DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => Archive => Political and Religious => Topic started by: SovereignDream on October 14, 2010, 11:54:11 AM
-
Personally, I believe that 9/11 was clearly perpetrated by the US for interests within the government. I arrived at this conclusion upon a personal investigation of the fall of WTC7, blatant and illogical inconsistencies in the official report, known (potential) US government / individual interests, the fall of WTC 1 & 2, BS government coverups, and... many, many convincing Youtube vids ;D
Lemme know what you think...
-
I think you are wrong...
actually..I know you are wrong
-
The only thing missing from the OP is sarcasm green.
-
The only thing missing from the OP is sarcasm green.
At least..... I hope that's what the OP was missing.
:|
-
:corn
-
Fricken Ninjas ....everywhere... ;D
-
Fricken Ninjas ....everywhere... ;D
You're going to have to change your name. His views so far seem much more epic.
-
Fricken Ninjas ....everywhere... ;D
You're going to have to change your name. His views so far seem much more epic.
LOL.... Ninja'd again!! good one Adami!
-
I think you are wrong...
actually..I know you are wrong
Pray tell why
-
You started this thread, you tell us why you think you're right.
-
Let me guess: one of the 'blatant and illogical inconsistencies' is that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.
-
You started this thread, you tell us why you think you're right.
This. As thread starter, the burden is really on you to support your position, SovereignDream. You really haven't given anything for people to challenge other than your subjective and unsupported opinion.
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
-
You do realize that Islamic extremists have hijacked planes before, right? It just wasn't in america.
-
Sorry but I kind of lost my interest (and my will to live) when I read "many, many convincing Youtube vids".
-
There's a really good explanation as to why WTC7 fell down but I can't seem to put my finger on it... What was it again? Hmmm....oh yeah, thousands of tons of steel and concrete collapsed right next to it. You realize how ridiculous it would've been if that building hadn't gotten damaged?
-
This is a really good thread. Hey, I got an idea, you should start another thread about whether or not we feel Bush went to Iraq for the oil.
-
There's a good debunking of usual conspiracy theories about 9/11 here:
https://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
-
There's a good debunking of usual conspiracy theories about 9/11 here:
https://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
I see a .gov. That means everything in there is a lie.
-
There's a really good explanation as to why WTC7 fell down but I can't seem to put my finger on it... What was it again? Hmmm....oh yeah, thousands of tons of steel and concrete collapsed right next to it. You realize how ridiculous it would've been if that building hadn't gotten damaged?
So...uneven structural damage to WTC7 will result in...a near perfectly level collapse of the building? :facepalm:
If anything, I would expect side of the 7 with the most damage to fall first or at least lead to an uneven fall...
-
There's a good debunking of usual conspiracy theories about 9/11 here:
https://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
I see a .gov. That means everything in there is a lie.
Good point.
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
Youre not serious ? ...tell me you're not... what about WTC1? and the blind shiek? that was Clinton
-
I think Al Qaeda had most everything to do with it, but I really don't think that it's outside the lines to think it wasn't ALL them acting autonomously.
-
There's a really good explanation as to why WTC7 fell down but I can't seem to put my finger on it... What was it again? Hmmm....oh yeah, thousands of tons of steel and concrete collapsed right next to it. You realize how ridiculous it would've been if that building hadn't gotten damaged?
So...uneven structural damage to WTC7 will result in...a near perfectly level collapse of the building? :facepalm:
If anything, I would expect side of the 7 with the most damage to fall first or at least lead to an uneven fall...
are you an engineer? because at terminal faliure, the building by code are deisgned to fall excatly like they did..
-
There's a really good explanation as to why WTC7 fell down but I can't seem to put my finger on it... What was it again? Hmmm....oh yeah, thousands of tons of steel and concrete collapsed right next to it. You realize how ridiculous it would've been if that building hadn't gotten damaged?
So...uneven structural damage to WTC7 will result in...a near perfectly level collapse of the building? :facepalm:
If anything, I would expect side of the 7 with the most damage to fall first or at least lead to an uneven fall...
Do you even have remote knowledge of how buildings are constructed?
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
why is GWB so horrible?.. and do you work for Loose Change or Alex Jones..
-
There's a really good explanation as to why WTC7 fell down but I can't seem to put my finger on it... What was it again? Hmmm....oh yeah, thousands of tons of steel and concrete collapsed right next to it. You realize how ridiculous it would've been if that building hadn't gotten damaged?
So...uneven structural damage to WTC7 will result in...a near perfectly level collapse of the building? :facepalm:
If anything, I would expect side of the 7 with the most damage to fall first or at least lead to an uneven fall...
We discussed this in one of my structural analysis classes. The way a building system like that works is that when a joint/beam/girder fails the whole system fails very rapidly because of the redistribution of loads. The joint that did end up failing was one that held up a larger section of the building than many of the other joints so the redistribution of the loads that joint was carrying was massive.
-
Orcus, you're just part of the conspiracy. Don't try to hide it.
-
Hey I wired those explosives damn well, thankyouverymuch.
-
A fairly intelligent friend of mine is a firm believer in this and we've had numerous discussions about it, so I tend to be much less dismissive of the conspiracy theory than most. However, as I've told him numerous times, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE INCOMPETENCE OF OTHERS! I agree that there are numerous things that throw up flags, but none of them link up enough to outweigh the official explanation.
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
why is GWB so horrible?.. and do you work for Loose Change or Alex Jones..
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
And what is Loose Change & Alex Jones?
-
and... many, many convincing Youtube vids ;D
You do realize that Zeitgeist was filled to the brim with fallacies, right?
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
why is GWB so horrible?.. and do you work for Loose Change or Alex Jones..
And what is Loose Change & Alex Jones?
Oh, don't give me this bullshit.
-
again..its is impossible... trust me no one could have access to the WTC to ever do what the dellusional want to believe...I repeat it is IMPOSSIBLE to get access to the building..to ever bring anything into the bulding.. especially post WTC1 attack....I know this FOR FACT... Im very familiiar with the building and how it operates , the Unions ,and how hard it is to even make a delivery there and how the loading docks work etc..THIS IS NYC... nothing is easy
aint no way it could happen... feasiblity is ZERO
the Loose Change crowd are so bent on egenda that they are Moot...
-
The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.
Though I will say, I do like his assessment of Dumbass, and miss Disappear as well.
-
and... many, many convincing Youtube vids ;D
You do realize that Zeitgeist was filled to the brim with fallacies, right?
Of the many YT vids that sparked my interest, I always deemed Zeitgeist was horse manure.
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
why is GWB so horrible?.. and do you work for Loose Change or Alex Jones..
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
As much as I disagreed with many of his actions, you can't honestly say (with a truly informed opinion) that the man was a horrible person. Yes, there were plenty of awful decisions made on his part, and under his cabinet. But as the Obama administration has begun showing us, it isn't always completely the presidents direct fault. Not to mention, there was at least one bill Bush tried to pass that would have overall benefited this country, but the Liberals were too proud to give GWB credit and the Republicans didn't want to vote for something the Liberals could agree with.
My point, Bush was a pretty bad leader for the country and one of the worst (prepared) public speakers this country has seen, but he is in no way a "horrible person".
-
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
I find it extremely unlikely that a kid who grew up poor, with average looks, average talent, average brains, and no connections at all would be be happily married to a woman with the looks of a model, would have gotten to go to law school free of charge and be happily working at one of the top law firms in the country, would have performed lead vocals onstage with one of my favorite bands from my childhood, and would be running the largest website in the world for DT fans. And yet, unlikely as it all may have seemed, here we are...
-
I don't have the luxury of time to write out a 10 page essay on why I think 9/11 was perpetrated by the US (nor the desire) but it really comes down to this:
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
why is GWB so horrible?.. and do you work for Loose Change or Alex Jones..
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
And what is Loose Change & Alex Jones?
bring back GWB... turn it back to the good ole days of GWB.... and I hate to tell you Obama is a Muslim.. you do know his uncle Odinga? correct?
-
Uh oh. Now we have two types of crazy here.
-
Too many people would have needed to be involved for it to be a huge conspiracy. Someone would have talked. Not to mention that I doubt there are that many people who are so greedy that they'd be willing to killing thousands of innocent people for money. I'm not talking politicians here, but the demolition technicians who would have been necessary to pull it off.
