# 911 Conspiracy documentary...



## Caillou (Jun 9, 2003)

911Mysteries

You believe or not?
Farfetched or sound?
Fraud or thruth (some)?

Probably worth watching this video to think about it, at least a little...
Comments?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

d'la marde!


----------



## Caillou (Jun 9, 2003)

Hihi! I love an honnest reaction!

I tend to feel that way too vis-à-vis the whole thing eventhough some elements do seem a little "mis-explained" by the authorities!

Cheers!


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Total crap, these "conspiracies." 

You believe or not?: No.
Farfetched or sound?: Farfetched.
Fraud or thruth (some)?: Fraud.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Not this garbage yet again. What a disservice this misinformation does to the 25 Canadians and all of the others, from nearly 100 nationalities, who died in those attacks.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Not this garbage yet again. What a disservice this misinformation does to the 25 Canadians and all of the others, from nearly 100 nationalities, who died in those attacks.


Misinformation? You mean like the 911 omission report?

Disservice? You've got to be kidding me... Trying to uncover the truth about what happened, trying to put the right people behind bars, trying to stop senseless 'retaliation' attacks on countries that had nothing to do with 911? The only disservice is ignorant people not willing to put in time to research the events thoroughly and look at unbiased reporting of what happened.

-------
In regards to the movie, it is certainly interesting but not necessarily the best nor the most recent piece produced on the subject. I recently visited ground zero and was surprised to see the number of "truth adovcates" there. I'd say there were at least 25 people throughout the street wearing "911 Truth" t-shirts passing out flyers and dvds (including the one posted above). There were large banners requesting that citizens look into 911 more carefully and saying that 911 was an inside job. 

The 911 truth group was not being offensive either, they rarely approached people and only spoke when people came up and asked what they were all about. Most of the group never told people what they thought the truth was, they simply proposed that people go online and look into things on their own.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

Oh, here we go... 

And now, we'd like to welcome pro-conspiracy advocates to the stage for their bizarre opinions.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Lars said:


> Oh, here we go...
> 
> And now, we'd like to welcome pro-conspiracy advocates to the stage for their bizarre opinions.


There is a great lecture I recently watched that would be perfect for you...Hang tight and let me see if it's available online.

Edit: Here is the link, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8119854514684528700&


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> Misinformation? You mean like the 911 omission report?
> 
> Disservice? You've got to be kidding me... Trying to uncover the truth about what happened, trying to put the right people behind bars, trying to stop senseless 'retaliation' attacks on countries that had nothing to do with 911? The only disservice is ignorant people not willing to put in time to research the events thoroughly and look at unbiased reporting of what happened.


Did you view the linked video or somehow miss the "Fraud or thruth" references? I've read a great deal of research by people qualified to do it, and seen these pseudo-journalistic fact-free movies lots of times.

My comment had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq.


----------



## Caillou (Jun 9, 2003)

_(my post seems to have touched a sensitive nerve here...  )_


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Did you view the linked video or somehow miss the "Fraud or thruth" references? I've read a great deal of research by people qualified to do it, and seen these pseudo-journalistic fact-free movies lots of times.
> 
> My comment had nothing to do with the attack on Iraq.


I have viewed the linked movie on multiple occasions. 

A large proportion of Americans believe or previously believed that we invaded Iraq because Iraq was linked to 911 when it in fact was not. 

Here is a link to a video I received while at ground zero. It is a lecture reaching out to Europe, given in Copenhagen by David Ray Griffin.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8119854514684528700&


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Caillou said:


> _(my post seems to have touched a sensitive nerve here...  )_


(As do all 911 threads on the forum).


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

For the most part I believe terrorists did this. Although the notion that "Dubbya" ordered this is way out in left field; I can agree there is a small chance...I doubt it though... think about it for a second? Is Dubyaa capable of this?

Regarding all the theories and calculated equations about it being rigged... a calculation always has the same answer when done correctly. If you flew a plane into a building the same way each time, you will have 100 different results. There is now way anyone can say that it was planned or not based upon how the building went down unless they have done it many times with the same variables. This never happened so there is no way to know for sure.

Perhaps they should give Dubyaa some sodium pentathol and figure it out...


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

I think it was planned....sorry to the people who died but I think it is a case of Murder US Gov't style or something along those lines....they needed to blame someone like Osama....


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

RunTheWorldOnMac said:


> For the most part I believe terrorists did this. Although the notion that "Dubbya" ordered this is way out in left field; I can agree there is a small chance...I doubt it though... think about it for a second? Is Dubyaa capable of this?
> 
> Regarding all the theories and calculated equations about it being rigged... a calculation always has the same answer when done correctly. If you flew a plane into a building the same way each time, you will have 100 different results. There is now way anyone can say that it was planned or not based upon how the building went down unless they have done it many times with the same variables. This never happened so there is no way to know for sure.
> 
> Perhaps they should give Dubyaa some sodium pentathol and figure it out...


The real smoking gun for me was WTC 7, the huge office building that had a few small isolated fires and somehow completely collapsed into it's own footprint a la controlled demolition. No steel structure has ever collapsed in the history of the world due to fire. We have WTC 1 and 2 which apparently collapsed due to fire, but lets give them those two since they were also hit by aircrafts. But building 7 wasn't hit by ANYTHING and it completely collapsed? Come on...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

comprehab said:


> The real smoking gun for me was WTC 7, the huge office building that had a few small isolated fires and somehow completely collapsed into it's own footprint a la controlled demolition. No steel structure has ever collapsed in the history of the world due to fire. We have WTC 1 and 2 which apparently collapsed due to fire, but lets give them those two since they were also hit by aircrafts. But building 7 wasn't hit by ANYTHING and it completely collapsed? Come on...


Oh wow, you'd better try to update the Wiki article with your first-hand knowledge right away then!



> As the North Tower collapsed, debris hit 7 WTC "with the force of a volcanic eruption."[18] Much of the bottom 10 stories of the building's south face were destroyed, with damage visible as high as the 18th floor. A massive fire burned into the afternoon on the 11th and 12th floors of 7 World Trade Center, with flames visible on the east side of the building.[19][20] Around 2 o'clock in the afternoon, firefighters noticed a bulge in the southwest corner of 7 World Trade Center, between the 10 and 13th floors, which was a sign that the building was unstable and might collapse.[21] During the afternoon, FDNY Chief Daniel Nigro made the decision to halt rescue operations, surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris near 7 World Trade Center and evacuate the area, out of concerns for the safety of personnel.[22] At 5:20 p.m. EDT on September 11, 2001, 7 World Trade Center collapsed. The building had been evacuated and there were no casualties associated with the collapse.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

What I have always wondered about was why the inner core went down along with the floors pancaking downwards.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> What I have always wondered about was why the inner core went down along with the floors pancaking downwards.


Something I have wondered too. Very strange that everything was pulverized from just a collapse.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

The Doug said:


> Oh wow, you'd better try to update the Wiki article with your first-hand knowledge right away then!


 Were you one of the ones who sent flowers to Sinbad's family following the announcement of his death on wikipedia?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Dr.G. said:


> What I have always wondered about was why the inner core went down along with the floors pancaking downwards.


The inner cores were designed to withstand high torsional loads but they were not responsible for the majority of the buildings' routine vertical loads, nor were they designed to withstand many, many thousands of tons of concrete and other materials cascading downwards due to catastrophic and totally uncontrollable structural failure. 



comprehab said:


> Were you one of the ones who sent flowers to Sinbad's family following the announcement of his death on wikipedia?


Nice try! :clap:


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> What I have always wondered about was why the inner core went down along with the floors pancaking downwards.


Elevator shafts don't offer much core support?


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

I only believe that the pentagon strike is one that was done by the government. The pentagon would follow more along the lines of Operation Northwood (I believe). The twin tower strike is way too drastic for that.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Yes, but the inner core around the elevator shafts were built in such a way to withstand this sort of collapse.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

9/11: An inside job? I don't know. I don't care, either. Acts of terrorism (both overt and incidental) kill more people daily around the world than the event in New York. It's hypocritical for so much attention to be lavished on 9/11, particularly as a justification for action.

And for those who are saying _the United States would never do anything so evil as to harm its own citizens_, allow me to refer you to Operation Northwoods, declassified in 1997.

What is it, you ask?


> Journalist James Bamford summarized Operation Northwoods in his April 24, 2001 book Body of Secrets:
> Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.


James Bamford, by the way, is a former ABC Investigative Producer (10 years) and award-winning author who is so good at what he does that the NSA attempted to block publication of at least one of his books.

Operation Northwoods had a related plan: "Operation Mongoose" which _"...also includes Operation Dirty Trick, a plot to blame Castro if the 1962 Mercury manned space flight carrying John Glenn crashed, saying "The objective is to provide irrevocable proof that, should the MERCURY manned orbit flight fail, the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." It continues, "This to be accomplished by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans.""_

Given the United States' vast history of deception, subterfuge, state-sponsored terror, murder, invasion and disrespect for democracy, one can understand how some people are unconvinced that 9/11 was an external attack.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Elevator shafts don't offer much core support?


But the steel cores that the doc is referring to DO offer support... err should have it weren't for the magical steel-melting fire that liquified the collective buildings' cores in about an hour.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> But the steel cores that the doc is referring to DO offer support... err should have it weren't for the magical steel-melting fire that liquified the collective buildings' cores in about an hour.


A transcontinental plane-full of jet fuel is magic now? Do you really believe that the buildings came down some other way?


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

HowEver said:


> A transcontinental plane-full of jet fuel is magic now? Do you really believe that the buildings came down some other way?


Funny, the video mentions: "Steel, concrete, and glass don't burn." Of course not. Neither does pavement. However, pour gasoline on your drive way, then light it up - it's going to burn until the gasoline is gone. As well, there was plenty inside the building that would burn outside the frame of the building.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the collapse of WTC 7 without being hit by a plane and the recorded comment by Silverstein, the owner of the buildings; "We decided to pull it [WTC 7]" (typical demolition jargon for taking a building down) and how so very conveniently WTC 7 fell on it's own foot print have never been properly explained


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

The internet is full of junk like this. If you want to believe unresearched junk like this instead of researched documentaries, it's up to you. 

And if you want to know where the building went to, what do you think all those barges of crumpled steel and concrete were from. And remember, there were floors below ground that all this stuff crumbled into. How many floor were below ground, wikipedia says 6.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

interesting how so many of those 9/11 debris filled barges ended up in China


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> "We decided to pull it [WTC 7]" (typical demolition jargon for taking a building down) and how so very conveniently WTC 7 fell on it's own foot print have never been properly explained


Oh yes it has. It is common firefighter jargon for a) pulling sheetrock or ceilings in a burning building, and also to b) *cease all operations inside a burning structure*. 

Here's a good debunking site for those not wearing stupid tight tinfoil hats.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> A transcontinental plane-full of jet fuel is magic now? Do you really believe that the buildings came down some other way?


Yes I do, I believe that all three WTC buildings that fell came down via a controlled demolition. 

If you ignore WTC 1 and 2 for a second and look at WTC 7... The building IMPLODED, clearly a controlled demolition. Combine that with Silverstein saying that they "pulled" the building and it is crystal clear how WTC 7 came down. This means they had to have PREVIOUSLY set the explosives in building 7; days or weeks before 9/11. 

Now, WTC 7 was one of the most secure government buildings in America so it is highly unlikely that the "terrorists" were able to carefully plant all of these explosives without anyone catching on-->therefore INSIDE JOB.

Clearly WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an inside job. Is it now easier to understand why many of us believe WTC 1 and 2 were also controlled demolitions? Most of the jet fuel in the planes burned off in impact. An uncontrolled burn as seen on 9/11 is NOT hot enough to melt steel. Thermite explosives, however, would have no trouble neatly slicing and melting gigantic steel columns though...


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> A transcontinental plane-full of jet fuel is magic now? Do you really believe that the buildings came down some other way?


Yes I do, I believe that all three WTC buildings that fell came down via a controlled demolition. 

If you ignore WTC 1 and 2 for a second and look at WTC 7... The building IMPLODED, clearly a controlled demolition. Combine that with Silverstein saying that they "pulled" the building and it is crystal clear how WTC 7 came down. This means they had to have PREVIOUSLY set the explosives in building 7; days or weeks before 9/11. 

Now, WTC 7 was one of the most secure government buildings in America so it is highly unlikely that the "terrorists" were able to carefully plant all of these explosives without anyone catching on-->therefore INSIDE JOB.

Clearly WTC 7 was a controlled demolition and an inside job. Is it now easier to understand why many of us believe WTC 1 and 2 were also controlled demolitions? Most of the jet fuel in the planes burned off in impact. An uncontrolled burn as seen on 9/11 is NOT hot enough to melt steel. Thermite explosives, however, would have no trouble neatly slicing and melting gigantic steel columns though...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Doug said:


> Oh yes it has. It is common firefighter jargon for a) pulling sheetrock or ceilings in a burning building, and also to b) *cease all operations inside a burning structure*.
> 
> Here's a good debunking site for those not wearing stupid tight tinfoil hats.


Silverstein avoided addressing the issue for 2 years
"pull it" is still demolition jargon for "bring the building down"
WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Amazing. And exactly the disservice referred to above.

I suppose you also think that the United States government enacted this atrocity, being controlled by some specific group or another.




comprehab said:


> Yes I do, I believe that all three WTC buildings that fell came down via a controlled demolition.
> 
> If you ignore WTC 1 and 2 for a second and look at WTC 7... The building IMPLODED, clearly a controlled demolition. Combine that with Silverstein saying that they "pulled" the building and it is crystal clear how WTC 7 came down. This means they had to have PREVIOUSLY set the explosives in building 7; days or weeks before 9/11.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MISTERTINFOILHAT said:


> Silverstein avoided addressing the issue for 2 years "pull it" is still demolition jargon for "bring the building down" WTC 7 wasn't hit by any plane


WTC 7 was grievously damaged by tons of debris from the main WTC towers when they collapsed, and came down on its own.



comprehab said:


> Yes I do, I believe that all three WTC buildings that fell came down via a controlled demolition.
> 
> If you ignore WTC 1 and 2 for a second and look at WTC 7... The building IMPLODED, clearly a controlled demolition. Combine that with Silverstein saying that they "pulled" the building and it is crystal clear how WTC 7 came down. This means they had to have PREVIOUSLY set the explosives in building 7; days or weeks before 9/11.
> 
> ...


This is as laughable as it is sad.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

It is indeed laughable and sad, all at once. Geez, as if there's not enough drama in the world - some people evidently need to invent it out of thin air.

_Bleh._


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and of course the gov't currently residing on PA Avenue would never lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade another country, right?

that's just a crazy conspiracy, eh?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and of course the gov't currently residing on PA Avenue would never lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade another country, right?
> 
> that's just a crazy conspiracy, eh?


Oh, well, since you put it THAT way. :lmao:

Although, the war in Iraq did only require a PowerPoint presentation... not quite as elaborate as your little scenario.

According to you, somehow the U.S. Government managed to wire two giant skyscrapers and a large building with thousands of kilos of explosives and det-cord with very little time and/or preparation AND had to contend with burning wreckage as well.

They also managed to create an explosion that looks suspiciously like a collapse without any sort of outward kinetic energy and debris.

And these are the guys that managed to get rescue operations to New Orleans after how many weeks?  

The U.S. Government: _They are *that* Damn Good!_​


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> Oh, well, since you put it THAT way. :lmao:
> 
> Although, the war in Iraq did only require a PowerPoint presentation... not quite as elaborate as your little scenario.
> 
> ...


according to me WTC 7 fell and a plane didn't crash into it
as for new orleans, people were the wrong tax bracket and skin colour for BushCo. to care about them

as his mother put it re: new orleans evacuees; 


> "And so many of the people in the arena [Houston Astrodome] here, you
> know, were underprivileged anyway, so this--this (she
> chuckles slightly) is working very well for them."


Barbara Bush: Things Working Out 'Very Well' for Poor Evacuees from New Orleans

the apple (or banana in this case) doesn't fall far from the tree


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and of course the gov't currently residing on PA Avenue would never lie about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade another country, right?
> 
> that's just a crazy conspiracy, eh?


Dude, your attempt, such as it is, to conflate two entirely separate topics says more about your own political proclivities than it serves to illuminate some deep, furtive truth about an alleged massive conspiracy. Like I should even have to say this... alas, this being the internet, everything goes!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Max said:


> Dude, your attempt, such as it is, to conflate two entirely separate topics says more about your own political proclivities than it serves to illuminate some deep, furtive truth about an alleged massive conspiracy. Like I should even have to say this... alas, this being the internet, everything goes!


