Finally Decide.

[QueenAdrock]

Okay, everyone's got an opinion. So let's make it a poll and decide who wins from there. And yes, popularity is an excellent judge of the truth. :p

[DroppinScience]

This poll needs more options, like aliens from Xanadu, or the Illumanati, or the Loch Ness Monster. :rolleyes:

[Otis Driftwood]

This poll needs more options, like aliens from Xanadu, or the Illumanati, or the Loch Ness Monster. :rolleyes:
I wish there was a card of 911 in the Illuminati game. (y)

[fucktopgirl]

I am the only one who believe that lies has been spilled over this issue....oh well!

[kaiser soze]

I can't vote because I am not 100% convinced this was just some guys with box cutters and minimal knowledge of flying big jets to do this.

Some of the reasons why I am still not convinced:

1) NORAD's failure (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/) to respond accordingly
2) Silverstein's purchase/ insurance claims (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html)/ suspicious "Pull" comment
3) Bush's lack of urgency (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday) once things began to hit the fan
4) Bush's brother (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm) being head of the security company overseeing WTC and Dulles airport
5) The failure to find the culprits of the Anthrax Attacks (http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/) following 9/11 ( the U.S. was attacked after 9/11....contrary to Bush's statements that we have been safe )
6) BinLaden (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html) has yet to be found "Dead or Alive"

[Schmeltz]

1) See Iraq for another example of the US military's inability to perform up to par.
2) Correlation does not equal causation.
3) See Iraq for another example of Bush being the worst President your country has ever had.
4) Government nepotism is nothing new and hardly proves the existence of a colossal conspiracy.
5) Again, does not prove there was a top-down secret program to upend America, only that the perpetrator of the Anthrax letters has not been caught.
6) He's hiding in the mountains on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, where even the Pakistani military cannot penetrate and the (ironically named) Federally Administered Tribal Areas are virtually self-governing. He'll die before he's pried out of there, is my guess.

[Drederick Tatum]

the deepest I'm really willing to go in this is that there was some sort of warning, whether it be basic intelligence or quite detailed knowledge, but that it was perhaps consciously ignored or neglected in order to extend global American influence.

I don't particularly subscribe to such a hypothesis, it's just the furthest I am willing to take any theorizing. I just can't imagine even this admin purposefully recruiting extraterrestrials to fly their space ships into the WTC.

[Pres Zount]

Next up: who is wrong; Israel or Palestine? YOU DECIDE.

[Tone Capone]

Next up: who is wrong; Israel or Palestine? YOU DECIDE.

Both...(y)

[Tone Capone]

I can't vote because I am not 100% convinced this was just some guys with box cutters and minimal knowledge of flying big jets to do this.

Some of the reasons why I am still not convinced:

1) NORAD's failure (http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/) to respond accordingly
2) Silverstein's purchase/ insurance claims (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html)/ suspicious "Pull" comment
3) Bush's lack of urgency (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayaninterestingday) once things began to hit the fan
4) Bush's brother (http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm) being head of the security company overseeing WTC and Dulles airport
5) The failure to find the culprits of the Anthrax Attacks (http://www.anthraxinvestigation.com/) following 9/11 ( the U.S. was attacked after 9/11....contrary to Bush's statements that we have been safe )
6) BinLaden (http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/2002/11/13_Laden.html) has yet to be found "Dead or Alive"

You're the one who took a crap in the urinal :eek: !!!!!

[fucktopgirl]

I cannot believe that i am the only one that suspect that the theory that the US government has filled us with IS the conspiracy ; that the real truth has yet to be found...There is too many questions left without logical answer in this thing.

Seriously, you guys , i mean c'mon!

[ms.peachy]

Fucktopgirl, meet Carlos. Carlos, meet Fucktopgirl. I'm sure you guys will get along great. Why don't you guys grab some drinks and go have a quiet chat in the corner, while the rest of us get on with it.

[QueenAdrock]

Next up: who is wrong; Israel or Palestine? YOU DECIDE.

What is all of the above?

What do I win? Free ham?

