Ben Fountain and Scott Forbes, who both worked in the twin towers, are on the record as saying that there were numerous evacuations and power-downs of the twin towers in the weeks leading up to the attack - more so than would be usually expected for a high profile building.

"How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on," Fountain told People Magazine .

In an online interview , Forbes said that the power down which took place the weekend before the attack was "unprecedented" and required a shutdown of the top 50 floors of the south tower - the reason for the shutdown was given as "re-cabling."

"The power outage meant that many of the 'ordinary' building features were not operating, such as security locks on doors, cameras, lighting, etc."

Forbes said the sight of strange men in overalls going in and out of the building with tools was highly unusual and that the "coincidence" of it occurring days before the attack was highly suspicious.
There has been some speculation within the 9/11 truth movement that the evidence for controlled demolition having been used on both the towers and building 7 is so overwhelming that the government will eventually be forced to spin a whitewash and formulate a "limited hangout" that Al-Qaeda somehow managed to rig the buildings with explosives before the attack.

(taken from here)
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11 ... speech.htm





Sorry for flogging a dead horse. None of the above definitively proves anything, some might say it’s hearsay, which may be the case. It's just interesting when put into context with WTC7.

Building 7 was not a case of the top floors crashing into the lower floors, which intern crashed into the even lower floors until…we were left with dust and shrapnel. As the government funded NTIS decided with the twin towers.

Building 7 was different. But the result no different. Analyse this anomaly very carefully. And ask why the 911 commission report made no mention of the complete obliteration of a 47 story sky scraper that housed some very “importantâ€

One guy pointed out to me that WTC 7 would have had to be rigged with explosives before 9-11 in order to come down as it did. I have trouble explaining how it came down, and the other events are improbable as has been said before, but I'm no expert either.

Without any proof, you might as well keep quiet. It is possible that 9-11 happened the way it appeared, and without an investigation that's just what we'll have to accept.

Paul Craig Roberts, the author of the article that began this thread, has gone berserk with his demands for an investigation. His reason is the official story is just too unlikely.

There won't be an investigation though, and all he will have accomplished is the ruination of his reputation.

Behind Pearl Harbor, the Civil War, Vietnam, the Iraq War, the bombing of Serbia, and a host of other revisionist claims there is a good bit of evidence. With this there is very little.

Anyway, infowars is a rather absurd site eh? Another view of the Grove - although from a leftist site.

But anything else you come across, please post it

That goes for everyone else as well. I probably won't reply often, but I'll be reading them.

The only thing I will say about the grove is, some pretty dodgy looking stuff goes on there.

When a guy like Richard Nixon calls the grove, "the most faggy goddamn thing you would ever imagine". Well ...that's Nixon for you. I miss that guy.

Wikipedia's got a good entry on the grove. Read the quotes.

Haha, I love a leader who speaks his mind. Nixon wasn't bad as far as US presidents go. He'd be a Hell of a lot better than Clinton or either of the Bushes.

It sounds like a bunch of pleasure seeking rich brats who gather for a refuge away from the media where they can be with people who aren't jealous. I can't see why they don't let in women though... I bet they have prostitutes. What's a pleasure fest without women?

It's understandable somewhat of how it came to arise though. A large Christian ceremony wouldn't be fun for a bunch of selfish rich folks. The minister would preach of how they ought to give their belongings away and pursue more noble pleasures.

I doubt they believe in the religion... but I bet it's a lot of fun. Probably similiar to the Masons though the Masons might have some believers among them

People go where the excitement is and where the opportunity for influecing important people is, though it is bad (I think) for the elite of such a large nation to gather together like that. You want them to identify more their workers and local community so that they'll give back and not abuse their power.

Or boys for that matter.


You're a smart fellow, that's exactly what it's about, it all fits like a glove for them. Meaningless Godless hedonism. Where’s Fox News when these republicans chill out with their Owl effigy and whores? Joining in, that’s where.

I wonder if Rupert Murdoch is a secret member

EDIT:

Scientific Method versus Political Method
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4136

Something I came across, thought it was quite well written.

Well written indeed.

Am I the only one who finds that the more bold and italics in a text, the larger the chance the text will quote Steven Jones?

Indeed

Don't worry qviri, I'm not posting to try and undermine your stance. I assume you're with the 40% in this thread. That's cool, I respect that. I just thought there was some validity in this thesis.

…S.Jones maybe in some respects, bad for the truth movement. I will admit that, he certainly has his critics. But it’s not S.Jones that made me question the events. And it won't be S.Jones who will influence my opinions.

There's plenty of more respectable people in the movement.

The whole twin towers thing is so obviously a conspiricy, a bunch of nut jobs conspired to hijack planes and murder people with them, that is the only conspiricy.

