Nathan Eccleston ...

[slartibartfast]

6) Building 7. It wasn't hit by a plane yet came down at near free fall speed in its own footprint. The only time ever a steel structured building has done this as a result of fire.

7) The people on the planes were incinerated, yet one of the hijackers passports floated down intact to be found by a policeman.

8) The hijackers, with a few hours flight training in a cessna, managed to execute a 180 degree turn in a 767 at 500mph & score a direct hit on the WTC. Twice.

9)The janitors in the lower levels who felt & heard an explosion in the basement before the first plane hit.

10) The circular entry and exit holes in the Pentagon.

11) The fact that the Pentagon have been unable to release a single piece of CCTV footage showing a plane hit the Pentagon.

There's a lot of reasons why a lot of people question the official account & Eccleston should be able to question it. The media constantly throw out the "disrespect to the families" line. What a load of bollox.

double post soz

[cheese]

[cheese]

One or two things. I don't exactly believe in the theory, in fact I'm not entirely sure either way but...

1) How do you explain the lack of plane debris in the field? Planes that usually crash have said debris all over the field. Moreover, local residents near said Pennyslvania field have said that they thought it was brought down by a missile.

2) Why would architechts say this about the buildings- gain for them? Presumably you are an architecht? I am not an architect so unqualified to speak on it, no idea if you are?

3) Firefighters in and around the buildings who survived or died believed they could put it out- the fire was manageable etc. Oddly enough it wasn't.

4) Only three skyscrapers have ever fallen with the speed or scale that occured due to 9/11- they all occured on 9/11. There have been quite big fires in skyscrapers before yet more of them have been left.

5) Project for American Century- the authors said they would need another Pearl Harbor to justify a large incursion into Middle East. This isn't a conspiracy theory, this particular point is on record. Whether it was an inside job or not, likely not but how large a coincidence is it that a few years after the Pearl Harbour point this happened?

Clearly terrorists flew planes into buildings, undoubtedly but there are a few things which could be questioned- why would architects, but more than that firefighters and people near the field of the plane crash in Pennyslvania offer such a different version to certain parts of the official events? They can't all be crazy- can they?

Most of this was covered in a TV programme the other night.

1. The plane crashed at 45 degrees - the impact crater would have fallen in on the plane covering a good deal of it. Most plane crashes involves the plane hitting the ground at a lesser angle and skidding along the ground which results in debris over a larger area;

2. Nothing to gain except 15 minutes of fame perhaps?

3. Oddly they were wrong;

4. Only 9/11 has had airliners crash into buildings before. None of the other sky scraper fires have been fuelled by aviation fuel either;

5. So God answered their prayers!.

[spudski]

Which shows a complete lack of evolutionary theory. There is no such thing as a partially evolved plant or animal. At any point in history a plant or animal is as evolved as it can be at that point.

Are they saying that they expect a fossil record to show humanoids with one eye - before evolving a second one and other such stuff? Half a kidney? Half a heart? Evolution isn't like a baby growing in the womb!

So one minute there is a fish...it grows legs...leaves the water and evolves into a Dinosaur.

Then a bird becomes a dinosaur.

Then an Ape becomes a human...

Yet there is not one evolving fossile or skeletal fossil showing any slight evolution. Yet plenty of complete actual species.

One minute a bird has wings...then all of a sudden it's got legs. Amazing. And all this takes millions of years...yet no evidence. Just some bloke who studied some Finches on the Galapogos islands comes up with a 'theory' and it's taught in schools as fact. In the same way as Religion was taught in school as fact. Our education system has a lot to answer for. It stopped people thinking for themselves and excepting everything taught as 100% true. Apparantly the Earth was once flat...and the moon was made of Cheese.

[Tim S]

The two things to consider for both arguements....

1) For the terrorists to do what they did on 9/11 all they had to do was Hijack 4 planes, which in the scheme of things if you take into consideration the slack security pre-9/11 would have been relatively simple. And then using a bit of training to fly the planes (which is actually easier than you might imagine. Flying a plane, no matter what the size is actually quite easy. The hard part is taking off, landing and navigating it. To actually move the plane in the direction you want it to go and getting the right altitude are quite easy aspects to control, which is all the terrorists needed to learn) and then fly them into the buildings. And not just any buildings, but two of the tallest buildings in the world and one of the most recognizable buildings in America (Pentagon) - so its not like they were hard targets to spot, especially on a clear day without a cloud in the sky. A hard task to co-ordinate BUT easy when you consider option 2.....