Dudette, your proclivity to make stuff up and attribute them to someone, like uh, suck.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Dudette, your proclivity to make stuff up and attribute them to someone, like uh, suck.


Ooooow, that's gonna lose you your MENSA membership!


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

LOL... well, I can't very well say that I appreciate the _maturity_ of your response. Oh well. Good luck sleeping tonight, Macspeculative - be sure to check under the bed for intruder aliens and remember to adjust the tin foil sleeping cap for maximum protection, etc., etc.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Max said:


> LOL... well, I can't very well say that I appreciate the _maturity_ of your response. Oh well. Good luck sleeping tonight, Macspeculative - be sure to check under the bed for intruder aliens and remember to adjust the tin foil sleeping cap for maximum protection, etc., etc.


Dudette, you just keep believing all the bull the gov't tells you, especially one that has been proven to have lied in the past, in order to make war.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Dudette, you just keep believing all the bull the gov't tells you, especially one that has been proven to have lied in the past, in order to make war.


Elvis has been dead for decades, yet you are still delirious. Is that why they sent you to live in the woods?


----------



## imactheknife (Aug 7, 2003)

The US gov't is excellent at cover ups and the 911 is thier best to date....Working with Osama Bin Laden must have been a wet dream for Bush and Cheney as it opened doors for them elsewhere. I don't think Al Qaeda is the ones behind 911 I think Bush and Co. are the ones who planned (plane'd it in thier case) it for years. Why all this SH!T happened when little BUSH man came into power??


Elvis works for the CIA by the way he has his wall of guns to look at everyday....and still thinks of himself as a Hunk o burnin love...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

imactheknife said:


> ...911 is thier best to date...


Right. Yup. Sure.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Doug said:


> Right. Yup. Sure.


and I guess you think Nixon and Watergate was just a left wing pinko wet dream?
if they think they can get away with it, they will try

the m-i complex is laughing all the way to the bank

have you checked out halliburton and military hardware maker stocks over the past 6 years?

yeah, yeah, just more paranoia...

keep on dreaming your little world is all safe and sound and that nobody in gov't would ever lie to you Dudette...


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Okay, I didn't want to do it, but you have forced me to reveal *The Truth*.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

oooo colour graphs
it must be true then

how very USA Today of you

next thing is you'll be telling us you report "fair and balanced"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's really fine to return to EhMac forums after a few weeks' absence to see the Battle of 911 being re-fought: "Ahh, my stupid theories about 911 have raised some ire, therefore they must be true!"


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oooo colour graphs
> it must be true then
> 
> how very USA Today of you
> ...


Yea, just like Fox News (wikipedia editing )

remember it's the winners who write history.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And it's the whiners who infest chat boards with their alt-theories about "what really happened" with [insert favourite topic here].

_Sigh._ I guess I'm just going to have to get used to His Truthiness calling me dudette for the rest of my days.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

His Truthiness' invocation of the term _dudette_ is a rather weak attempt at an insult (if that's what it was - it's so hard to tell!). Maybe that thar's a fightin' word among forest dwellers, even those with internet connections.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> They also managed to create an explosion that looks suspiciously like a collapse without any sort of outward kinetic energy and debris.


The outward kinetic energy is what flung bodies and body parts onto the roofs of neighboring buildings, and flung hunks of burning debris into WTC 7- so much burning wreckage that the building caught fire and totally collapsed. It is all understandable how the collapsing building was able to turn gravitational potential into horizontal forces capable of launching hunks of steel hundreds of feet.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Like, that flag on the moon is blowing the wrong way and there isn't really air there anyway, eh.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

And I will bury you with these cool links I've dug up, to prove it over and over and over again. Like, THEY want to keep you in the dark, dudes (and dudettes, natch).


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> interesting how so many of those 9/11 debris filled barges ended up in China


Not really. China is the capital of the world for outsourced manufacturing and recycling. We send all our junk to china to be recycled. Remember those articles on old computer equipment piled up to be recycled.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

comprehab said:


> The outward kinetic energy is what flung bodies and body parts onto the roofs of neighboring buildings, and flung hunks of burning debris into WTC 7- so much burning wreckage that the building caught fire and totally collapsed. It is all understandable how the collapsing building was able to turn gravitational potential into horizontal forces capable of launching hunks of steel hundreds of feet.


Right, so the force created by two jetliners, fully loaded with fuel, smashing completely through an office building couldn't possibly fling bodies or debris at _least_ several hundred feet?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> oooo colour graphs
> it must be true then
> 
> how very USA Today of you
> ...


What are you inferring? beejacon


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

MannyP is owing the house.  Nice one.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> Right, so the force created by two jetliners, fully loaded with fuel, smashing completely through an office building couldn't possibly fling bodies or debris at _least_ several hundred feet?


Your skewing the facts, and throwing in a photo of a plane hitting a tower. I'm talking about during the collapse, when chunks of the steel core were flying into neighboring buildings- NOT when the planes hit and all the jet fuel exploded out the sides of the building.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

comprehab said:


> Your skewing the facts, and throwing in a photo of a plane hitting a tower. I'm talking about during the collapse, when chunks of the steel core were flying into neighboring buildings- NOT when the planes hit and all the jet fuel exploded out the sides of the building.


Skewing facts? Is that what you call it when someone slaps you up side the head with basic logic? How can you categorize any sort of debris from an incident of this magnitude and know exactly where it came from, at what exact time, and why?

As far as I know, everyone was either stuck to their seats watching the whole thing go down, or were running for their lives. Where was the judges presiding over this matter?



















Seems like debris is definitely passing the several hundred foot mark to me...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

here's some research by Dr. Steven E. Jones, Retired Professor, BYU



> n this paper I focus on the application of the scientific method to the study of what really
> happened on 9/11/2001, particularly in the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings.
> 
> There is something here to look at in depth: this is serious business. It is not just “nutty fringe
> ...


http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/JonesWTC911SciMethod.pdf


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

*Yawn.* 

Just more speculative crap for conspiracy cultists to hang onto (this masquerading under a "scientific method" toupée, as if that instantly makes it full of incontrovertible truths).


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Doug said:


> *Yawn.*
> 
> Just more speculative crap for conspiracy cultists to hang onto (this masquerading under a "scientific method" toupée, as if that instantly makes it full of incontrovertible truths).


yeah, you sound like the climate change deniers and the cigarette-causes-cancer deniers

you just cover your ears and yell "la la la la la la...." and hope it goes away


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

The Doug said:


> *Yawn.*
> 
> Just more speculative crap for conspiracy cultists to hang onto (this masquerading under a "scientific method" toupée, as if that instantly makes it full of incontrovertible truths).


Wow, large and bold font, impressive.

You'll probably yawn this too. I may not believe in Twin Tower Conspiracies, but I'm still open to the possibility. And this much more plausible than Roswell crash, and Area 51 being some some sort of government testing zone for alien technology (though testing for black-budget projects is quite plausible)


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

hUssain said:


> Wow, large and bold font, impressive.
> 
> You'll probably yawn this too. I may not believe in Twin Tower Conspiracies, but I'm still open to the possibility. And this much more plausible than Roswell crash, and Area 51 being some some sort of government testing zone for alien technology (though testing for black-budget projects is quite plausible)


Finally, the appropriate tie-in reference: it's just as likely that Bush would murder thousands of his own citizens, and hundreds more from 100 different nationalities, as it is that you can prove that aliens walk the earth.

If you don't believe that jet fuel incinerated the core of these buildings, or that having lost hundreds of fire fighters' lives in the two main buildings they would give up on another one, really, get some help. Alien help. Just close your eyes and they'll land on your roof. I'm not kidding. The Journal of Available Alien Assistance has an article about how helpful aliens are.

I'm going with the video that had Osama amused and himself surprised that he killed so many and the buildings fell so quickly, when they only intended to kill hundreds and cause millions in damage. I'm going with the theory that they chose Sepember 11th and New York because as much as they hate Americans, they also hate Jewish people, who were over-represented population-wise working in the towers, and the Tuesday before and the Tuesday after Tuesday, September 11th, were holidays which would have seen many people staying at home. And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Finally, the appropriate tie-in reference: it's just as likely that Bush would murder thousands of his own citizens, and hundreds more from 100 different nationalities, as it is that you can prove that aliens walk the earth.
> 
> If you don't believe that jet fuel incinerated the core of these buildings, or that having lost hundreds of fire fighters' lives in the two main buildings they would give up on another one, really, get some help. Alien help. Just close your eyes and they'll land on your roof. I'm not kidding. The Journal of Available Alien Assistance has an article about how helpful aliens are.
> 
> I'm going with the video that had Osama amused and himself surprised that he killed so many and the buildings fell so quickly, when they only intended to kill hundreds and cause millions in damage. I'm going with the theory that they chose Sepember 11th and New York because as much as they hate Americans, they also hate Jewish people, who were over-represented population-wise working in the towers, and the Tuesday before and the Tuesday after Tuesday, September 11th, were holidays which would have seen many people staying at home. And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them.


Give me a break. Your conspiracy theory is that those of us who want scientific investigations done on the collapse of the three towers, including the one that was not hit by a plane, hate firefighters and that 9/11 was really an attack on the jews. 
Your probably wearing your tin foil "hat" right now...


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

Just got another theory...

What if Bushy and wealthy Jewish chumps decided to stage an attack on themselves (just as America has done in the past) as justification for killing a couple hundred thousand muslims...."And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them."


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> yeah, you sound like the climate change deniers and the cigarette-causes-cancer deniers
> 
> you just cover your ears and yell "la la la la la la...." and hope it goes away


Exactly wrong. The kind of conspiro-crap you & others espouse with respect to 9/11 is simply boring, predictable, and yawn inducing. Pretty sad too, that you believe such obvious garbage.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

The Doug said:


> Exactly wrong. The kind of conspiro-crap you & others espouse with respect to 9/11 is simply boring, predictable, and yawn inducing. Pretty sad too, that you believe such obvious garbage.


and I guess former professor at BYU is less intelligent about the physics of the WTC 1,2 and 7 collapse than you or just about anyone else on this board?

it is EXACTLY your kind of denial of anyone else's ideas but your own
that granted the tobacco companies the kind of freedom from prosecution they enjoyed for so many years

i am dismayed that so many believe the crap from such an administration that lied about their reasons for invading Iraq and now beating the war drums to invade Iran, again with lies as "fact"

Michael Moore is fat and therefore NOT to be believed as per some on this board
How many died from any of Moore's statements and how many have died from the neo cons lying about whatever can get them to make war and line the pockets of their m-i supporters?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Heh. That's pretty funny. Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> Michael Moore is fat and therefore NOT to be believed as per some on this board
> How many died from any of Moore's statements and how many have died from the neo cons lying about whatever can get them to make war and line the pockets of their m-i supporters?


That kind of statement is not to be tolerated. Logic is not accepted here and if you are not careful, I'll accuse you of being on your high horse...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and I guess former professor at BYU is less intelligent about the physics of the WTC 1,2 and 7 collapse than you or just about anyone else on this board?
> 
> it is EXACTLY your kind of denial of anyone else's ideas but your own
> that granted the tobacco companies the kind of freedom from prosecution they enjoyed for so many years
> ...


Perhaps your first clue might well be that he's a _former_ prof. Physics, schymsics... you pay attention to science when it suits you, ignore it when it's inconvenient to heed it. What else is new in the ever-squabbling, factoid-rich internet world? I'm sorry, I'm not sold by your say-so alone, especially when you so keenly feel the need to bait those who disagree with your views.

Anyway, your condemnatory words can be handily flung back in your face. Again with the Michael Moore fat red herring... Spec, do you never tire of flogging that horse? Could you dredge up something new, perhaps? Plus you casually link up neo-con deceptions regarding Iran with a massive American conspiracy to pull down their own WTC for the sake of starting a war.... "anyone else's ideas but your own", indeed.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> Just got another theory...
> 
> What if Bushy and wealthy Jewish chumps decided to stage an attack on themselves (just as America has done in the past) as justification for killing a couple hundred thousand muslims...."And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them."


9/11 was clearly an attack on Jewish, and other, people. Why do you think the World Trade Centre was targeted? How can you completely ignore Al Qaeda's repetition of the fact that they were targeting Jewish people, stated over and over and over again. They hate Americans, they hate Jews, and, like you, propagate hatred by saying that Jewish people are uniformly "wealthy." What next, secret governments controlling you as well? Pathetic.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> 9/11 was clearly an attack on Jewish, and other, people. Why do you think the World Trade Centre was targeted? How can you completely ignore Al Qaeda's repetition of the fact that *they were targeting Jewish people*, stated over and over and over again. They hate Americans, they hate Jews, and, like you, propagate hatred by saying that Jewish people are uniformly "wealthy." What next, secret governments controlling you as well? Pathetic.


The 9/11 attacks were Bin Laden's response to American foreign policy towards Israel. 
The previous World Trade Center bombing were for ": _an end to all US aid to Israel, an end to US diplomatic relations with Israel, and a demand for a pledge by the United States to end interference "with any of the Middle East countries [sic] interior affairs." He stated that the attack on the World Trade Center would be merely the first of such attacks if his demands were not met. In his letters Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was an act of terrorism, but that this was justified because "the terrorism that Israel practices (which America supports) must be faced with a similar one."_

Speaking of about that


> U.S. to Give Israel Record Military Aid
> 
> The United States offered Israel an unprecedented $30 billion of military aid over 10 years on Thursday, bolstering its closest Mideast ally and ensuring the state's military edge over its neighbors long into the future.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6855291,00.html


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The 9/11 attacks were Bin Laden's response to American foreign policy towards Israel.


I just decided to read this thread since it keeps going on and on.

Instead of bickering back and forth, would it not be useful to explain some of these discrepancies that have been raised? 
Like did anyone ever explain how the BBC reported WC7 having collapsed more than 20 minutes before it actually happened or how the foundation walls of the two towers moved outward several feet when the plane crash and fireball happened way up on the 80th floor or so.

And as to the comment above about BinLaden. 
After the attack happened, BinLaden initially stated a few times that he knew nothing about it. Why would he deny that he was involved? Would have been a major accomplishment for him in the Muslim world.

Some of the conspiracy theories are so far fetched they are ridiculous, but the "official" version of what happened also has a lot of holes in it.


----------



## rgray (Feb 15, 2005)

krs said:


> Instead of bickering back and forth, would it not be useful to explain some of these discrepancies that have been raised?
> Like did anyone ever explain how the BBC reported WC7 having collapsed more than 20 minutes before it actually happened or how the foundation walls of the two towers moved outward several feet when the plane crash and fireball happened way up on the 80th floor or so.
> 
> .........
> ...


My thoughts also. I also just read through this and watched the videos. I started out checking up on some of the materials science comments from the video in the CPS manual - temperatures, and so on - and the video does have those facts correct. The "_official_" version is criticised by some pretty well credentialed people - you can check them out too..... 

In science when a theory is presented (the official report in this case) and a counter (so-called conspiracy in this case) theory follows it, it is not _sufficient_ to simply dismiss the counter theory out of hand. It is _necessary_ to address it step by step.

In this case the official theory does not address a number of facts, particularly, 1. the BBC anomaly of announcing the fall of a building which is obviously still standing at the time.... 2. the cleanly 'cut' beams and 3. the molten blob in the basement.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Then you are familiar with the venerable principle of Occam's Razor, and should be able to provide reasonable answers to the points yourself without going wild-eyed or lapsing into some kind of conspiracy-theorist fugue state (replete with petty tangential references to various para-political personal obsessions) like some of our uh... _colleagues_ on this board. Such as,

1) Human error,

2) Steel fracture, or beams being broken by other beams during the fall (this was the first time such tall buildings collapsed and tremendous / previously unexpected forces were at play during the collapse),

3) Piping, wiring, ventilation ducts, all manner of metals present in the building melted under that still-burning, well-insulated, and titanic pile of rubble in the underground levels of the two main towers.

Anyway I've had enough of this stupid thread and shall not visit it again.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> They hate Americans, they hate Jews, *and, like you, propagate hatred by saying that Jewish people are uniformly "wealthy." *


That came from your keyboard, not mine.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Speaking of about that
> 
> "U.S. to Give Israel Record Military Aid
> 
> ...


Fantastic! Surely this surplus of pocket change shall aid in _self-defense_ against the military powers that surround impoverished Israel. 

That's one small step for man, one giant leap forward to the unmitigated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> That came from your keyboard, not mine.