[Tone Capone]

I cannot believe that i am the only one that suspect that the theory that the US government has filled us with IS the conspiracy ; that the real truth has yet to be found...There is too many questions left without logical answer in this thing.

Seriously, you guys , i mean c'mon!

When I seen that 1 person voted that it was a conspiracy, I automatically knew it was you:p

You're probably a nice person though:)

[Carlos]

Fucktopgirl, meet Carlos. Carlos, meet Fucktopgirl. I'm sure you guys will get along great. Why don't you guys grab some drinks and go have a quiet chat in the corner, while the rest of us get on with it.


LMAO ;)


Well it's a matter of which conspiracy you want to belive: the one where 19 (apart from the 9 still alive that is) muslims hijack 4 planes, in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, flying them into 3 buildings.
Jet fuel heated the twin towers enough to cause all supports to fail simultaneously, and for the building to fall at near free fall speed, and that fire alone brought WTC7 down at 5pm that afternoon, again at free fall speed, even though it had not been hit by a plane.

Now call me scientific boffin, but that "story" is PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE:

*Jet fuel cannot burn hot enough to melt steel
*The core had no dicernable fuel: was made up of concrete and steel
*even if the core was comprimised the probability that all supports failed simultaneously is nonexistent.
*Assume these first three could have happened, after inital collapse, the force exerted by the rest of the towers upwards would have forced the top section to topple over (path of least resistance) - but infact they continue to come down?
* Squibs visible in many many videos: 20-30 floors below the failed/falling floors, and so could not be "compressed air" - these are explosive charge used to blow supports.
*WTC7 was not hit by a plane, and had minimal fire damage, but also came down totally within it's own footprint, and again on the videos you can see the squibs.
*Molten metal found at ground zero over a month after - again literally impossible due to hydrocarbon fires.
*pancake collapse would leave the core intact

all of the above were not explained in either the NIST report or 911 commission: the commission don't even mention WTC7!!! and NIST say that it is highly inprobable that fire could have brought it down.. lol your telling me.

However controlled demolition CAN explain all these things.

have a look at what fire damage really does: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_core.html

[QueenAdrock]

HEY, HEY,HEY! Keep it in the other thread. 87% of us don't want to hear it here. :cool:

[HAL 9000]

Im not so sure those Towers were even destroyed. I mean has anyone been to New York lately? I bet those towers are still there. I blame the dutch.

[QueenAdrock]

Yeah, either the Towers were destroyed or they were knocked in half, because I can't see them from the skyline. I never went to check out if they were fully destroyed though. That'd be super clever of Bush to knock them only in half, too.

[DroppinScience]

Im not so sure those Towers were even destroyed. I mean has anyone been to New York lately? I bet those towers are still there. I blame the dutch.

Personally, I think the whole thing was staged as an elaborate Tom Clancy Hollywood movie. Oh sure, it STILL hasn't been released yet, but they're working on perfecting the visual effects.

[Whatitis]

LMAO ;)


Well it's a matter of which conspiracy you want to belive: the one where 19 (apart from the 9 still alive that is) muslims hijack 4 planes, in the most heavily guarded airspace in the world, flying them into 3 buildings.
Jet fuel heated the twin towers enough to cause all supports to fail simultaneously, and for the building to fall at near free fall speed, and that fire alone brought WTC7 down at 5pm that afternoon, again at free fall speed, even though it had not been hit by a plane.


Wow, I can actually believe in a conspiracy theory now.

[Schmeltz]

Mang, check out all those names in the poll who never show up in the threads here. kll, ms.peachy, ToucanSpam, Documad, Helvete, etc. All very bright posters but it seems like I only rarely see their names down here. Be nice to hear from them more often.

[ms.peachy]

I used to post in here quite a lot. Then it all began to seem rather masturbatory. Same people saying same things and all feeling rather proud of themselves for doing so. So I don't much anymore. Plus also now with the baby I don't have as much time to read the news and keep as fully informed as I used to, and I don't like to argue a point without being personally satisfied that I have some grasp of a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand.