2) For there to be a conspiracy around 9/11 and that the whole thing was a giant set up would be a task beyond the realms of possibility. As a previous poster mentioned, to load a building with enough explosives to bring it down, then run the wires and set the whole thing up would be an impossible task to do without anyone knowing. Its simply not possible. So to not only do that in one giant skyscraper but TWO of them is just madness. And to then pull the whole thing off without anyone knowing or coming forward and admitting it is just not likely at all. Not only that but to make 2 airliners full of passengers just disappear and replaced by fake planes that were remotely crashed into the twin towers (as some of the conspiracy theories have claimed). So what happened to all the people?! Not even the shady American government is THAT evil just to make 400 people disappear.

Some of the conspiracy therories do have some good arguments and do make you think for a bit, but the evidence against the conspiracies greatly outweighs the evidence for them.

[cheese]

So one minute there is a fish...it grows legs...leaves the water and evolves into a Dinosaur.

Then a bird becomes a dinosaur.

Then an Ape becomes a human...

Yet there is not one evolving fossile or skeletal fossil showing any slight evolution. Yet plenty of complete actual species.

One minute a bird has wings...then all of a sudden it's got legs. Amazing. And all this takes millions of years...yet no evidence. Just some bloke who studied some Finches on the Galapogos islands comes up with a 'theory' and it's taught in schools as fact. In the same way as Religion was taught in school as fact. Our education system has a lot to answer for. It stopped people thinking for themselves and excepting everything taught as 100% true. Apparantly the Earth was once flat...and the moon was made of Cheese.

"One minute it's a fish, the next a dinoasur" and "A bird becomes a dinosaur" I think you need to look at the tree of life and see what evolved into what if you really want to pick holes in the theory.

Anyway I guess the mythical sky monster who created everything in a couple of days makes much more sense.

[spudski]

"One minute it's a fish, the next a dinoasur" and "A bird becomes a dinosaur" I think you need to look at the tree of life and see what evolved into what if you really want to pick holes in the theory.

Anyway I guess the mythical sky monster who created everything in a couple of days makes much more sense.

Don't put words in my mouth about 'Sky Monsters'... I never mentioned that.

I find it incredible though, that people of a certain generation have gone to school and been taught Darwins theory and excepted it as fact, just because it was taught at school. His theorys have been torn to shreds by modern scientists because he has no physical evidence to back up his theory's.

We now have generations of people who believe his theorys to be true.

Of all the Billions of skeletons and fossils around the world showing Dinosaurs and man, how many show a man changing from an ape like form to a human being? None...

They have found the odd skull with a raised highbrow and call it early man. It's frigging laughable. There a hundreds of Scientists making a good living out of 'Studying' these types of theory's, using Government granted money. It's all bollocks.

A dinosaur is a dinosaur...a fish a fish, a bird a bird, and a man a man. The evidence is in the ground to prove it.

Another man telling me he has a theory based on studying a bunch of finches on an Island, that then he transcribes into 'this is what must have happened to all species' is completely obsurd.

Darwins theorys are old hat.

Check out some New Scientist material, who have used modern equipment and technology to come to new conclusions. And even after another hundred years, with the advent of even more technology their theorys will be debunked too.

Many Scientists, just want to make a name for themselves and leave a legacy, and will find any bit of small evidence to back up their weird ideas and theory's.

All the evidence we need is in the ground in in nature itself. Why go looking for something that isn't their? Because man can't just except it and is always trying to look for something that they can only explain to their own small mindset and brain. Sometimes things aren't meant to be understood but just excepted. Some men find that impossible to fathom.

[cheese]

Don't put words in my mouth about 'Sky Monsters'... I never mentioned that.

I find it incredible though, that people of a certain generation have gone to school and been taught Darwins theory and excepted it as fact, just because it was taught at school. His theorys have been torn to shreds by modern scientists because he has no physical evidence to back up his theory's.

We now have generations of people who believe his theorys to be true.

Of all the Billions of skeletons and fossils around the world showing Dinosaurs and man, how many show a man changing from an ape like form to a human being? None...

They have found the odd skull with a raised highbrow and call it early man. It's frigging laughable. There a hundreds of Scientists making a good living out of 'Studying' these types of theory's, using Government granted money. It's all bollocks.

A dinosaur is a dinosaur...a fish a fish, a bird a bird, and a man a man. The evidence is in the ground to prove it.

Another man telling me he has a theory based on studying a bunch of finches on an Island, that then he transcribes into 'this is what must have happened to all species' is completely obsurd.

Darwins theorys are old hat.

Check out some New Scientist material, who have used modern equipment and technology to come to new conclusions. And even after another hundred years, with the advent of even more technology their theorys will be debunked too.

Many Scientists, just want to make a name for themselves and leave a legacy, and will find any bit of small evidence to back up their weird ideas and theory's.

