up their contradiction in this regard, but couldn't think of it. You have hit the nail square on the head!

-Andrew
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 10:37 PM   #37
defaultdotxbe
Drunken Shikigami
 
defaultdotxbe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,474
Osama bin Laden is a CIA operative working for the US govt

Osama bin Laden denied involvement with the 9/11 attacks
__________________
I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -Albert Einstein
defaultdotxbe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd August 2006, 11:29 PM   #38
Joytown
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 65
2 weeks of heightened security was dropped the day before 9/11.

Controlled demo teams place charges in the towers undetected in the weeks prior to 9/11.
Joytown is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 05:00 AM   #39
Mancman
Graduate Poster
 
Mancman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,008
These aren't exactly direct contradictions but I'd like to post them anyway.

The twin towers ejected debris for 600ft when they collapsed, this is proof of controlled demolition. WTC7 collapsed straight down into it's footprint, this is proof of controlled demolition.


The US government carried out 9/11 to create a pretext for military action, as part of a massive plot to establish a neo nazi NWO hellbent on world domination. The Bush family even has links to nazi gold.
And we'e going to use the American Free Press to help expose it.
__________________
R.I.P Dr. Adequate
Mancman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2006, 05:37 AM   #40
brumsen
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 438
Hmmm. A few that don't impress me much:

Originally Posted by Mancman View Post
An offshoot:

7. Damning evidence of there being charges inside the towers is the numerous reports of explosions. Thermite/ate reactions were used to weaken the steel beams, as confirmed by Steven Jones.

Thermite/ate is not an explosive and does not sound like one.
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
The janitor in the basement of the WTC reported explosions (attributed to a bomb) in the basement of the building.

- The buildings were destroyed top-down; why bother planting 'extra' explosives that would not have been needed to bring down the towers?
But the theory promoted by Steven Jones cs says that colums were melted through by means of therm(i)(a)te and then explosions used to make the destroyed supports "wobble free" so that the buildings could come down.

Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
9/11 enabled the US to invade Afghanistan so they could build a pipeline. Al Qaeda and the Taliban are puppets of the CIA/ISI.

Why do you need to invade land that is totally controlled by your puppets?
Because it often happens that these puppets become out-of-control monsters. Examples abound.

Originally Posted by Joytown View Post
The cell phone calls were faked using voice morphing technology yet, it's impossible to use a cell phone at altitude.
Seems not a contradiction to me at all.

Originally Posted by negativ View Post
Mark Bingham wasn't on the flight 93 manifest, so he and his "let's roll" isn't real.

The terrorists are on the flight 93 manifest, but they aren't real.
Is not exactly a contradiction. CTers would hold that the manifest was changed afterwards; it could be that terrorists were added but that they forgot to add Bingham, who wasn't on it in the first place.


And of course, last but not least.... quite a few contradictions can only be generated if you use statements from different CT'ers. But obviously they do not speak through one mouth.
brumsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.