egafd.com

When people no longer believe in something, (authority, church, government, rationality, whatever), they start to believe anything.
I've never come across a conspiracy theory that couldn't be easily demolished with a little research, some knowledge of the subject and a bit of COMMON SENSE.

Hmmmmm and, Elvis and JFK are planning a Joint comeback Tour......

All of the people who were on those planes were in fact taken to Area 51, where they are now being held and experimented on by aliens. Some bloke off the internet told me, so it must be true....

and that just about sums it up, Angie!

one eyed jack wrote:

> My mind runs riot at the thought it was sanctioned and wouldnt
> be surprised if Osama was in cahoots with the Bush
> administration to keep him in power when his popularity was
> declining on the run up to 9/11...

We'll find out in 30 years or so. It's a simple fact that bin Laden was originally a CIA operative in Afghanistan, and that he was still in contact with the CIA into 2001. That doesn't prove the CIA had anything to do with 9/11, but it shows at least they should choose their friends more carefully.

Oh, and whatever happened to the anthrax-by-post thing? That went quiet after it was revealed that the type of Anthrax could only have come from a US government facility. Nobody has been brought to trial.

andy at handiwork wrote:

> When people no longer believe in something, (authority, church,
> government, rationality, whatever), they start to believe
> anything.
> I've never come across a conspiracy theory that couldn't be
> easily demolished with a little research, some knowledge of the
> subject and a bit of COMMON SENSE.

Ever heard the one about the US starting the Vietnam War by attacking one of their own ships?

Cos that one's true.

Yes, maybe they could have Photoshoped the pics. And the explosions at the base of the buildings could have been caused by the jet fuel that was cascading down the jift shafts. Look, I'm no conspiracy geek, I'm just reporting what I've seen and heard, like why did the buildings collapse fully like they did even though they were hit around the top of the buildings? I'm also not a big fan of Muslims, especially after 7/7 and all the hatred that they keep on spouting at us in our very own country. So, by pinning the blame on Bush isn't doing me any favours, blaming Bush instead of all those crazed freeloaders. I just think there's some strange unexplained stuff that happened that day.

Some here have mentioned making crews and passengers disappear. Well, if I were a conspiracy geek, then I could suggest maybe all those people on those airliners were "Hollywood jobs"; all made up fictitious people making prerecorded messages in government run sound studios. Very doubtful, but if Hollywood can do it, then why not the US Government?

The construction industry also queried the manner of the fall of the buildings.

Many learned papers have been written, there have been scale simulations, tests on concrete, jet fuel fires in confined spaces and the effect on curtain walls of high speed impact.

9/11 was unknown territory. When the towers were built they considered a jet strike due to the proximity of La Guardia, Kennedy and Newark. The largest aircraft at the time of the studies was the 707.

As the buildings were close to take off and approach paths it was never considered that the aircraft would be flown at anything near cruising speed, let alone above the never exceed speeds that the aircraft were flying at when they struck the towers.

Built to withstand a slow travelling 707, the towers were impacted by aircraft of around double the weight of the 707 at around 4 times the maximum predicted impact speed.

No-one had ever tried to test for the result of an almost fully fuelled widebody exploding INSIDE the buildings. It was considered that the towers would not be fully penetrated by even a 707 climbing after take off and any explosion would be as the wings hit the building with the force of the blast moving outwards.

What happened in the towers that day was the aircraft were flying so fast they penetrated to the central core of the buildings. Minor impact explosions were followed by major explosions inside the building which weakened the core structures beyond the support limits of the materials. The resulting fires were so hot that steel and concrete melted adding to the weakening of the building.

Downward forces well beyond design limits were imposed on the structures below the impact floors causing a house of cards like collapse.

There are some interesting documentaries which National Geographic and the History Channel air from time to time which give much more detail.

What year was that then?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident, to which I presume you are referring, was far from a clear cut affair. Apart from the fact that the Vietnam War really began in 1945 with the Vietnamese began attempts to expel their French colonial occupiers, America was already heavily involved in supporting the S Vietnamese government with several thousand 'advisers' as well as huge amounts of military hardware and financial aid.

During the night of 31 July 1964, some S Viet gunboats attacked islands off the N V coast. Some miles to the east, USS Maddox, an American spy ship, bristling with radar and listening equipment, was it could be said, trailing its coat tails, in the hope of provoking an attack by the NV. It was probably fired on by the NV boats which turned and ran. Joined by another destroyer, the USS C. Turner Joy, both ships sailed through a severe storm, during which reports of being attacked again were sent to US headquarters. Despite there being no further confirmation of such an attack, Johnson and the Chiefs of Staff used this 2nd 'attack' as evidence of unprovoked aggression on US ships, and used it as the basis for the 'Tonkin Resolution' by which Congress approved bombing of the North, and soon after the deployment of the first American combat troops. In an overwhelming vote of support in both Houses, the die was cast for America's direct involvement. It would be some years before doubt would be cast on the official version of events, by Daniel Elsberg in the Pentagon Papers, by which time it was too late. There is little doubt that the Maddox was invoved in the island attack in a support role, and that it was very convenient for the US that an attack of some sort was made on the ship. Johnson was looking for an excuse to bomb the North, and send ground troops. Though engineering a situation that led to the Maddox being fired on, the US didn't attack its own ship.
For further details see 'Vietnam - The 10000 Day War' by Michael Maclear.

There is clearly a difference between a government setting up one of your ships for attack, and suggesting one planned and carried out an attack of the emensity of the Twin Towers.

It reminds me somewhat of the lead up to the Iraq invasion, during which we were heavily mislead by a government that was hell bent on a specific course of action whatever the real eveidence.