[D_Raay]

I used to post in here quite a lot. Then it all began to seem rather masturbatory. Same people saying same things and all feeling rather proud of themselves for doing so. So I don't much anymore. Plus also now with the baby I don't have as much time to read the news and keep as fully informed as I used to, and I don't like to argue a point without being personally satisfied that I have some grasp of a variety of perspectives on the issue at hand.
Congratulations on your baby. :)

[HAL 9000]

Mang, check out all those names in the poll who never show up in the threads here. kll, ms.peachy, ToucanSpam, Documad, Helvete, etc. All very bright posters but it seems like I only rarely see their names down here. Be nice to hear from them more often.

I used to post here quite a lot (with previous account) and I still check this page a lot, I just seem to have a lot of apathy for politics now. I check this board regularly but am rarely tempted to contribute now. I now think that people’s political views are driven by their basic belief systems and that has become more interesting to me than politics.

I used to get quite passionate about arguing what political ideology was best but then I realised that it all depends on what you think constitutes ‘best’ and why you think that.

[Ali]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Written in response to a request from the Chief of the Cuba Project, Col. Edward Lansdale, the Top Secret memorandum describes U.S. plans to covertly engineer various pretexts that would justify a U.S. invasion of Cuba. These proposals - part of a secret anti-Castro program known as Operation Mongoose - included staging the assassinations of Cubans living in the United States, developing a fake “Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” including “sink[ing] a boatload of Cuban refugees (real or simulated),” faking a Cuban airforce attack on a civilian jetliner, and concocting a “Remember the Maine” incident by blowing up a U.S. ship in Cuban waters and then blaming the incident on Cuban sabotage.

Wanna change your vote now?

[QueenAdrock]

LOL@ the user "Realist". Nice try, fellas.

That's exactly why I had the poll show exactly who voted which way, because I knew that one of the few conspiracists would make an alias and vote.

The votes will remain 18-3. 86%-14%.

[Schmeltz]

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf



Wanna change your vote now?

No, because Operation Mongoose is not evidence that 9/11 was the product of a government conspiracy.

[Ali]

No, because Operation Mongoose is not evidence that 9/11 was the product of a government conspiracy.No. It was policy. Like 9/11.

[Schmeltz]

You've only demonstrated that Operation Mongoose was policy, not that 9/11 was policy.

[abcdefz]

For once, I wanted the Echewta option. :(

[Ali]

You've only demonstrated that Operation Mongoose was policy, not that 9/11 was policy.The point I am trying to make is that Mongoose was considered as an option and that there are a lot of similarities between it and 9/11 and other false flag operations.

It's easier for me to believe that the same type of people who came up with Operation Northwoods could have perpetrated 9/11 than a shadowy foreign terrorist group run out of cave somewhere in the Middle East.

[JobDDT]

Could someone explain to me both sides of the debate about what happened to the 3rd WTC building that fell (I believe it was WTC 5?)?

I've always wondered why that building fell and looked like it was imploding. I voted for terrorist attack, but I could see a situation where the fourth plane was supposed to crash into WTC 5 (?) and when the people on the plane crashed it, so the people who put the bombs in the building (?) decided to destroy it so people wouldnt find random bombs in a WTC building.

Of course, Im not drawing any conclusions. Can someone explain to me why the building fell? Someone who is smart with building structure and such? I really don't know and I'd like to learn why that building fell.

[Whatitis]

LOL@ the user "Realist". Nice try, fellas.

The exact reason why conspiracy theorists suck!

[Ali]

Could someone explain to me both sides of the debate about what happened to the 3rd WTC building that fell (I believe it was WTC 5?)?

I've always wondered why that building fell and looked like it was imploding. I voted for terrorist attack, but I could see a situation where the fourth plane was supposed to crash into WTC 5 (?) and when the people on the plane crashed it, so the people who put the bombs in the building (?) decided to destroy it so people wouldnt find random bombs in a WTC building.

Of course, Im not drawing any conclusions. Can someone explain to me why the building fell? Someone who is smart with building structure and such? I really don't know and I'd like to learn why that building fell.


Ask the people who obstructed the 9/11 enquiry.

[Carlos]

Could someone explain to me both sides of the debate about what happened to the 3rd WTC building that fell (I believe it was WTC 5?)?