All the evidence we need is in the ground in in nature itself. Why go looking for something that isn't their? Because man can't just except it and is always trying to look for something that they can only explain to their own small mindset and brain. Sometimes things aren't meant to be understood but just excepted. Some men find that impossible to fathom.

Ah sorry, I mistook you for someone who wanted a serious debate about where we came from. I understand now that you just accept we're here and has no need to understand anything further. Fair enough but I'll end by saying that you haven't studied the fossil evidence if the above is your understanding - much like Terjon passing comment on players he's never seen play.

[Jesus]

Ah sorry, I mistook you for someone who wanted a serious debate about where we came from. I understand now that you just accept we're here and has no need to understand anything further. Fair enough but I'll end by saying that you haven't studied the fossil evidence if the above is your understanding - much like Terjon passing comment on players he's never seen play.

[spudski]

Ah sorry, I mistook you for someone who wanted a serious debate about where we came from. I understand now that you just accept we're here and has no need to understand anything further. Fair enough but I'll end by saying that you haven't studied the fossil evidence if the above is your understanding - much like Terjon passing comment on players he's never seen play.

Trust me i have studied this to some degree. But my end conclusion came to reason, that we can only understand what evidence is proven to us from the past and present. Only what modern technology from today can prove now and what our brain is capable of understanding now is comprehendable. It doesn't mean it's factual. In years to come what we believe now will be debunked in future by newer and better technology and better understanding.

There is no point debating where we came from, as people have been doing this for centuries. No one will ever agree. Hense why i find it deploreable that our Education system found it right to teach a 'theory' as fact. That is brainwashing. His 'theory's' have no physical evidence to back them up. Darwin admitted this himself.

I've had more debates on this in the past with family members who have worked in this field it seems than hot dinners. I respect your opinion as much as anyones. But i feel no one will ever prove 100% the facts.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Item 7... So what are C theorists saying? That CIA/FBI are so gung-ho as to take their own lives "siucide pilot" style to aid their country.

The media labels anyone that questions the official account a "conspiracy theorist", which leads people to believe that it's only a bunch of whackjobs that are questioning this.

The reality is completely different. There are a lot of educated, intelligent professionals raising questions. A good example can be found here

I don't think the "C theorists" are claiming to know exactly what happened - just that the official count doesn't add up, on so many levels. How would you explain the unscathed passport?

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Most of this was covered in a TV programme the other night.

1. The plane crashed at 45 degrees - the impact crater would have fallen in on the plane covering a good deal of it. Most plane crashes involves the plane hitting the ground at a lesser angle and skidding along the ground which results in debris over a larger area;

Do you mean the Conspiracy Road Trip with that Irish comedian? The programme that didn't mention WT7 once?

The "proof" given re your point above was dropping a stone into a pile of sand. Hardly conclusive.

[cheese]

Do you mean the Conspiracy Road Trip with that Irish comedian? The programme that didn't mention WT7 once?

The "proof" given re your point above was dropping a stone into a pile of sand. Hardly conclusive.

I didn't need the stone as proof - I've seen the results of meteors slamming into the ground to see the same results.

[Riaz]

Some might call myself a conspiracy theorist - I think I am open minded.

There are many unanswered questions about that day. Some were answered on the Conspiracy Road Trip programme.

For example, the towers collapsing looked like a controlled demolition - that programme explained how difficult it would have been to organise such a thing.

In that programme though, they did not explain how passengers were able to make mobile phone calls from the planes? Not sure its possible to do now, let alone 10 years ago.

The main reason I dont believe everything I am told, is because of how the US have acted since that day - this so called "war on terror" has given them an excuse to do many things they shoud'nt have. Iraq for example.....

I dont think its a massive conspiracy - only a very small number of americans involved. I think Bush had something to do with it. The Bush family and the Bin Laden family were close and did alot of business together (you guessed it oil) - so close that George Bush Snr was with a Bin Laden on 9/11. Co-incidence? maybe, maybe not.

One or two on that programme though WANTED to believe the conspiracy and still believed there own conspiracy theory even when they proven to be wrong.

We will never know for sure what really happened.

[cheese]

The media labels anyone that questions the official account a "conspiracy theorist", which leads people to believe that it's only a bunch of whackjobs that are questioning this.

The reality is completely different. There are a lot of educated, intelligent professionals raising questions. A good example can be found here

I don't think the "C theorists" are claiming to know exactly what happened - just that the official count doesn't add up, on so many levels. How would you explain the unscathed passport?

Surely the question is, Why wouldn't a passport survive the crash? Many personal items and papers from the 2 planes were found in the streets before the towers collapsed - what makes the passport so special?

Ask yourself this; what does finding the passport in the street add to the alleged conspiracy - why would they need to "plant" a passport to confirm someone was on the plane? It adds nothing imo.