That said, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the government knew a lot more beforehand thean they let on.
-
bring back GWB... turn it back to the good ole days of GWB.... and I hate to tell you Obama is a Muslim.. you do know his uncle Odinga? correct?
You have got to be shitting me? Because Obama definitely doesn't drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, eat pork and he obviously rolls out his ceremonial rug every morning and prays to Mecca.
-
Uh oh. Now we have two types of crazy here.
Rev Wright and 20 years of his "teachings" aint Christianity and Obama is more Muslim then anything else they are selling us...I think any objective viewing of who Obama is tells us that
but you are correct, I really dont want to merge the subjects..
-
(https://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s238/the-happy-clown/mj_popcorn.gif)
-
bring back GWB... turn it back to the good ole days of GWB.... and I hate to tell you Obama is a Muslim.. you do know his uncle Odinga? correct?
Oh, by the way, I guess I am a Muslim foreigner then, seeing how I was born in Hawaii and all. No natural born citizen here!! But so as not to derail this thread with more typical birther bullshit, I would suggest taking to another thread.
-
bring back GWB... turn it back to the good ole days of GWB.... and I hate to tell you Obama is a Muslim.. you do know his uncle Odinga? correct?
You have got to be shitting me? Because Obama definitely doesn't drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, eat pork and he obviously rolls out his ceremonial rug every morning and prays to Mecca.
look at his books.. his family...his uncle Odinga and his embracing of Sharia in Kenya..then get back to me..
are we talking Barry Sotero or Obama? LOL
-
if GWB was "bad" then Obama is a "Biblical Disaster"...
really.. Obama has no resume.. never had a job..he is Rev Al.. a community agitator..
any notice that GWB is more popular then Obama today?
-
That said, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the government knew a lot more beforehand thean they let on.
I agree completely, and this is a big part of the problem. There was almost certainly some cover-up taking place. Nobody wanted to be seen as so extraordinarily incompetent.
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy. It's the same thing with the Holocaust. I believe it happened, but freaking out anytime somebody dares question it is damned counterproductive and only perpetuates the conspiracies.
-
It's the Internet Engineers that annoy me the most about these conspiracy theories.
-
This thread is going places.
-
Clinton passed on Osama... as he was too busy carpet bombing Iraq of trumped up no fly zome violationas to take our of Monica..
we need a thread on "oil for food" but this topic is too much for the GWB haters to ever deal with..
-
That said, I would not be in the least bit surprised if the government knew a lot more beforehand thean they let on.
I agree completely, and this is a big part of the problem. There was almost certainly some cover-up taking place. Nobody wanted to be seen as so extraordinarily incompetent.
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy. It's the same thing with the Holocaust. I believe it happened, but freaking out anytime somebody dares question it is damned counterproductive and only perpetuates the conspiracies.
-
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy. It's the same thing with the Holocaust. I believe it happened, but freaking out anytime somebody dares question it is damned counterproductive and only perpetuates the conspiracies.
This is a great point. Nothing screams "guilty" better than saying you've got nothing to hide, then going apeshit when someone wants to take a look and see just what it is that you aren't hiding.
-
It's the Internet Engineers that annoy me the most about these conspiracy theories.
agreed..... its painful to hear this stuff.. it hurts my soul..
-
if GWB was "bad" then Obama is a "Biblical Disaster"...
really.. Obama has no resume.. never had a job..he is Rev Al.. a community agitator..
any notice that GWB is more popular then Obama today?
Oh come on. You have to put into consideration the serving size of the shit sammich Obama received. And at this point, I don't think the President is the problem. Honestly, I don't think at this point in time, we'd be any better or worse with McCain or Bush. It's the people working under the guy, the multi-party system and a good ol' handful of greed/self interest.
-
Besides, even if I am "wrong" regarding US involvement (which seems far too likely to me), you cannot deny the fact that the government was acting incredibly suspicious during 9/11 and the Invasion of the ME. You also cannot deny that the government was warned, supposedly by the omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, evil "Al Qaeda" that it would be attacked with planes being used as missiles. Furthermore, how does a person who believe the US had no role in this account for the multiple failures of NORAD, the coincidental NORAD exercises being run the same morning of 9/11, etc?
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
-
I've never heard or seen anything that hinted at muslims being omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient. They are a semi large group of people from many different countries, they can clearly get things done.
-
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
-
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
I'm actually interested in what propaganda you are talking about. Before or after the attacks on our nation? I'm not attacking you on this one, but would like some source information first.
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
Well, our media is to blame for a lot of social issues and public views. That's just common sense, isn't it?
-
I think people better find out about the Jihad against the West... what fuels it..
it has nothing to with GWB, he was just the first to take it on directly...
Clinton passed.. and he failed us post WTC1.... its like the first attack on the WTC didnt exist to liberals...
-
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
Well, not propaganda that's sanctioned by BOTH sides of government, anyway.
-
can anyone tell me about "oil for food"?
-
https://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+for+food
-
I think people better find out about the Jihad against the West... what fuels it..
it has nothing to with GWB, he was just the first to take it on directly...
Clinton passed.. and he failed us post WTC1.... its like the first attack on the WTC didnt exist to liberals...
Work calls, so I don't have time to do more homework for you, but you keep asserting that Clinton passed on Osama, which is fundamentally false. There's tons of info on all that out there if you'd just take the time to look for something that isn't cranked out by the lackeys at fox. Frankly, Clinton was absolutely right when he said that he did a helluva lot more to confront al Qaeda than Bush, and he was roundly criticized for it by the right.
And weren't you already warned about knocking off the thoroughly disproved Uncle Odinga bullshit?
-
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
I see these kinds of arguments all the time, and I don't understand them. If the government was responsible for 9/11, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people would have to be kept silent? How did the government manage to identify and pay off every person who claims to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes? How about every person who came into work a bit early in the Twin Towers and saw the demolition crews leaving? How about he people who had to get to the Pentagon after the missile hit and plant the plane debris? How about every scientist who has a physics-based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought the towers down?
To pull off the hypothetical 9/11 conspiracy, you'd have to be literally the smartest person who ever lived. Yet you say Bush is an "overall retard" who can't manage the economy? Normally I hate to be lame, but in this case I have no problem asking: Do you have even the slightest comprehension of what it would take for the government to successfully have planned 9/11? I also have no problem guessing that you don't. It's the only way you can have an opinion so removed from logic and reality.
-
https://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=oil+for+food
it was a rhetorical question..but thank you GC...
I know all about it..and my point is it forced GWB hand..he had to go in after 17 broken UN resolutions..
Benon Sevon..Kofi Annan... and all the crooks..
-
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
I'm actually interested in what pro da you are talking about. Before or after the attacks on our nation? I'm not attacking you on this one, but would like some source information first.
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
Well, our media is to blame for a lot of social issues and public views. That's just common sense, isn't it?
There really isn't one specific use of propagnda; just flipping channels and having almost every single news station mentioning "Terror," "Muslims," "Not safe," "Bombs," etc, etc, etc.
-
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
I see these kinds of arguments all the time, and I don't understand them. If the government was responsible for 9/11, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people would have to be kept silent. How did the government manage to identify and pay off every person who claims to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes. How about every person who came into work a bit early in the Twin Towers and saw the demolition crews leaving. How about he people who had to get to the Pentagon after the missile hit and plant the plane debris. How about every scientist who has a physics-based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought the towers down.
To pull off the hypothetical 9/11 conspiracy, you'd have to be literally the smartest person who ever lived. Yet in this post you also claim he's an "overall retard" who can't manage the economy? Normally I hate to be lame, but in this case I have no problem asking: Do you have even the slightest comprehension of what it would take for the government to successfully have planned 9/11? I also have no problem guessing that you don't. It's the only way you can have an opinion so removed from logic and reality.
GREAT POST^
-
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
I'm actually interested in what pro da you are talking about. Before or after the attacks on our nation? I'm not attacking you on this one, but would like some source information first.
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
Well, our media is to blame for a lot of social issues and public views. That's just common sense, isn't it?