Not so much, here is the message you wrote:



comprehab said:


> Just got another theory...
> 
> What if Bushy and *wealthy Jewish chumps* decided to stage an attack on themselves (just as America has done in the past) as justification for killing a couple hundred thousand muslims....


These are offensive comments, and belie a deeper, more offensive attitude.

Also, I don't think you know what the word "chumps" means.

In the context of war, Bush has indeed sent thousands of Americans to die. But no reasonable person believes that he orchestrated the twin towers' collapse, killing many of his own and other citizens, nor believes that there is any one group, even the same group accused of such things for dozens or hundreds of years, pulling his strings, and killing many of their own.

Anti-Semitism is hardly something new. It's just not usually tolerate here.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> Fantastic! Surely this surplus of pocket change shall aid in _self-defense_ against the military powers that surround impoverished Israel.
> 
> That's one small step for man, one giant leap forward to the unmitigated ethnic cleansing of Palestine.


Lovely, more references to money and Israel. What next, will you post caricatures?

Given that Arab countries lose the wars they start against Israel, you'd think it would end in something peaceful. But your comment about "self-defense" means an absence of critical thinking in this regard. Read some actual books.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> I'm going with the theory that they chose Sepember 11th and New York because as much as they hate Americans, they also hate Jewish people, who were over-represented population-wise working in the towers, and the Tuesday before and the Tuesday after Tuesday, September 11th, were holidays which would have seen many people staying at home. And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them.


Your theory does not make sense.
There was Selichot and many would have been late to work.
There are no firm numbers of what was the religious background of those that died that day. 
Not one religious/ethnic group was targeted that day - many people suffered.


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

comprehab said:


> Just got another theory...
> 
> What if Bushy and wealthy Jewish chumps decided to stage an attack on themselves (just as America has done in the past) as justification for killing a couple hundred thousand muslims...."And I'm going with the theory that people who think otherwise have their own, similar agendas, even if they don't come right out and state them."


Hmmm....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

HowEver said:


> Given that Arab countries lose the wars they start against Israel, you'd think it would end in something peaceful. But your comment about "self-defense" means an absence of critical thinking in this regard. Read some actual books.


Guess the bleeding obvious is irrelevant to you...


> OCHA’s Alayed said her agency was concerned about Israeli policies which allowed for the expansion of settlements - considered illegal under international law - through road networks, closure regimes, checkpoints and limiting land usage by Palestinians.
> 
> "Israeli control over Palestinian land is becoming more common and many areas are declared closed military zones, leading to the evictions of Palestinian communities from those areas," she said.
> 
> Recently, Palestinians were told they could not use a section of their land near the northern border area between the West Bank and Israel for security reasons. However, the land, residents say, is now being used by settlers and they are concerned it will never be returned to them.


http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=73764



> Israel is building a unique four-lane highway through the West Bank, east of Jerusalem — two lanes are for Israelis, two for Palestinians.
> 
> Separated by a tall wall of concrete that looks like Jerusalem stone, the nearly completed road will keep the nationalities separate from each other, allowing Palestinians to travel through Israeli-held land with few exits along the way.
> 
> ...


http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=14407


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Lovely, more references to money and Israel. What next, will you post caricatures?


Don't confuse criticizing Israeli policy with anti-semitism- your only making yourself look bad.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> Don't confuse criticizing Israeli policy with anti-semitism- your only making yourself look bad.


Yes, that is the argument often propogated. You're not anti-Semitic--you're not anti-anything. You're just criticizing Israel. Only Israel, which only happens to be a Jewish state.

And if it weren't for the anti-Semitic remarks about Bush and those "wealthy Jewish chumps," we might have bought it. Too late.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Guess the bleeding obvious is irrelevant to you...
> 
> IRIN Middle East | Middle East | Israel OPT | ISRAEL-OPT: Palestinian wells, homes destroyed in West Bank | Human Rights | News Item
> 
> ...


As you well know, Israel has removed thousands and thousands of settlers from the territories, to give up land, and for what in return? Not peace.

Name another country that voluntarily gives land it won, in wars it didn't start, to people who have yet to come to peace with them, let alone stop killing them.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Yes, that is the argument often propogated. You're not anti-Semitic--you're not anti-anything. You're just criticizing Israel. Only Israel, which only happens to be a Jewish state.
> 
> And if it weren't for the anti-Semitic remarks about Bush and those "wealthy Jewish chumps," we might have bought it. Too late.


People like yourself are the reason Israel has more or less enjoyed an immunity from criticism in regards to Palestine. Instilling fear in potential critics, who will keep their thoughts to themselves at the thought of being labeled an anti-semite.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> As you well know, Israel has removed thousands and thousands of settlers from the territories, to give up land, and for what in return? Not peace.
> 
> Name another country that voluntarily gives land it won, in wars it didn't start, to people who have yet to come to peace with them, let alone stop killing them.


Are you out of your mind? You think that Israel is actively working to solve the problem in the West Bank? Are you actually convinced it is Israel moving its people to make room for Palestinian people? You think that it is Israeli homes being bulldozed to make room for Palestinian settlements on the hilltops? Is it the Palestinians who are creating their own roadways, where instead of a paying a toll to use the road you instead must not be Arab?



Have the Jewish people of Israel forgotten their collective punishment? Their home demolitions? Their humiliations? So soon?


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

You must watch and read different news than I see.

It may only be news when Israel has to evict settlers to make room for Palestinians, unlike the ones that leave freely.


Israel Removes Settlers in West Bank - New York Times

It's in the news all the time. But I guess if you are a deeply mistrusting person, mainstream, researched, responsible media--obviously controlled by people you dislike, right?--isn't the place to look. Maybe the real answers come from Area 51.


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> You must watch and read different news than I see.
> 
> It may only be news when Israel has to evict settlers to make room for Palestinians, unlike the ones that leave freely.
> 
> ...


I generally avoid a lot of the US media when it comes to coverage on Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is extremely biased. The U.S. public opinion in terms of where sympathy lies in the conflict favors Israel substantially.











> In their opinions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Americans are distinctly different from people in other countries surveyed by Pew. In the 2006 Pew Global Attitudes survey, support for Israel was higher in the United States than in any of the other 14 countries surveyed. In two European countries (Great Britain and Spain), more people sided with the Palestinians than with Israel.


source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/491/six-day-war

Maybe the UK, france, Japan, and China also get their news from A51...
US public lacks neutrality therefore US media lacks neutrality; I find BBC and other UK sources aren't bad in term's of showing both sides. 

You seem to be very mislead by what you have grown up reading. I am disturbed to learn that you believe it is Israelis who are being displaced more so than Palestinians. Tell me how many Israeli's have been displaced since 1940? And how many Palestinians...That is only people, lets not even talk about land:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

HowEver said:


> It's in the news all the time. But I guess if you are a deeply mistrusting person, mainstream, researched, responsible media--obviously controlled by people you dislike, right?--isn't the place to look. Maybe the real answers come from Area 51.


Absurd. Really.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

This thread has degenerated into a bunch of racist bickering, both of you being racist.

Israel use to be Palestine until it was handed over after the WWII, although a bad choice from europeans (put two different religions in a holy place and you get trouble, and it's holy for both). 

This thread is about US attack on themselves, not about how there is hatred among Jews and Arabs. There is no right opinion on both arguments being brought up, because they are both ignorant and black and white


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

comprehab said:


> I generally avoid a lot of the US media when it comes to coverage on Israeli-Palestinian conflict as it is extremely biased. The U.S. public opinion in terms of where sympathy lies in the conflict favors Israel substantially.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You can write Palestine on any map you like. These particular maps are often used by those against Israel, almost exclusively by people who deny, as youdo, this kind of discrimination. The land certainly did not belong to the Palestinians before the 1940s. Which Arab country has given up land to Palestinians? Which Arab country has given up rights to Palestinians? Do they have citizenship *anywhere* else?

You have no idea what I grew up reading, what I read now, or what I will read. Your sources are extremely biased. What you call "Palestine" has nothing to do with the people Israel is now giving land to.

As for how many Israelis have been "displaced," let's keep in mind that Arab countries went to war with Israel the day it became a country, and have not declared "peace" since. It's hardly the other way around. It is not Israel's stated goal to wipe them off the map; but it always has been, and remains, theirs. If anybody "sympathizes" with Israel, perhaps that has something to do with why. What's your reason for the opposite?

During many negotiations, most notably the Oslo accords, Israel has freely offered to give up land it won after being attacked. Their condition? Recognize Israel, and stop the suicide bombings and rockets. The result? More suicide bombings and rockets, and the continued stated goal of Arab countries to obliterate Israel. Israel now, on their own, without the conditions being met, decides to give up land. What's your answer? Not good enough.

So, what would change your sympathizing? If Israel simply went away? Really, what would it take?


----------



## comprehab (May 28, 2005)

HowEver said:


> So, what would change your sympathizing? If Israel simply went away? Really, what would it take?


Stopping their *Illegal Occupation* of the West Bank would be a good start.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

HowEver said:


> You can write Palestine on any map you like.


As a muslim, this is quite offensive. Also I guess you haven't heard of the UN partition plan, or the British mandate for palestine.

I guess you can also claim stuff like writing the british empire on any map.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

hUssain said:


> As a muslim, this is quite offensive. Also I guess you haven't heard of the UN partition plan, or the British mandate for palestine.
> 
> I guess you can also claim stuff like writing the british empire on any map.


No. The point was that because it was called "Palestine," some claim that the land belongs to people now called the "Palestinians." In fact, Arab countries controlled the land previously, the same countries that treat Palestinian people very harshly now, although you won't have read much about that here.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

HowEver said:


> In fact, Arab countries controlled the land previously, the same countries that treat Palestinian people very harshly now, although you won't have read much about that here.


Where do you get that idea?
The area of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire which was Turkish, then became a British Mandate and finally a Arab/Jewish "Mishmash" in 1947.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

krs said:


> Where do you get that idea?
> The area of Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire which was Turkish, then became a British Mandate and finally a Arab/Jewish "Mishmash" in 1947.


Good point, except that you might have pointed out that one side rejected the partition, and instead declared war.

This is the text that accompanies the graphic to which you linked:




> UN partition plan, 1947
> On 29 November 1947, the United Nations General Assembly, with a two-thirds majority international vote, passed the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181), a plan to resolve the Arab-Jewish conflict by partitioning the territory into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area (encompassing Bethlehem) coming under international control. Jewish leaders (including the Jewish Agency), accepted the plan, while Palestinian Arab leaders rejected it and refused to negotiate. Neighboring Arab and Muslim states also rejected the partition plan. The Arab community reacted violently after the Arab Higher Committee declared a strike and burned many buildings and shops. As armed skirmishes between Arab and Jewish paramilitary forces in Palestine continued, the British mandate ended on May 15, 1948, the establishment of the State of Israel having been proclaimed the day before (see Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel). The neighboring Arab states and armies (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Transjordan, Holy War Army, Arab Liberation Army, and local Arabs) immediately attacked Israel following its declaration of independence, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued. Consequently, the partition plan was never implemented.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

HowEver said:


> Good point, except that you might have pointed out that one side rejected the partition, and instead declared war.


Why would I?
I have no intentions of getting involved in this discussion.

I just wanted to point out that your "fact" - _Arab countries controlled the land previously, the same countries that treat Palestinian people very harshly now....._. - wasn't actually a "fact".

Please go back to your War of Words, sorry for the interruption.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

krs said:


> Why would I?
> I have no intentions of getting involved in this discussion.
> 
> I just wanted to point out that your "fact" - _Arab countries controlled the land previously, the same countries that treat Palestinian people very harshly now....._. - wasn't actually a "fact".
> ...


Yeah, sure, posting the partition map without mentioning it wasn't accepted by one side wasn't a political act, nor participation in the thread.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

HowEver said:


> No. The point was that because it was called "Palestine," some claim that the land belongs to people now called the "Palestinians." In fact, Arab countries controlled the land previously, the same countries that treat Palestinian people very harshly now, although you won't have read much about that here.


Palestine was generally a province or state of ruling nations. Whether it be Arab or *European*. After the fall of the Ottoman Empire, it became part of the British Mandate of Palestine. Palestine was a place where the palestinians lived, both Arab and Jews. During WWII, the Brits were opposed to Jews fleeing Palestine, they had policies against it. In 1947, The brits handed Palestine to the UN, they came up with the 1947 UN partition plan. In 1948, the State of Israel was born. People born within the regions that were and are now palestine, are/were palestinians, both Arabs and Jews. Jews in europe where sometimes to as Palestinians.


----------



## hUssain (Aug 10, 2007)

HowEver said:


> Good point, except that you might have pointed out that one side rejected the partition, and instead declared war.
> 
> This is the text that accompanies the graphic to which you linked:


You might also note the fact that neither side had a vote in the matter. It was not officially considered a state, and therefore was not part of the UN, and no vote could have been made.










I do realize that the arab nation (and mid-asia nations as well) opposed, but I'd also like to note the fact that the population was mostly muslim, this is similar to the UN voting on whether Canada should be left as is, or giving back to the aboriginals. I'd wager a lot of neighboring countries would be against it. (Of note "In addition, pressure was exerted on some small countries by Zionist sympathizers in the United States.[to vote for the plan]"- Encyclopedia Britannica Online School Edition, 2006. 15 May 2006.)

EDIT: The damage is done, and well documented. Israel is a nation. Both sides are still at each others necks, and most of the world only hears one side or the either. Palestine, supported by the US or not, is not related to 911. The attack was against the US (or by the US). The link between Jews and 911 is weak at best.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> and I guess former professor at BYU is less intelligent about the physics of the WTC 1,2 and 7 collapse than you or just about anyone else on this board?


Do you not see your own hypocrisy here? Just above you used the opposite argument in accusing people of not believing climate change evidence.  



MACSPECTRUM said:


> i am dismayed that so many believe the crap from such an administration that lied about their reasons for invading Iraq and now beating the war drums to invade Iran, again with lies as "fact"


I guess pretty much every structural engineer (99%) is in on the conspiracy as well. 

See what your buddy Noam has to say:

YouTube - Noam Chomsky on 911 conspiracy part 2


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Vandave said:


> Do you not see your own hypocrisy here? Just above you used the opposite argument in accusing people of not believing climate change evidence.
> 
> I guess pretty much every structural engineer (99%) is in on the conspiracy as well.
> 
> ...


did you pull that 99% out of yours or Bill O'Reily's a$$?

you have some sort of poll to back that up or just your Spidey Sense telling you?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpec just felt a disturbance in the Force.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Still I do wish that whenever; "It takes months to prepare a demolition of a building the size of WTC-7" is brought up, why does interviewer never ask: "If that's the case why not just do minor damage to one side of the building and set it on fire." If you can really bring a building down in free fall with this technique why on earth has no one even tried it in the years after 9/11. 

Certainly would be much more economical than the explosives method.

I suspect if this had happened in Moscow and the Cechnyns were being blamed (and bombed) that most of Europe and North America would look at the same evidence and be totally convinced the Russians had blown up their own buildings.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> MacSpec just felt a disturbance in the Force.


It's just gas. :lmao:


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

make fun of it all you want sheeple but it was a put up job and Canadians were murdered there also by some very big parties who have an ajenda that is not over
Bldg 7 demolition gouliani convenently had moved out of
silverberg the 'new' owner conveneintly had massive ins on the towers and inadvertantly said they 'pulled' bldg 7 
gov't disinformation is massive - now why would that be
thermite evidence everywhere even though they trucked off the incriminating beam evidence- I suspect it was a low yield soft thermo nuclear weapon w placed charges for the demolition- did you see the saucer vid buzing tourisit heli just before the 'event'?
get ready for the nwo coming soon to a govt near you- rogue govt's thrive in chaos
jj


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

JerusalemJim said:


> I suspect it was a low yield soft thermo nuclear weapon w placed charges for the demolition- did you see the saucer vid buzing tourisit heli just before the 'event'?
> get ready for the nwo coming soon to a govt near you- rogue govt's thrive in chaos
> jj


I'll have to admit I saw no video of a flying saucer. Linky?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I'm actually quite surprised that people actually believe that "terrorists" did 911... stuck watching Fox News?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Fire is more than enough to cause a building to collapse--fuel or no. Look it up, or talk to an engineer. It's a well documented occurrence.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

there is no evidence of steel frame bldg collapsing from fire- this is disinformation
the thermite activated untill the supports / beams were molten steel and still molten pools in bsmt area where the explosions were heard weeks afterward!
this is not a 'normal' interior skyscraper fire
it was a planned event 
j


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

I think the so called terrorists [ saudis] were fall guys just like the jfk shooter


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

Macfury said:


> I'll have to admit I saw no video of a flying saucer. Linky?