[slartibartfast]

The media labels anyone that questions the official account a "conspiracy theorist", which leads people to believe that it's only a bunch of whackjobs that are questioning this.

The reality is completely different. There are a lot of educated, intelligent professionals raising questions. A good example can be found here

I don't think the "C theorists" are claiming to know exactly what happened - just that the official count doesn't add up, on so many levels. How would you explain the unscathed passport?

I'm not trying to explain anything. I have an open mind on all of this, I was just wondering if that is what was being proffered as to how the planes flew into the WTC.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that had it been most other places in the world we wouldn't have been commemorating it with such gusto.. Yanks (AND Scousers) seem to love to wallow in self pity!

[cheese]

I'm not trying to explain anything. I have an open mind on all of this, I was just wondering if that is what was being proffered as to how the planes flew into the WTC.

One thing I'm pretty sure of is that had it been most other places in the world we wouldn't have been commemorating it with such gusto.. Yanks (AND Scousers) seem to love to wallow in self pity!

Ain't that the truth.

[Jesus]

No conspiracy at all!!!! It was a terriorist attack, simple as FOR CHRIST SAKE.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Surely the question is, Why wouldn't a passport survive the crash? Many personal items and papers from the 2 planes were found in the streets before the towers collapsed - what makes the passport so special?

Ask yourself this; what does finding the passport in the street add to the alleged conspiracy - why would they need to "plant" a passport to confirm someone was on the plane? It adds nothing imo.

Just seems very convenient IMO.

It's not really that important I suppose. However the collapse of WTC7 and the anomalies surrounding the Pentagon & flight 93 are.

Everyone can believe what they want. I am just failing to see why Nathan Eccleston has done anything wrong, and why Liverpool FC should be "taking the matter very seriously". He made the remarks on his own ###### account. WTF has it got to do with his club?

Do we no longer have the right to free speech?

[glynriley]

No conspiracy at all!!!! It was a terriorist attack, simple as FOR CHRIST SAKE.

Phew !! That's put it to bed once and for all !

[Jesus]

Phew !! That's put it to bed once and for all !

Well come on ffs. Why do people feel the need to see something it wasn't. I also think its disrespectful to the thousands of people who died.

[glynriley]

Well come on ffs. Why do people feel the need to see something it wasn't. I also think its disrespectful to the thousands of people who died.

I've got no opinion either way , but if people want to debate it , just let them , innit !!

[Jesus]

I've got no opinion either way , but if people want to debate it , just let them , innit !!

Sorry, just makes my blood boil.

What was different about the London attacks? I'm sure that was Tony Blair and George Bush planning bombs on tubes and buses.

[Sir Colby-Tit]

Well come on ffs. Why do people feel the need to see something it wasn't. I also think its disrespectful to the thousands of people who died.

It's about opinions formed on the basis of the evidence presented.

What makes your opinion more valid than anyone elses? And why is it disrespectful?

[cheese]

Just seems very convenient IMO.

It's not really that important I suppose. However the collapse of WTC7 and the anomalies surrounding the Pentagon & flight 93 are.

Everyone can believe what they want. I am just failing to see why Nathan Eccleston has done anything wrong, and why Liverpool FC should be "taking the matter very seriously". He made the remarks on his own ###### account. WTF has it got to do with his club?

Do we no longer have the right to free speech?

Convenient for whom? What does it prove? What does it add to the conspiracy plot? It just doesn't make any sense to plant a passport in this way - not that anything on that day made any sense.

As for the guy who tweeted - he's well known, is associated with Liverpool football club and it will reflect no them. If you and I were to tweet the same stuff no-one would know us, no-one would care or know who our employers are - unless, of course, we are on the board or similarly high up. It is different for someone who is known to the public.

[Riaz]

Sorry, just makes my blood boil.

What was different about the London attacks? I'm sure that was Tony Blair and George Bush planning bombs on tubes and buses.

That's fine that you believe everything your told. Some of us like to keep an open mind.

[cheese]

That's fine that you believe everything your told. Some of us like to keep an open mind.

Open mind - code for, can't think for myself so will believe any old rubbish someone says as feasible without looking at the facts for myself.

[Riaz]

Open mind - code for, can't think for myself so will believe any old rubbish someone says as feasible without looking at the facts for myself.

If it's easier for you to dismiss by believing that, fine - But I do look at the facts - I just dont take what the american government says to be fact.

[cheese]

If it's easier for you to dismiss by believing that, fine - But I do look at the facts - I just dont take what the american government says to be fact.

hijackers took 4 planes and crashed them. Which bit don't you believe?

[Riaz]

hijackers took 4 planes and crashed them. Which bit don't you believe?

I believe that part.