There really isn't one specific use of propagnda; just flipping channels and having almost every single news station mentioning "Terror," "Muslims," "Not safe," "Bombs," etc, etc, etc.
You have to keep in mind, that's just the media over-blowing EVERYTHING. It's not a recent occurrence, nor is it propaganda. It's merely misinformed "news" that got their ratings through the roof.
-
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
I'm actually interested in what pro da you are talking about. Before or after the attacks on our nation? I'm not attacking you on this one, but would like some source information first.
And doesn't the propagnda employed by the US against depicting all Muslims as omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient "evil-doers" seem the least bit suspicious to you at all?
A couple loony "news" commentators on Fox and a bunch of redneck tea partiers are hardly the same thing as government sanctioned propoganda.
Well, our media is to blame for a lot of social issues and public views. That's just common sense, isn't it?
There really isn't one specific use of propagnda; just flipping channels and having almost every single news station mentioning "Terror," "Muslims," "Not safe," "Bombs," etc, etc, etc.
Well considering we're....at war, it's normal. We did MUCH worse with communism. At least we're not blackballing people for being muslim in america.
-
At least we're not blackballing people for being muslim in america.
Yet.
-
The cold war was one of the most notorious for pointing fingers and propaganda. I mean, if you even wore a red t-shirt that looked communist, you'd be victimized instantly. It's not nearly as bad with this so called "terrorism".
-
I think people better find out about the Jihad against the West... what fuels it..
it has nothing to with GWB, he was just the first to take it on directly...
Clinton passed.. and he failed us post WTC1.... its like the first attack on the WTC didnt exist to liberals...
Work calls, so I don't have time to do more homework for you, but you keep asserting that Clinton passed on Osama, which is fundamentally false. There's tons of info on all that out there if you'd just take the time to look for something that isn't cranked out by the lackeys at fox. Frankly, Clinton was absolutely right when he said that he did a helluva lot more to confront al Qaeda than Bush, and he was roundly criticized for it by the right.
And weren't you already warned about knocking off the thoroughly disproved Uncle Odinga bullshit?
why do people claim the Odinga connection is false? its not false...and Clinton did have a call that Osama was available to be offed and he passed on the attempt.. sighting civis could be harmed
-
By the way, the options in the poll are pretty weak. At the very least, "It was blatanly perpetrated or allowed to happen by the US to further government / individual interests" should be two different options since they are two different things. I find it completely impossible that the government could have pulled it off, but I'd certainly be willing to go with "allowed it to happen," given that option.
-
Why is George Bush so horrible? Hmm...: potential involvement in 9/11, Overall retard, supporter and instigator of the bombing of many civilian cities in the ME because they were harboring "bad guys" or WMD's, cause of the recession we are in today *cough Obama haters who still believe he is Muslim cough*, "where wings take dream!"
I see these kinds of arguments all the time, and I don't understand them. If the government was responsible for 9/11, tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people would have to be kept silent. How did the government manage to identify and pay off every person who claims to have seen a plane hit the Pentagon with their own eyes. How about every person who came into work a bit early in the Twin Towers and saw the demolition crews leaving. How about he people who had to get to the Pentagon after the missile hit and plant the plane debris. How about every scientist who has a physics-based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought the towers down.
To pull off the hypothetical 9/11 conspiracy, you'd have to be literally the smartest person who ever lived. Yet you say Bush is an "overall retard" who can't manage the economy? Normally I hate to be lame, but in this case I have no problem asking: Do you have even the slightest comprehension of what it would take for the government to successfully have planned 9/11? I also have no problem guessing that you don't. It's the only way you can have an opinion so removed from logic and reality.
Cute, but for every physicist who has a physics based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought it down yields another physicist who explains why it is illogical that they came down or the manner in which they came down. You are also making assumptions of what my beliefs are on the Pentagon crash, etc. I'm not saying they are true or false claims, but preparations for such an event could have been made much earlier than one thinks. Also, granted, many people who would bring forth suspicious evidence from the WTC's or Pentagon would most likely be dead now or labeled as raving lunatics *cough*. And I'm not saying "Bush done it" - hell no - as established, he IS a retard. But it certainly is a distinct possibility that the US allowed in to happen or even aided it in happening.
-
not to get off subejct.. but it is TRUE Obama and Odinga campaigned together for Sharia law in Kenya
https://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/obama-supports-odinga-islamic-terror-in-kenya/143993092e9f238d378c143993092e9f238d378c-207263498645?q=obama%20odinga%20video
https://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/obama-and-odinga-campaign-in-kenya/caa1d0712f6b517378e7caa1d0712f6b517378e7-281268519751?q=obama%20odinga%20video&FORM=VIRE5
and people wonder why I like GWB??? LOL
-
I don't believe that the US was responsible for assisting with the attacks that day. Now whether or not they new about them and allowed it to happen is a totally different story. I find that actually believable, not many people would be involved and it would be easy to keep secret.
-
not to get off subejct
Not to continue off subject you mean?
I believe this:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15108.0
is the thread where you were making these posts previously, for anyone who's interested.
-
and Clinton did have a call that Osama was avaialable to be offed and he passed on the attmept.. siting civis could be harmed
The only people who believe that the Ugandans offered him up (the so-called silver platter) were the people who weren't there, and insist that it's true simply because the people who were there deny it. Furthermore, even if it weren't true, the issue wouldn't have been civilian casualties (that was a different incident where some advisers wanted to flambé a playground thinking that Osama might be near by). The Ugandan thing wouldn't have flown because at that point Osama was not a suspect in any crime. The FBI had refused to sign off on him as the culprit of the Cole bombing. At that point, he was just a guy who didn't like America and might be funneling some money around--not a criminal act. Snatching him would have been a simple case of kidnapping, and while I know that sort of thing became trendy under Dumbass's administration, it was and still is not cool.
Honestly, dude, these things aren't that hard to research.
-
not to get off subejct
Not to continue off subject you mean?
I believe this:
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=15108.0
is the thread where you were making these posts previously, for anyone who's interested.
did you watch my link a few posts back?
-
No and I don't care to. This is not the thread to discuss it.
-
Cute, but for every physicist who has a physics based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought it down yields another physicist who explains why it is illogical that they came down or the manner in which they came down.
Lemme ask you something, have you ever studied physics or engineering? By studying I mean actually take a class or learn from a credible source.
-
and Clinton did have a call that Osama was avaialable to be offed and he passed on the attmept.. siting civis could be harmed
The only people who believe that the Ugandans offered him up (the so-called silver platter) were the people who weren't there, and insist that it's true simply because the people who were there deny it. Furthermore, even if it weren't true, the issue wouldn't have been civilian casualties (that was a different incident where some advisers wanted to flambé a playground thinking that Osama might be near by). The Ugandan thing wouldn't have flown because at that point Osama was not a suspect in any crime. The FBI had refused to sign off on him as the culprit of the Cole bombing. At that point, he was just a guy who didn't like America and might be funneling some money around--not a criminal act. Snatching him would have been a simple case of kidnapping, and while I know that sort of thing became trendy under Dumbass's administration, it was and still is not cool.
Honestly, dude, these things aren't that hard to research.
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
Times Headlines
The U.S. Can't Allow Justice to Be Another War Casualty
Ghost of a Tribunal Should Haunt Ashcroft
Bush Was Right to Abandon Treaty
Culture Shock
Hate Hits the Mainstream
more >
By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
-
No and I don't care to. This is not the thread to discuss it.
to me its all inter-related... Im reacting to anothers post that my view is not true..when the connection is TRUE...
But thats cool.. but its a FACT that Odinga and Obama campaigned together.. and Odinga enforced Sharia law..and even today Obama is sending him money.
-
not to get off subejct.. but it is TRUE Obama and Odinga campaigned together for Sharia law in Kenya
https://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/obama-and-odinga-campaign-in-kenya/caa1d0712f6b517378e7caa1d0712f6b517378e7-281268519751?q=obama%20odinga%20video&FORM=VIRE5
and people wonder why I like GWB??? LOL
INTERNET NONSENSE LOLOLO
Hey, that is fun.
-
BTW, I was at NIST a few months ago, the agency that did simulations of the tower and its collapse after 9/11. Very cool actually, they had a small fractured piece of steel of the tower on display.
