Building doesn't collapse

[Sailmexico]

Warph,
All good points, but to say you are not a "conspiracy theorist" is to turn a blind eye to history.  Every event in history was a conspiracy on some level or another.  Wars are begun by conspiring men seeking to profit from them.  Once they are begun and nations become enemies they conspire against one another. 

I've mentioned in other posts several of the major conspiracies that were later proven to be just as the theorists claimed them to be.  A google search of "conspiracy theories proven true" will show many of them.

In spite of the historical precedent for conspiracies; the fact that they are common in history as beans are in bean soup, the public chooses to deny them.  Why they do is probably more a matter of psychology, a mass psychology that the conspirators understand well, and rely upon.

You say

Some of the theories surrounding 9/11 are just way too outlandish

I'm not sure which theories you consider to be too outlandish, and some definitely are.  Some claim that no airplanes hit the twin towers on 9/11; that they were holographic images.  That is such obvious bullshit that it in my opinion it is disinformation injected into the legitimate argument to defame and cast doubt on serious discussion.

People continue to say that "both sides" have evidence, but if you take an objective look at it, the only evidence there is for the widely accepted fact that the highjackers used cheap plastic box cutters is one cell phone call.  A phone call that has been proven to have been impossible to make.  All of the evidence supporting the official "conspiracy theory" is hearsay, and some easily planted crap like flight manuals left in a rental car, etc.

It should not be forgotten that if you believe the government's account of events on 9/11 you are a "conspiracy theorist"... because it was a conspiracy, and it has not been proven at all - therefor it is a theory.  It is an impossible scenario but because of the general public's ineptitude at critical thinking, knowledge and inherent trust in authority it seems more plausible.  The believe what they are told, especially when they are told it over and over, by a source their authorities.

[Diane Amberg]

But what about the Pentagon? It has been proved over and over that popular "Anti Gov't" accounts were untrue.There were many witnesses who saw the plane hit. There were the many stories of the injured people who survived, what they saw, how they were trapped.There was debris inside and out. And to say the hole "wasn't big enough? Who out there is a "hole expert?" 
My neighbor across the street flew for Delta his whole career as a pilot, including 911. He told me an awful lot about their hostile person training. This was before they had all the heavily reinforced doors on the cock pit. He said their training, and I'm sure it would be mostly the same with all airlines ,was  to cooperate with hijackers as much as possible and try to find out what they wanted and not risk the passengers lives if at all possible. If they took one or more hostages they were try to do whatever was possible to keep them alive. If that wasn't possible they were to try to keep as many as possible alive. Now all this was told to me much later and I'm probably saying too much. The hijacker with the flying lessons probably told the real pilot what to do and didn't actually take over the controls, or didn't until they were right near the pentagon, hence no problem finding it. (I had asked the same question...how did he find it? ) As far as how far away from Dulles they went before they made the turn back toward DC ,he figured it had to do with the hijackers getting organized and/or a period of time when the pilot was trying to negotiate with the hijackers and stayed on his original course. We'll never know for sure. Bill told me lot from a commercial pilots point of view about what would and would not have happened. Now as far as to why the fighter jets didn't shoot down the planes over NYC..They did scramble once the planes were obviously starting toward restricted air space, but think about it, where would the planes have crashed? In a residential neighborhood? Into a school? Who knew? It was a can't win situation. As far as I'm concerned,much of it can remain secret if it keeps bits and pieces of information out of enemy hands. If their intention is to simply disrupt American lives and make some of us paranoid, they are being very successful. If they get you to distrust your own Gov't ,they win. They must really be laughing at our reaction to this TSA thing.  If they learn what can make us and our Gov't over react, again they win. We've got to figure out how to be more clever than that with out turning our country into an armed camp, though that may be coming. I'll say no more.

[Warph]

It should not be forgotten that if you believe the government's account of events on 9/11 you are a "conspiracy theorist"... because it was a conspiracy, and it has not been proven at all - therefor it is a theory. 

Sorry... the label "conspiracy theorist" doesn't fit.   Like I stated before: "I think that the US Government had some role to play... might be wrong... but something tells me that it wasn't just Al Queida and that the truth lies somewhere in between."  Simple as that.

[Varmit]

But what about the Pentagon? It has been proved over and over that popular "Anti Gov't" accounts were untrue.There were many witnesses who saw the plane hit. There were the many stories of the injured people who survived, what they saw, how they were trapped.There was debris inside and out. And to say the hole "wasn't big enough? Who out there is a "hole expert?"  ......

No. The "Anti Gov't" accounts have not been proven over and over again to be untrue.  There is questions about the debris...no large pieces being found at ANY of the crash sites?...etc.  As for witnesses, if they are so reliable (and they're not) why does law enforcement need more than just their testimony?  As for your pilot friends opinion...the supposed hijackers were using box cutters (or so we were told) for crying out loud.  Honestly, what would they have done if someone tried to stop them?...give that person a nasty paper cut?  

There was only one, count it one, fighter scrambled that day...from an airbase in Mass.  Again, you cannot use Gov't statements issued from Gov't personnel to prove the Gov't isn't lying.

You say that you like to look at all sides of an issue.  Why is this one any different?  There is a link to some interesting videos that go into detail about 9/11, both before and after.  Watch'em with an open mind and then take another look at what we were told.  The link is on the "How deep is the Rabbit hole" thread.

