You highlight some metal beams at the start of your film, and say that the ends are too neat.

(1) Explosives will certainly not leave them as neat as this. If you're going to rule out collapse on this evidence then you're going to have to rule out explosive too.

(2) Some of the pictures are of beams on trucks. Now might it just be that they've been cut to length so as to fit on the truck?

(3) Watching the films of the collapse shows that the lower floors do not collapse first - the buildings collapse from top down. This means any explosive would have to be on the floor where the plane struck - and it would have survived an hour or so soaked in burning kerosene?

You also associate television programmes with 'investigative journalism' - this is an oxymoron.

please stop it.
again and again we see this consipiracy theory rubbish on indymedia and again and again we use actual sceince and evidence to show you are wrong.
please stop posting it here and go speak to david icke.
one quick question doyou think the world is flat?

Please stop posting comments here that support the US Empire and put the position of Bush less elequently that the Great Imperial Leader himself -- after all this is hard to do...

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty."

November 10, 2001 - President Bush Speaks to United Nations

If you like the propaganda from the British [State's] Broacasting Corporation and don't think that critiques of it from activists are suitable for this site then what are YOU doing here?

Pro-Imperial trolls like badger should be the ones who are not tollerated.

the only conspiracy that exists is the conspiracy of silence being maintained by all media, such as the BBC, over the fact that 911 was infact an inside job

However, that does to apply to ALL of the BBC, within which there is a war of truth now operating between those who see the reality of what's going on, and those who are part of the conspiracy and their willingly hodwinked subserviant minions. They only delay the inevitable and those who lie and continue to lie only make it worse for themselves in the long-run...

Rumour is that news reporting team within BBC have had a story about Cheney lying to 911 Truth Commission d-noticed/embargoed by US....

There's not been a "conspiracy of silence". The 911 theories have been covered by loads of different mainstream media - Time magazine, the Guardian, the BBC, etcetera. And they've done some basic journalism, some logical thought, then pointed out that the theories are... bollocks. Enticing bollocks, but bollocks nonetheless.

Unfortunately, whenever one loopy theory (such as controlled demolition) gets soundly disproven another one pops up in its place.

(Having said that, have not had time to watch the WTC7 / BBC video yet, which may completely transform my point of view. But I somehow doubt it.)

Norville B
How else would you explain how WTC 7 fell on it's own footprint? For it to do so, it could only have occurred having been fully laden with explosives.

I am sure you may be able to quote numerous examples of bad conspiracy - did you not consider that there would be a deliberate intention to muddy the conspiracy field with half-baked facts to discredit all alternative explanations. A reasoned, intelligent mind would seperate half-facts and fictions from reasonable explanations.

If you have been thorough with your own investigation, then you wouldn't have been so hoodwinked, would you? Unless of course you have been willfully ignorant.

Being ignorant leads you into all sorts of errors. 'WTC 7 fell on it's own footprint'.

All buildings do when they collapse. It's got bugger all to do with explosives, but everything to do with gravity. THERE ISN'T ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THEM TO FALL!

Unfortunately for those running interference for the criminals most likely responsible for the events of that horrific day (and the Terror that followed over the past five years ...), the Bush/PNAC Fascists have been completely unable to support their own Conspiracy Theory with hard evidence - in well over five years. Meanwhile, the evidence contradicting their Theory has only piled up ...

www.patriotsquestion911.com

www.911truth.org

Bush Record Of Illegalities Suggests Possible Role In 9/11 WTC, Pentagon Strikes

By Sherwood Ross

The trouble with thinking 9/11 was an inside job staged by George W. Bush & Co. is that it defies belief any U.S. president might be capable of such an iniquitous crime against his own people.

Yet, subsequent Bush actions, such as lying the nation into war against Iraq, makes one wonder if the man didn’t create the 9/11 massacres to justify his attacks on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran.

After all, his record reveals him to be a serial liar, warmonger, tyrant, torturer, and usurper of his peoples’ civil liberties. Just off the top, here are some illegal GWB actions that betray what he is really about.

www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0703/S00086.htm

Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11
by Bill Christison

Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below highlight the major questions surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed recounting of the evidence available.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979. Since then he has written numerous articles on U.S. foreign policies.

www.dissidentvoice.org/Aug06/Christison14.htm

The wonderful part of all the 9/11 conspiracy theories is that most of them are bonkers, and the rest contradict each other.

No doubt you'd dearly love Bush to be guilty, but unless you can come up with something better than slick videos made by media graduates who haven't a clue about structural engineering, or even GCSE physics, you'll be confined to your own little circle of group of people who seize on the smallest point of trivia and blow it up into a massive conspiracy.

We have the BBC in it now - at this rate, tens of thousands of people must be in the know - and not one of them blabs?

Nixon couldn't keep a bungled burgarly hidden - and you expect us to believe that a conspiracy this vast, this huge, has been kept under wraps for six years? Keep taking the meds.