YouTube - UFO seen attacking Twin Towers New York

impressive but first time I have seen a saucer contrail and also there was cockpit sound of saucer? flyby
so may be a good disinfo hoax but I still know tha the whole 911 is more than fishy
here is an 911 attack vid that raises some very interesting points:
YouTube - Missile Hit Twin Towers
yrs
jj


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JerusalemJim said:


> there is no evidence of steel frame bldg collapsing from fire- this is disinformation
> the thermite activated untill the supports / beams were molten steel and still molten pools in bsmt area where the explosions were heard weeks afterward!
> this is not a 'normal' interior skyscraper fire
> it was a planned event
> j


 Actually there is plenty of evidence... it just depends on what you're willing to accept. You have no concept of how or why a structure would fall with anything less than "molten steel" because you have no clue. Yet you believe the word of anonymous internet goons who feed misinformation.

Ever see a bridge wobble like an elastic? It's just concrete and steel, right? 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.






Can you believe that WIND caused that bridge to collapse? Or do you think that is fiction created by an evil government as well?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Oh gawd not this conspiracy _garbage_ again...


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Fire is more than enough to cause a building to collapse--fuel or no. Look it up, or talk to an engineer. It's a well documented occurrence.


Really?
see this
World Trade Center Demolition -Explosives, not jet-fuel imploded thise towers


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MazterCBlazter said:


> Why do I feel like making a comment about the religion thread?


because you are least qualified in that department as well?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

There is no cure for what ails _you_.


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Actually there is plenty of evidence... it just depends on what you're willing to accept. You have no concept of how or why a structure would fall with anything less than "molten steel" because you have no clue. Yet you believe the word of anonymous internet goons who feed misinformation.
> 
> Ever see a bridge wobble like an elastic? It's just concrete and steel, right?
> 
> ...


Your suppositions are pretty presumptuous Manny- I dont suppose anyone has ever told you that?


----------



## JerusalemJim (Jun 13, 2008)

The Doug said:


> There is no cure for what ails _you_.


You dont really have anything to add to this discussion do you?
I see you and your kiddy friends take great pleasure in throwing spit balls ad nauseum- sorta like the rat hitting the pleasure button eh?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Nice try. It's not a discussion, it's just you advancing preposterous, irrational nonsense that is not even mildly amusing anymore.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

JerusalemJim said:


> Really?
> see this
> World Trade Center Demolition -Explosives, not jet-fuel imploded thise towers


I've seen it. Several times. It's rubbish.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Seems odd that the naysayers never address the very notion of getting an explosives team to dress not one--but several-- skyscrapers for demolition without a single person noticing, and going off without a hitch. Even expert demolition teams carry out months of preparations for a single (much smaller) building--and somethings even they fail.

Where were they positioned? Where did they hide the massive amounts of cables that led to the ignition box? And why hadn't maintenance crews notice "strange" changes in scheduled inspections? Surely they would notice hundreds of mysterious figures working late hours drilling holes into the foundation and supports to prep for such an amazing venture.

Why even bother with the airplanes crashing and killing innocent travelers? Perhaps the WTC bombing in '93 wasn't such a production (that they didn't get quite the reaction they were hoping for) that they need to amp it up with theatrics.

Yeah... that's it.

Plain silly nonsense. It's an unimaginative idiotic plot taken from television, is what it is. Get Steven Segal on the phone... I got a movie of the week for him.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MannyP: The one I find most hilarious is the suggestion that the Pentagon was struck by a missile pretending to be a plane! Why not just use a real plane then and fill it with explosives, claiming that the terrorists did it? Or say that the terrorists fired a missile at the Pentagon? The notion that you would risk exposing the "plot" by sending in a missile instead of a plane is mind boggling.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Macfury said:


> MannyP: The one I find most hilarious is the suggestion that the Pentagon was struck by a missile pretending to be a plane! Why not just use a real plane then and fill it with explosives, claiming that the terrorists did it? Or say that the terrorists fired a missile at the Pentagon? The notion that you would risk exposing the "plot" by sending in a missile instead of a plane is mind boggling.


I think this is more plausible than anything the conspiracy theorists have present to date:


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Seems odd that the naysayers never address the very notion of getting an explosives team to dress not one--but several-- skyscrapers for demolition without a single person noticing, and going off without a hitch. Even expert demolition teams carry out months of preparations for a single (much smaller) building--and somethings even they fail.
> 
> ....


So if all you gotta do is get a modest fire going, why has this not become the normal way to get a building to collapse at free fall into its footstep? Why have other skyscrapers with bigger and hotter fires not collapsed in a similar manner?


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MannyP Design said:


> I think this is more plausible than anything the conspiracy theorists have present to date:


Was that Daniel Cook riding that rocket? I never did trust that kid.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> So if all you gotta do is get a modest fire going, why has this not become the normal way to get a building to collapse at free fall into its footstep? Why have other skyscrapers with bigger and hotter fires not collapsed in a similar manner?


Some skyscrapers have collapsed in fires. Again, though, why would government agents carefully engineer a building to fall inside its own footprint instead of causing more widespread damage and make a better case for kicking terrorist ass?




MacGuiver said:


> Was that Daniel Cook riding that rocket? I never did trust that kid.


Sing with me:

"This is Daniel Cook, in a tank, on a bomb
Picking thistles, riding missiles,
We'll have lots of fun-n-n-n!"


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"This is Daniel Cook, in a tank, on a bomb
Picking thistles, riding missiles,
We'll have lots of fun-n-n-n!" 

Looks like Slim Pickens to me.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Some skyscrapers have collapsed in fires.


Did a pretty thorough Google search

Came up with the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Completely gutted but did not collapse.
BBC NEWS | Europe | Madrid skyscraper faces collapse

A major skyscraper in China again completely gutted but no collapse:
522-Foot Beijing, China skyscraper UNDAMAGED by total fire! - Stormfront

A building badly damaged in the 9/11 event is further gutted by a fire some years later. Again no collapse
Fire threatens collapse of former Deutsche Bank skyscraper next to ground zero

Failed to find any modern steel reinforced skyscrapers that had actually collapsed.

Still the question was If all you gotta do is get a fire going to bring down these buildings why are they still turning to demolition experts? You just don't find any cleaner collapses than WTC 7, so if the official explanation is correct a good fire is all that is required.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Still the question was If all you gotta do is get a fire going to bring down these buildings why are they still turning to demolition experts? You just don't find any cleaner collapses than WTC 7, so if the official explanation is correct a good fire is all that is required.


Because fire regulations prevent you from burning down a building in the middle of a city!

Here's another question: if it was a conspiracy, why did the building need to be brought down at all? Isn't an airplane on fire, stuck in the top of a tower enough?


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> So if all you gotta do is get a modest fire going, why has this not become the normal way to get a building to collapse at free fall into its footstep? Why have other skyscrapers with bigger and hotter fires not collapsed in a similar manner?


Other skyscrapers have.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> Other skyscrapers have.


Could not find any 

This was about the closest I came:



eMacMan said:


> Did a pretty thorough Google search
> 
> Came up with the Windsor Tower in Madrid. Completely gutted but did not collapse.
> BBC NEWS | Europe | Madrid skyscraper faces collapse
> ...


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Could not find any


There aren't many that have. Just like there aren't many like the Tacoma bridge.

Engineers tend to fix problems once they realize a flaw in the way things are made. They've gathered a wealth of information about the WTC collapse and skyscrapers being built around the world have made changes to address the issues revealed--including withstanding a hit from a jumbo jet.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

MannyP Design said:


> There aren't many that have. Just like there aren't many like the Tacoma bridge.
> 
> Engineers tend to fix problems once they realize a flaw in the way things are made. They've gathered a wealth of information about the WTC collapse and skyscrapers being built around the world have made changes to address the issues revealed--including withstanding a hit from a jumbo jet.


Except that buildings built before 9/11 aren't spontaneously collapsing either. Still if the prayer power of a tiny group of muslim radicals is powerful enough to cause the spontaneous free fall of collapse WTC 7, maybe we should not be deliberately irritating them.beejacon


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Except that buildings built before 9/11 aren't spontaneously collapsing either.


 They're also not spontaneously combusting either.

There are a million ways to build something. All of them are right... until something wrong happens/happened. There was neither file nor wind when the Mississippi River bridge collapsed.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I always ask one question of those who feel that the US government brought down the World Trade Center buildings -- why? Forget about how on earth such a massive explosion could have been prepared and then set without anyone knowing about it ............. but why would they do it? Surely, if they wanted to go to war against Iraq there was an easier and more logical way of doing this act.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I always ask one question of those who feel that the US government brought down the World Trade Center buildings -- why? Forget about how on earth such a massive explosion could have been prepared and then set without anyone knowing about it ............. but why would they do it? Surely, if they wanted to go to war against Iraq there was an easier and more logical way of doing this act.


I will leave the who dun it to others. 

What WTC 7 video clearly shows is a building collapsing in free fall. For that to happen all the supporting columns have to fail almost simultaneously.

Possible causes that come to mind:

1. Deliberate demolition via some form of explosives. Possibly confirmed by three independent labs testing three different dust samples, all showing tests the presence of nano-thermite residue.

2. Failure due to bad structural design triggered by the fire. Could cause collapse, unlikely to cause freefall collapse.

3. Failure due to sub standard materials combined with shoddy contsruction techniques.

4. Extreme existing damage from some sort of corrosion.

While it seems possible that 2, 3, 4 or some combination could cause a collapse, a free fall collapse seems unlikely.


However in all four cases or any combination there-of, it seems to me that the only way to determine what really went wrong would be to preserve and carefully analyze the remains. Instead they were carted away and destroyed without any forensic examination whatsoever. So even if it was not explosives, the opportunity to discover the cause of the failure is lost forever. 

If substandard construction and or materials was involved we have also lost the chance to punish those responsible.

If there was a design flaw we have lost the chance to prevent it happening again or correct it in existing buildings.

If there was corrosion we have lost the chance to determine the cause and prevent it happening elsewhere.

Whether some level of government was or was not responsible for the collapse of WTC 7, the federal and NY state governments were certainly derelict in not preserving and pursuing the evidence. The remaining question is why?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Dr.G. said:


> Surely, if they wanted to go to war against Iraq there was an easier and more logical way of doing this act.


But none of the "easier" or "logical" (to which, I do not know what these methods actually could be) would backed by the "general" population of every country needed to assist.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Elric said:


> But none of the "easier" or "logical" (to which, I do not know what these methods actually could be) would backed by the "general" population of every country needed to assist.


The general population did not support the war in Iraq in the first place. I don't think that the US really needed anyone else initially.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

If thermite, then why collapse the tower in professional manner and risk being caught? Why not just blow out one corner and let it tip over?

But seismic readings of the area during the covered time period show no unusual readings that would certainly have been cause by such an explosion. Neither did witnesses claim to have heard such an explosion.



eMacMan said:


> I will leave the who dun it to others.
> 
> What WTC 7 video clearly shows is a building collapsing in free fall. For that to happen all the supporting columns have to fail almost simultaneously.
> 
> ...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Since this is the internet and since conspiracy requires but the poorest of soil in which to flower and bloom, I await the next freshet of evidence pointing to nefarious malfeasance.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Max said:


> Since this is the internet and since conspiracy requires but the poorest of soil in which to flower and bloom, I await the next freshet of evidence pointing to nefarious malfeasance.


An interesting point, Max. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Backatcha, Doc.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> There aren't many that have. Just like there aren't many like the Tacoma bridge.


It's comments like these that give the WTC conspiracy theories credibility.
How is the Tacoma bridge collapse similar or related to the WTC-7 collapse?
Wouldn't you expect a bridge to collapse if it sways like this?









I don't recall WTC-7 swaying in the wind.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Max said:


> Since this is the internet and since conspiracy requires but the poorest of soil in which to flower and bloom, I await the next freshet of evidence pointing to nefarious malfeasance.


That and stupid conspiracy rumors seem to spread faster than the truth. After all, rumors are always more interesting than the truth.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

Fire causes a tower to partially collapse… queue the Dutch conspiracy theorists. 





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

Fascinating, the number of people afraid to question the vague truth fed to us. But even MORE so, the fact they choose to insult those that do, it's like (Hardcore) Christians throwing stones at Atheists as they stroll by.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Planes hijacked by Islamists were flown into buildings causing catastrophic structural damage, directly leading to their collapse and the death of thousands. How is any of this vague?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Debunking911.com*


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

The Doug said:


> Planes hijacked by Islamists were flown into buildings causing catastrophic structural damage, directly leading to their collapse and the death of thousands. How is any of this vague?


Because World Trade Center No. 7, a 47 storey office tower a few hundred yards away also collapsed to the ground, later the same day, and there were no planes that crashed into it. It sure LOOKS like a controlled demolition the way it collapses in on itself.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Because World Trade Center No. 7, a 47 storey office tower a few hundred yards away also collapsed to the ground, later the same day, and there were no planes that crashed into it. It sure LOOKS like a controlled demolition the way it collapses in on itself.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

WTC7 was directly hit by hundreds if not thousands of tons of debris from one of the collapsing towers and suffered its own catastrophic damage. It then burned uncontrollably for hours during which time its support trusses weakened to the point of not being able to support 47 stories. Gravity did an efficient job from that point. Not hard to understand and infinitely more plausible than the tinfoil-hat conspiracy garbage that some members of our species seem to thrive on.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

People don't want to accept the most plausible explanation. Instead, it's a full-blown conspiracy. _They_ 'pulled' the building. _They_ had their reasons. The people are sheep who need to be _fed_ explanations.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Sorry kids, but the it-was-burning-for-several-hours explanation is the implausible one. If that's really all it takes to down a concrete and steel skyscraper, then there's all kinds of them that should have collapsed the same way throughout the history of these structures and fires. However, the only such examples are the three World Trade Center towers on September 11 of 2001. You're a naive fool if you don't find that to be mighty peculiar.

And sorry Mr. Mayor, but that link is pretty weak. Buildings of this style of construction do not simply collapse from fire damage. Ever. Except on 9/11 it seems.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> People don't want to accept the most plausible explanation. Instead, it's a full-blown conspiracy. _They_ 'pulled' the building. _They_ had their reasons. The people are sheep who need to be _fed_ explanations.


Do you think it's possible, just possible, that Flight 93, the one that crashed in a field, was supposed to be the plane that would crash into WTC 7 to give some plausibility as to why the building came down? But since there was no plane left to trigger the collapse, they had to "pull" the building anyway? Don't you find it puzzling that shortly after the building's owner suggested the building be "pulled" it came down, right on cue? How is that possible? Unless you possess some method for making a building collapse when you want it to? Do you really think fire damage is the most plausible explanation for the total collapse of a steel and concrete office tower?


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Oh gawd, whatever. tptptptp


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

The Doug said:


> Oh gawd, whatever. tptptptp


Nice to read a mature well-reasoned response.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's interesting how the word "conspiracy" in these debates has come to be viewed as "ridiculous." If you believe 19 hijackers, mostly from Saudi Arabia, under the influence of Osama Bin Laden were responsible all on their own for all of the damage that took place on September 11, 2011, then you also believe in a conspiracy, just one with foreigners at its core. You might also be inclined to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction created using enriched plutonium from Africa, capable of being launched with only 45 minutes notice on targets in the USA. After all, the US government said so. What I wonder is if Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why on earth didn't they use them to defend themselves? Funny what people will believe. I believe there are many questions that still do not have satisfactory answers. That does not mean I believe in a conspiracy theory, but it does mean the arguments presented so far have not been very convincing.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Sorry kids, but the it-was-burning-for-several-hours explanation is the implausible one. If that's really all it takes to down a concrete and steel skyscraper, then there's all kinds of them that should have collapsed the same way throughout the history of these structures and fires. However, the only such examples are the three World Trade Center towers on September 11 of 2001. You're a naive fool if you don't find that to be mighty peculiar.
> 
> And sorry Mr. Mayor, but that link is pretty weak. Buildings of this style of construction do not simply collapse from fire damage. Ever. Except on 9/11 it seems.


Not just fire, but enormous airplanes full of jet fuel and thousands of tons of falling debris. It isn't just a link, it's a site that debunks all the conspiracy theories in great detail, but once people have made up their mind it was an elaborate inside job, they don't seem to be able to accept any reasonable explanations. It gets way beyond the point of silly for most people, but when it's mocked, people just seem to use that even more to hold onto theories. 