Of course, they were all bought. The hundreds of people involved were all silenced, the outside agencies, everybody. Only the guys on the internet are right, the ones who know it's right because it can't be wrong.
rumborak
-
sorry...I posted to wrong link before...
https://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/obama-supports-odinga-islamic-terror-in-kenya/143993092e9f238d378c143993092e9f238d378c-207263498645?q=obama%20odinga%20video
-
BTW, I was at NIST a few months ago, the agency that did simulations of the tower and its collapse after 9/11. Very cool actually, they had a small fractured piece of steel of the tower on display.
Of course, they were all bought. The hundreds of people involved were all silenced, the outside agencies, everybody. Only the guys on the internet are right, the ones who know it's right because it can't be wrong.
rumborak
But at the same time, if you were a government agency tasked with looking at the 9/11 disaster, and you found that everything wasn't as it seemed, are you going to be the one with the balls to out the whole government? Not likely.
NOT saying that's the case at all. I'm with everyone who has the hint of skepticism in the government over it, but overall thinks it was Al Qaeda. Just playing Devil's Advocate, that I can see how one might be distrustful of the government in that instance.
-
EPICVIEW, you've rightly been told that the Obama/Odinga issue is off-topic. Next post I see of yours that isn't on topic earns you a 1-month vaction from P/R.
-
OK sorry...
Have a nice night.
-
But at the same time, if you were a government agency tasked with looking at the 9/11 disaster, and you found that everything wasn't as it seemed, are you going to be the one with the balls to out the whole government? Not likely.
Yes, actually I do. Do you really think of the hundreds of people involved in this investigation, not a single one would go to the media, even if just anonymously, and proclaim that the results are plain wrong and politically motivated?
The problem with conspiracy theories is that they always presume a completely unrealistic "in-line-ness" of the people involved.
rumborak
-
Yeah, for once (not really just "once," but I'm exaggerating for dramatic effect), I have to agree with rumborak.
-
Conspiracy theorists have to think that they're the only ones honest, skeptical, and and intelligent to see the truth though. That's the allure. Everyone else are sheeple; only you have the capacity to see through the lies.
-
Yeah, definitely that part (the self-flattery), and the "me/us against them" seems to have an allure. Somehow people actually like to feel they are being controlled by unseen forces. Some channel this into New Age crap talking about "energies" and communicating with dead people, some channel it into their religion (God being the "controller"), others build conspiracy theories in response.
rumborak
-
Cute, but for every physicist who has a physics based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought it down yields another physicist who explains why it is illogical that they came down or the manner in which they came down.
Zero percent chance this is true.
You are also making assumptions of what my beliefs are on the Pentagon crash, etc. I'm not saying they are true or false claims, but preparations for such an event could have been made much earlier than one thinks.
The fact you're saying it's possible the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane is already insane. It's not something you can debate.
And no, they couldn't have been made earlier. People would notice plane debris just happening to sit around on the lawn. The people involved in preparing it by tearing apart the plane would have blabbed.
Also, granted, many people who would bring forth suspicious evidence from the WTC's or Pentagon would most likely be dead now or labeled as raving lunatics *cough*. And I'm not saying "Bush done it" - hell no - as established, he IS a retard. But it certainly is a distinct possibility that the US allowed in to happen or even aided it in happening.
Alright, so Bush wasn't involved. But you certainly didn't make it seem that way.
And if you want to say certain aspects of the WTC are suspicious, fine. I sorta feel the same way. But hypothesis must become observable evidence or it is meaningless. You haven't even presented any actual evidence in your posts. What did the government do to plant the explosives? Who might have done it?
-
Cute, but for every physicist who has a physics based explanation for why the plane crashes could have brought it down yields another physicist who explains why it is illogical that they came down or the manner in which they came down.
Zero percent chance this is true.
You are also making assumptions of what my beliefs are on the Pentagon crash, etc. I'm not saying they are true or false claims, but preparations for such an event could have been made much earlier than one thinks.
The fact you're saying it's possible the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane is already insane. It's not something you can debate.
And no, they couldn't have been made earlier. People would notice plane debris just happening to sit around on the lawn. The people involved in preparing it by tearing apart the plane would have blabbed.
Also, granted, many people who would bring forth suspicious evidence from the WTC's or Pentagon would most likely be dead now or labeled as raving lunatics *cough*. And I'm not saying "Bush done it" - hell no - as established, he IS a retard. But it certainly is a distinct possibility that the US allowed in to happen or even aided it in happening.
Alright, so Bush wasn't involved. But you certainly didn't make it seem that way.
And if you want to say certain aspects of the WTC are suspicious, fine. I sorta feel the same way. But hypothesis must become observable evidence or it is meaningless. You haven't even presented any actual evidence in your posts. What did the government do to plant the explosives? Who might have done it?
What evidence am I supposed to post online; especially "evidence" that has most likely been destroyed or buried 15 feet under?
"The fact you're saying it's possible the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane is already insane." You must not have read my reply thoroughly (or misinterpreted it); this is exactly the accusation I was trying to avoid.
"Alright, so Bush wasn't involved." - in the organization of the potential plan, no. He wouldn't have anything intelligible to add. But he may have simply been coerced into approving of a potential plan with the lure of exiting the White House richer than he ever dreamed of, with companies he has high stakes in raking in cash from the war machine.
-
What evidence am I supposed to post online; especially "evidence" that has most likely been destroyed or buried 15 feet under?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence
-
What evidence am I supposed to post online; especially "evidence" that has most likely been destroyed or buried 15 feet under?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence
...Is it me, or did you just miss the whole point?
-
My reading of the thread leads me to believe it's you.
-
What evidence am I supposed to post online; especially "evidence" that has most likely been destroyed or buried 15 feet under?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Absence_of_evidence
...Is it me, or did you just miss the whole point?
You are bringing an argument that essentially rests on evidence you are unable to produce. Because the existing evidence speaks against your theory, you are relying on the non-existent one.
rumborak
-
What evidence am I supposed to post online; especially "evidence" that has most likely been destroyed or buried 15 feet under?
Well more than just typical Truther claims, for one. Any studies, reports, diagrams, charts, Etch-a-Sketches, anything. The stuff that made you actually believe there was a government involvement.
-
Having had a very personal experience with the CIVILIAN JET LINER that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I'm going to say something radical here. We should have a rule that states basically that unless you have some new and earth shattering evidence to add to the events of that fateful day, then shut the fuck up, and keep this drivel out of here. I don't mean to offend anyone with that comment, but no one had to convince me it was an AIRPLANE that hit the Pentagon; and quite frankly for those of us who were basically RIGHT THERE, this type of bullshit only opens very raw, and emotional wounds, and is insensitive as fuck. I'd rather we just have a forum rule that says, "We have adopted REALITY as our guide on this issue, so leave your conspiracy theories about this topic at home in your mom's basement where they belong."
I hope you can understand my feelings about this, and I do not mean to be so straightforward, but for me, this is like if my parents were killed at fucking Treblinka, or Auschwitz and then you told me that it never happened. Fucking asshole extremists boarded airplanes on 9/11 and killed a whole bunch of innocent people. That is the truth. Sorry if that's hard to swallow for some people, and I know it doesn't make for good discussion at the conclusion of a fucking Pendragon or Conspiracy X meeting, but it was real...It happened. Let it the fuck go, please.
Again, I promise I mean no ill will to anyone personally. If you believe that horseshit, you may in fact be a real stand-up person, and I do not mean to disrepect you or name call in the slightest, but please keep that opinion to yourself, unless you have FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back it up. Here's a little hint: There is none to be found....anywhere.
While I wasn't IN the Pentagon that day, I WAS two blocks away. The fucking airplane flew over my house. It rattled my windows. I felt it's vibrations. I ran outside and WITNESSED the aftermath. I held a woman in my arms on the street while she repeated between heavy sobs over and over again how the people were looking out the windows at her as the plane went by. I could smell the jet fuel, and smoke. I saw the clipped light poles on the highway. I experienced first hand the aftermath, and the chaos at the Crystal City/Pentagon Mall. THOUSANDS of people all had the same experience that day. I lived through the months of therapy and the depression that followed. I wish I had NEVER experienced that. I am JEALOUS when I hear people share their experience of that day that they had through their TV set. While I saw the plane live on TV hit the WTC, like millions of other people, I was there at the Pentagon. I can't EVER take that away. EVER. And even then I wasn't as unlucky as the stranger I held in my arms, while she bawled her eyes out.