Maybe it was an inside job, maybe elements of the US state knew about a plot and allowed it it happen to justify intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq (more likely imho, after all the US isn't exactly short of genuine enemies), maybe they missed the plot altogether through bureaucratic incompetance, or whatever. I could believe any of those versions, certainly the US state isn't above murdering of its own citizens, buts whats new? We'll never know for sure, it will never be definitively proved one way or another, its the next JFK assassination. Kind of interesting to think about but a complete waste of energy to devote your time to. It happened, but the important thing is the current situation, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the west...move on, this stuff will go nowhere.

just becuase i think the conspiracy thoery people are nuts and,more to the point,just plane wrong doesnt mean i support bush and the pax-america project.
respected scientists and jounralists have all gone through the conspiracy theories bit by but and disproved all of your arguments.
you take 2 + 2 and make it 5.
so please take this elsewhere cos you dont represent the movement and neither do i but indymedia is not the place for you 9/11 conspiracy theories anymore.
just like its not the place for the SWP to promote itself or mad secrtariansim.
and finally,i couldnt care less what happened on 9/11 i didnt care then i care even less now.

thankfully, Badger, you are not the arbitor of what people should and shouldn't say on Indymedia. So, it is not for you to say that 911 should not be discussed. Badger says this isn't important. Try saying that to every Iraqi family who has had loved ones killed, because 911 was the excuse to propel the war. It is plain idiotic to downplay the significance of 911, not least because it effectively means the US government was complicit in the murder of it's own citizens. It is moronic to say this is not important.

Re: comments made by "Physicist", he lamely referred to my comment that Building 7 fell on it's own footprint, making that overwhelmingly lucid point that that is what one would expect a building collapse to do.

The point about Building 7, of course, was that no plane hit it, and that it fell at freefall speed on its own footprint, in the manner of a building that had undergone controlled demolition (in the sam way that the twin towers did). Larry Silverstein, the owner of the building at the time, said, on quote on television that "we decided to pull the building".
Ref:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk
To "pull down" a building would require putting explosives inside the floorboarding and interior walls of that building, which would take days, if not weeks, not the hours after the twin towers fell - the reason they gave for why Building 7 fell or had to be pulled - because the fall of the twin towers had destabilised Building 7.

If you don't believe me, then listen to the words of a Dutch demolitions expert:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

with the tinfoil hat brigade.

Excellent example of why arguing with a wingnut gets you nowhere.

BD-
"How else would you explain how WTC 7 fell on it's own footprint? For it to do so, it could only have occurred having been fully laden with explosives".


And the response:

physicist -

"Being ignorant leads you into all sorts of errors. 'WTC 7 fell on it's own footprint'.

All buildings do when they collapse. It's got bugger all to do with explosives, but everything to do with gravity. THERE ISN'T ANYWHERE ELSE FOR THEM TO FALL! "


BD -
Re: comments made by "Physicist", he lamely referred to my comment that Building 7 fell on it's own footprint, making that overwhelmingly lucid point that that is what one would expect a building collapse to do.

The point about Building 7, of course, was that no plane hit it, and that it fell at freefall speed on its own footprint, in the manner of a building that had undergone controlled demolition (in the sam way that the twin towers did).



Seems BD has no answer to the footprint issue and quickly moves onto some other "fact" that when examined will prove to be irrelevant or false, but hey, here's another..
Morons.

hey, Sarcoptic, or should I refer to you as cop, read and weep away you misinformed opinion (though I expect your job is to do exactly that - misinform and spread lies, propagandise the war-on-terror, and uphold the establishment line that we are at clear and present danger from terrorists).

the "fact" I went onto outline was the following:

To "pull down" a building would require putting explosives inside the floorboarding and interior walls of that building, which would take days, if not weeks, not the hours after the twin towers fell - the reason they gave for why Building 7 fell or had to be pulled - because the fall of the twin towers had destabilised Building 7.
Ref:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk
If you don't believe me, then listen to the words of a Dutch demolitions expert:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

- to which it is you and your deathwish chums who have no answer, but then, ignorance is bliss for you cretins....

the more you rebut the accusation, the more you draw attention to there being something that needs exposing...

thanks for that..

Watch the collapse.

It starts at the floor where the aircraft hit. This floor collapses first. Now, if explosive were used, then it is triggered at this point first. You are asking us to believe that the explosive on this floor will withstand being surrounded by tonnes of burning kerosene for an hour or two. Ask yourself: is this likely?

Now, how did they trigger it? By remote control? By wires?
And the electronics of the remote survived the fire? The wires weren't burned away?

Physicist, oh deary dear, if you are going to rebut what I've said, atleast take issue with the actuality of the facts I've mentioned! ....No plane hit Building 7, as I have already said above.

In any case, you lamely said "What happened to the wires". Why, they got insinurated in the building collapse, my dear fellow!

For the 3rd time, the info again:


To "pull down" a building would require putting explosives inside the floorboarding and interior walls of that building, which would take days, if not weeks, not the hours after the twin towers fell - the reason they gave for why Building 7 fell or had to be pulled - because the fall of the twin towers had destabilised Building 7.
Ref:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0scE7bQWdk
If you don't believe me, then listen to the words of a Dutch demolitions expert:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgoSOQ2xrbI

Ah, you make my point for me. The wires would be incinerated [not spelling]. This would mean that they wouldn't be able to blow the explosives, would they?

And, hey, congratulations - after six years you've found one possible expert who might agree with you. What about the 999,999 others?

Hey Physicist, just checking to see you really are a spook.

Your argument is so, so lame, btw. The question of whether wires were incinerated or not does not apply to Building 7, which no plane hit and imploded of it's own accord. Cretin.