Now this one is now an ancient conspiricy theory, did man land on the moon. I personally dont think they did when they said they did, they might have landed on the moon one one of the later Apollo missions, but even then I am doubtful.

Going back on subject, has anyone seen the new South Park where they take the piss out of all of the "Twin Tower" conspiricy nuts, its pretty funny.


Andy

It is very debatable that the towers fell at "free fall speed."

But dude! Conservation of momentum! It's totally applicable... same as with a train hitting a Geo Metro on a level crossing... it has to slow down!


typo edit: though I'm sure momentum is pretty social, I meant conservation, not conversation

If you dismiss the 9/11 conspiracy, why do you accept the Apollo conspiracy? The evidence that man landed on the moon is about as close to absolute proof as it gets in science.

Apollo hoax claims debunked

Well of course they overlook things. What other explanation can you come up with for the 2004 election results?

OK, well, besides DIEBOLD?

Jaganth.

A few years ago I watched a program on TV, and they were pointing out various things that dissprove the Apollo moon landings, most of them were bullshit, but then they showed a few very odd things with pictures. Most off the odd things were actually backed up by what NASA said themselves. One day I was a little bored and started to browse the pictures on NASA's website, NASA's own pictures proved that the landings were a HOAX. However a HOAX as elaborate as the moon landings gains my acceptance as it is just propoganda, thousands of people didnt die.

This is one of the main reasons why most people dont believe that the US Government plotted this, or knew about it, because no one wants to believe that the US Government could kill thousands of innocent office workers. It would have been far easier for the US Government to have planted and then exposed evidence of some kind to gain whatever people think that they wanted to gain. BTW I havent actually read any of the other posts, but I did watch a conspiricy programme on TV for about 5 minutes and it didnt catch my attention like the moon landings did.


Andy

One thing about that though, is whenever people say “inside jobâ€

Would you mind pointing us to the pics?

Something about the flag shouldn't be waving on the moon, right?

More to do with shadows and anomalities surrounding shadows.

One of the things I did not find on the Wkipedia article about the Moon landings was about shadows.

I will give you a link or 2, can anyone tell me whats wrong with these pics.???

This is the only example from Apollo 11, a few years ago I downloaded about 50 images, that vast majority are no longer on NASA's website.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... 0_5903.jpg

And Apollo 16
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... -18578.jpg

Apollo 17.
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... -20382.jpg
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... -20425.jpg
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/ima ... -21011.jpg

Thats all folks, the majority of photos have been removed, including some of my favourites, no for the guessing game, even if you are a true believer, try and look for something that catches your eye and seem a bit odd.

PS: The scientists gave me a good enough explanation for the flag on the video moving, with a low gravity, no atmosphere place like the moon, the inertia is far higher, as there is only moon dust for the material to bump into to slow it down, it will continue to move for much longer than on earth, likewise the lower amount of gravity would not pull it down so much, so it could flap for longer than on earth. It would however come to a natural stop at some point and would not continue forever. Some people think that even that was rigged, I have no doubt that they could have rigged it, but there is no point arguing over something like that when there are questions that are not answered at all.


Andy

Ok, I give up....where in those pics is the proof that the moon landings were fake?

Have you seen the state of your foreign policy lately???



Err, their "demand" was that the crowning symbols of Western hegemony were destroyed along with as many infidel lives as possible, and they largely got it.

Jews, Freemasons, Russians; hell, mention the Bilderberger Group and I have Conspiracy Bingo Full House!

Well written, definitely. Unscientific (unless you judge science by the number of footnotes), and full of logical gaps and political language, but definitely well written. I can't help but find it convincing even though it's clearly more than a little hypocritical.

Yes blame the dumb guy, it's what they want.


I didn’t know building 7 was a crown symbol of western hegemony. Suddenly its all clear. (But I prefer the “lets look at all that’s wrong with 911â€

Right here goes my take on those moon landing pics.

As various believers will tell you many of the photographs are over-exposed, the space suits are quite reflective as they are white, and there is some light reflected from earth and of course the moon.

Apollo 11 picture. Everything on the moons surface in a shadow is totally black, yet little or nothing of the Astronaut is in shadow. Considering just how reflective and bright many parts of the moon appears to be, I would have thought that the Astronaut should be a little more shadowed, even his blackened boots are quite visible. Also notice the bright highly reflective gold thing in the bottom right corner of the picture is even shadowed more than mr Astronaut.

Apollo 16 picture. Anyone think that its more than a bit odd that the US flag on the landing craft is perfectly visible when its in a deep shadow. Now credit where credit is due, this one could be an optical illusion.

Apollo 17 pic 1. Again the flag, and even the dirty parts of the astronaut seem to be more visible than they should be.

Apollo 17 pic 2. This time we have non-uniformity, specifically the Astronaut in this picture is actually in shadow, and its a very very dark, almost black shadow, surely this should not be so.