I've shared this experience on the board once before. It was in a way therapeutic for me. Now, not so much. I don't want to share it again.
Sorry if I upset or pissed anyone off.
-
Very well said, Tempus. :clap:
-
I'd rather we just have a forum rule that says, "We have adopted REALITY as our guide on this issue, so leave your conspiracy theories about this topic at home in your mom's basement where they belong."
Suits me, buddy. :tup
-
Having had a very personal experience with the CIVILIAN JET LINER that hit the Pentagon on 9/11, I'm going to say something radical here. We should have a rule that states basically that unless you have some new and earth shattering evidence to add to the events of that fateful day, then shut the fuck up, and keep this drivel out of here. I don't mean to offend anyone with that comment, but no one had to convince me it was an AIRPLANE that hit the Pentagon; and quite frankly for those of us who were basically RIGHT THERE, this type of bullshit only opens very raw, and emotional wounds, and is insensitive as fuck. I'd rather we just have a forum rule that says, "We have adopted REALITY as our guide on this issue, so leave your conspiracy theories about this topic at home in your mom's basement where they belong."
I hope you can understand my feelings about this, and I do not mean to be so straightforward, but for me, this is like if my parents were killed at fucking Treblinka, or Auschwitz and then you told me that it never happened. Fucking asshole extremists boarded airplanes on 9/11 and killed a whole bunch of innocent people. That is the truth. Sorry if that's hard to swallow for some people, and I know it doesn't make for good discussion at the conclusion of a fucking Pendragon or Conspiracy X meeting, but it was real...It happened. Let it the fuck go, please.
Again, I promise I mean no ill will to anyone personally. If you believe that horseshit, you may in fact be a real stand-up person, and I do not mean to disrepect you or name call in the slightest, but please keep that opinion to yourself, unless you have FACTUAL EVIDENCE to back it up. Here's a little hint: There is none to be found....anywhere.
While I wasn't IN the Pentagon that day, I WAS two blocks away. The fucking airplane flew over my house. It rattled my windows. I felt it's vibrations. I ran outside and WITNESSED the aftermath. I held a woman in my arms on the street while she repeated between heavy sobs over and over again how the people were looking out the windows at her as the plane went by. I could smell the jet fuel, and smoke. I saw the clipped light poles on the highway. I experienced first hand the aftermath, and the chaos at the Crystal City/Pentagon Mall. THOUSANDS of people all had the same experience that day. I lived through the months of therapy and the depression that followed. I wish I had NEVER experienced that. I am JEALOUS when I hear people share their experience of that day that they had through their TV set. While I saw the plane live on TV hit the WTC, like millions of other people, I was there at the Pentagon. I can't EVER take that away. EVER. And even then I wasn't as unlucky as the stranger I held in my arms, while she bawled her eyes out.
I've shared this experience on the board once before. It was in a way therapeutic for me. Now, not so much. I don't want to share it again.
Sorry if I upset or pissed anyone off.
Can we all quote this, in its entirety, to add extra emphasis? Seriously. Grand slam of a post, Tempus.
Also, I dislike how the poll has like 10,000 options, but there's not a "The terrorists did it, not because 'they hate our freedom' but because our foreign policy in the Middle East over the past several decades has bred local contempt."
-
With all due respect to Tempus, plentiful and sincere on my part, I disagree. Aside from the point I made about stifling discussion in general, there are still some aspects of it that I find damned interesting. Personally, I'd really like to see some intelligent discussion concerning some of the question marks. Unfortunately, that's a surprisingly difficult thing to come across, and everything I've seen leads me to believe that this will be no exception.
-
Don't you think that the different departments of the government just failed to work together to connect the dots? I think they had the intel but never got the where or the when or just plain dropped the ball.
-
Sure. Like I said earlier, my mantra is never underestimate the incompetence of others. However, I'm not convinced that some of the incompetence wasn't deliberate. Once you get to that point, then you're talking about a conspiracy.
-
I'd rather we just have a forum rule that says, "We have adopted REALITY as our guide on this issue, so leave your conspiracy theories about this topic at home in your mom's basement where they belong."
Suits me, buddy. :tup
Agreed 9001% Every time I see a 9/11 conspiracy theory it makes me want to smack someone, especially because pretty much every conspiracy theory about why the planes couldn't have destroyed the towers has been, AFAIK, debunked. I hope anyone who still thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy will look at Tempus' post, feel ashamed, and learn from it.
-
I wish global warming conspiracy theories were treated with 1/10th of the hostility 9/11 conspiracy theories were.
-
Seriously. Their "Global Warming is going to kill everything!" theories are absurd.
-
Now I'm confused.
-
I was half joking. Both extreme sides of that issue are annoying. I don't mind the GW deniers as much because they're just more of a nuisance and easy to ignore. The fearmongerers, like Gore, who are just aiming to profit are probably the worst. They shove statistics and graphs with ridiculously disproportionate scales down peoples throats and try to guilt them into paying for dumb shit like carbon credit.
-
Thank you so much Tempus. I was not near the Pentagon but conspiracy theories of this sort regarding 9/11 make my blood boil unlike anything else in this world. My uncle works right near the pentagon and he witnessed the physical effects of the plane flying over and crashing as well.
Also, Reap made a great clear post, a post which I have actually said in a previous thread from a year or 2 ago agaisnt In The Name of God who had presented the same conspiracy. Reap's post is SO FILLED with logic, that you cannot dispute it. No conspiracy will break that logic, unless cold hard REAL evidence is brought forward somehow (not going to happen because it does not exist).
If the gov did know something was up that day, it was probably much like Pearl Harbor, or the iceberg that sunk the titanic. None of those thigns happened on purpose, it was just people missing the signs. Remember, hindsight is 20/20. Incompetence plus the belief that this could not be feasible were probably very motivating factors to why it went down the way it did that day. Thinking 4 planes could get hijacked simultaneously and used as missiles was a fantasy before 9/11. You need perspective to our mindsets pre 9/11 to understand this.
-
I think hindsight being 20/20 is pretty obviously disproved by the mere fact that conspiracy theorists exist :P
-
I think hindsight being 20/20 is pretty obviously disproved by the mere fact that conspiracy theorists exist :P
What I'm saying is that it is easy for someone right now to say "How could they not see that coming?"
-
And that's why I was all like :P
-
Oh I don't really know what a tongue sticking out face means lol. I knew you were being playful with your words, but wasn't sure what you were trying to get across i guess.
-
Thinking 4 planes could get hijacked simultaneously and used as missiles was a fantasy before 9/11. You need perspective to our mindsets pre 9/11 to understand this.
Airplanes being used as weapons go way back. The Israelis were damn sure hip to it. Ralph Nader suggested this very scenario back in [I believe] the late 70s. American defense agencies were certainly aware of the possibility since they were conducting training exercises for it THAT VERY WEEK.
-
Airline hijackings have been around forever.
rumborak
-
"The fact you're saying it's possible the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane is already insane." You must not have read my reply thoroughly (or misinterpreted it); this is exactly the accusation I was trying to avoid.
You fail logic forever. Let's go back a little bit:
You are also making assumptions of what my beliefs are on the Pentagon crash, etc. I'm not saying they are true or false claims, but preparations for such an event could have been made much earlier than one thinks.
You're saying you can't deny that a missile hit the Pentagon. This is another way of saying it's possible. You're not a defendant on a witness stand, and I didn't accuse you of anything. I just took the meaning of what your post said and drew it to its logical conclusion. A sane person should not be capable of believing a missile hit the Pentagon unless he/she is profoundly ignorant.