When looking at all the events objectively, it does enter the theatre of absurd:

Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...

Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.

Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?

Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!

Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!

Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into two 110 story buildings. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...

Accomplice #2: Yeah, but that way, you’re sure to knock them down. Besides, maybe the hijackers won’t make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!

Accomplice #1: But you don't need to knock them down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.

Your plan isn't perfect either, you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.

Accomplice #2: Yeah, our Bay of Pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock them down.

Accomplice #1: Do not

Accomplice #2: Do too

Accomplice #1: Do not

Accomplice #2: Do too

Accomplice #1: Do not

Accomplice #2: Do too

Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both! :blink: How do we do that? I mean, how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the scene?

Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...

Government: I've made my decision. Continue...

Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.

Accomplice #1: Nice touch...

Accomplice #2: Why, thank you.  ...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on its way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.

Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?

Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and steel and floors hitting the floors below.

Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in key internet forums.

Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?

Accomplice #1: We won’t be able to fly planes into it, that's for sure...

Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right, we can have one of the towers hit Building 7, missing the two next to it. After that, we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.

Government: Amazing ... I also want to take out the Pentagon. Any suggestions?

Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect, then fire a missile at the Pentagon. A bunker buster.

Government: But what about the people on the plane?

Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51, then shoot them all.

Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way, you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile, there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plane.

Accomplice #1: Err... ah, don't worry about these small details. I have an undercover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shoot them all.

Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..

Accomplice #1: Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!

Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Let’s make the target date Sept 11, 2001.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Seems to me the rise of the internet age has been a tremendous boon for conspiracy theorists of all persuasions. They can easier link up and reinforce one another and they serve as mutual audiences. On the net anyone can pretend to be a confident authority and many attempt just that. For many, the larger the apparent conspiracy, the greater its likelihood of being the sinister truth.

I grew up reading speculative fiction - loved the stuff, still do. But it seems to me that truthiness is a booming field; if I could only figure out how to tap that vein, I'd be rich.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

ehMax said:


> Not just fire, but enormous airplanes full of jet fuel and thousands of tons of falling debris. It isn't just a link, it's a site that debunks all the conspiracy theories in great detail, but once people have made up their mind it was an elaborate inside job, they don't seem to be able to accept any reasonable explanations. It gets way beyond the point of silly for most people, but when it's mocked, people just seem to use that even more to hold onto theories...


That's a nice little bit of readers' theatre there, Mr. Mayor. Quite entertaining and I applaud the effort. However, I am not saying I subscribe to the common conspiracy theories, whose adherents unfortunately look amateur in their efforts and undermine the intentions of those who really seek the truth. The site you cite doe snot debunk ALL the conspiracy theories, since it subscribes to the theory that 19 hijackers led by Osama Bin Laden took down the World Trade Center towers acting alone. I find it much more plausible to believe they had to have had at least some help from within the USA to be able to pull it off. I don't know what form that help took, but it's not hard to imagine, considering the biggest previous bombing in Oklahoma City was perpetrated on Americans by Americans.

We know that the US government lied about its reasons for going to war in Iraq; why could it not lie about 9/11 as well? I have no idea what the actual truth is, but I certainly wouldn't take Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or any of the other neo-cons at their word. I need an explanation that makes sense, and burning buildings, unless they're made of wood, do not collapse in on themselves. That, combined with Bush's deer-in-the-headlights look when told the _second_ tower has been hit when he's reading to the little kids in Florida (he could have excused himself immediately) is enough to make me suspicious about the "official conspiracy theory explanation", the one with the 19 hijackers, 15 of which were Saudi Arabian, we've been told to believe is the truth.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> *Do you think it's possible, just possible, that Flight 93, the one that crashed in a field, was supposed to be the plane that would crash into WTC 7 to give some plausibility as to why the building came down?*...


NOO!!  Have you ever really read or watched any of the forensic engineering studies that have explained the reasons why the towers fell the way they did or were you too busy making tin foil hats and reading conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Do you think it's possible, just possible, that Flight 93, the one that crashed in a field, was supposed to be the plane that would crash into WTC 7 to give some plausibility as to why the building came down? But since there was no plane left to trigger the collapse, they had to "pull" the building anyway? Don't you find it puzzling that shortly after the building's owner suggested the building be "pulled" it came down, right on cue? How is that possible? Unless you possess some method for making a building collapse when you want it to? Do you really think fire damage is the most plausible explanation for the total collapse of a steel and concrete office tower?


Before reading your own post, I'd never heard that particular theory being advanced. I guess I just don't get out enough.

When a building has been damaged and begins to collapse, gravity itself ensures that the fastest route to the ground be taken - all that tonnage wants to go straight down. The more that collapses, the less the floors below are capable of supporting that massive plummeting weight. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. You may be right; it may have been pulled. I don't know; I wasn't there. But I kind of doubt it. I don't know what purpose it would serve. The big show, if you like, was already over - the towers had fallen, the Pentagon had been hit, an airliner had augured into a field in rural Pennsylvania. That was more than enough of an attention-getter.

I was listening to the CBC on the weekend and there was the observation times of great economic and political upheaval see spikes in conspiracy theorizing. People crave explanations for stuff that's otherwise difficult to understand or swallow. I think it's true, but it's also true that conspiracies are always managing, like weeds, to thrive.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Speaking of great fiction:

9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube

FWIW have never seen a reason to embed when a link will get you there just as easily.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> If that's really all it takes to down a concrete and steel skyscraper, then there's all kinds of them that should have collapsed the same way throughout the history of these structures and fires. However, the only such examples are the three World Trade Center towers on September 11 of 2001.


What other multi-floor building in history has had a 767 collide with it at full speed taking out several floors? I can find small private planes crashing into buildings, but no jets.

See that's the problem. Conspiracy theorists question things, but they never provide any concrete facts.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Kosh said:


> What other multi-floor building in history has had a 767 collide with it at full speed taking out several floors? I can find small private planes crashing into buildings, but no jets.
> 
> See that's the problem. Conspiracy theorists question things, but they never provide any concrete facts.


B-25 Heavy Bomber hit the Empire State building during WW2. For whatever reason it's still standing.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Since building 7 only had facade damage and damage to one corner and no jet fuel, the argument is that a normal office fire took out over 100 columns simultaneously. Hardly believable given the large number of sky scrapers that did not collapse when subjected to longer and hotter fires. 

If it really is possible, why mess around rigging explosives to do high rise demolitions???? Why not even one attempt to bring down a skyscraper using the office fire technique post 9/11??? Believing that an ordinary office fire can bring down a skyscraper why has every other skyscraper in the world not been condemned and ordered evacuated and demolished???

If it was a design flaw, why the reluctance to investigate properly and the rush to destroy the evidence??? 

Does anyone seriously believe that Bush/Cheney, who have consistently lied to the American Public, would tell the truth about 9/11??? Especially as it played into their desire to shred the constitution and wage never ending wars for the benefit of the banksters and the MIC types.

The job of the conspiracy theorists is not to provide all the answers but to point out the absurdity of the official conspiracy theory, and the official conspiracy theory is far more absurd than even some of the flakier alternative suggestions.

Time for an unbiased investigation and if the rubble happens to land on the Neo Con crowd that's an unexpected bonus.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

North American B-25 Mitchell
Wing Span 67.58'
Length 54.08'
Height 15.75'
Weight 21,100 lbs
Max Speed - 315 MPH

767 (depending on variation)
Wing span 156 ft 1 in - 170 ft 4 in
Length 156 ft 1 in - 170 ft 4 in
Height 17 ft 9 in 
Weight 315,000 lb - 450,000 lb
Cruise Speed 530 MPH

Not to mention the differences in the amount and type of fuel...

Just a few reasons for the differences in effect.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Time for an unbiased investigation and if the rubble happens to land on the Neo Con crowd that's an unexpected bonus.


This has happened... read the thread.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Open air burning temp of kerosene is 265°-315°C. Far too low to weaken or melt heavy steel. And again no kerosene at all in WTC 7 a building that was designed to stand up to the kinds of fires that in the past have failed to bring down other skyscrapers.

Most people want to believe the official conspiracy theory, as the most logical alternative is that our leaders deliberately murdered thousands of our own soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and at least 100s of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians.

If the WTC had happened in Russia or Nazi Germany would you be able to swallow the official theories??? If not why swallow them here???


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> Time for an unbiased investigation and if the rubble happens to land on the Neo Con crowd that's an unexpected bonus.


There will never be an "unbiased" investigation. No single body or party can lay claim to being 'bias-free.' There are always special interests to project and protect.

911 has surpassed mere journalistic account and has already passed into the stuff of legend and myth-making. We are no closer to the truth ten years after the fact than we were the moment the first plane departed from its charted course and ceased contact with puzzled controllers. A century from now, accounts of this event are likely going to be even stranger - omitting certain details, amping up the magnitude of certain others. All depending, of course, on who is retelling the tale.

Truth is not a singular, monolithic thing - not where **** sapiens is concerned, at any rate. What we call truth stems from a welter of jostling opinions, vantage points, insights, fears.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> This has happened... read the thread.


You missed the unbiased part. The commission was there only to attempt to bolster belief in a completely unbelievable chain of events. 

The commissions budget was less than 10% of what the taxpayers spent trying to gather evidence to impeach Clinton. If Bush and Cheney had had their way there would have been no investigation. As it was, virtually all of the evidence was destroyed before the investigation started. One of the biggest crimes in history and no effort made to preserve or catalogue the evidence?????

Great summary of the official theory.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

eMacMan said:


> B-25 Heavy Bomber hit the Empire State building during WW2. For whatever reason it's still standing.


Again, I said jet crash. As screature points out, even a B-25 bomber has no where near the same speed, dimensions and fuel on board. 

I frankly don't think there has EVER been a crash into a multi-floor building close to this size in history.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Open air burning temp of kerosene is 265°-315°C. Far too low to weaken or melt heavy steel. And again no kerosene at all in WTC 7 a building that was designed to stand up to the kinds of fires that in the past have failed to bring down other skyscrapers.
> 
> Most people want to believe the official conspiracy theory, as the most logical alternative is that our leaders deliberately murdered thousands of our own soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq and at least 100s of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani civilians.
> 
> If the WTC had happened in Russia or Nazi Germany would you be able to swallow the official theories??? If not why swallow them here???


And certain people want to see a conspiracy under every rock just to satisfy their own bias, disdain and personal proclivities, despite the evidence to the contrary.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Kosh said:


> Again, I said jet crash. As screature points out, even a B-25 bomber has no where near the same speed, dimensions and fuel on board.
> 
> I frankly don't think there has EVER been a crash into a multi-floor building close to this size in history.


Even the smallest variation of the 767 is 15x the weight (the largest variation 20x) of the B-25... lets see what would have happened to the Empire State building had 15 B-25s flown into simultaneously... Oh and at 200MPH faster. .. kind of puts it into perspective doesn't it.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

To this day, the sad part about 9/11 is people still believe what media tells them. Nevermind the hundreds of experts that have given their thoughts on this, but instead let's just focus on what the News says... silly people.

I did a ton of research on 9/11 about 7 years ago because I simply would not believe that this was done by terrorists. And to this day I still don't believe it. First off, if this was truly what the US Government says it is, then they would have no problems in releasing the evidence. The US has a reputation of doing acts and completely covering it up. 
The Pentagon was an indication of this. I'm sorry but unless someone can prove me otherwise, there was no plane that crashed there. It's impossible for a plane to incinerate itself especially the engines, look at prior plane crashes that occured hitting the ground. There's always something there. 

WTC 7... yeah I believe that a fire caused this building to collapse in 10 seconds... come on now. Educate yourself instead of believing what people tell you.

It's also not realistic that the WTC Buildings completely collapsed from JUST the plane crashes. It's very documented that this was done identically to a well planned demolition complete will strategically placing explosives throughout the structure. Without that, if anything, the building would have eventually toppled where it was hit falling to it's side, but the remaining floors beneath would still be standing.

No one has to believe any theories, but when there are cold hard facts, it's makes it a little difficult to turn a blind eye.

I don't even bother talking to anyone about 9/11 because none of them have ever read anything about it other than what was shown to us by media. And if that's what you believe... so be it! I'm not forcing anyone to do their own research, but if you're going to just say it was terrorists or whatever, then that's just plain ignorant. I question things, I don't accept a "just because" answer. Society is prone to believing anything they hear, and it's quite sad. But they can continue watching TMZ or Entertainment Tonight because all they really care about is what Kim Kardashian wore at her wedding.

Think what you will, but the truth is... that it has dramatically changed the way we live.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Yeah, I don't think there will ever be a report that will answer everything. 

This sort of reminds me of the contraversy around the Arrow Flight 1285 crash in Gander (Arrow Air Flight 1285 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Half of the CASB determined the crash happened one way (with facts, simulations, etc.), but the other half believed it happened another way. That little bit of doubt started by a terrorists' claim, the flight being a US military flight, and not knowing exactly what was on board, was all the doubt needed to cloud the facts.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rounder said:


> To this day, the sad part about 9/11 is people still believe what media tells them. Nevermind the hundreds of experts that have given their thoughts on this, but instead let's just focus on what the News says... silly people.
> 
> I did a ton of research on 9/11 about 7 years ago *because I simply would not believe that this was done by terrorists.* And to this day I still don't believe it. First off, if this was truly what the US Government says it is, then they would have no problems in releasing the evidence. The US has a reputation of doing acts and completely covering it up.
> The Pentagon was an indication of this. I'm sorry but unless someone can prove me otherwise, there was no plane that crashed there. It's impossible for a plane to incinerate itself especially the engines, look at prior plane crashes that occured hitting the ground. There's always something there.
> ...


Extreme prejudice is not exactly a great point to start a research project from...

There are and there is absolutely no evidence for a controlled explosion... none... 
Your so called research could only be based on opinions, interpretations and conjecture based on the evidence collected and all based in extreme prejudice...

You seem to think that your readings are true while those of others false... so be it but you make the same basic assumption as those who disagree with you, that your "sources" are more credible, so don't try and stand on a horse that is no higher than anyone else's. You choose to believe what you choose to believe and just because you do doesn't mean that others are ignorant or have read less or done less "research' than you.

The only thing that it has changed about the way I live is that I now have to carry a passport going into the US... seriously.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Rounder said:


> No one has to believe any theories, but when there are cold hard facts, it's makes it a little difficult to turn a blind eye.


Why don't you state some facts instead of misinformation, then. We've already debunked your WTC 7 statement many posts back.

I like how every conspiracy theorist says they planted bombs/explosives in the building. AND NOBODY NOTICED THIS?!? Yeah right!


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Extreme prejudice is not exactly a great point to start a research project from...
> 
> There are and there is absolutely no evidence for a controlled explosion... none...
> Your so called research could only be based on opinions, interpretations and conjecture based on the evidence collected and all based in extreme prejudice...
> ...


Well maybe you don't remember travelling before this event then in comparison to now. Or the billions of dollars that are spent because of it. 

I've read plenty on both sides. And I based my opinion through these. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, trust me. I used to care about these events, but now I don't really bother. I have an open mind and don't set my beliefs based on what people tell me. 

I will simply not believe that a plane alone caused this massive structure to collapse in this way, if that makes me prejudice or a conspiracy theorist... then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rounder said:


> Well maybe you don't remember travelling before this event then in comparison to now. Or the billions of dollars that are spent because of it.
> 
> I've read plenty on both sides. And I based my opinion through these. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, trust me. I used to care about these events, but now I don't really bother. I have an open mind and don't set my beliefs based on what people tell me.
> 
> I will simply not believe that a plane alone caused this massive structure to collapse in this way, if that makes me prejudice or a conspiracy theorist... then I don't know what to tell you.


Sure there have been billions spent but it hasn't changed the way I live which is what you closing statement to your previous post was and quite frankly the travel differences don't make that much a difference to me either.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Max said:


> Before reading your own post, I'd never heard that particular theory being advanced. I guess I just don't get out enough.
> 
> When a building has been damaged and begins to collapse, gravity itself ensures that the fastest route to the ground be taken - all that tonnage wants to go straight down. The more that collapses, the less the floors below are capable of supporting that massive plummeting weight. I don't know how to explain it any more simply than that. You may be right; it may have been pulled. I don't know; I wasn't there. But I kind of doubt it. I don't know what purpose it would serve. The big show, if you like, was already over - the towers had fallen, the Pentagon had been hit, an airliner had augured into a field in rural Pennsylvania. That was more than enough of an attention-getter.
> 
> I was listening to the CBC on the weekend and there was the observation times of great economic and political upheaval see spikes in conspiracy theorizing. People crave explanations for stuff that's otherwise difficult to understand or swallow. I think it's true, but it's also true that conspiracies are always managing, like weeds, to thrive.


