9/ll conspiracy theories: How they've evolved

As we are nearing the 10th anniversary of 9/11, here are some of the consipiracy theories of the last 10 years.






29 August 2011 Last updated at 03:25



9/11 conspiracy theories: How they've evolved







It may be 10 years since the attacks in the US on 11 September, but conspiracy theories have not faded over time, says Mike Rudin.

Numerous official reports have been published since the Twin Towers fell, but just when a piece of evidence casts doubt on one theory, the focus then shifts to the next "unanswered question".

Here are five of the most prominent 9/11 conspiracy theories circulating in online communities.

1. Failure to intercept the hijacked planes


The question: Why did the world's most powerful air force fail to intercept any of the four hijacked planes?

Conspiracy theorists say: The then US Vice President Dick Cheney ordered the military to stand down and not to intercept the planes.
Fighter jets failed to intercept the hijacked planes

Official reports say: This was a highly unusual multiple hijacking with violence on board, and where the transponder, which provides the exact location of the plane, was turned off or changed.

What is more, a routine military training exercise happened to be taking place that day at US air defence command.

Air traffic controller Colin Scoggins was in constant contact with the military and did not see any lack of response. There was confusion and a lack of communication between the civilian air traffic control (FAA) and the military.

The military's equipment was also outdated and designed to look out over the ocean to deal with a Cold War threat.

2. Collapse of the Twin Towers


The question: Why did the Twin Towers collapse so quickly, within their own footprint, after fires on a few floors that lasted only for an hour or two?

Conspiracy theorists say: The Twin Towers were destroyed by controlled demolitions. Theories relate to the rapid collapse (about 10 seconds), the relatively short-lived fires (56 minutes in World Trade Center 2 or 102 minutes in World Trade Center 1), reports of the sounds of explosions shortly before the collapse, and the violent ejections that could be seen at some windows many floors below the collapse.
Five new skyscrapers are being built on the World Trade Center site

Official reports say: An extensive inquiry by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the planes severed and damaged support columns and dislodged fire-proofing.

Around 10,000 gallons of jet fuel were spewed over many floors starting widespread fires. Temperatures of up to 1,000C caused the floors to sag and the perimeter columns to bend, causing the sounds of "explosions".

The massive weight of the floors dropped, creating a dynamic load far in excess of what the columns were designed for. Debris was forced out of the windows as the floors above collapsed.

Controlled demolition is always carried out from the bottom floors up, yet this collapse started at the top.

No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges despite the extensive hand searches and there is no evidence of any pre-cutting of columns or walls, which is routinely carried out in a controlled demolition.

3. Attack on the Pentagon


The question: How could an amateur pilot fly a commercial plane in a complicated manoeuvre and crash it into the headquarters of the world's most powerful military, 78 minutes after the first report of a possible hijack and leave no trace?
A memorial in the grounds of the Pentagon marks the deaths of those who died when Flight 77 crashed

Conspiracy theorists say: A commercial Boeing 757 did not hit the building but instead a missile, a small aircraft or an unmanned drone was used. But since evidence has increasingly shown that the American Airlines Flight 77 did hit the building, the emphasis has shifted to questioning the difficult approach manoeuvre. It is argued it was not under the control of al-Qaeda but the Pentagon itself.

Official reports say: Airplane wreckage, including the black boxes, were recovered from the scene and they were catalogued by the FBI.

Although some early video did not show much wreckage, there is a good deal of video and still photography which shows plane wreckage and evidence of the flight path, such as broken lamp posts.

The remains of crew and passengers on the plane were found and positively identified by DNA. Witnesses also saw the plane strike the Pentagon.

4. The fourth plane - United Airlines flight 93


The question: Why was the crash site at Shanksville, Pennsylvania, so small and why was the aircraft debris not visible?

Conspiracy theorists argue: United Airlines flight 93 was shot down by a missile and disintegrated in mid air, scattering the wreckage over a large area.
Forty-four people died when Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania

Official reports say: There are clear photographs showing aircraft wreckage and the cockpit voice recorder, which showed there had been a passenger revolt and the hijackers had deliberately crashed the plane.

Initial theories that heavy debris was scattered many miles from the main crash site turned out to be false. In fact the wind had blown light debris such as paper and insulation just over a mile.

