it was probably doctored, but i saw a photo somewhere with someone waving from one of the holes in the WTC, indicating there wasn't an inferno there, and that there was a controlled demolition.

o_O WHAT?

Then where's the plane? I hardly think the U.S. set war on itself - the administration's not smart enough to hide all of this massive elaborate plot. Of course this is possible, but so is the notion that the North Korea did it.

The only Sept. 11, 2001, conspiracy I think remotely has legs is United flight 93 being shot down - even if so, I believe it was headed toward the ground prior to being shot anyway.

The reason I find it a bit hard to believe is the way the plane broke up/pieces landed upon collision.

I certainly do not believe the U.S. had bombs ready inside the World Trade Center ready to detonate and implode the two buildings.

brahahaha

word

the government was doing a lot of goofy stuff in the 60's like paying the mafia to take out castro and dosing soldiers with LSD. conspiracy theories during that time are the only ones a take somewhat seriously (namely the JFK assasination)

i used to be really into them but then i realized how fucking retarded 90% of all conspiracy theorists are

i havent looked into anything regarding this but i wouldnt be the least bit surprised if this ended up being the case.

all hijacked planes were ordered to be shot down that morning

Someone posted about chemtrails here earlier I think, that was a fairly good one.

Some 9/11 things are intriguing, and Im a JFK nut, though a bit out of practice.

Drop the font color.

its apperent something is up with JFK ... i mean they're not making those records public until like 2050 or something.

the JFK conspiracy theories are constantly on tv....

Why don't you guys like my colored font!?
i think it's pretty

i hope you don't really think i believe that.

although i certainly found it to be the most believable argument of those presented in Loose Change, the "documentary" was riddled with so man misquotes and straw men that you could really only accept as entertainment rather than a logical argument.

i believe there is more than enough scientific evidence to show that planes were not responsible for taking down the towers alone... there are far too many account of secondary explosions after the second plane hit it... that along with far too many other inconsistencies with following policy and protocols makes the official story bogus, and if its bogus there is reason for question and public analysis. how do the box cutters the hijackers supposedly used get found in the rubble but thousands of tons of concrete were vaporized?

the real history of that day has been erased, so much evidence was sent overseas and demolished, and we will never be able to truly conclude what happened that day because the american government didn't want the truth, they wanted their story to be the truth, and now it is and will always be, especially with false reiterations courtesy of ABC and the likes.

what?

no concrete was vapourized and the fire was not hot enough to melt steel you idiot

I don't think the FDA is necessarily suppressing cures, but I do think they lack the incentive.

I'm far more inclined to believe in conspiracies related to HIV/AIDS medicine or similar, than anything else presented here. Especially in the third world (a la Constant Gardener). There's just not enough control in those places, and there's so much money to be made from it. I don't have enough moral faith in mankind to believe that they would have the ethics to keep from conducting human experiments.


Also, lose the font colour.

why the shit woudl you use a font of taht color ella

Would the Polio Vaccine as the origin of AIDS count as a conspiracy theory? Cause I was watching a really good documentary on that.

No, the planes did not cause the collapse - the impending fires did.

Secondary explosions can range from oxygen tanks to balists to any and all hvac units in the building. I'm sure those things exploded repeatedly. A plastics company here burned to the ground not long ago because a CAR ran into it.

And, um, there is no protocol for an even that has never been seen in the U.S.

You're certified crazy if you believe that.

fine, no more color.

--well, just consider the amount of profit that the drug companies would be forfeiting if they did acknowledge or try to discover supposed cures, etc....

do remember any details about that?

sounds interesting...

most of the jet fuel burned off in the initial fireball, and the rest burned off fairly quickly. so then you have office materials for your fuel.... oh what the hell..

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...14675910247150

this is a compillation of arguements, including loose change, on why fires are extremely unlikely to have brought down the towers. i found those shots of what looked like thermite to be pretty interesting

why do i have a feeling that sppunk will NOT watch more than a few snippets of it

Protocols, like saving every last shred of evidence... those don't get thrown out the window as they were 5 years ago, all the remains of the building were scrapped immeadiately.

You're crazy to believe that fires melted structural steel... because it goes against the laws of physics.