I agree; the conspiracy theories seem pretty far-fetched, but so did the prospect of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, yet everyone believed they did because the leaders in the US told them so. Now they admit they twisted the truth considerably, but it doesn't matter, since they went to war on a false premise, and many soldiers have sacrificed their lives based on that same false premise. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy no matter how it happened or who was responsible, and a wake-up call to the US (and the world) not to take security for granted any longer. No WMD's were needed; just box-cutters and a few hijacked planes full of fuel.

I don't buy the conspiracy of Bin Laden (the "official" theory) any more than the other conspiracies. They are all theories about what happened, but I don't think any of the theories presented so far explain everything. Call me a skeptic, both of the "official" explanation and the alternate conspiracy theories. It would be damn near impossible to plant explosives beforehand. However, all three WTC buildings sure did _resemble_ controlled demolitions when they came down. That you cannot refute. Also, the lack of any trace of airplane remnants, both at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, is pretty bizarre. Most plane crashes leave a pile of wreckage to sort through, even if the bodies are incinerated.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rounder said:


> The US has a reputation of doing acts and completely covering it up.
> 
> The Pentagon was an indication of this. I'm sorry but unless someone can prove me otherwise, there was no plane that crashed there. It's impossible for a plane to incinerate itself especially the engines, look at prior plane crashes that occured hitting the ground.
> 
> There's always something there.


A hundred or so years from now, maybe somebody will find a smoking gun and the truth - or whatever - will come out.

The problem is not people who are habitually predisposed to believe outlandish conspiracies: the problem, as Rounder notes, is that the USA has a history of doing / planning things just like this.

When John Glenn was about to blast off, the USA had a plan in place to blame Cuba for sabotaging the flight, among other wild things. Read up on Operation Northwoods:



> Operation Northwoods was a series of false-flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962. *The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere.* These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro.[2] One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."
> 
> Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government.


And while we're at it, remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I agree; the conspiracy theories seem pretty far-fetched, but so did the prospect of Iraq having Weapons of Mass Destruction, yet everyone believed they did because the leaders in the US told them so. Now they admit they twisted the truth considerably, but it doesn't matter, since they went to war on a false premise, and many soldiers have sacrificed their lives based on that same false premise. 9/11 was a horrible tragedy no matter how it happened or who was responsible, and a wake-up call to the US (and the world) not to take security for granted any longer. No WMD's were needed; just box-cutters and a few hijacked planes full of fuel.
> 
> I don't buy the conspiracy of Bin Laden and more than the other conspiracies. They are all theories about what happened, but I don't think any of the theories presented so far explain everything. Call me a skeptic, both of the "official" explanation and the alternate conspiracy theories. It would be damn near impossible to plant explosives beforehand. However, all three WTC buildings sure did _resemble_ controlled demolitions when they came down. That you cannot refute. *Also, the lack of any trace of airplane remnants, both at the Pentagon* and in Pennsylvania, is pretty bizarre. Most plane crashes leave a pile of wreckage to sort through, even if the bodies are incinerated.


Well there were plenty of eye witnesses and and video footage of the planes crashing into the towers and the Pentagon... I watched the live footage of the second plane... looked pretty real to me, I suppose it could have all been DFX and a faked live feed, but it would be pretty hard to get all those eye witnesses to agree to what they saw... just wondering what you are trying to get at?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Speaking of great fiction:
> 
> 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube
> 
> FWIW have never seen a reason to embed when a link will get you there just as easily.


That was awesome.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> What other multi-floor building in history has had a 767 collide with it at full speed taking out several floors? I can find small private planes crashing into buildings, but no jets.
> 
> See that's the problem. Conspiracy theorists question things, but they never provide any concrete facts.


Uh-huh. And which plane was it that flew into WTC7 again? Oh wait, these guys were very efficient. They took down three buildings with only two planes. :clap:


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> A hundred or so years from now, maybe somebody will find a smoking gun and the truth - or whatever - will come out.
> 
> The problem is not people who are habitually predisposed to believe outlandish conspiracies: the problem, as Rounder notes, is that the USA has a history of doing / planning things just like this.
> 
> ...




Did it ever happen???

Unhhuhnn and the Columbia disaster was a government plot to get public acceptance for increased spending for safety for the space shuttle project....


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Well there were plenty of eye witnesses and and video footage of the planes crashing into the towers and *the Pentagon*... I watched the live footage of the second plane... looked pretty real to me, I suppose it could have all been DFX and a faked live feed, but it would be pretty hard to get all those eye witnesses to agree to what they saw... just wondering what you are trying to get at?


I'm talking the Pentagon. Not the Towers. Which video footage do you speak of? The 5 frame shot they showed that looked more like a missile than an aircraft? Yes I thought so. If that's what it takes you to believe them I'm quite in shock. Ok so if you're right, that video was an aircraft... where's the plane wreckage? Oh yeah that's right there wasn't any wreckage. It burned... beejacon

The true footage of the Pentagon crash was actually captured by Hotel security cameras across the street. And guess what, within 10 minutes of the crash, CIA were over there to confiscate the tapes, who knows what they did to the poor employees who actually saw the real footage.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Well there were plenty of eye witnesses and and video footage of the planes crashing into the towers and the Pentagon... I watched the live footage of the second plane... looked pretty real to me, I suppose it could have all been DFX and a faked live feed, but it would be pretty hard to get all those eye witnesses to agree to what they saw... just wondering what you are trying to get at?


There were plenty of eye witnesses to WTC 7's collapse as well. You can see it for yourself on YouTube. None of these witnesses reported seeing an aircraft fly into this 47 storey office tower, with all kinds of Wall Street documents in its basement, spilling jet fuel all over the place. But still, down she went, just like the other two, as though her legs were pulled out from under her. Odd, though, that several witnesses did report hearing explosions.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Rounder said:


> I'm talking the Pentagon. Not the Towers. Which video footage do you speak of? The 5 frame shot they showed that looked more like a missile than an aircraft? Yes I thought so. If that's what it takes you to believe them I'm quite in shock. Ok so if you're right, that video was an aircraft... where's the plane wreckage? Oh yeah that's right there wasn't any wreckage. It burned... beejacon
> 
> The true footage of the Pentagon crash was actually captured by Hotel security cameras across the street. And guess what, within 10 minutes of the crash, CIA were over there to confiscate the tapes, who knows what they did to the poor employees who actually saw the real footage.


If you're a True Blood fan, maybe they were glamoured. XX)


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

fjnmusic said:


> Uh-huh. And which plane was it that flew into WTC7 again? Oh wait, these guys were very efficient. They took down three buildings with only two planes. :clap:


 
None, as you very well know. Or as I'll present the facts again, as we posted them wayyyy back:



> On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building. The building's internal fire suppression system lacked water pressure to fight the fires, and the building collapsed completely at 5:21:10 pm.[1] The collapse began when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout, which was first visible from the exterior with the crumbling of the east mechanical penthouse at 5:20:33 pm.


See!!! You conspiracy theorists don't even want to face the basic of facts. It's right there in Wikipedia. READ THE DAMN THING and QUIT MAKING STUFF UP. There was no plane that hit WTC 7. It didn't collapse after 10 seconds as Rounder says. It collapsed after hours, after being hit with debris and fires burning in it. You conspiracy theorists just love making stuff up and spreading it!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> There were plenty of eye witnesses to WTC 7's collapse as well. You can see it for yourself on YouTube. None of these witnesses reported seeing an aircraft fly into this 47 storey office tower, with all kinds of Wall Street documents in its basement, spilling jet fuel all over the place. But still, down she went, just like the other two, as though her legs were pulled out from under her. Odd, though, that several witnesses did report hearing explosions.


Nice diversion... WTC 7 has been addressed, you would just rather believe it was the government 'cause it's way more SEXYYY than simple reality.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> None, as you very well know. Or as I'll present the facts again, as we posted them wayyyy back:
> 
> 
> 
> See!!! You conspiracy theorists don't even want to face the basic of facts. It's right there in Wikipedia. READ THE DAMN THING and QUIT MAKING STUFF UP. There was no plane that hit WTC 7. It didn't collapse after 10 seconds as Rounder says. It collapsed after hours, after being hit with debris and fires burning in it. You conspiracy theorists just love making stuff up and spreading it!


Read yourself. I told you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a skeptic. This is the first time in history a building made of steel and concrete comes down from fire and whatever structural damage there was. No jets this time. I assume you've got two good working eyes. Explain to me how one column's failure can make the whole building come down, starting at ground level,_ just like a controlled demolition_. The "official" explanation is weak.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

fjnmusic said:


> Read yourself. I told you, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm a skeptic. This is the first time in history a building made of steel and concrete comes down from fire and whatever structural damage there was. No jets this time. I assume you've got two good working eyes. Explain to me how one column's failure can make the whole building come down, starting at ground level,_ just like a controlled demolition_. The "official" explanation is weak.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But... but... it was caused by a fire?! 

LOL and sorry that was more like 8 seconds.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Nice diversion... WTC 7 has been addressed, you would just rather believe it was the government 'cause it's way more SEXYYY than simple reality.


Nothing to do with sexy. If you watch closely the footage of WTC 1 and 2 collapsing, you can see they collapse_ from the top down_, almost like a banana being peeled. Not so with WTC 7, which appears to lose all of its load bearing supports at ground level _at the same time_, cut off at the knees so to speak, so that the whole top half of the building comes down _exactly as it would in a controlled demolition_. Nothing you have put forward addresses this at all. In fact, it seems to be one mighty big elephant in the room that you choose to ignore. Damage to one side of the building does not shear all structural supports at the base at the same time. If anything, the damaged part of the building should have collapsed while the other side remained upright, more or less. You cannot ignore the laws of physics.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

eMacMan said:


> Speaking of great fiction:
> 
> 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory - YouTube
> 
> FWIW have never seen a reason to embed when a link will get you there just as easily.


Conspiracy theorists just love YouTube don't they. That and superfluous descriptions and details. There have been many successful terror attacks across the globe, but their ability to execute sophisticated, coordinated plans on 9/11 is dismissed by describing them as "Devout fundamentalists, who snort cocaine and live with pink haired strippers". 

A terrorist simply turns around a plane, but it's dramatically described as a shocking "8000 foot descending, 270º cork screw to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the budget analysts office" (Complete with graphic of someone analyzing a budget with a calculator) The plane was obviously capable of a sharp turn, but the manner of the turn is questioned. If it had been a very long, gradual turn, conspiracy theorist would say it was evidence that the pilot wasn't in a hurry and had lots of time because it was coordinated with the government. 

Apparently, the crash into the specific section of the pentagon was planned by Rumsfeld and co. to assassinate a whole wing of the Pentagon who were investigating 2.5 Trillion dollars "stolen" to fund the whole 9/11 plot. As always, actual details and _context_ get in the way over and over and it goes on and on with graining video and excerpts of speeches etc...

There are second by second detailed accounts of how incidents unfolded by thousands of people in the airline industry in all levels, security guards, fighter pilots deployed etc... But it's all a part of big supposed coordinated coverup. Those people and members of both left wing and right wing media.. everyone's a part of it and in on the secret. 

The biggest face-palm is many of these "truther" sites now sell merchandise and you can order recordings and tapes from their sites. 

They end the video as victims and bask in the fact that they are called crazy and brushed off by society and then go on to call everyone who doesn't believe in their theories as "sheep" etc..


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

I still want it explained how someone got all those explosives into the buildings and expertly placed without anyone noticing it!?! Come on now. And they didn't get set off by accident before?

I'd like to see a demolition crew review that theory! I'm sure they would tear it apart easily. It takes a lot of time to plan and plant the explosives.

Conspiracy theories eventually all fall apart.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> I still want it explained how someone got all those explosives into the buildings and expertly placed without anyone noticing it!?! Come on now. And they didn't get set off by accident before?
> 
> I'd like to see a demolition crew review that theory! I'm sure they would tear it apart easily. It takes a lot of time to plan and plant the explosives.
> 
> Conspiracy theories eventually all fall apart.


You can go on to Google Earth and see images from space that can identify your license plate number. You can check out a Gigapan image and identify a single face in a crowd of a million people. And this is just the technology available to _consumers_. I would imagine that the technology available to the highest levels of government can do things we can't even imagine yet. You know very well that if someone with enough power wants something done, it gets done. You don't have to rely on traditional methods. The real question is why? What is the motivation? Why a conspiracy, if there is one? Why cover it up?

By way of comparison, I'm going to assume you don't still believe there are WMD's hidden somewhere in Iraq. But at one time, everybody believed there was, or at least everyone who trusted the Republican neo-con government of the time, and they swallowed lie after lie. Many still believe the lie long after the truth has been exposed. Many prefer the lie because the lie is more comforting. I don't know exactly what happened on 9/11, but I sure as s**t don't trust the official version. Therefore, alternate explanations are worth exploring.

Agreed, it would be very difficult to plant explosives without anyone noticing. However, it is equally unbelievable that a building like WTC7 would collapse the way that it did as a result of fire damage. Therefore, we have a mystery that has not yet been solved. You don't claim to have an answer by simply pointing out the flaws in your opponent's argument; you must present a plausible thesis of your own. Otherwise, the mystery is not solved. Simple logic.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

Kosh said:


> I still want it explained how* someone got all those explosives into the buildings and expertly placed without anyone noticing it!?!* Come on now. And they didn't get set off by accident before?
> 
> I'd like to see a demolition crew review that theory! I'm sure they would tear it apart easily. *It takes a lot of time to plan and plant the explosives.*
> 
> Conspiracy theories eventually all fall apart.


Ummm, and so why do think it's so sketchy and sounds like an inside job? They definitely didn't appear overnight and would require a lot of extra help to do. But this is more plausible than a 48 storey building collapsing from a fire.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Rounder said:


> Ummm, and so why do think it's so sketchy and sounds like an inside job? They definitely didn't appear overnight and would require a lot of extra help to do. But this is more plausible than a 48 storey building collapsing from a fire.


I didn't say it was an inside job. It couldn't be an inside job. Someone would still have noticed it. Because the WTC Towers had tens of thousands of people working in them. No-one noticed explosives being planted. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!

No-one seeing explosives being planted simply means there were no explosives in the WTC Towers. Therefore the WTC Towers were not collapsed by explosives. Period. It's simple logic.

Then you got fjnmusic believing in some as of yet unknow new technology that fjnmusic is trying to make up. Yeah right, they found in Roswell, I'll bet. :lmao:

Then he tries to use one CIA lie to insinuate that everything that happens is a lie. 

And then he's still in denial of the WTC 7 facts.

Man, I wouldn't want to have a discussion with you guys all day. It's like talking to a brick wall. In more ways than one.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

Kosh said:


> I didn't say it was an inside job. It couldn't be an inside job. Someone would still have noticed it. Because the WTC Towers had tens of thousands of people working in them. No-one noticed explosives being planted. AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!
> 
> No-one seeing explosives being planted simply means there were no explosives in the WTC Towers. Therefore the WTC Towers were not collapsed by explosives. Period. It's simple logic.
> 
> ...


I feel the same because if you can't fathom how an Inside Job actually works, and that it's too much for you to understand... you shouldn't be discussing it. 

You live in a fantasy world my friend.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Rounder said:


> I feel the same because if you can't fathom how an Inside Job actually works, and that it's too much for you to understand... you shouldn't be discussing it.
> 
> You live in a fantasy world my friend.


LOL... You mean a fantasy world in which casual YouTube video watchers are suddenly experts in engineering, building demolition, inside jobs and flying? :lmao:

One where the most articulate explanations and details are given debunking theories but the explanations are simply ignored and everyone just moves on to the next theory?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Then you got fjnmusic believing in some as of yet unknow new technology that fjnmusic is trying to make up. Yeah right, they found in Roswell, I'll bet. :lmao:
> 
> Then he tries to use one CIA lie to insinuate that everything that happens is a lie.
> 
> ...


No need to be rude, Kosh. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't someone else out there who can. The fact that you refuse to even consider all the possible explanations shows how closed-minded you are on this topic. You cannot be closed-minded and rational at the same time. As evidence presents itself, a rational person must be prepared to re-examine their initial assumptions, no matter how entrenched they may be. Also, I would liken this discussions to discussions between Conservatives and Liberals, Macs and PC's, or religion in general. Both sides must maintain an open mind for any meaningful debate to take place.