I've always wondered why that building fell and looked like it was imploding. I voted for terrorist attack, but I could see a situation where the fourth plane was supposed to crash into WTC 5 (?) and when the people on the plane crashed it, so the people who put the bombs in the building (?) decided to destroy it so people wouldnt find random bombs in a WTC building.

Of course, Im not drawing any conclusions. Can someone explain to me why the building fell? Someone who is smart with building structure and such? I really don't know and I'd like to learn why that building fell.

It was WTC7, and officially it has never been explained: 911 Commission totally ignored it happened, and NIST's report on WT7 was due out 2 years ago.
However, the fact that it came down at near free fall speed simultaneously into it's own footprint (not to mention the visible squibs/explosions) smacks of controlled demolition.


want a full laying out of the physically impossible things that happened that day please watch 911 mysteries http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

[QueenAdrock]

I vaguely remember that day someone saying that they were going to pull it due to its structure being damaged beyond repair. I don't see how that's part of the conspiracy.

[abcdefz]

The fact that no one else is protesting the lack of an Echewta option confirms that there's a conspiracy.

[abcdefz]

the prolonged silence is telling, no?

[QueenAdrock]

Bush had bombs planted in Echewta.

[DroppinScience]

The fact that no one else is protesting the lack of an Echewta option confirms that there's a conspiracy.

If Echewta was behind 9/11, the WTC would be full of chocolates and waffles, so I don't think he did it.

[Auton]

damn! option one has 20 votes, sure.... but option two has been voted for by the 3 most reasonable, articulate, and intelligent members of the board!!!

[fucktopgirl]

^well, thank you for this awesome compliment, I am sure there is no sarcasm in there!!

I wandering why thoses guys voted under an alias cover...pussy!

Anyway, the matter of the fact is that what happen the 9/11 is not really what they told us. And i am not gonna go into details because if somebody is enought curious and intelligent, he can find plenty information on the net to satisfy his desire and need.

Even though i am in the minority, i stand my ground, this is all bullshit and lies!
You guys are well indoctrinated.....

[DroppinScience]

Oh look, "Stallone" added another vote for conspiracy. Surely that's no alias either. :rolleyes:

[QueenAdrock]

21-3. The two aliases don't count.

87.5% think that the conspiracies are bullshit. (y)

[fucktopgirl]

Yep, 85% are blind and are happy to be fed with lies or are too lazy to digg out more information on the matter!

I mean finding out that 9/11 IS the conpiracy and that it serve the rich elite to achieved their aim, i mean this would break down the little illusion of many ; that we live in a free and democratic world without any corruption.

Wake up!!! If they lied on Irak , imagine on what else they did and still do!

Anyway,this is why our world is going the way it does, people just dont really care what the truth is as long as it does'nt shake their perception and that they can go on with their life. HUman dont like to have shock that put all their vision in doubt and this one is a major one.

[ms.peachy]

Yeah yeah yeah. Everyone who disagrees with you is just a stupid lazy sheep, we get it :rolleyes:

[abcdefz]

And every conspiracy theorist is just a different kind of sheep.

[fucktopgirl]

^Maybe , YOU guy are the conpiracy theorists!:D

And Peachy, you just dont get it! I never said what you pretend i did!
You are doing projection here! I never call anybody stupid but maybe on morphine or something or maybe it is just a lack of interest. Anyway, what does it change to know the truth, bombs are exploding all over the fucking planet now in the name of freedom and war on terrorist.

The damage are done .

[Whatitis]

^ like a broken record. In many ways.

[abcdefz]

I don't believe Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

I do believe the war in Iraq probably very very largely is about making mad cash from government contracts.

But I don't believe the United States government blew up the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon. Noooop.

[Laver1969]

I do believe the war in Iraq probably very very largely is about making mad cash from government contracts.

I don't follow the political forum super closely...but do you think we would have still gone to war with Iraq if 9/11 never happened?

[abcdefz]

I don't follow the political forum super closely...but do you think we would have still gone to war with Iraq if 9/11 never happened?


9/11 was clearly the excuse rather than the reasoned response. So, yeah, I think so.

[QueenAdrock]

Yep, 85% are blind and are happy to be fed with lies or are too lazy to digg out more information on the matter!

