Interesting post, thanks. Shame whoever originally uploaded it to YouTube was too cheap to buy the full version though!

911review.com thinks Scott Forbes may be a hoax: http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html. Other sites disagree.

Anyone in a position to weigh in on this?

-

9/11 conspiracy theorists might as well be saying the Holocaust didn't happen, either. Disgusting.

-

I love the moon and I love bats. Moonbats, however...

Maybe not to you, Snake - but in both cases, it's disrespecting people who were horribly murdered. Hey, if conspiracy nuts get their rocks off in the same way that Mel Gibson and his dad do, fine. Just don't expect the rest of us to put up with you.

Sorry theo47, I can't let that one go. There is nothing more disrespectful to the memory of those lost than ignoring the possibility that they weren't murdered by terrorists.

Here in the UK a prominent and well-respected MP, Norman Baker, is conducting an inquiry into the death of David Kelly, a scientist employed by the government. Very few people believe that he committed suicide. And yet his colleagues and the media have chastised Baker, suggesting that he is being disrespectful to the Kelly family, and that we should all move on.

It's such a predictable response, and so utterly backwards. Firstly, seeking the truth is not disrespectful (or would you say that it is to the 9/11 bereaved who have spoken out against the Kean Commission?), and secondly, these issues concern all of us, regardless of whether or not we had personal connections to those who died. We all have to live in this world, which I'm sure we can agree is getting progressively shittier, in large part because of post-9/11 politics.

If you have something constructive to say, say it. Don't hide behind a wall of ersatz indignation. Take a leaf out of Krupo's book - he disagrees with Snake and myself, but always explains why, and never resorts to suggesting that we have grisly motives.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I dig your avatar haggis. I'm guessing it's a haggis?

His comment "Dan Rather ... blurts out the truth 'Boy, that looks just like a controlled demolition.'" gets huge laughs from the audience. 9/11 was a lot of things, but it was never funny.

I'm so sick of these conspiracy theories. I have yet to see a one that presents a *single* convincing theory clearly and concisely. They simply throw what they can against a wall and see what sticks. The techniques that these documentaries use are not new. They employ emotional language, play on pre-conceived ideas and fears (e.g. Bush is bad) and fire off points so fast that you don't have time to react. Viewers don't have time to fully process each point before the presentation moves on. They are forced to either accept what they have seen as the truth, or stop the presentation before investing hundreds of hours into researching the "facts" they are presented with. I think I know what most people who watch this will do.

To those who believe that there was a conspiracy, could you please provide me with a resource that clearly explains that main arguments behind you belief? Such a resource should be free from emotion. It should simply present the facts and then allow me the opportunity to explore more. I would honestly be interested to see such a resource.

You're not "seeking the truth", haggis - you're an ideologue seeking confirmation of your own views, and you're cherry-picking facts just like the Bush administration did in their march to war with Iraq.
One look through of Popular Mechanics analysis of the 9-11 "truth" would make you feel like an ass, but I'm guessing you're purposely avoiding it.
As a liberal Democrat, it pisses me off that people associate conspiracy nuts with me. Public opinion has been twisted enough by the right without far-left nuts helping out.

dag - cheers! yup, it's a haggis, just like me.

theo47 - it's interesting that you know so much about me and my motivations, considering we've never met. The fact is that the atrocities that have been committed in the 'War on Terror' sicken me, and if there is cause for reasonable doubt about what happened (which I and huge numbers of others believe there is), there needs to be a fresh inquiry. The Kean Commission has all sorts of problems with it - we certainly don't have all the answers yet. If I were an ideologue, I would be promoting a theory about what I think happened. I'm not - my concern is with what I think didn't happen, i.e. ONYA.

So is Norman Baker a 'conspiracy nut'?

I have read the Popular Mechanics article. Here is one possible response: http://911review.com/pm/markup/index.html

(joshd - incidentally, 911review.com is an excellent starting point. It's thorough and well-researched, and isn't afraid to call BS when it comes across it.)

There ARE a lot of conspiracy nuts out there. But to tar everyone who questions what they read in the paper with that same brush is a little silly. Just because I have difficulty accepting the officially sanctioned conspiracy theory doesn't mean I hang out with David Icke.

-

-

*dead

The link to this video has been flagged as dead. Fix it within 7 days or it will be discarded (dead called by gold star member deathcow)

Discarding this video. It was flagged as dead but not flagged undead within 7 days.