And by the way, I don't want to say I was convinced by Loose Change. If you had put a gun to my head and asked for my honest opinion after seeing it I would have said their conclusions didn't seem probable. But there were a few weeks after seeing it where I hadn't found any compelling counter-arguments. I have a tendency of finding new pop culture movements right before they become cool. In the case of Loose Change, not everyone had made a website debunking it yet, so I sat around thinking "wait, they didn't find any airplane debris at the Pentagon? I mean, my dad has a friend who saw it. But still, that makes no sense." It's a compelling movie, but if you still believe it AFTER reading all the websites that debunk it, I don't know what to do other than being a dick. I don't share anything near what Tempus experienced that day, but it was still a surreal day in my life and a nightmare for others. Using it as masturbatory conspiracy fodder is insulting.
-
Thinking 4 planes could get hijacked simultaneously and used as missiles was a fantasy before 9/11. You need perspective to our mindsets pre 9/11 to understand this.
Airplanes being used as weapons go way back. The Israelis were damn sure hip to it. Ralph Nader suggested this very scenario back in [I believe] the late 70s. American defense agencies were certainly aware of the possibility since they were conducting training exercises for it THAT VERY WEEK.
Please see bolded.
-
1 hijacked plane is commonplace, 4 planes is unthinkable?
Not exactly.
rumborak
-
It probably wasn't too difficult to hijack the planes back then. They didn't use bombs. Security was horrible before 9/11. They could have probably fit a nuke on there if they had wanted to.
-
I bet you guys have watched Zeitgeist movies, whether they are absurd theories or not, but in case you haven't, just give your 10 minutes for this video and think again. Of course, there is no reason to believe in this video, and as there is no reason to believe this video, there is no reason to believe the government either. It's up to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyyRXfROhrc
-
You're right. There's no reason to believe the movie. It's pure and utter trash.
-
(https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/semicontrolled_demolition.png)
But on a serious note, like most conspiracy theories the 911 conspiracy theory takes observations of things that might not quite add up up (like a shadow going the wrong way, or a building falling down in a manner that one wouldnt expect) but rather than looking at a billion or so trivial and easily plausible explanations they automatically jump to the extreme conclusion of governmenental conspiracy. They present a false dichotomy that isn't actually there.
-
I bet you guys have watched Zeitgeist movies, whether they are absurd theories or not, but in case you haven't, just give your 10 minutes for this video and think again. Of course, there is no reason to believe in this video, and as there is no reason to believe this video, there is no reason to believe the government either. It's up to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyyRXfROhrc
I genuinely feel sorry for people who watch videos like this and actually have their minds changed about issues because of it.
-
I'm not an American and I was young at that time to understand the gravity of this incident, but the video suggests enough clips and evidences, although it may not be very reliable because it is just a video in youtube blah blah, that actually convinces me slightly. Well I'm a skeptic in nature and I decided to take the stance from the video as my basis. And when I did, the US government seemed as absurd as how you guys think of the video. Hope you get my point.
Yes, I actually somewhat think that some of you are 'blinded' by the well-made propagandas and all that and you have no doubts about your government's reliability. No wrong in that, of course. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong to question the government. I'm not knowledgeable in politics so please, don't tell me stuff like "How much do you know about how the government works?" and stuff, because I probably don't know. Also, I'm just stating my belief.
Another request. Can you show me actual basis, maybe by the government itself, that actually addresses the questions raised in the video, and stop responding like 'yeah that video's absurd and it doesn't make sense'?
-
I'm not an American and I was young at that time to understand the gravity of this incident, but the video suggests enough clips and evidences, although it may not be very reliable because it is just a video in youtube blah blah, that actually convinces me slightly.
Except that the video has been trashed by real experts a thousand times over and the damn thing even LOOKS like it's trying to hypnotize you when you watch it.
Well I'm a skeptic in nature and I decided to take the stance from the video as my basis.
Too bad you couldn't extend you skepticism to someone who's notorious for making up stories based on circumstancial evidence!
Yes, I actually somewhat think that some of you are 'blinded' by the well-made propagandas and all that and you have no doubts about your government's reliability.
LOL. Blinded by our government? Do you even TALK to anyone on this board about what they think of the US government?
Another request. Can you show me actual basis, maybe by the government itself, that actually addresses the questions raised in the video, and stop responding like 'yeah that video's absurd and it doesn't make sense'?
https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842
https://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911.htm
911myths.com
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/home Mark Robert's website
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf Ryan Mackey's White Paper that refutes David Ray Griffin's arguments.
https://sites.google.com/site/911guide/
Further evidence: Noam-fucking-Chomsky disagrees with the "truthers." Enough said.
-
AwakeFromOctavarium, there are literally second-by-second refutations of Zeitgeist.
Also, I think that anyone that believes for a second anything promoted by Zeitgeist, they revoke any rights to label themselves as a "skeptic." Swallowing any bullshit you see is the exact opposite of skeptical thinking.
-
Well except, it's up to you to think which one is bullshit. But I'll read all the thing PC gave me.
-
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy.
My exact position pretty much.
-
For a public speaking class I had to take we were given an assignment to study pretty much any topic we felt like then give a 10-15 minute speech on it to the class (nothing difficult). The day before I was scheduled to do mine a girl did her speech on how 9/11 was an inside job to a dead silent class, using mainly Loose Change as her source. I was tempted to be an asshole and switch my topic to debunking 9/11 theories at the last minute, but I figured bathroom etiquette and hygiene was more important.
-
Holy fuck, you so should've.
Did you at least rock her brain with insightful comments and penetrating questions?
-
The entire class was completely silent; we were supposed to ask questions but the instructor had to do that for us. I didn't want to ruin the magic.
-
I had a class like that. One kid explained why the moon landing was faked. Another kid talked about how to make jello-shots. I talked explained the concept of 7th Son of a 7th Son :tup
-
I had a class like that. One kid explained why the moon landing was faked. Another kid talked about how to make jello-shots. I talked explained the concept of 7th Son of a 7th Son :tup
Damn straight you did.
-
AwakeFromOctavarium, there are literally second-by-second refutations of Zeitgeist.
Also, I think that anyone that believes for a second anything promoted by Zeitgeist, they revoke any rights to label themselves as a "skeptic." Swallowing any bullshit you see is the exact opposite of skeptical thinking.
Thank you. Zeitgeist was a miserable excuse for a "documentary" and the "just open your mind" response from its fans is so unbelievably irritating. The fact that we both hate it should clue in people to its veracity. :laugh:
-
stop making polls thanks.
-
Thinking 4 planes could get hijacked simultaneously and used as missiles was a fantasy before 9/11. You need perspective to our mindsets pre 9/11 to understand this.
Airplanes being used as weapons go way back. The Israelis were damn sure hip to it. Ralph Nader suggested this very scenario back in [I believe] the late 70s. American defense agencies were certainly aware of the possibility since they were conducting training exercises for it THAT VERY WEEK.
Please see bolded.
Personally, I think this is a rather poorly done example of sensationalism. However, it does address numerous studies and contingency plans for what that administration insists was unpredictable. Honestly, I don't see much point in debating the attacks here, but this is something that really annoys me. Things becoming accepted as fact in this country due solely to repetition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aaf6NuKRHE
-
I bet you guys have watched Zeitgeist movies, whether they are absurd theories or not, but in case you haven't, just give your 10 minutes for this video and think again. Of course, there is no reason to believe in this video, and as there is no reason to believe this video, there is no reason to believe the government either. It's up to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyyRXfROhrc
Sure, I'll bite, let's go:
- I like how the beginning takes the first WTC crash and turns it into a scene from a Michael Bay movie.
- Even the music tries too hard.
- The building collapsed to dust because the weight of everything was so extreme. Not a physicist, but that just seems to make sense.
- How is people calling it an explosion evidence? Of course it would sound like an explosion if it collapsed.
- The next part of the video is a very common and (to me) strange conspiracy theorist argument. They say if the government runs a scenario about something, it means they're planning to do it to us. But this isn't exactly true. The government has a lot of money, time, and manpower. They develop scenarios for literally any possible situation. I'm sure we have an official protocol should a genuine UFO enter our atmosphere. War with Great Britain? We know what to do. War with Canada? Well... we are trying to cut the budget. So it would be more surprising if they didn't run a test on planes hitting the WTC than if they didn't.
