Actually it is!

These events are fact. They happened and have been accepted by the overwhelming majority of the world as true

If you and others believe that the events are not as given, then that is your right to believe and say. But if you want me to believe your version, you must prove your view to me. From what I have read on the subject, there is no plausible or credible evidence to doubt the true account.

I repeat, with Snowdon, Assange and the latest news revealling Jihadi John's real name, the US Intelligence agencies are clearly leakier that a colander, but not a shred of believable evidence has emerged by those who would have been involved in this conspiracy if it were true

Are the marauding Islamists poisoning the Middle East, Syria and parts of Iraq a media invention then?

Bloody thirsty terrorists who are prepared to execute hundreds of policemen or teachers with a bullet to the back of the head or throw gays off buildings just because they are gay would not be averse to bombing buses and tube trains or flying aircraft into buildings if it thought it suited their agenda.

That said I don't disagree that the LibLabCon operate only in the interests of a tight focus, like to think they have it sown up between them and that is not to the benefit of the people who elect them. UK Politics needs a serious shake up. UKIP and the SNP although probably not the answer to this are currently the best placed to deliver this shake up.

We still need a robust alternative to keep dangerous people off the streets when there is suspicion they are a significant risk to society.

Simple question
If a suicide bomber is radicalised enough to take a device onto a London tube train and blow himself up along with a carriage full of passengers what is more important. Protecting the lives of the innocent hundreds or the rights of liberty of the individual concerned.

It isn't up to me to prove the case against the official line because there is no way on the earth that the powers-that-be will accept what I am saying. When serving on a jury in court, a jury is supposed to weigh the evidence and pronounce a verdict of innocent, or guilty, for the charged. The jury is not required to produce the evidence – the prosecution does that. Regarding 9/11 governments and their security agents (the prosecution) has produced what is claimed to be evidence proving guilt. Sadly, the evidence when closely examined does not prove guilt of the charged – the evidence strongly suggests corruption and a miscarriage of justice by the prosecution and the whole court.

The onus is on government and their security agents to produce irrefutable evidence that their conclusions are provable beyond all doubt – and that they have demonstrably failed to do that.

I suggest you closely examine the evidence that governments and security agents present as 'evidence' – and that is where they fail to prove their case – and that is why I don't believe them.

The 9/11 case: Here are just some of the reasons the 'evidence' does not stack up.

The claim that rogue pilots with minimal flying experience on highly manoeuvrable single engined trainer aircraft were able to accurately fly large cumbersome passenger aircraft into the the WTC is risible.

The claim that burning aircraft fuel can achieve sufficiently high temperatures so as to destroy a steel and concrete structure is beyond belief. No other high-rise building anywhere on the earth has collapsed due to a fire weakening the steel structure! And burning aircraft fuel cannot reach temperatures that would weaken steel.

The damage to the Pentagon building does not match that from any known passenger aircraft.

The BBC reported (it is still available on video) the collapse of WTC 7 TWENTY MINUTES BEFORE it collapsed (this alone suggests inside knowledge).

The collapse of all the WTC building brought down were all in free-fall time at (32 ft/sec. squared). A collapsing building would be significantly slower than free-fall time due to the resistance offered by the un-collapsed structure beneath the falling debris from above. Basic natural laws disprove the 'evidence'.

Expert Witness:
Field McConnell is an Ex USAF fighter pilot, and a retired civil aircraft pilot. He explains why we should disbelieve the official 'evidence'. Is this man more believable than the BBC's report of WTC7 collapsing 20 minuets BEFORE it did? I think Field McConnell is a more reliable witness than the politically correct BBC. Here is an interview of Filed McConnell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lRU9HbqB3s


More from Field McConnell here:
http://www.abeldanger.net/p/videos.html

I agree, that a jury has to consider evidence and not supply it. However the evidence has to pas certain quality tests before it can be admissible and heard by the jurors. This is not the case when it comes to much of the evidence used by conspiracy theorists who simply accept blindly what they are told by fellow doubters on the web.

Lets consider what you claim is faulty evidence
" The claim that burning aircraft fuel can achieve sufficiently high temperatures so as to destroy a steel and concrete structure is beyond belief. No other high-rise building anywhere on the earth has collapsed due to a fire weakening the steel structure! And burning aircraft fuel cannot reach temperatures that would weaken steel."

As a fire safety professional for many years, I think I am qualified to say that statement is nonsense. When comparing one fire against another, all of the circumstances must be taken into account. Fore example, in the case of the WTC:
1) No other building has been subject to such a high temperature fire which has developed so rapidly - indeed, instantly to several hundreds of Celsius in a second.
2) No other building has had so many multiple seats of fire start simultaneously on different floors
3) No other building has had its 1960s fire resistant coating (designed to assist the building to maintain structural integrity during a fire) ripped from steel girders by the mechanical forces of a plane flying into the structure at such speed

As for the idea that "burning aircraft fuel cannot reach temperatures that would weaken steel." - that is factually incorrect.

Yes, achieving a temperature to melt steel would be unlikely, but aviation fuels can easily reach 800 to 1000C when burning in a pool/spillage, and perhaps much more in a structure with winds causing all sorts of furnace type effects. Whereas steel typically loses half its strength around 650C (depending on the actual grade of the steel). I would suggest that the steel in the WTC would not have been able to cope with anywhere near a 50% loss in strength

I have seen lots of so-called scientific stuff on the net that says that the temperatures would not been sufficient, but I have seen significant failures in steel structures where buildings have much less of an available fire load (in terms of calorific output) so I am not convinced

So just in this one piece of evidence, there are several holes, proving to me that beyond reasonable doubt, there is no validity in the conspiracy argument

Forget the intelligence agencies and think global networks of very rich, VERY powerful people who operate via proxies and can fund and foment what they want, where they want. They certainly also own and control many politicians and government officials who in many cases may not themselves even realise who is pulling their strings and to what end.

