I don't give into conspiracies so easily. I watched about 10 minutes. It raises some interesting question, but I'm not buying what that video is trying to sell me. Muslim fundamentalists attacked the United States by hijacking planes and crashing them into the Twin Towers. That's a fact.

Only people I'd be suspicious of is the CIA. But I'm always suspicious of the CIA. They are afterall a rather suspicious bunch of people.

I'm trying to watch this video with an open mind but what the hell. Some of the things being said are just not true. And if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Where are the passengers? How can they say that cell phone calls won't work in airplanes at a certain height when, obviously, they do? The questions being asked don't have logical answers.

-Explosives set at the World Trade Center base but nobody saw them being set?
-Comparisons of a space shuttle's wreckage being scattered over miles to a plane's wreckage being isolated?
-who benefits from a war?
-what about Bin Laden's videos taking credit for the attacks?

So many "facts" that we have to believe just because we are told that they're facts by this narrator. I just don't buy the theory. I'm halfway through the video and so far, I'm skeptical. It's like they're trying too hard.

If you really want to make up your mind why don't you just do some research on your own?

These conspiracy theories simply tell you loads of half truths without any real evidence.

It's not just the 9/11 theories. If you want a real laugh watch "Zeitgeist" - 90% of the movie is bollocks and easily debunked.

The simple thing is: There is prove 9/11 was a terrorist attack and things happened the way they happened. There is no prove at all things didn't happen that way. There is just a bunch of "scientists" and bloggers aged 18 and below making things up.

Being produced in a very professional way doesn't make these movies right. If you want to manipulate the world all you need is some special effects...

As I’ve said before, conspiracies are a commonplace and occur every day; after all, all organized crime is a form of a conspiracy. With this in mind, successful conspiracies fall into two categories:

1. Small groups of people who can keep the secrets to protect the conspiracy
2. Collections of small groups who act in their own self interest often without knowledge of the involvement of other groups

There is no way that a small group could have pulled off the 9/11 attack in the way the conspiracy theories suggest; and this means that for it to be plausable it would have to follow the second pattern ...

The second pattern is most famous from Bootleggers and Baptists working to ensure that alcohol couldn't be sold legally on Sunday. While there are some people who have demonstrated how an issue like Global Warming can be promoted in this way (by describing how each of the stakeholders benefits by promoting the theory in the absence of any co-operation), I can’t see how you could argue that this was a viable approach to a conspiracy theory like 9/11.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07/

Read it and weep.

It's not about accepting other strange theories as much as it's about acknowledging that what we were told is impossible to be true.

The way the Twin Towers fell was impossible given the situation. They fell at the speed of gravitational force with no resistance, and straight down into themselves. They had very minor fires and the heat produced by any fire even at its max temperature would be 700 degrees less than what steel melts at.

There are steel buildings that have burned intensely throughout every floor for 18 hours and still didn't fall down, yet building 7 fell down with very minor fires after only a short time? And the Twin Towers... after only an hour? They withstand stronger forces from winter storms than they took from the airplanes.

If you're going to comment in this thread, watch the video first and respond to the points made in it. I want to hear real answers to the questions brought up, not accusations thrown around.

I think you need to retake physics ...

I saw the part about winter storms hitting the twin towers with more force than a commercial aircraft.....I just didn't believe it.  When a winter storm blows a hole in a skyscraper, I'll probably change my mind.  I'll admit I'm not an architect, though.  And yeah, there was black smoke coming from the building and the guy said that it meant that the fire was under a certain degree but was he inside of the building?  Perhaps there were intense smoldering fires on the inside and weaker burning fires closer to the outside.  Who knows?  Who knows if some sort of support bearing structure was jarred.

I saw the part about building 7 and how they abandoned it after they spent so much money reinforcing it.  Why the heck would somebody stay inside of it if escape was possible?  I saw the assumptions without proof that a homing beacon was set in that buildint, that two guys carrying a peice of metal the size of a briefcase meant that they were hiding metal, and that a crew of people performing a grid search which is often (if not almost always) comprised of volunteers used to search for evidence and dead bodies (or body parts) meant that they were out to find and hide evidence.  I just don't buy it.  I have friends that went on to work for the GBI, Secret Service, and FBI (not the CIA, though).  I just don't think that these people who went from being normal just like me suddenly became part of some sort of shadow government organization.  It's the unfounded accusations and the sensationlistic parts of the "documentary" that turned me off to virtually all of the potentially factual stuff.

Air Force drones, missles, secret hangers, hidden explosives....it's all just too much.  Anyway, I don't want to dwell on this subject.  People who believe tend to believe and people who are skeptics tend to remain skeptical.  I just don't think anything in that video did anything but provide doubt.  It's like me saying, "Bob died last night at 9pm.  At that same time, WFZ was nowhere to be found."  Without providing any proof, I just planted an idea in your head.  That's what this video seems to be doing.  Taking a bunch of random "imagine if this is the scenario" ideas and feeding them to people. 

And that's my take.  I'm out.

Care to elaborate and say something useful, rather than redirecting the topic? Explain to me how the building fell with absolutely no resistance, onto itself, when other similar buildings never fell even after burning with much more intense fires for many more hours.

Explain to me how the fire got hot enough to melt the steel, when many tests have been done by the fire department proving that fires can't melt steel so easily? And why did the whole building so easily collapse instead of just the top floors falling over?

I'm not trying to throw conspiracy theories around, I'm trying to look at this objectively and figure out what really is and isn't possible. And what we've been told... doesn't seem possible to me. So in all of your glory and wisdom, do you mind saying something actually useful to the discussion?


D21Lewis, I'll reply to you later. Thanks for giving actual consideration to this thread. =)