The only argument you can make about this is that to some degree the government went into 'cover its own ass' mode after wards because they so epically didn't see this coming. Maybe it's not a reasonable expectation, I don't know anything about intelligence. But simply being perceived as unable to stop the attack with advance evidence, however minuscule, would be devastating in terms of public confidence.
- I'm going to beat the next person in the face who says any of the hijackers are still alive. It's like they forgot multiple people can have the same name.
- The wire transfer thing is a bit weird, but I have a hard time believing it because the details are so scant.
- The Bin Laden segment is a rush of out of context facts edited together so the mind creates its own context suggested by the film for the facts to exist in. No thanks.
- This whole NORAD thing makes no sense. The chain of facts has so many details cut out. It's like the short-selling of stocks on airline companies before 9/11 by evil Jewish bankers. By itself, it implies that men in black trench coats told them what was going down so they could make money. But a slight bit of investigation reveals the airline industry was already in terrible shape and that business-wise it was the right move. I guess NORAD was conducting a training exercise with Dick Cheney in command the day of 9/11 and there were false radar blips confusing things and the jets were doing things other than being able to scramble and shoot down terrorists. But that's the conclusion they want you to draw. They didn't give me enough facts to believe it was inevitable.
And weren't the towers brought down by explosives? What's the point of this whole thing if the planes weren't really hijacked anyway? I'm sure there's some reason, but bleh. Must not be defeated.
- What I wish happened:
Douchey interviewer: "Why are you and the Vice president insisting on appearing together in front of the 9/11 commission?"
Bush "Because some of those questions are really hard, and I want Dick to hold my hand real tight during the scary parts."
The Bush administration is secretive about everything. This isn't special. The only conspiracy theory possibly at play here is, again, what El Barto said. The government wanted to cover its own ass so the 9/11 commission didn't probe too deeply. They might have smelled something was up and uncovered some foul nuggets of information. The result of this would have a distasteful effect on the American psyche.
- The part at 8:06 is actually interesting because its weird. But aside from the standard conspiracy theory logic (dubious claims, low resolution photos, conclusions created by editing), there's no effort to explain physics and chemistry to people who don't understand it, because rather than having a point based on facts, presenting more facts distracts from their conclusions, and thus the facts are removed.
PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE: What's the actual explanation for the whole molten steel thing?
BTW: Jet fuel might not be able to melt steel, but it can structurally weaken it. From there, I'd presume all kinds of crazy things can happen in a building that huge.
Someone will inevitably say or think "ReaPsTA just dismisses the arguments he doesn't like." This isn't an unfair thought, but I can explain why. The form of every argument in the video is exactly the same. When I knew the relevant facts omitted from the video, the argument fell apart. In the segments I don't understand well, it's obvious the same omission of facts is occurring. Because these arguments aren't even logically self-contained because they don't address the myriad of counter-arguments out there, why give them any credibility?
-
The thing about the temperature of jet fuel weakening the structure is correct.
Steel melts at 1525° C, jet fuel burns at 825° C and steel loses 50% of it's strength at 648° C.
-
PEOPLE WHO UNDERSTAND SCIENCE: What's the actual explanation for the whole molten steel thing?
BTW: Jet fuel might not be able to melt steel, but it can structurally weaken it. From there, I'd presume all kinds of crazy things can happen in a building that huge.
Yes. Buildings like that are structurally delicate and are designed to fall and collapse exactly how it did. If one beam/girder/joint breaks, granted it's not a vital joint or whatever, the loads are designed to be transferred to other members without too much of a problem but it's not going to hold for long. If you've got several critical members failing all at once you can imagine the chain reaction of loads being redistributed all over the place to joints and other members that weren't designed to support that kind of load.
And the steel thing is as simple as "if you heat up a piece of metal long enough it'll get softer and lose a lot of it's strength". So if that steel is supporting a load once it's strength is lowered it, obviously, can't support that load anymore thus causing a failure. It's that simple and I dunno why these theorists hop on to one or two websites, think they have a complete understanding of how steel and heat transfer works and write out batshit insane ideas. It's actual physics and science. You can't fuck with those proven ideas. We spent half of a Reinforced Concrete class laughing at all these stupid ideas one time.
-
But why was the molten steel there? (Assuming it actually was.) Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?
-
But you don't need to melt the steel to cause it to collapse. All you need to do is to reduce it to the point that it cannot support the weight above it. The jet fuel, plus the burning of whatever combustible material the fuel came in contact with, would be more than enough to make the supporting of 30 stories untenable.
-
I find it extremely unlikely that a bunch of Islamic extremists boarded a plane, were able to successfully evade NORAD, brought down 2 buildings that were even designed to potentially withstand an airplane collision, brought down another building WITHOUT ever even crashing a plane into it, and set off a coincidental chain of events that would result in the profiteering of companies high-ranking government officials had major stakes in and guaranteed the re-election of the degenerate ape we all know as George "W" Bush.
I find it extremely unlikely that a kid who grew up poor, with average looks, average talent, average brains, and no connections at all would be be happily married to a woman with the looks of a model, would have gotten to go to law school free of charge and be happily working at one of the top law firms in the country, would have performed lead vocals onstage with one of my favorite bands from my childhood, and would be running the largest website in the world for DT fans. And yet, unlikely as it all may have seemed, here we are...
You terrorist you!
-
But why was the molten steel there? (Assuming it actually was.) Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?
That I can't answer but it's such a small detail that it shouldn't matter. Just imagine the amount of energy that is transfered from a building collapsing, especially one of that size. Some is transfered to heat energy.
Also think about the amount of other things that were on fire. Everyone talks about jet fuel but, uh, that building was full of all kinds of other flammable materials. Sure the fuel started the fire but it'd be ridiculous to think other things didn't catch fire as well.
-
But why was the molten steel there? (Assuming it actually was.) Would the pressure of the collapse or the fires or something heat the steel more than the jet fuel?
I once posited that a combination of jet A-1, industrial carpeting, Masonite and liquid paper would create a fire hot enough. In other words, who the fuck knows?
-
I found this after a bit of searching:
https://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm
Conspiracy sites like to bring up molten metal found 6 weeks after the buildings fell to suggest a bomb must have created the effect. The explanation doesn't go into the amount of explosive material needed because it would be an absurd amount. There is another explanation which is more plausible.
Before reading the below, it might be a good idea for the novice to read Mark Ferran's explanation on how "Iron Burns!!!"
-----------
Oxidation of iron by air is not the only EXOTHERMIC reaction of iron (= structural steel which is about 98 % Fe, 1 % Mn, 0.2 % C, 0.2 % Si.....). There is at least one additional reaction of iron with the capability of keeping the rubble pile hot and cooking!
The reaction between IRON AND STEAM is also very EXOTHERMIC and fast at temperatures above 400 deg C. This reaction produces Fe3O4 AND HYDROGEN. It is the classic example of a REVERSIBLE REACTION studied in Chemistry labs at high school. But believe it or not, back at the turn of the century, the reaction of iron and steam was used as an industrial process for the manufacture of hydrogen.
I think iron and steam could have reacted in this way (at least for a while) and generated a lot of heat. What is more, the hydrogen released would have been converted back to water by reaction with oxygen, thereby generating even more heat. In this case spraying water on the rubble pile was like adding fuel to a fire!
Now add in gypsum reactions with H2 and CO and we have a great source of SO2 and/or H2S to sulfide the steel!
Perhaps the endless spraying of water on the rubble pile was not such a good idea!
In the usual lab experiment on the reversible reaction of iron and "steam", nitrogen (or some inert gas) is bubbled through water to create a gas stream saturated with water vapor at room temperature. This gas is then allowed to flow into a glass tube about 1 meter long containing iron in an inert boat at its center. This assembly is heated in a tube furnace to some desired temperature, say 500 deg C. The hydrogen/ nitrogen gas mixture is collected at the outlet of the tube furnace.
In the industrial process the feed gas might also be "water gas" which is a mixture of CO and water vapor. The outlet gas contains mostly H2 and CO2.
I am sure there was plenty of water vapor AND oxygen in the void spaces in the rubble pile. This is the "steam" I am referring to.
Please remember that the recovered pieces of structural steel were heavily OXIDIZED as well as sulfided. The most important oxidizing agents available in the rubble pile were obviously O2 and H2O.