Another theory was based on a misquote from the local coroner, Wally Miller, who said he stopped being a coroner after about 20 minutes because there were no bodies. What he also said was that he quickly realised it was a plane crash and there would have to be a large funeral service for the many victims.

In addition, the military never gave orders to the air force to shoot the commercial airliner down.

5. Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7


The question: How could a skyscraper, which was not hit by a plane, collapse so quickly and symmetrically, when no other steel-framed skyscraper has collapsed because of fire?
Offices for civil emergencies, the CIA and the Secret Service were based in World Trade Center Building 7

Conspiracy theorists say: The World Trade Center Building 7 was destroyed by a controlled demolition using both explosives and incendiaries.

Initially the focus was on the phrase "pull it" used by the owner, Larry Silverstein, in a TV interview. But in fact he was talking about pulling firefighters back. (Demolition experts do not use the term "pull it" as slang for setting off explosives.)

Now the focus has shifted to the speed of the collapse which reached near free fall for 2.25 seconds. It is argued only explosives could make it collapse so quickly and symmetrically.

Some scientists, who are sceptical of the official account, have examined four dust samples from Ground Zero and claim to have found thermitic material which reacts violently when heated up. They claim tonnes of thermite and conventional explosives were rigged inside, not just WTC7, but also the Twin Towers.

• The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - Ten Years On will be broadcast on Monday 29 August 2011 at 21:00 BST on BBC Two
  

Official reports say: A three-year investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the building collapsed because of uncontrolled fires, started by the collapse of the nearby North Tower, and which burnt for seven hours.

The mains water feeding the emergency sprinkler system was severed. No evidence has ever been found of explosive charges and there are no recordings of a series of very loud explosions that would have been expected with controlled demolition.

Furthermore, there is an alternative explanation for the "thermitic material" the sceptical scientists found in the dust - it is just a type of primer paint. It's calculated 1,200,000 tonnes of building materials were pulverised at the World Trade Center and most minerals are present in the dust (not necessarily in a large quantity). More extensive sampling of the dust has not found any evidence of thermite or explosives, says a report from the US Geological Survey and [url=http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130 Liberty Street/Mike Davis LMDC 130 Liberty Documents/Signature of WTC dust/WTC Dust Signature.Composition and Morphology.Final.pdf]another from RJ Lee[/url].



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14665953







Some videos..............



[youtube][/youtube]



[youtube][/youtube]



[youtube][/youtube]



[youtube][/youtube]



[youtube][/youtube]

MYSTERIOUS DEATHS OF 9/11 witnesses (MUST SEE)



[youtube][/youtube]

NEW PROOF 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! Richard Gage. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth!



Very interesting.................



[youtube][/youtube]

When I started to watch that video, I thought I would get to see one or two people who had died under mysterious circumstances. I could not believe how many there was in the end, as I lost count.

Shocking, truly shocking and they wonder why people refuse to believe the official story.

I think we owe it to all of those dead people, to get as many other people to see this video.

9/11 Truth: What happened to Building 7 I hadn't even realised this fell, and not hit by a plane, just collapsed in 6 seconds................





[youtube][/youtube]

I firmly believe that both the attacks on 9/11 in America and on 7/7 in London could not possibly have happened the way that we have been told they did. Such "false flag" exercises have been going on since the beginning of time.

Hi all, i found the film on 9/11 interesting. there is masses of info. out thereon the subject. there is a web for PILOTS FOR TRUTH. and it has lots of factual stuff from pilots and people that have done many tests and engineerinf stuff,there is no doubt in my mind that not all is what we have been told.its hard to even know where to start. joyce1938

What happened to flight 93. Allegedly the passengers stormed the cockpit and the plane came down. Only a crater and tiny bits of debris - no plane? Other videos show witnesses who went to help saw no bodies.



[youtube][/youtube]

Further to Candyfloss's last comment, whenever there is a plane crash, no matter how terrible the impact and any possible explosion there might have been, you always see recognisable pieces of the plane, unless of course it crashed in the sea. Sometimes there are even poignant pieces of debris, like shoes and toys belonging to the passengers. I simply do not believe that Flight 93 and the one that supposedly hit the Pentagon could have been totally obliterated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h2J6Lo&feature=related

This really is the one to watch, giving quite a lot of information which I didn't find in the hundreds of videos I watched over the last 5 years!