With respect to Roswell, I am skeptical, though I do think it was used for great comic effect in the movie Paul. As for WTC7, I would suggest it is you who is in denial. Anyone can see that this building does not collapse in the way a building collapses as a result of fire damage. It's obvious. I don't think aliens were involved and planting explosives would be difficult, but not impossible. But the collapse of this building, as I've said before, is exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. You'd have to be blind not to see that. I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition, but it sure LOOKED like one. Not you or anyone else on this board so far has explained how this could happen, with that result.

Last point: if you can accept the CIA can lie about one thing, why would you assume they can be trusted about anything else they claim? See, that's the thing when you lose your credibility; nobody believes you anymore.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

If nothing else, this thread shows that people will continue to believe whatever they want to and will summon up just about anything to prop up their arguments. This must be encoded in our genes.

**** sapiens, hard at work again.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> No need to be rude, Kosh. Just because you can't explain something doesn't mean there isn't someone else out there who can. The fact that you refuse to even consider all the possible explanations shows how closed-minded you are on this topic. You cannot be closed-minded and rational at the same time. As evidence presents itself, a rational person must be prepared to re-examine their initial assumptions, no matter how entrenched they may be. Also, I would liken this discussions to discussions between Conservatives and Liberals, Macs and PC's, or religion in general. Both sides must maintain an open mind for any meaningful debate to take place.
> 
> With respect to Roswell, I am skeptical, though I do think it was used for great comic effect in the movie Paul. As for WTC7, I would suggest it is you who is in denial. Anyone can see that this building does not collapse in the way a building collapses as a result of fire damage. It's obvious. I don't think aliens were involved and planting explosives would be difficult, but not impossible. But the collapse of this building, as I've said before, is exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition. You'd have to be blind not to see that. I'm not saying it was a controlled demolition, but it sure LOOKED like one. Not you or anyone else on this board so far has explained how this could happen, with that result.
> 
> *Last point: if you can accept the CIA can lie about one thing, why would you assume they can be trusted about anything else they claim? See, that's the thing when you lose your credibility; nobody believes you anymore.*


Can apply that last paragraph to the entire Bush/Cheney presidency. You can find lies in everywhere. Truths OTH are very few and far between and most likely completely unintended. 

Beyond that I agree with the rest of the post as well.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

ehMax said:


> LOL... You mean a fantasy world in which casual YouTube video watchers are suddenly experts in engineering, building demolition, inside jobs and flying? :lmao:
> 
> One where the most articulate explanations and details are given debunking theories but the explanations are simply ignored and everyone just moves on to the next theory?


Well I can't say I'm one of the YouTube watchers, I mean, seriously the last time I even gave thought to 9/11 was more than 6 or 7 years ago. I'm by no means any expert on the topic, but I do know when I see a demolition of a building for example, or the lack of any remnants of a plane at the Pentagon, that is enough for me to raise a red flag on the whole ordeal and realize that it's not impossible for this do be done and covered up, because we will easily believe what is told to us. It's in my nature to be skeptical about things like that. 
I'm not saying I know the intricate details of an inside job, however I do believe that it's possible, especially with anyone like the CIA or government in the US for that matter. They do have the power to make things disappear. 

People should questions things and keep an open mind, even if sometimes it's far fetched.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Rounder said:


> ...because we will easily believe what is told to us. It's in my nature to be skeptical about things like that.


?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Then you got fjnmusic believing in some as of yet unknow new technology that fjnmusic is trying to make up. Yeah right, they found in Roswell, I'll bet. :lmao:.


They simply used the multiplexer on the tractor beams. It's never been tried before, but there was a paper written in an obscure technical journal that surmised...


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Can apply that last paragraph to the entire Bush/Cheney presidency. You can find lies in everywhere.


The Bush Administration is described as a collectively half-witted by the same people who ascribe Machiavellian precision to his plan to blow up the WTC in complete secrecy.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

One thing that the conspiracy theorists fail to explain is the motive for the government to bring down the towers and WTC 7 attack the Pentagon and have a third plane hi-jacked.

To start a a war on terror?? Yeah now there's a plan!  It has accomplished nothing other than losing thousands of American and NATO allies lives costing billion upon billions of dollars and the only thing to show for it 10 years later is "we got Bin Laden" and more deeply in debt.

At least with other mad men in history e.g. Hitler et al no matter how twisted the motivations they are patently obvious and proudly screamed from hilltops and pulpits. What was there possibly to have been gained that was worth the expense? 

Oil? War on Terror? Not even close to being worth it, so all you believers that it was a US gov plot, please tell us what was the motive that was worth the expense and outcome?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

screature said:


> please tell us what was the motive that was worth the expense and outcome?


I think the main problem here is that you see war as an "expense", it is the exact opposite.

Yahoo Answers:
"Why is war a profitable business?
I heard this saying: "War is a profitable business".

I don't really see why war is a profitable business. Is it profitable for the whole country or just for some individuals? What I see when you talk about war is that a lot of money needs to be spent on the army, on the fuel for planes, tanks, ships, money for the people, money for food, clothing, weapons, ammunition etc., so it seems that the last thing war might be is profitable. But I think somebody might contradict me on this.

If somebody could explain this to me in terms that even somebody that has no real business experience could understand, then that would be really cool.

Thanks.



Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

War, if properly funded can bolster an economy. During WWII, the US had the highest employment in history. Military was employed by the government and war material factories were working three shifts, creating millions of jobs.

Today, only a handful of people profit very greatly, while it does little to actually stimulate the economy.

Companies that supply war material have no competition, none.
The exclusive contracts allow the profiteers to charge whatever they desire. And the companies that must make a compete for contracts often pay bribes to get them.

The supplies the military needs are used up at record rates. This allows suppliers to sell greater quantities at highly inflated prices, producing exorbitant profit.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Elric said:


> Yahoo Answers:
> "Why is war a profitable business?
> I heard this saying: "War is a profitable business".


There are much more profitable ways to grease palms than to start a war. It's a rather ham-fisted way to create profits. A government stimulus program enacted under a framework of crony capitalism achieves far more impressive results without killing anyone.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> I think the main problem here is that you see war as an "expense", it is the exact opposite.
> 
> Yahoo Answers:
> "Why is war a profitable business?
> ...


The fact of the matter is that the scenario you outline above is not true in the case of the war on terror... all that one has to do to know that this is true is look at the state of the US economy and the growth in their debt since 9/11.

So the question remains the same... if 9/11 was a US gov job what was the motivation and the desired outcome that would have made it worth the expense?


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

screature said:


> The fact of the matter is that the scenario you outline above is not true in the case of the war on terror... all that one has to do to know that this is true is look at the state of the US economy and the growth in their debt since 9/11.
> 
> So the question remains the same... if 9/11 was a US gov job what was the motivation and the desired outcome that would have made it worth the expense?


I think you missed the second part relating to not boosting the economy, but greasing palms of small individuals, and if you look at the individuals in question and the neon chain of links between all parties involved.

But I think, Motive is far down on the priority list, I think just answers to the questions and missing details would be a great start.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Time for some here to read the detailed report on WTC 7, a perfectly outlined physical reason for the collapse:

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> So the question remains the same... if 9/11 was a US gov job what was the motivation and the desired outcome that would have made it worth the expense?


I completely agree with you regarding the idea that 9/11 being a conspiracy is unsupportable with the facts, but the Bush/Cheney administration was certainly motivated to generate profitable opportunities for their supporters in the war industry (Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, etc.). There's no doubt that American military adventuring has succeeded in transferring *VAST* sums of money from the public treasury into the numbered bank accounts of certain individuals.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

SINC said:


> Time for some here to read the detailed report on WTC 7, a perfectly outlined physical reason for the collapse:
> 
> Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC 7 Investigation


That was written by NIST which is a US Department. Conflict of interest? Either or, there are definitely a lot of details, but it's hard to find it credible given it's source. 

As for people who ask why they would do this, what do they gain? Well I can't answer that with 100% certainty, there could be many reasons for all I know. That's just like asking why would people break into your house, presumably steal, and then set it on fire? Or why do people kill each other? The premise is the same, the only person(s) who knows why or what is to gain are the persons committing the crime so to speak.

The problem is, we can sit here questioning this, that and the other, when the facts are, that this whole event is classified above Top Secret. Therefore the real answers will probably not see the light of day in our generation.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

bryanc said:


> I completely agree with you regarding the idea that 9/11 being a conspiracy is unsupportable with the facts, but the Bush/Cheney administration was certainly motivated to generate profitable opportunities for their supporters in the war industry (Halliburton, Blackwater, Lockheed Martin, etc.). There's no doubt that American military adventuring has succeeded in transferring *VAST* sums of money from the public treasury into the numbered bank accounts of certain individuals.


Of course but the war in Iraq has cost far more and put more money in those pockets and the war in Iraq was not a result of 9/11... Afghanistan yes, but still hardly worth the cost. I don't believe that either Bush or Cheney are so evil as to fake a terrorist attack and kill thousands of people bring down the WT buildings and attack the Pentagon to start the war on terror for personal gain and gain for their friends, that it is fortuitous for them financially and others is a welcome by product no doubt but I cannot believe it is evidence of motivation for the US to have conducted the attacks.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> I think you missed the second part relating to not boosting the economy, but greasing palms of small individuals, and if you look at the individuals in question and the neon chain of links between all parties involved.
> 
> But I think, Motive is far down on the priority list, I think just answers to the questions and missing details would be a great start.





Rounder said:


> That was written by NIST which is a US Department. Conflict of interest? Either or, there are definitely a lot of details, but it's hard to find it credible given it's source.
> 
> As for people who ask why they would do this, what do they gain? Well I can't answer that with 100% certainty, there could be many reasons for all I know. That's just like asking why would people break into your house, presumably steal, and then set it on fire? Or why do people kill each other? The premise is the same, the only person(s) who knows why or what is to gain are the persons committing the crime so to speak.
> 
> The problem is, we can sit here questioning this, that and the other, when the facts are, that this whole event is classified above Top Secret. Therefore the real answers will probably not see the light of day in our generation.


Motive is one of the key questions asked and answered when conducting any criminal investigation... it leads to more plausible suspects. That you cannot point to any motive shows that the US is a very unlikely suspect.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> Motive is one of the key questions asked and answered when conducting any criminal investigation... it leads to more plausible suspects. That you cannot point to any motive shows that the US is a very unlikely suspect.


Lets see obsolete buildings that could not be safely demolished, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA, TSA, shredded constitution, never ending wars for the benefit of the MIC and the Banksters. Nope no motives whatsoever. 

The US is now a country where all any official has to do is say; "suspected terrorist" (no proof or corroboration required) and they can imprison an individual forever, deny him the right to a fair trial or even a lawyer, torture him,... All thanks to post 9/11 legislation. Legislation that could never have passed before 9/11. Any group wishing to establish and eventually exercise absolute authority, would certainly consider that more than sufficient motivation to kill a few thousand people.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Lets see obsolete buildings that could not be safely demolished, *Patriot Act, Homeland Security, NSA, TSA, shredded constitution, never ending wars for the benefit of the MIC and the Banksters. Nope no motives whatsoever.
> *
> The US is now a country where all any official has to do is say; "suspected terrorist" (no proof or corroboration required) and they can imprison an individual forever, deny him the right to a fair trial or even a lawyer, torture him,... All thanks to post 9/11 legislation. Legislation that could never have passed before 9/11. Any group wishing to establish and eventually exercise absolute authority, would certainly consider that more than sufficient motivation to kill a few thousand people.


Well I see you have no bones to pick... 

Obsolete Buildings??? Give me a break what nonsense and the rest are all reactions to terrorism that would not otherwise be needed nor wanted and benefit no one without terrorism so again...

The MIC and Banksters will be bankrupt right along with the rest of the country if things keep going the way they are, your paranoia and those of the other conspiracy theorists doesn't make for a very good economic model.


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

screature said:


> the rest are all reactions to terrorism that would not otherwise be needed nor wanted and benefit no one without terrorism so again...


Aaaaand the evidence that it was "terrorism" was a passport of a passenger found blocks away from the towers...


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just find most of the actions/re-actions to the event questionable at best.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Motive is one of the key questions asked and answered when conducting any criminal investigation... it leads to more plausible suspects. That you cannot point to any motive shows that the US is a very unlikely suspect.


Well we can all sit here and debate all day long, but unfortunately to have a debate you need to be open minded to different sides which you are obviously not. 

I'm willing to be proven wrong, unlike you in which you already have your mind made up and refuse to accept any sort of skeptism towards this subject.

However way you put it, your theory (or believing whatever you believe) is just as far fetched as any other, because there's no definitive proof for any theory. Without concrete facts, it's a theory... is it not? Or do you refuse to believe that as well?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rounder said:


> Well we can all sit here and debate all day long, but unfortunately to have a debate you need to be open minded to different sides which you are obviously not.
> 
> I'm willing to be proven wrong, unlike you in which you already have your mind made up and refuse to accept any sort of skeptism towards this subject.


Proven wrong at what? You haven't made a case for anything--not even a motive.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Proven wrong at what? You haven't made a case for anything--not even a motive.


Proven wrong that this wasn't an inside job. 

I don't need to make a case for motives, there are several things I've stated already and so have others. It's not up to me to convince people! If we knew all the motives then there wouldn't be anything to question now would there? 

It's not that I like believing it, but to me, it's just as probable as anything else.


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Vexel said:


> +
> YouTube Video
> 
> 
> ...


*Fake-a-roni*.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rounder said:


> Well we can all sit here and debate all day long, but unfortunately to have a debate you need to be open minded to different sides which you are obviously not.
> 
> I'm willing to be proven wrong, unlike you in which you already have your mind made up and refuse to accept any sort of skeptism towards this subject.
> 
> However way you put it, your theory (or believing whatever you believe) is just as far fetched as any other,* because there's no definitive proof for any theory.* Without concrete facts, it's a theory... is it not? Or do you refuse to believe that as well?


How about an admission of guilt from Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda... confessions are good enough for the law, but not for those who would rather believe in far fetched fantasies 'cause they are so much more fun than the plain and simple truth.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> How about an admission of guilt from Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda...


That's one of a number of oddities that bother me.

Bin Laden initially denied having anything to do with 9/11 - not once but several times.
I would have expected just the opposite if this was an Al-Qaeda attack - I would have expected him to rejoice - see what we can accomplish right in the US heartland.

I was also surprised at Bush's reaction at the school.
Seemed he already knew about that attack and expected it.
Wouldn't a president normally immediately break up such a school session, excuse himself and leave - nit so Bush, he calmly continued with the kids.

We sure were in shock and disbelieve when we watched this go down live on our huge TV screen in the office atrium; I don't really understand why Bush was so blasé about it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Would a president masterminding one of the single biggest traitorous acts in the country's history choose to go to an elementary school while it was happening? He would have remained somewhere else to monitor the progress of the operation out of public view.

In Bush's words:



> I knew my reaction would be recorded and beamed throughout the world. The nation would be in shock; the president could not be. If I stormed out hastily, it would scare the children and send ripples of panic throughout the country.”


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> That's one of a number of oddities that bother me.
> 
> *Bin Laden initially denied having anything to do with 9/11 - not once but several times.
> I would have expected just the opposite if this was an Al-Qaeda attack - I would have expected him to rejoice - see what we can accomplish right in the US heartland.*
> ...


Not sure where you are getting this from Al-Qaeda took responsibility.

Responsibility for the September 11 attacks

Bin Laden may have denied responsibility initially because it was not directly his plot but those of his high ranking and low racking cells...

Bin Laden then did later take responsibility:

2004 Osama bin Laden video



> On October 29, 2004, at 21:00 UTC, the Arab television network, Al Jazeera, broadcast excerpts from a videotape of Osama bin Laden addressing the people of the United States, in which he accepts responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, condemns the Bush government's response to those attacks and presents those attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence motivated by his witnessing of the destruction in the Lebanese Civil War in 1982.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> That's one of a number of oddities that bother me.
> 
> Bin Laden initially denied having anything to do with 9/11 - not once but several times.
> I would have expected just the opposite if this was an Al-Qaeda attack - I would have expected him to rejoice - see what we can accomplish right in the US heartland.
> ...





