This is going to be around longer than the JFK asassination and will outlive us all. Everybody knows it was Lee Harvey Oswald acting entirely alone because the Warren Commission said so and governments never ever lie do they?

If it wasn't for the fact that the USA entered two World Wars and several other smaller ones because of suspect circumstances I would find it easy to dismiss, but like a large number of New Yorkers I think there is a lot more to this story than we have been told.
Not just from the government. Nobody talks about the organised looting of the site that was being carried during the clean-up by firemen and police because it goes against the popular sentiment but it did happen.

Paul.L

there is much dispute about the Popular Mechanics version of parts of the story.
Much of it comes from scientists but here's a summary - http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm

I agree with wobbles when he says that early eyewitness reports seem to be ignored and only those that fit the story are ever repeated.
Here is part of a CNN report live from the Pentagon just after the explosion. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/

There are many others as well as eyewitness radio reports that say the same things. How can several eyewitnesses see vastly different versions of the same event?

If the nearby surveillance videos that were siezed by the FBI afterwards support the official story then they could put an end to all of the speculation right now by releasing them, but like the accidental Zapruder film of Kennedy being shot, it suggests at least the possibility of a slightly different version of events. If the Zapruder film never existed would we tend to believe the official version more readily?

I think a lot of the stories out there are crazy too but there are many other things that don't add up.

This is just one that interests me -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html
and
http://emperors-clothes.com/misc/lefigaro.htm

This story was leaked by French Intelligence in retaliation for the anti-France statements being made by GWB. He shut-up just afterwards.

Paul L

8 miles is a long way for wreckage to blow in the wind at ground level in any direction, but not so far to fall from a great height.

These reports were independently made before the official story came out so why would they deliberately lie? Perhaps the facts were later adjusted to fit the story.

Also, Despite the Hollywood scripted version of events on that flight, there is still a lot of dispute about the alleged phone calls (Barbara Olsen's in particular) if you care to look further.

Hey, but don't take my word for it, here's a remark from Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6Xoxaf1Al0

This is just like the global warming issue. If you believe in it you are gullible and naive, if you doubt it you're miguided and in denial.

"Work hard, consume, be silent and die" - that's all we are supposed to do.

Anyway, everybody knows that the little men aren't green, they're grey.

So Wobbles, tell me what you believe really happened and the why's and wherefore's and so on. Simply making an irrelevant comment about global warming with the hope that it will strike a cord of reality with your conspiracy theories does your cause no good at all

Ditch,
My comment about global warming was entirely relevant because there are people on both sides alleging that the other side is involved in some sort of conspiracy. Surely they can't both be right can they?. Look at arguments from both sides and make up your own mind.

As for what I personally think happened, who cares? I don't know any more that you do but I honestly suspect that what we have been told is not the full story.

For example, I just can't accept that a bunch of Arab playboys got past all the military security and intelligence systems of the United States so easily, despite multiple warnings from other agencies, without some sort of inside information or phenomenal luck. I don't believe the US government did it but they really seem to have gone out of their way to let it happen.

I'm also fascinated by things like the notion that the passport of one of the pilots being miraculously found intact in the pulverised rubble of one of the towers, yet the same man later found to be still alive and living overseas. Little things that don't quite fit and some amazingly convenient coincidences - not those crazy theories about remote controlled planes and so on.

As for Flight 93, it may indeed have been shot down and the truth covered up to maintain national morale for what was to come. My main point all along was that many initial independent eyewitness accounts often get ignored in preference for the ones that better fit the script. That doesn't make them wrong, just inconvenient when you are trying to create a particular image.

Read the 911 Commission report for yourself and then see what information and testimony was not allowed to be included and then ask yourself why. Otherwise just believe the Hollywood version and stay happy.

WOBBLES... there is ONE scenario which I can imagine will take in ALL the evidence.

1/ There was a genuine plot by Al Qaeda
2/ This plot was detected at some level of the US oligarchy.
3/ They considered that this genuine plot could in fact ADVANCE their own agenda's.
4/ They pulled strings to allow it to happen.

Such a scenario of course implied 'betrayal' on the part any individual involved, but politics and power being what they are it is unlikely that any would ever face trial.

This is the only explanation which actually takes the Aaron Russo interview into consideration and gives it any weight.

Now..having said, we now find ourselves on 'planet wild theory' where we would be starting to mention 'Illuminati, Freemasons, Rothschilds' and all manner of speculatory ideas.

I don't have any seriously provable scenarios there.. it just spins out and spirals into pin the tail on the political/conspiracy theory donkey :)

Even IF..we could identify 'Person A, B, and C and secret society X, Y, Z, - without a bit of 'clout' and solid evidence... it would be an uphill battle to do much about it.

I don't mind getting my teeth into something solid. But this kind of thing is just toooo flimsy for me.

I'll focus on exposing 'Western Decadence' :) and 'Islamic Decadence'.. it's more compatable to my own committment as a Christian.

BOAZ: "But this kind of thing is just toooo flimsy for me.

... my own committment as a Christian."

Can anything be too flimsy for someone who claims "committment as a Christian"?