Don't be put off by the German at the beginning, it's subtitled in English. In 7 parts about 73 minutes. Particularly interesting shot during the Pentagon 'attack' of Donald Rumsfeld, taking great care NOT to do his job.

It's not surprising that Dr. Ludke, also German, twigged the mcCanns from the word go.

Another thing that links this site and 9/11 for me is the atrocious photoshopping. No wonder one of the helicopter crew died. there are lots of little bits on youtube which are useful.
Remember this: because we saw it happening live with our own eyes, we believed it was true although the laws of physics were also being destroyed.
An aircraft is essentially a large tin can and when it hits a concrete and steel building, it does not slice through like a knife through butter. It's not so much the case that an aircraft hits the building as the building impacting on the aircraft, no matter what the speed. Besides the buildings were designed to take such hits.

The towers as well as nr. 7 were sold to Larry whathisname just a few months earlier. Insurance taken out by him included aircraft hits. the buildings were full of asbestos and near the end of their lifespan. Demolishing would have been an impossibly expensive job because of the asbestos.
The dust was full of it and people are dying of it every day even now.

tigger wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h2J6Lo&feature=related

This really is the one to watch, giving quite a lot of information which I didn't find in the hundreds of videos I watched over the last 5 years!

Don't be put off by the German at the beginning, it's subtitled in English. In 7 parts about 73 minutes. Particularly interesting shot during the Pentagon 'attack' of Donald Rumsfeld, taking great care NOT to do his job.

It's not surprising that Dr. Ludke, also German, twigged the mcCanns from the word go.

Another thing that links this site and 9/11 for me is the atrocious photoshopping. No wonder one of the helicopter crew died. there are lots of little bits on youtube which are useful.
Remember this: because we saw it happening live with our own eyes, we believed it was true although the laws of physics were also being destroyed.
An aircraft is essentially a large tin can and when it hits a concrete and steel building, it does not slice through like a knife through butter. It's not so much the case that an aircraft hits the building as the building impacting on the aircraft, no matter what the speed. Besides the buildings were designed to take such hits.

The towers as well as nr. 7 were sold to Larry whathisname just a few months earlier. Insurance taken out by him included aircraft hits. the buildings were full of asbestos and near the end of their lifespan. Demolishing would have been an impossibly expensive job because of the asbestos.
The dust was full of it and people are dying of it every day even now.

Yes that chap had not long before bought the twin towers and surrounding buildings, and had made sure that he had written into the insurance clause a terrorist attack! The insurance company only wanted to pay out for one hit, classing them both as one act, but he took them to court and won and was paid out double. They paid out something like 15 billion pounds, and yet, not long before he had purchased them for just a few million., according to the video I watched. Also when Building 7 collapsed it housed the CIA or something, and the mayors offices, and the mayor was warned to get out 15 mins before it collapsed, taking with it many important documents on ongoing high profile case eg Enron etc.

Why weren't the victims (nearly 3,000), listed on the US's Social Security administrations official list of dead Americans?

Nearly 3,000 victims of 9/11 don’t show up as dead in Social Security records

WASHINGTON —
A New York congresswoman who represents Manhattan wants answers to why
nearly 3,000 victims of the 9/11 terrorists attacks weren’t reported in
the Social Security Administration’s official list of deceased
Americans.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said her staff started making inquiries
after the errors in the federal Death Master File (DMF) were detected
by Scripps Howard News Service. The file is a public record intended to
protect families of the deceased from identity theft and other types of
fraud.


“While nearly 3,000 individuals were killed on Sept. 11th, the list
does not show an increase in numbers from the typical DMF daily
average,” Maloney said. “A sampling of those names did not yield any
matches in the DMF and confirms their apparent absence.”


She said her staff has contacted the Social Security Administration,
the New York State Department of Health and the New York City Department
of Health and Mental Hygiene, only to receive “conflicting answers as
to why there is a lack of reporting on this matter.”


So Maloney is asking Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue and
the public health commissioners for the state of New York and New York
City, jointly, to account for the reporting error.