Apollo 17 pic 3. This one is just plain weird, take a look at the landscape, the rocks, the shadows, the angle and slope of the landscape where various rocks are located, also look at the lunar rover, and the shadow it casts. If you try to guage where the light is coming from where do you start. Lets say the lunar vehicle, and the shadow casting rocks at that kind of distace, the sunlight apears to be coming from above, but on the left side of the photo it apears to be coming from the left slightly, and on the right side from the right. No matter how I look at this picture, and how much I try to persuade myself that this is just a trick of the light I cant figure out exactly how this can be correct. When there is one totally dominant light source, in this case the sun, all shadows will travel in the same direction, how far they travel, and how they are altered depends on where the shadow falls, if its on a slope the shadow will fall at a different angle compared to it falling on a flat surface. I cant fathom how the rocks in the bottom right of the picture are creating shadows to the left, the land is obviously sloping down away from the camera and to the right, shouldnt this extent the shadows in that direction, and not the opposite way.

Please dont think that I will believe that the moon landings are a fake regardless of the evidence given to me, I have a scientific mind not a religous one. I will even believe in God if he turns up wth a Pizza and some beer to watch a game of Football with me, but until I have that proof God does not exist. I consider there to be flaws in NASA's pictures that I dont understand, various other things have been pointed out as true, if someone explains these things in these pictures to me then I might become a believer.


Andy

PS: Why did NASA remove dozens of photos from their website, the majority of the really questionable ones are gone, is this a conspiricy to hide a conspiricy to piss the russians off.???

Andy, I think you're spending too much time in front of the computer.

Lets think about this logically, in an overall sense. Not even about the idea of a conspiracy in general, but just about these pictures.

First, if the moon landings were faked, these pics would have been taken here on earth somewhere, correct? Probably out in the desert, and then the blue sky painted black and the color tweaked to have gray dirt instead of brown, right? If that is true, then what explains your "shadow anomalies"? Did NASA add them intentionally just to see if someone would catch them, kinda like a "Where's Waldo" puzzle? Or, the photo's were taken on some sort of soundstage somewhere in Hollywood, and the shadows are the result of multiple light sources, right? Well, if you were going to spend 10 billion dollars commiting a fraud, don't you think you would be smart enough to use a single point source for your faked lighting? I mean, they were crafty enough to fake thousands of points scientific data so precisely that even now, nearly a half century later, they continue to correlate with what is discovered by modern technology. Ockham's Razor, man......Ockham's Razor.

Secondly, and don't take this as an insult, but these photographs have been viewed by thousands of photography experts for the last 40 years, and no one, even the ones in the tinfoil hat brigade has stood anything in them up as "proof" of a faked landing, as you claim to have found in them. Yes, there are plenty of websites full of nutjobs discussing them even to this day....but there are websites that track Elvis sightings too.


But now specifically:

Sorry for the added emphasis, but I'm disappointed that your, "NASA's own pictures proved that the landings were a HOAX" boils down to you "would have thought that...".

But specifically: The suits aren't just reflective because they're white, they're reflective because they're actually, well, reflective. If you're ever in the states, stop by the Smithsonian museum and have a look at one of the suits. You can't actually touch them, but you can get right up close to them behind the glass. (I'm assuming that there's no Apollo space suits on display anywhere in the UK, there may be). They're not just white fabric, they have a metallic reflectiveness to them, sorta like the fabric that jogger's jackets are made out of so that car headlights will reflect off of them. On the spacesuits the reflectivity reduces heat gain.

That fact, plus the photographic effect of the reflected foreground illumination, discredits most of your "too bright shadow" arguments.

The black levels are also dependent upon the type of film used in their camera's, as well as the focal length, aperture, and exposure settings. Depending on the specifics, nothing in these pictures looks un-natural. I've taken plenty of pictures with the black levels amp'd up to wash out detail in the dark backgrounds. Pretty simple.



Not odd if it is made of the same reflective fabric as the suits.



It's the reflective suits, again.



Reflective suit, diffusive dirt.



The trouble with interpreting this photo is that you're assuming the ground in the foreground is flat. With the uniform lunar dust there's few visual clues as to what the actual shape of the ground is. If the ground is sloping in multiple directions, then the shadows all make sense. Take the shadows as a guide, and you can mentally reconstruct the shape of the ground the photograph is of.

Besides, what is other explanation? If the multiple shadow angles were from multiple light sources, each item would have more than one shadow, wouldn't it?

A neat little website that talks about all these things you've "discovered" can be found here: http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm



Andy, all the Apollo mission photographs are public domain..just because they aren't on the website doesn't mean they've been destroyed. There are literally thousands of photographs taken during the moon landings, all available to the public.

Это очень поиÑ

Это очень поиÑ