I love how it doesn't even bother to cross your mind that "Wow, all these people seem to believe that it was Islamic extremists. Could *I* be the one in the wrong here? No, no it's them. Definitely them. They obviously haven't dug out any information, regardless of all the links provided proving their points."

Annnyways.

They had been talking about invading Iraq since Bush got in office. When 9/11 happened, Wolfowitz asked Richard Clarke to see if Iraq had anything to do with it. "Iraq? Why would Iraq have anything to do with this? You know about Al Qaeda, and you know they're not based in Iraq," was the response. "I know, but...still SEE if there's a possibility that it could be them."

I think they were well ahead to planning a war with Iraq and used this as a convenient justification after the fact. The fact that they tried to link Bin Laden and Hussein together proves that point.

That's another thing, conspiracists - do you have any idea how tricky it was for Bush to use juuuust the right semantics to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? He had to say that they're connected because Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists and Hussein is also a bad man who inflicts terror, so since we have a war on terror, we need to get rid of all possibilities of terror in the world, and Hussein is therefore a target. Don't you think it'd be a LOT easier if Bush was behind the whole "bombings" of the WTC/Pentagon to say that it was Hussein in the first place? If he's able to convince people of faulty evidence about Iraq possessing WMD's, it'd be nothing to convince them that Hussein and his America-hating minions were the true ones behind 9/11. Seems kind of a long shot to blame it on Bin Laden and then attack Iraq. I mean, he's gotten a SHITLOAD of criticism for that. You think he'd be smart enough to say it was Iraq in the first place.

[yeahwho]

I'm not taking any sides on this, yet I can't help but notice the people who do believe in a conspiracy do not spell as well as the non-believers. In fact the more adamant the folks are in the conspiracy theory the more proper English usage goes out the window.

Not a criticism, just an observation from an objective thread reader.

[Whatitis]

That's another thing, conspiracists - do you have any idea how tricky it was for Bush to use juuuust the right semantics to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? He had to say that they're connected because Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists and Hussein is also a bad man who inflicts terror, so since we have a war on terror, we need to get rid of all possibilities of terror in the world, and Hussein is therefore a target. Don't you think it'd be a LOT easier if Bush was behind the whole "bombings" of the WTC/Pentagon to say that it was Hussein in the first place? If he's able to convince people of faulty evidence about Iraq possessing WMD's, it'd be nothing to convince them that Hussein and his America-hating minions were the true ones behind 9/11. Seems kind of a long shot to blame it on Bin Laden and then attack Iraq. I mean, he's gotten a SHITLOAD of criticism for that. You think he'd be smart enough to say it was Iraq in the first place.


Best point made on this topic EVER!

[Carlos]

That's another thing, conspiracists - do you have any idea how tricky it was for Bush to use juuuust the right semantics to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? He had to say that they're connected because Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists and Hussein is also a bad man who inflicts terror, so since we have a war on terror, we need to get rid of all possibilities of terror in the world, and Hussein is therefore a target. Don't you think it'd be a LOT easier if Bush was behind the whole "bombings" of the WTC/Pentagon to say that it was Hussein in the first place? If he's able to convince people of faulty evidence about Iraq possessing WMD's, it'd be nothing to convince them that Hussein and his America-hating minions were the true ones behind 9/11. Seems kind of a long shot to blame it on Bin Laden and then attack Iraq. I mean, he's gotten a SHITLOAD of criticism for that. You think he'd be smart enough to say it was Iraq in the first place.


Al Qaeda means "the list" - and was the name the CIA gave to the Mujahideen, fighting the Russians, their leader one Osama Bin Laden.
Also Osama was in an American field hospital on September 11th 2001 in Pakistan - why wasn't he picked up? Why isn't he being hunted down with every resource possible?

Why Afghanistan - Oil, plain and simple. The west wanted to build a pipe from the Caspian sea through Turkey, and the Taliban were being naughty and weren't allowing the US in. But now is well under way :-)

They lied about Iraq and WMD - had no problem sending 3000+ soldiers to death, not to mention the amount of civilians. Why would they have a problem lying about 911? and so the war on terror was created.
If there was no war on terror, they couldn't make that connection with Hussein - it very obvious.. no war on Iraq, no control of oil in the middle east. No PNAC.