“Would you explain why individuals killed on 9/11 would be missing from the DMF?” Maloney asked in her letters.


http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2011/jul/09/Social-Security-Administration-grave-mistakes-911/

There are just so many things not right about what supposedly happened on 9/11. There's irrefutable evidence from early reports that there were bombs in the Twin Towers and Building 7 but these were quickly dropped when it became clear that the official version was suicide bombers were solely responsible. The third and fourth supposed plane crashes received comparatively little coverage which I suppose is understandable in view of the enormity of the other events.



However, once you start looking at what evidence is available, you know that whatever caused the damage at the Pentagon and made a hole in a field, it wasn't planes crashing. A film was made about Flight 93 based on the phone calls supposedly made by passengers but it's been proved that mobile phones don't work at such a high altitude.



I could go on but I won't - if anyone is interested, no doubt they will read up on all the evidence just as they do in Madeleine's case.

[quote="candyfloss"]

tigger wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h2J6Lo&feature=related

This really is the one to watch, giving quite a lot of information which I didn't find in the hundreds of videos I watched over the last 5 years!



Yes that chap had not long before bought the twin towers and surrounding buildings, and had made sure that he had written into the insurance clause a terrorist attack! The insurance company only wanted to pay out for one hit, classing them both as one act, but he took them to court and won and was paid out double. They paid out something like 15 billion pounds, and yet, not long before he had purchased them for just a few million., according to the video I watched. Also when Building 7 collapsed it housed the CIA or something, and the mayors offices, and the mayor was warned to get out 15 mins before it collapsed, taking with it many important documents on ongoing high profile case eg Enron etc.

At the Pentagon, all the papers re a trillion or so dollars which couldn't be accounted for, were also destroyed. Rumsfeld spend the morning in the breakfast room, coincidentally as far away from the impact site as possible, then spent a couple of hours playing gopher for the ambulance crew.
Again, all this is an insult to our intelligence - which is somehow a familiar sensation on this site.

Thanks for this thread and the links to the videos. I have always believed there was something not right about 9/11 and the war with Iraq that followed. I am also very suspicious of the situation in Libya.

I saw something on the net (can't remember where now) where an ex US military man was speaking about Libya and he said that there would be American ground troups in Libya by September and this has been planned for a long time.

He also said the US would default on their debt to pay for it.

More vids about 9 /11, documentary, Bush lies, and so..

http://verdenvar.blogspot.com/p/911-klipp-og-dokumentarer.html

Thanks for that LG78. Most of the videos are now unavailable (here in England anyway) but there's a wealth of other information on the Internet which shows the lunacy of the official version of events.

[quote="tigger"]

candyfloss wrote:

tigger wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h2J6Lo&feature=related

This really is the one to watch, giving quite a lot of information which I didn't find in the hundreds of videos I watched over the last 5 years!



Yes that chap had not long before bought the twin towers and surrounding buildings, and had made sure that he had written into the insurance clause a terrorist attack! The insurance company only wanted to pay out for one hit, classing them both as one act, but he took them to court and won and was paid out double. They paid out something like 15 billion pounds, and yet, not long before he had purchased them for just a few million., according to the video I watched. Also when Building 7 collapsed it housed the CIA or something, and the mayors offices, and the mayor was warned to get out 15 mins before it collapsed, taking with it many important documents on ongoing high profile case eg Enron etc.

At the Pentagon, all the papers re a trillion or so dollars which couldn't be accounted for, were also destroyed. Rumsfeld spend the morning in the breakfast room, coincidentally as far away from the impact site as possible, then spent a couple of hours playing gopher for the ambulance crew.
Again, all this is an insult to our intelligence - which is somehow a familiar sensation on this site.

Good use was made of the event:
Fraudulent accounting at the Pentagon
Enron Papers
Asbestos disposal costs
Opposition to Iraq War
All gone like magic. Plus that the city and Wall Street were betting on airline shares tumbling. Made a packet of course.

Once I took on board the fact that there were no airliners involved in any of the attacks, the really interesting thing is to work out where these aircraft 'disappeared'. Pilots for 9/11 truth have found some of them. The information on those flights is entirely suspect. There were some unexplained landings in Cleveland of aircraft from the alleged departure points. The passenger lists don't work and one would have expected many funerals to be covered by the media.

Initially I believed all the news the media pumped out, until many years later, I heard about building 7.

Building 7 wasn't part of the investigative report! I found. I'd never even heard about except by accident when I checked out the Kennedy assasination.
I had also been searching for officer Tippett, because that too is an unexplained fact in a world event.