The WTC fires were towards the top of the building because that was where the aircraft crashed into the the two towers. Steel melts at about 1400 degrees C; as a fire-person, can you explain why the fires resulting from the aircraft were of sufficiently high temperatures as to melt the steel structure several floors below the fires from crashed aircraft, and were able to result in the free-fall of the whole structure?

The buildings collapsed in free-fall time; which means that all the support at the bottom of the buildings must have been removed in an instant and at the same time across the whole structure. If the lower support of the buildings had not been removed instantly and simultaneously then the building would not have fallen straight down and in free-fall time – the building would have toppled sideways.

WTC7 was not struck by any aircraft, so where did the fires in this building start, and how, and why did this building collpse? Can you explain why the BBC reporter announced that WTC7 had collapsed 20 minutes BEFORE it actually collapsed? WTC7 could be seen still standing behind the reporter's head.

How do you explain the damage to the Pentagon? Officialdom claims it was struck by a civilian aircraft, but why does the damage to the building not agree with the official claim?

The 'attack' on the WTC was the official justification for the “war on terror”. Then why did Blair & Co resort to plagiarising a document from the internet in order to produce the “dodgy document” that claimed Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction against Western Europe in 45 minutes? Why didn't the US and UK governments place solid and undeniable evidence in the public domain to prove their case of terrorist destruction of the WTC?

The underlying question is; can we trust our own governments, do they give us sufficient reasons to believe what they tell us, can we be confident that they always tell us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Sadly, the answer is a resounding NO.

As I have pointed out many times on here, successive governments have deliberately deceived us, and they insist on telling us lies and engaging in cover-ups.

I repeat: from the very beginning the whole of the UK's membership of the EU is a catalogue of political lies and deceit – and the lies and deceit continue today.

The whole of the political claim that man-released carbon dioxide is killing the planet Earth is a pack of lies from beginning to end. I have seriously challenged my MP over the anti-CO2 nonsense; his only defence is to claim that a “consensus has been reached”. Whatever else my MP thinks he knows, he does not know that science is not proven by consensus, it is proven by evidence. And when evidence is provided that disproves the consensus the political class turn the other way and cover their ears and eyes – for example, check-out East Anglia University and the Climategate emails.

MPs and Government Ministers have demonstrated their untrustworthiness in “cash for questions” and the “expenses scandal” - and still reports appear of further false and unjustified claims for expenses by politicians.

Paedophilia is another area where the political class and the forces of law and order have given us many very serious reasons for us to distrust them. Why so many reports of the police having been called off investigations into cases of paedophilia by by MPs and high-ranking individuals? Why the delays and displays of incompetence by Government at getting a full and independent inquiry going into paedophilia and child abuse by the establishment?

Another big question that is crying out to be answered: Why have no bankers been prosecuted for corruption and now serving long prison sentences? Why do bankers and politicians only have to claim that their corrupt, deceitful and dishonest behaviour was a simple mistake that can be erased by a less than convincing apology – with such statements as “lessons have been learned”?

Question: Why do we continue to believe and trust proven liars?

Westonman - I do respect that you, like me, are entitled to your opinions and I can see there's not much I can say to answer all your concerns, but I will try to explain the collapse.

Steel does not have to melt before it collapses, in the same way a timber beam does not have to burn completely before it fails. Steel loses half of its strength at around 650C, which was easily achievable in the WTC when assisted by avgas, & strong winds (at that height). The rapid build up of heat across such a large area of the structure would be beyond any design criteria for building integrity during a fire. In fact, no building - even the designed to modern engineered solutions, would have stayed upright. The damage to the fire resisting coating on the steel would have been instrumental in the collapse.

With the structure on the upper floors weakened, a floor 'pancaked' down onto the one below. The inertia caused when thousands of tonnes of building slammed onto the floorplate below would be like a sledge hammer hitting an aluminum drinks can, causing the structure beneath to do the same. This continued - as can be heard by the intermittent bang noise as it fell, until the inertia was unstoppable.

I am not an expert in building stability, but have attended courses here and in the US where some independent lecturers there were previously involved in the post 9/11 investigation. Of course, they could have been lying, but I really do think the evidence (including some restricted stuff they showed us) is entirely compelling to disprove a conspiracy.

And as I have said before in this thread, how on earth have the US kept all those involved silent for so many years when their intelligence agencies are leakier than a Austin Allegro door seal?

SOT. How do explain there being reports of molten steel in the debris of the towers weeks after the collapse?

The opinion of Professor Morrone:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volu ... Csteel.pdf



Molten steel weeks after the collapse?


Should we take this next paragraph seriously?

Oh come on westonman, there was no 9/11 conspiracy, you've been watching too many 'conspiracy-based' TV programmes or read too many 'conspiracy-based' books - and the internet is full of such rubbish. So much has been disproved but the conspiracy theorists cannot, or will not, accept the facts. the same applies to the killing of JFK, landing on the moon, the Bermuda Triangle, etc etc ...

It looked fishy to me while it was happening and everything I've read and watched about it since has reinforced that view. What about the building that came down that wasn't even hit? Or the mysterious absence of any visible plane wreckage at the Pentagon to name just two of the many paradoxes? Then the War on Terror targetting countries that had nothing to do with it?

The Bin Laden plot is the conpiracy theory.