I'll just say one thing to those who are very quick to just throw out the label "conspiracy theorist" - that means nothing...
please watch this one video.. then feel free to carry on throwing out labels if you want, in the knowledge you at least looked at the evidence the other side.
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries

[-T-]

I like to check out this section but I don't post in it. That is because I get angry easily when arguing about politics plus you really have to know your shit :D I have read quite a few write ups about 9/11 conspiracies,myths,truths and whatnot. From what I have read on both sides I believe the attacks are not a government conspiracy. Not to say everything the government tells us is true, we all know its not. When it comes to conspiracies you can find multiple conspiracy theories with all kinds of "facts". Some are probably true many are not. In this case I just don't see it. Doesn't seem logical. Just my 2 cents.;)

[D_Raay]

Best point made on this topic EVER!
Well, just for the record... that point doesn't hold water. It would be much easier to blame the whole thing on a mysterious unaccessable boogey man than a real life head of state that CAN be accessed.

[Schmeltz]

Al Qaeda means "the list" - and was the name the CIA gave to the Mujahideen, fighting the Russians, their leader one Osama Bin Laden.


No, al-Qaeda means "the base" and Osama bin Laden was not the leader of the Mujahideen, he was more of a financier.


Why Afghanistan - Oil, plain and simple. The west wanted to build a pipe


The pipeline deal may be a reality, but originally the point of Afghanistan was to entrap the Soviets in their own version of Vietnam. Kissinger has said so himself. It kind of worked, to an extent, but the CIA and Palestinian intelligence services bungled it by abandoning the country to warlordism instead of providing a real substitute for the toppled Communists (who, incidentally, contributed just as much to the instability of the country by executing or making refugees of the bourgeoisie). Though it's tough to believe they could have installed a successful pro-Western regime anyway.

It really isn't as plain and simple as you'd like to think. History never is.


Why would they have a problem lying about 911?


The problem doesn't necessarily involve the lying, but in the practicality of carrying out the plan. It isn't feasible to imagine the government could pull this off, with the only holes in the plan being the ones most likely to be covered by contingencies. It defies imagination to consider that these buildings could be secretly wired with explosives. It just doesn't make sense.


please watch this one video..


I've seen the video. I've read the 9/11 conspiracy case. I've looked it into it. And you can see why it doesn't gel with the hundreds of experts, from dozens of countries, with nothing to gain from maintaining a front about some grand mysterious conspiracy by the Bushies, who have outright rejected this theory and formulated perfectly acceptable theories about this event based on rational interpretation of the evidence available.

The people who voted for option #1 are not the lazy thinkers here.

[QueenAdrock]

Carlos, your post in no way answers what I asked.

Well, just for the record... that point doesn't hold water. It would be much easier to blame the whole thing on a mysterious unaccessable boogey man than a real life head of state that CAN be accessed.

But why blame it on a boogeyman that can't be linked directly to Iraq? Why not say it was a few fundamentalists in Iraq that have appeared in the past few years, and have ties to Hussein? It just seems like if they're able to lie about all that happened during 9/11 they would at least think through the aftermath. I mean, if they can "lie" about planting bombs all over the towers, setting them off and killing 3,000 people in the most elaborately planned hoax to ever be perpetuated on the American public (and the rest of the world, it seems), and can lie and pin it on Al Qaeda and plant tapes that have (a fake?) Bin Laden taking the blame and rejoicing in it (and have all of the world believe this), it just seems natural that they could come up with a simple lie saying it's a different and new terrorist cell living in Iraq instead. It doesn't have to be true; hell, we all know now that the WMDs were false, but "intelligence" told us otherwise so people believed it. Intelligence could have lied about anything and we'd eat it out of the palm of their hand. It just seems like they had to REAAAALLLY stretch to tie Al Qaeda + Hussein together as "both supporting terrorist activity" and convince the public that they were both threats when it would have been a lot easier to throw out another simple lie to get people to believe you.