The same must be true of the McCanns - there is one factor which they will never be able to explain away.
Is it the fake Coloboma? Is it that Maddie was made a trademark within two weeks?
I think its' the iconic photograph which was ready on the same night and could not have been printed anywhere locally.

But looking forward to alternative suggestions.

Re photoshopping: the Zapruder film is heavily and badly 'adjusted', only very recently has a more trustworthy copy come out. Apparently the car didn't just slow down, it stopped for a second or two.
Then the bad photoshopping in the films of the second plane as seen from the helicopter: the plane appears out of nothing, in some the nose cone comes out the other side of the building - undented! Fox News covered this with their banner until it could be adjusted.

I seem to be one of the few who knew about the collapse of this building on 9/11. It certainly was covered on the news though the enormity of the other events surpassed it. There are some interesting clips on YouTube of news coverage reporting that the building had collapsed while it was still standing! Here's a link to a BBC report:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc



Building 7 is seen behind and to the right of the female reporter.

Marian wrote:Thanks for that LG78. Most of the videos are now unavailable (here in England anyway) but there's a wealth of other information on the Internet which shows the lunacy of the official version of events.

Im shocked, is it really that information banned in UK ? How much information is banned in England regard to cases like this ? Strange and not good at all. I never thought UK was doing that...

All information on here is like old news to me and everyone I know.. I new about that wt7 building years ago? I cant see any information here beeing new at all...And all those videos is still available in my country, freedom of speach ey :)

You should all google MIHOP

LG78, it's very strange but I can now access the videos. When I first tried, the message was something to the effect that the person who downloaded them had closed their account. Now there's no problem with them at all.

Marian wrote:LG78, it's very strange but I can now access the videos. When I first tried, the message was something to the effect that the person who downloaded them had closed their account. Now there's no problem with them at all.

Strange, but good for you :) No fun if your goverment denie you the right of free thinking and speech :)

Transcript of "phonecalls" before the Planes crashed.

http://www.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/full-audio-transcript/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PG_N7h2J6Lo&feature=related

German with English subtitles. This documentary is easily the best I've seen because it addresses not so much the 'attacks' as the total lack of defence.
Terrific clip of Donald Rumsfeld running around the lawn of the Pentagon.

Like the McC affair, they ask questions about the standard responses which didn't happen, rather than about what allegedly did.

I don't know if I am going against the trend here, but I don't think there is any conspiracy with 9/11. Except for the Pentagon, but then the US would not want images of their most sacred building having a massive hole in it beamed across the world. I believe the US always knew of the threat of 9/11, but never believed they would actually go through with it. I don't think there is any conspiracy with 7/7 either

jd wrote:I don't know if I am going against the trend here, but I don't think there is any conspiracy with 9/11. Except for the Pentagon, but then the US would not want images of their most sacred building having a massive hole in it beamed across the world. I believe the US always knew of the threat of 9/11, but never believed they would actually go through with it. I don't think there is any conspiracy with 7/7 either

Oh how the governments wished everyone bought their nonsense as easily as you have.

jd wrote:I don't know if I am going against the trend here, but I don't think there is any conspiracy with 9/11. Except for the Pentagon, but then the US would not want images of their most sacred building having a massive hole in it beamed across the world. I believe the US always knew of the threat of 9/11, but never believed they would actually go through with it. I don't think there is any conspiracy with 7/7 either

I would strongly recommend John Hill's video - 7/7 Ripple effect. If you watch this and still don't believe there is any conspiracy, well, there's no hope for you.

"Regarding the
7/7/2005 terrorist attacks in London, let us look at the facts, and what
we were told, and compare them. Then, using Ockham’s Razor and
common-sense, let us see what conclusions are to be drawn, so we can all
understand what most likely really did happen that day"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8756795263359807776

Big Vern wrote: Oh how the governments wished everyone bought their nonsense as easily as you have.

I haven't read or seen anything to suggest to me otherwise, and I certainly do not believe that any western government (however corrupt they are) would smash 2 planes into sky scrapers killing thousands of people. I will watch the video though and see what it says. Now Diana and the McCanns are a different matter.......

Why are they a different matter?
There is far more evidence for 9/11 and 7/7 being false flag attacks than there is for the two cases you mention being cover ups!