Macfury said:


> Would a president masterminding one of the single biggest traitorous acts in the country's history choose to go to an elementary school while it was happening? He would have remained somewhere else to monitor the progress of the operation out of public view.
> 
> *In Bush's words:*


Exactly... how would you want a leader to react in the presence of a class of school kids with cameras rolling.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Macfury said:


> Would a president masterminding one of the single biggest traitorous acts in the country's history choose to go to an elementary school while it was happening? He would have remained somewhere else to monitor the progress of the operation out of public view.


I'm not saying that Bush had anything to do with it - but what better way to disassociate himself with what's happening than by sitting in a school classroom.

As to Bush's comments - those came much later.
Pretty much a ridiculous explanation.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Not sure where you are getting this from Al-Qaeda took responsibility.


I got this from what was actually happening the day of the attack and the days just after - not what someone wrote in a Wiki or on the Net years later.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

screature said:


> Exactly... how would you want a leader to react in the presence of a class of school kids with cameras rolling.


You have to be kidding!

Bush could have just excused himself and left.
This bit about creating a panic is BS - what was happening was on pretty much every TV channel already and the kids in the classroom certainly wouldn't have panicked not knowing what was going on at that time.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> I got this from what was actually happening the day of the attack and the days just after - not what someone wrote in a Wiki or on the Net years later.


Well you provide no support for your memory so I will stick with what has been documented.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> You have to be kidding!
> 
> Bush could have just excused himself and left.
> This bit about creating a panic is BS - what was happening was on pretty much every TV channel already and the kids in the classroom certainly wouldn't have panicked not knowing what was going on at that time.


What did he do that was so wrong in the way he reacted? His explanation may be lame but I really fail to see how his reaction was indicative of any prior knowledge.


----------



## krs (Mar 18, 2005)

Screature - All I'm saying is that there are a number of odd things that happened that day and the days immediately following with no rational explanation.

A lot of the conspiracy theories are pure bunk but there were some events which really make one question the details of the official version.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Not sure where you are getting this from Al-Qaeda took responsibility.
> 
> Responsibility for the September 11 attacks
> 
> ...


:lmao: yeah those Wiki documents are proof. So you'll believe anything that's written on Wiki? *opens up Wiki to edit documents*... lol 



screature said:


> What did he do that was so wrong in the way he reacted? His explanation may be lame but I really fail to see how his reaction was indicative of any prior knowledge.


Dude you are so Pro-Bush it's actually frightening. The man is a lying sack of .... and it's not the first time a President has done something thinking he is "above the law". 

I guess you've never seen Nixon's confession where he flat out said that because he was president that he was above the law, re: the Watergate Scandal. And how many years did it take for that to come out? It changed everything that people thought about him because they believed his lie fo years!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rounder said:


> :lmao: yeah those Wiki documents are proof. So you'll believe anything that's written on Wiki? *opens up Wiki to edit documents*... lol
> 
> Dude you are so Pro-Bush it's actually frightening. The man is a lying sack of .... and it's not the first time a President has done something thinking he is "above the law".
> 
> I guess you've never seen Nixon's confession where he flat out said that because he was president that he was above the law, re: the Watergate Scandal. And how many years did it take for that to come out? It changed everything that people thought about him because they believed his lie fo years!


Like I said believe what you want to believe... It wouldn't matter to you if Bin Laden had told you to your face Al-Qaeda was responsible, you would believe he was either paid or tortured to say so... you will believe anything that suggests US gov involvement...

I'm pro-Bush based on the comments I have made???? That comment shows *exactly* where you are coming from, prejudice and bias. Please feel free to ignore any comments I may make from here on in as I would rather not argue with someone who assumes/fabricates such personal proclivities based on nothing. tptptptp


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

krs said:


> Screature - All I'm saying is that there are a number of odd things that happened that day and the days immediately following with no rational explanation.
> 
> A lot of the conspiracy theories are pure bunk but there were some events which really make one question the details of the official version.


And all I am saying is that based on the evidence that is available and with the lack of any realistic motive for US gov involvement the "official" line makes infinitely more sense and is more plausible than any conspiracy theory thus yet posited.


----------



## Rounder (Aug 9, 2008)

screature said:


> Like I said believe what you want to believe... It wouldn't matter to you if Bin Laden had told you to your face Al-Qaeda was responsible, you would believe he was either paid or tortured to say so... you will believe anything that suggests US gov involvement...
> 
> I'm pro-Bush based on the comments I have made???? That comment shows *exactly* where you are coming from, *prejudice and bias*. Please feel free to ignore any comments I may make from here on in as I would rather not argue with someone who assumes/fabricates such personal proclivities based on nothing. tptptptp


One last address: I'm not being prejudice or biased, I'm simply stating the the US has a history of lying, and that's it wouldn't be surprising. That's all. Hence why I added Nixon Watergate. But you ignored that.

So this'll be my last comment in this thread. I've only been trying to get a *healthy* debate going about this issue, but seems to have turned to worse than that. You pick up on only certain things I say and when I do lay out any argument they're ignored. It's fine, I get it... we have different beliefs, it's kind of like Mac vs. Windows discussion (vaguely without explosions and ****), it's something that would never end. To me there is no right/wrong here, that's just what I think.

Look man, my intentions were not to cause a fuss, as I said I'm simply skeptical by nature, and I really don't take it seriously anymore. The discussion simply ignited something that used to bother me years ago. 

So I want to apologize directly to you if you were offended in any way because it was never my intention. 

I think we should just agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It's fine to be skeptical, but the skepticism should have some basis in evidence. This article sheds some light on the notion of probability:



> I have in my hand—you’ll have to trust me—a certain blade of grass. He is my favorite. The titling curvature of his blade can only be described as rakish, although other tasteful persons have used the word jaunty. I call him “Bob.” The way I found him is a strange story.
> 
> A baseball was thrown by some guy, unknown to me, on the Sheep Meadow. The ball was meant to be caught by a second guy, but he missed. The ball rolled near to where I was standing, ultimately stopping smack on top of Bob.
> 
> ...


http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4358


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Rounder said:


> One last address: I'm not being prejudice or biased, I'm simply stating the the US has a history of lying, and that's it wouldn't be surprising. That's all. Hence why I added Nixon Watergate. But you ignored that.
> 
> So this'll be my last comment in this thread. I've only been trying to get a *healthy* debate going about this issue, but seems to have turned to worse than that. You pick up on only certain things I say and when I do lay out any argument they're ignored. It's fine, I get it... we have different beliefs, it's kind of like Mac vs. Windows discussion (vaguely without explosions and ****), it's something that would never end. To me there is no right/wrong here, that's just what I think.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the apology, accepted. Agreed and no worries... I was feeling cranky last night and in hindsight my post expressed more displeasure than I meant to... I just don't like it when people assume political inclinations based on a couple of comments.

Truth be told the I think Bush's reaction when told the news was like that of a deer caught in headlights. He looked more stunned to me than blase, kind of like "Ohh, what the f**k am I supposed to do now?"


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Truth be told the I think Bush's reaction when told the news was like that of a deer caught in headlights. He looked more stunned to me than blase, kind of like "Ohh, what the f**k am I supposed to do now?"


I think he made the wrong decision--but I don't doubt he made it honestly.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Thanks for the apology, accepted. Agreed and no worries... I was feeling cranky last night and in hindsight my post expressed more displeasure than I meant to... I just don't like it when people assume political inclinations based on a couple of comments.
> 
> Truth be told the I think Bush's reaction when told the news was like that of a deer caught in headlights. He looked more stunned to me than blase, kind of like "Ohh, what the f**k am I supposed to do now?"


Not a great quality for the leader of the free world. And the footage we see in Fahrenheit 911 was after the second plane hit, not the first. I believe the comment was, "Sir, we are under attack." 

After that, all planes were grounded, save for the few aircraft carrying members of the Bin Laden family OUT of the country, and that was even before Bin Laden claimed responsibility. Makes you wonder. I'm not suggesting Bush Junior was anywhere near smart enough to pull off some kind of inside job, he was more of a puppet, but his handlers, the neo-cons, were certainly for access to oil reserves in the Persian Gulf. But they needed a mass distraction, in their words, a 'modern day Pearl Harbour,' and so September 11 couldn't have come at a better time to begin a very long and drawn-out shock-and-awe campaign to keep people from asking tough questions, like what the hell did Saddam Hussein and Iraq have to do with the World Trade Center destruction? (Bush later admitted "nothing"

So I'd have to say that in retrospect, ten years later, anyone who doesn't see deliberate deception and mass distraction really has become willfully blind. I don't know exactly what went down on Sept 11, but I know I sure don't have much reason to believe the "official" version of events.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

^^^^^^^^^^
Painful.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> ....So I'd have to say that in retrospect, ten years later, anyone who doesn't see deliberate deception and mass distraction really has become willfully blind. I don't know exactly what went down on Sept 11, but I know I sure don't have much reason to believe the "official" version of events.


Really??? So anyone who disagrees with your take on things if wilfully blind???? 

Hnmmm... no ego involved there... none at all.

You sound like Bush in your own way... either you are with us or against us...


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Painful.


Laughable is the thought that came to my mind....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^
> Painful.


Yes it is. Especially for the soldiers who died in their attempts to locate all those weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I'm amazed by how short some people's memories are.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> Really??? So anyone who disagrees with your take on things if wilfully blind????
> 
> Hnmmm... no ego involved there... none at all.
> 
> You sound like Bush in your own way... either you are with us or against us...


Hardly. It's not my take on things anyway. Just some rather salient details that those who defend the Bush government's official report on both 9/11 and the reasons for going to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, seem to conveniently forget.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> Hardly. It's not my take on things anyway. Just some rather salient details that those who defend the Bush government's official report on both 9/11 and the reasons for going to war, both in Afghanistan and Iraq, seem to conveniently forget.


9/11 had nothing to do with going into Iraq...


----------



## Elric (Jul 30, 2005)

screature said:


> 9/11 had nothing to do with going into Iraq...


right, that was about invisible weapons.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Elric said:


> right, that was about invisible weapons.


I'm glad _someone _else remembers. :clap: The whole rationale for the war in Iraq, which began in March of 2003, a year and a half after 9/11, was that Saddam Hussein had enriched plutonium from Africa which he had used to build Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be used to attack targets in the US with only forty-five minutes warning. This was the exact words used in the presentation to the United Nations to allow the US to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq. The UN did not grant permission and the US attacked Iraq anyway, which would be illegal under international law. No connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein has ever been established except in Republican mindsets. In this scenario, the US become the terrorists to the people of Iraq.

Politicians can be very adept at twisting the truth to suit their purpose. Even the actual events of 9/11, the very foundation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, get twisted in this account by the president about when he first acquired knowledge of the planes hitting the tower. The piece is from a Canadian investigative news program. If a guy can lie about one thing, he can lie about everything.





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I'm glad _someone _else remembers. :clap: The whole rationale for the war in Iraq, which began in March of 2003, a year and a half after 9/11, was that Saddam Hussein had enriched plutonium from Africa which he had used to build Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be used to attack targets in the US with only forty-five minutes warning. This was the exact words used in the presentation to the United Nations to allow the US to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq. The UN did not grant permission and the US attacked Iraq anyway, which would be illegal under international law. No connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein has ever been established except in Republican mindsets. In this scenario, the US become the terrorists to the people of Iraq.
> 
> Politicians can be very adept at twisting the truth to suit their purpose. Even the actual events of 9/11, the very foundation for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, get twisted in this account by the president about when he first acquired knowledge of the planes hitting the tower. The piece is from a Canadian investigative news program. If a guy can lie about one thing, he can lie about everything.


While I can remember lots of lies from the Shrub Administration, examples of any member telling the truth are very hard to find, part of the reason for my skepticism regarding the official conspiracy theory. 9/11 was indeed used as the excuse to invade Afghanistan and a partial justification for invading Iraq. Even back then it was obvious the the Bush Gang was lying about Al-Queda being in Iraq as SH was more than a little determined to keep them out.

FWIW a cousin lost a son over there and one does indeed hate to admit that family died for liars but no other conclusion is possible.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> While I can remember lots of lies from the Shrub Administration, examples of any member telling the truth are very hard to find, part of the reason for my skepticism regarding the official conspiracy theory. 9/11 was indeed used as the excuse to invade Afghanistan and a partial justification for invading Iraq. Even back then it was obvious the the Bush Gang was lying about Al-Queda being in Iraq as SH was more than a little determined to keep them out.
> 
> FWIW a cousin lost a son over there and one does indeed hate to admit that family died for liars but no other conclusion is possible.


I am truly sorry to hear this. One can feel sympathy for the families of the soldiers who lost their lives, as the soldiers were following orders they were sworn to uphold, but one can still despise the government that issued those orders. It's not a case of "yer either fer us or agin us." There is a mini-series called "Generation: Kill" that I think is one of the first American-made productions to take a cold hard look at what fighting in the Iraq war was like from the point of view of soldiers on the front lines. I sure hope that there is a way to end these battles soon. It's not like there isn't enough to deal with with natural disasters like earthquakes and floods.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Elric said:


> right, that was about invisible weapons.


Exactly.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> I'm glad _someone _else remembers. :clap: The whole rationale for the war in Iraq, which began in March of 2003, a year and a half after 9/11, was that Saddam Hussein had enriched plutonium from Africa which he had used to build Weapons of Mass Destruction that could be used to attack targets in the US with only forty-five minutes warning. This was the exact words used in the presentation to the United Nations to allow the US to launch a "pre-emptive strike" against Iraq. The UN did not grant permission and the US attacked Iraq anyway, which would be illegal under international law. No connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein has ever been established except in Republican mindsets. In this scenario, the US become the terrorists to the people of Iraq.


I don't dispute this analysis in the least... but 9/11 still had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't dispute this analysis in the least... but 9/11 still had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.


Agreed. Nothing at all. Except it was the rationale the Bush administration used to justify their "pre-emptive strike" attack, capitalizing on the US public's paranoia. They weren't going to wait for a mushroom cloud as evidence, as Condi Rice put it.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> I don't dispute this analysis in the least... but 9/11 still had nothing to do with the invasion of Iraq.


So clearly this implies that you are convinced that the Bush Administration lied about their reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. So why would you believe the officially sanctioned 9/11 conspiracy theories?


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

Why the heck are we bringing up Iraq War in the 9/11 thread. They have little to do with one another. The reason the US invaded Iraq is because they didn't finish off Sadam in the first Iraq war where Sadam invaded Kuwait. Basically Sadam was unrealiable and the US couldn't trust him to not invade another country. They wanted him out. They made up some story about WMD's so that they could make him look like a terrorist. _Ok, the part about him looking like a terrorist used the 9/11 fear, but that's it._ But the Iraq War was really a continuation of the original Gulf War.

Damn, I just read fjnmusic's post, and I pretty much said the same thing....


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Kosh said:


> Why the heck are we bringing up Iraq War in the 9/11 thread. They have little to do with one another. The reason the US invaded Iraq is because they didn't finish off Sadam in the first Iraq war where Sadam invaded Kuwait. Basically Sadam was unrealiable and the US couldn't trust him to not invade another country. They wanted him out. They made up some story about WMD's so that they could make him look like a terrorist. _Ok, the part about him looking like a terrorist used the 9/11 fear, but that's it._ But the Iraq War was really a continuation of the original Gulf War.
> 
> Damn, I just read fjnmusic's post, and I pretty much said the same thing....


…and this, unfortunately, is what connects the two things. You're right, 9/11 was not in any real way connected to the Iraq war, except symbolically, what Carl Jung (and Sting) refers to as _synchronicity_. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. One event does not cause the other, but since they happen close together in time, we make a connection, and so did the Bush-people, in their rationale for going to war in Iraq. After a year of frustration looking for Bin Laden, they really needed to kill someone, to make an example, to find a scapegoat, to smoke him out of his hidey-hole, and get some form of retribution. It's the American way. And since this thread IS about 9/11 conspiracy theories, it is entirely appropriate to talk about the Iraq war here.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> So clearly this implies that you are convinced that the Bush Administration lied about their reasons for invading and occupying Iraq. So why would you believe the officially sanctioned 9/11 conspiracy theories?


The twains do not meet.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

screature said:


> The twains do not meet.


Still does not explain why you would embrace the official conspiracy theory, which involves way too many impossiblities, and is being vigorously promoted by proven liars.


----------



## monokitty (Jan 26, 2002)

More fire to play with:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/a...ept-11-theories-ridiculous-says-al-qaeda?bn=1.

_CAIRO—Al-Qaeda has sharply criticized Iran's president over his suggestions that the United States government was behind the Sept. 11 attacks and not al-Qaeda, dismissing the comments as "ridiculous."_


----------