Melting point of steel ~1,500 Degrees Celsius... Jetfuel and building materials burn at ~1,100 Degrees Celsius... even NIST reported maxium upper layer air temps at 1,000 Degrees Celsius... how does this make any sense to the conclusion that fires brought the towers down?

nor do fires have the capacity to vaporize concrete, and if the pancake theory were viable then there would be remnants of the floors squishing one another... like pancakes.

White is still a color.

Also, I'm a bit sketchy about the whole 9/11 thing. I just think it's odd that no plane was found at the Pentagon, moreover the only piece of something similar to a plane was an engine, but it wasn't the right kind of engine for the jet that supposedly hit the pentagon.

Also, concerning the chemtrails thing, my grandfather said that some of the equipment he tested during the Vietnam war *******d colored jet trails that make the trails appear more blue, and, to the naked eye, almost completely invisible. So if we were being sprayed with anything, they'd hide it better.

Polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS: some key writings
Go directly to key publications and latest developments.

Overview of the theory

One theory of the origin of AIDS is that it developed from contaminated vaccines used in the world's first mass immunisation for polio. There are a number of reasons why this theory is plausible enough to be worthy of further investigation.

* The location coincides dramatically. The earliest known cases of AIDS occurred in central Africa, in the same regions where Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to over a million people in 1957-1960.
* The timing coincides. There is no documented case of HIV infection or AIDS before 1959. Centuries of the slave trade and European exploitation of Africa exposed Africans and others to all other diseases then known; it is implausible that HIV could have been present and spreading in Africa without being recognised.
* Polio vaccines are grown (cultured) on monkey kidneys which could have been contaminated by SIVs. Polio vaccines could not be screened for SIV contamination before 1985.
* Another monkey virus, SV-40, is known to have been passed to humans through polio vaccines. A specific pool of Koprowski's vaccine was later shown to have been contaminated by an unknown virus.
* In order for a virus to infect a different species, it is helpful to reduce the resistance of the new host's immune system. Koprowski's polio vaccine was given to many children less than one month old, before their immune systems were fully developed. Indeed, in one trial, infants were given 15 times the standard dose in order to ensure effective immunisation.

If this theory is correct, it has serious ethical, health and policy implications. In particular, it points to the danger of interspecies transfer of material through vaccinations, organ transplants, etc., which could lead to new variants of AIDS as well as other new diseases. As well, studying the theory may lead to insights about responding to AIDS and preventing new diseases.
More Here:
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmart...ocuments/AIDS/

And I think it was based largely on this reporters investigation.

Edward Hooper, The River: A Journey Back to the Source of HIV and AIDS (Harmondsworth: Penguin; Boston: Little, Brown, 1999; revised edition, Penguin, 2000). This is an enormous but highly readable scientific blockbuster, providing the most detailed examination of the polio vaccine theory yet available, including many new findings. It has generated widespread discussion and debate and has established the polio-vaccine theory of the origin of AIDS as by far the strongest contender to the cut-hunter orthodoxy.

Mayor Rudy was evacuated from a nearby building because he was told there was a chance one of the towers could collapse and the debris could kill him, yet there has never been a modern steel built building that collapsed because fire damage in history.

Thats an excellent point about the medicine.

I found this site awhile ago - which asks some of the brightest people in the fields of the sciences a 'hard' question every so often.

The one that fascinated me was 'What is Your Dangerous Question' - not that the things we know might be false, but the possiblity that it is true.

The one about medicine is fantastic (if you're bored i highly recommend reading all of them - really interesting shit from extremally intelligent people - like 'when the internet will become aware of itself')

A New Golden Age of Medicine

His Premise:

One array of dangers arises because ideas that challenge the status quo threaten the livelihood of many. When the many are embedded in powerful places the threat can be stifling, especially when a lot of money and status are at stake. So it is within the arena of medical research and practice. Imagine what would happen if the big diseases — cancers, arteriosclerosis, stroke, diabetes — were largely prevented.

If fires didn't, structural damage sustained by massive impact very well could. I just don't believe the U.S. had detonated the buildings - doing so could very well have killed thousands more immediately around the buildings upon collapse.

Plus, I simply don't see any reason for it - having them collapse wouldn't have benefited the U.S. government much more than knowing some terrorist from the middle east has the power to bring this country to a stand-still with three or four planes.

I'll watch the video when I get home tonight.