[Diane Amberg]

My source says two F15  National Guard fighters from Otis scrambled. My comments about shooting down the planes still stands. Ask about scrambles at the pentagon and I'll agree, I think they got caught napping. As far as the "box cutters" go...where did that come from? While some box cutters are wimpy, with break off blades, not all are and might not have been true box cutters at all. That probably isn't reliable on either side. When my friend shared his training with me that was not opinion, that was fact!!!!! 
  Why is this different? I told you why in great detail! I saw the photos, heard from the people who were there, listened to the dispatches.  Live, not on tape. We got to ask very candid questions.These were first responders, firefighters, photographers, not reporters ,not Gov't officials. These were people some of which have since died, and some that are still trying to get help that was promised and was never delivered. They had no axe to grind they were just doing their jobs.

[Varmit]

If your source is correct that brings the total number of fighter jets to three.  So, that means our gov't, during an attack on our country, only scrambled 3 jets??  C'mon!!  If the attack had been real the sky would have been full of fighter, bombers, survalliance aircraft.  It wasn't.  The question is why?  They had plenty of time.  They weren't caught napping as there are numerous radar aircraft as well as ground based defensive radar stations operating 24/7 that would have picked on any craft heading towards the pentagon, that is of course unless they were told to stand down.

The "box cutter" theory is what we were told by officals.  I just don't believe that 4 or 5 guys with knives could take over an airplane when they were outnumbered.  Americans just don't put up with that. 

I find it very hard to believe that four Boeing 747 type aircraft crashed on the same day without a single wing, tail piece, or large section of fuelage not being found at any crash site. 

But...that is neither here nor there seeing as how you are not willing to at least view other evidence.  You cite firefighters, first responders like they knew exactly what was happening and yet earlier you stated...

..As far as far as those interviews with the firefighters, very unfair. Those poor guys didn't have all the facts yet, it was fresh, raw and still going on! ...The one pair were talking and said the floors came down "as if" there had been charges placed on them and dropped them. They didn't say that they had been bombed. Sure, I can see how it could seem that way at the time. The investigations explained the design and what happened. Under those horrible circumstances would you want to have a mike stuck in your face and be expected to make sense and have every detail right? Normally the officers would not have allowed those guys to talk to the press just for that reason.There are PIOs who do that, .just so the they don't have to defend something when they misspoke under pressure. A lot of top ranking officers were killed! The Commish, the Chaplin, brigade chiefs, etc. Some information about who knew what and when is just plain wrong, but after 9 years how does  anyone prove it?. I don't have vaults full of tape like the TV News does.

So which is it??  Either these guys knew what happened or they didn't?  Fact of the matter is during a crisis situation not all dispatches are accurate.  A lot of times the dispatched info just gets repeated because the dispatcher heards it from this guy who heard it from this guy who knows a guy that was there. 

Heres a question, if the pentagon was struck by a plane, why hasn't the gov't released the security camera footage?  Its not like they would be giving any secerts away.  According to officals terrorists already know how to do it.  So why not release the tapes and put the conterversy to rest?  Unless of course, they have something to hide.

Do yourself a favor, review the dissenting evidence.  Look at both sides and see for yourself.

[Sailmexico]

What part of Flight 77's black box flight recorder proved the cockpit door was not opened after takeoff don't you get?  The official story, that the Pentagon was hit by flight 77 has been completely and totally debunked by this one fact. 

All it takes to disprove the assertion that all crows are black is the existence of one white crow.  Applied to 911 - All it take to disprove the assertion that the government's version of events is false is ONE false claim.  ONE! 

Every aspect of what happened does not have to be disproven.  And contrary to the claim of those who accept the government's version the burden of proof is on them.  They have not, and can not prove their case.  That is the reason the government refuses to have an impartial forensic investigation.  If their claims were true they would welcome any investigation.  If the Pentagon's claims were true they would produce the video evidence, and the destruction of WTC7 would be easily explained.

Anyone who supports the government's false claims is, in my opinion, complicit in the most horrendous crime in American History.

[Varmit]

Look, heres the thing.  We are going in circles here.  Which is exactly what the "establishment" wants...dissension among the "commoners".  Why??  To keep us focused on minute details so that we don't see the bigger picture.  The question isn't whether or not a plane hit the pentagon or the towers.  The question is why did the attacks happen in the first place?  To answer that question all one has to do is look at the changes that have occurred since 9/11.  

[Diane Amberg]

Mr.Sail. I've just been doing some research and apparently there is also some question as to whether there even was a cockpit door on flight 77. I know back then I flew in some that only had a curtain at the cock pit door. I guess that wouldn't be hard to find out if it mattered.
  As far as the whole thing is concerned, you all don't even agree among yourselves, depending on whose conspiracy theory you read. Black boxes, no black boxes, data recorders or voice recorders or both or neither? One of you didn't even think a plane had hit the Pentagon ...so martians took flight 77? All the witnesses ,including the military were wrong? The security cameras lied, as did the people outside who saw it go down, saw the wing shear off as it partly hit the ground and sliced into the first floor. The responding firefighters and police officers, who were there for a long time, lied about what they saw, who they rescued and the parts of the plane they collected.  I don't know if it was reconstructed or not. Usually when a plane crashes, the parts are secured and taken to a big warehouse where the plane is reconstructed and analyzied. The ME was in on it too? 184 bodies  were recovered at the Pentagon and identified except for 5 from the building fire, they weren't from the plane.They know who they were,  but they were incinerated so recovery was impossible.  You will get to rehash it all from start to finish next year when I'm sure it will be covered again in incredible detail and all the people who want publicity will show up again. Varmit, I will look at all those videos later today.

[Sailmexico]

Diane

I've just been doing some research and apparently there is also some question as to whether there even was a cockpit door on flight 77.

You have got to be kidding.  Sorry dear, but to say there might not have been a cockpit door on a 747 is as ludicrous as saying "There was no evidence of wings at the crash site because flight 77 didn't have wings."  Saying such a thing does explain many of your prior posts.

Varmit

To answer that question all one has to do is look at the changes that have occured since 9/11. 

I could not agree with you more.