The rubble pile was not only inhomogeneous with regard to its composition, it was inhomogeneous with regard to its temperature. This was due to localized chemical reactions. Such reactions were capable of generating high temperatures in these localized hot spots.
The demolitionists much beloved thermite is a good example, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXAMPLE. AND THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO PROOF WHATSOEVER THAT THERMITE, THERMATE, SOL-GEL NANO-THERMITE WAS EVER PRESENT AT THE WTC SITE!!!!!!
It is irrelevant whether or not the steam was wet or dry, that is a chemical engineering notion only of interest in a closed and controlled system, usually under high-pressure, such as a steam generator in a power station.
Water vapor was present in the rubble pile and water vapor reacts with iron releasing HYDROGEN.
ITS CALLED A CORROSION REACTION:
METAL + WATER = METAL OXIDE + HYDROGEN
WHEN IT HAPPENED AT THREE MILE ISLAND IT CREATED A HYDROGEN BUBBLE
And there's more further on.
-
So science > conspiracy theorism once again. Thank you.
-
I only read the poll options and the opening post, none of which is my belief but the second one comes as close as possible.
I never had the slightest doubt that Al Qaeda had nothing to do with the planning and the execution of that attack, mainly because I'm so close to the culture that spawned those dumbasses to know that's not how they think and also because I don't believe these dimwits have it in them to fly a pee stream into a toilet, the part I'm in doubt about is whether they took the credit to enhance their image as the fighters of the American/Zionist oppression (which they did) or were they told to take credit for this to end the questions (as in the Al-Qaeda-has-always-been-the-CIA's-lap-dog theory).
Now as to why; justification of strong military presence and operations in the middle east and gradually eliminating any source of threat to Israel, nothing has ever been about anything but that for the U.S for a long ass time, not a very bad cause but making the way there sucked.
And to the topic starter: I don't like talking about this cause I don't like being labeled a conspiracy theorist -especially as I never h any before- and also because it's hurtful to Americans to keep reopening this subject, let the good people rest believing what they wanna believe, nothing positive nor negative will come from changing their minds, in short; this would only make people dislike you.
-
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy.
I mean, there is no other way to approach those questions...because anyone who believes that stuff is a lunatic. Guinea Pig said it best:
AwakeFromOctavarium, there are literally second-by-second refutations of Zeitgeist.
Also, I think that anyone that believes for a second anything promoted by Zeitgeist, they revoke any rights to label themselves as a "skeptic." Swallowing any bullshit you see is the exact opposite of skeptical thinking.
Anyone who believes these Alex Jones and Loose Change videos is just as susceptible to propaganda and sensationalism as those who they accuse of allegedly being susceptible to what they believe is government propaganda. The only difference is the people who believe Obama wants to create an American Empire probably don't know anything about what's actually going on in the world of government and politics today because they don't follow the issues until some fire-eating politician tells them that the government is lying to them.
-
and people wonder why I like GWB??? LOL
lol
-
A bigger problem is that nobody is allowed to question the theory without being labeled a crackpot. I disagree with the conspiracy theorists, but I'd like for their questions to be addressed and not automatically dismissed as lunacy.
I mean, there is no other way to approach those questions...because anyone who believes that stuff is a lunatic. Guinea Pig said it best:
No, there are actually some very sane and very intelligent people who question the official explanation.
-
Yeah. Asking why there was molten steel in the wreckage seemed like a good enough question to me.
-
I am a structural & mechanical engineer for buildings specifically here in NYC. At the time hearing and reading reports on the collapse, I found myself raising my eyebrows quite a few times.
For one thing (and I never saw the structural framing of the WTC buildings, but I am going off discussions here) is that I find the "pancaking" of the floors to be a bit unbelievable. The steel joists themselves may have lost their bearing capacities in the heat at those floors, but the several floors below should have been able to bear the extra load of the floors falling, at least for some time. 1
Additionally, in the wreckage at the ground floor, there were only melted or cut beams. Steel will always deform plastically prior to failing. If the upper floors fell on the lower floors, many many many beams should have been found with a curvature (there were very little bolts used, all the rivets used in the connects were designed so as when loaded together, they can take a sheer load stronger than the fracture point of the beam).
Lastly, all the nature of the collapse of the three buildings looked eerily similar to that of a controlled demolition. I wouldn't make a fuss about this if it was just one building, but to have three collapse in a fashion seemingly designed to makes me rethink it.
There are other things of course, but yea. I know Al Queda orchestrated this whole thing, but the reports do give me some concerns.
-
i always thought DT was at the root of it...how else do you explain their album cover released the day of. and octavarium? clearly 9 minus 1
-
i always thought DT was at the root of it...how else do you explain their album cover released the day of. and octavarium? clearly 9 minus 1
So one would say DT is the Root of All Evil?
-
/thread
-
Additionally, in the wreckage at the ground floor, there were only melted or cut beams. Steel will always deform plastically prior to failing. If the upper floors fell on the lower floors, many many many beams should have been found with a curvature (there were very little bolts used, all the rivets used in the connects were designed so as when loaded together, they can take a sheer load stronger than the fracture point of the beam).
Firefighters. People were trapped under the wreckage, so...
-
The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.
like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?
-
I caution with the side of Occam's Razor on this one. That is the most plausible solution is usually the correct one, and the most plausible report I can think of is pretty obvious: 19 Saudi's hijacked 4 planes in a very systematic fashion and crashed them into the WTC the Pentagon and one was wrestled to the ground with dire consequences. The fact that we have eyewitness accounts from "inside the plane" through cell phones that say the planes are being hijacked pretty much refutes ANY claim that the planes were drones. Also the fact that the plane that hit the Pentagon would have to someone disappear along with 300 other people, records changed and everything that goes with hidding that an actual plane ever existed puts it into the realm of the virtually impossible thus it was a plane that hit the Pentagon and not a missile. The fact that we did not respond quick enough was further cemented by Katrina where it was certainly proven that we simply have no plan for "most" emergencies and I think we can easily put 9/11 into that category. Easy answer we simply didn't know "how" to react and that we were stunned it was even happening to begin with. the fact that we demolished our own buildings means that you have to employ engineers to place the explosives, do so under cover of no one knowing this action is taking place, doing it systematically so that each building comes down in exactly the right moment of time and to cover all traces that explosives were even used given any form of investigation that took place. Again, this is in the realm of the virtually impossible.
This is in my opinion what happened. 19 Saudi's came in the United States and were here for quite some time. We eventually decided to tag them and follow them. Intelligence was gathered but it never reached anyone who either 1) knew what do with it or 2) gave a damn or 3) quite possibly had some hidden agenda to actually find a way to misplace them. I can see number 3 as possible but again, information like this is most likely in triplicate. Why oh why would you have only one persion write up a report. If two FBI agents are working on the same case don't they BOTH write a report? So if we are to assume that more than one agent was on this case then we can assume there is more than one report. So did we find a way to remove ALL reports? I doubt it. I have a feeling that the intelligence was "ignored" for some really really stupid reason that seemed like a good idea at the time. Long story short. We fucked up and we fucked up grand. I firmly believe 9/11 could have been prevented but I think our egos got in the way. I don't think that will happen again.
-
9/11 conspiracies always remind me of this video by The Onion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0
-
9/11 conspiracies always remind me of this video by The Onion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_OIXfkXEj0
This is why I LOVE the Onion. "How would you feel if you were underground in some buncker sleeping on rocks planning something really special for two months only to have someone take the credit away from you?"
Genius!!
-
The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.
like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?
Hey! That's a really good point.
-
The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.
like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?
Hey! That's a really good point.
Except that there's not much secret left about that. And even if there were a conspiracy, we're talking about a handful of people required to pull off an assassination. Thousands of people would have had to be involved in orchestrating a false flag on the scale of 911.
-
The bigger difficulty would be keeping it a secret for 9 years.
like that pesky Kennedy thing....how long has that been a secret now?
Hey! That's a really good point.
Oh come on, that's incredibly easy to hide. Dead men tell no tales and all this took was a fraternity of men and one scapegoat. To pull off 9/11 you 1000's of people. Cannot compare.
edit: lol! I should read the whole page before commenting it seems. :D