[Carlos]

The pipeline deal may be a reality, but originally the point of Afghanistan was to entrap the Soviets in their own version of Vietnam. Kissinger has said so himself. It kind of worked, to an extent, but the CIA and Palestinian intelligence services bungled it by abandoning the country to warlordism instead of providing a real substitute for the toppled Communists (who, incidentally, contributed just as much to the instability of the country by executing or making refugees of the bourgeoisie). Though it's tough to believe they could have installed a successful pro-Western regime anyway.



so you admit we now have a foot in both Afghanistan and Iraq when we didn't before 911.



The problem doesn't necessarily involve the lying, but in the practicality of carrying out the plan. It isn't feasible to imagine the government could pull this off, with the only holes in the plan being the ones most likely to be covered by contingencies. It defies imagination to consider that these buildings could be secretly wired with explosives. It just doesn't make sense.


The Manhattan project was kept secret for years, the President didn't even know about it till on the day apparently. Compartmentalization - i.e only a very few know the whole picture.

Marvin Bush was head of security at the Towers, his last week was the week of 911. Many people recount strange power downs, and workers with cables, heavy plant activity on vacant floors, as well as a a lot of dust the week before 911.


I've seen the video. I've read the 9/11 conspiracy case. I've looked it into it. And you can see why it doesn't gel with the hundreds of experts, from dozens of countries, with nothing to gain from maintaining a front about some grand mysterious conspiracy by the Bushies, who have outright rejected this theory and formulated perfectly acceptable theories about this event based on rational interpretation of the evidence available.

The people who voted for option #1 are not the lazy thinkers here.

fair enough - why are so you so hostile to those that don't agree though... P.S if you watched 911 mysteries, what did you think about the lesson in steel - why doesn't a BBQ grill melt, or a car engine (reaches far hotter temps than in the WTC's)... I really would be interested to know how the core and supports disintegrated in seconds.

[QueenAdrock]

They didn't disintegrate "in seconds." The whole thing didn't collapse once it was hit, it was a process. They outlined the whole science behind how 9/11 happened on a Discovery program, how the immense amount of jet fuel (more than normal jetliners) managed to weaken the structure and make it collapse. Once I remember or look up out the name of the documentary, I'll send it your way.

Edit: PS, it IS true that a lot of people who worked on the Manhattan project were unaware of what they were doing and didn't know until after the fact. How do you explain that to 9/11 though? Don't you think ONE of the people would come forward and say "I was hired by the government to go lay down wire/plant bombs in the WTC before 9/11"? I mean how do you keep people in the dark about 9/11? It seems like the sort of work they'd be hired to do would seem awfully suspicious after the Towers collapsed. The WWII people were hired being told they were "working on a secret project" that they would know about after it was finished. They were kept in the dark for the Manhattan Project because after the fact they knew what they were working towards and it made sense. I guess for 9/11 the government just had them do these weird things to the WTC and then nobody asked questions after the Towers collapsed, huh.

[EN[i]GMA]

Best point made on this topic EVER!

She stole it from Taibbi.

I caught you, QA, I caught you.

;)

[QueenAdrock]

Totally not playing dumb here, but who's Taibbi? I thought I was original. :(

[Carlos]

They didn't disintegrate "in seconds." The whole thing didn't collapse once it was hit, it was a process. They outlined the whole science behind how 9/11 happened on a Discovery program, how the immense amount of jet fuel (more than normal jetliners) managed to weaken the structure and make it collapse. Once I remember or look up out the name of the documentary, I'll send it your way.

Yeah I've seen it. It has been well and truly debunked I'm afraid: please watch 911 Mysteries (link in previous post) it shows parts of the Documentary. The PBS doc tries to explains the collapse as a pancake - i.e one floor falling onto another and another, like a domino - but even in their computer graphic shows the core remaining - they did not and could not explain how the core disintegrated - and no it wasn't a "process".

Unless by process you mean; basement explosions to clear a space for the towers to fall into, explosions on various floor to knock out key support columns, then initiation of collapse, with timed shape charges on every floor.. all witnessed by many people.
Pancake would have meant ground level up - not the building falling all the way down to the "bathtup"

Oh forgotten to mention molten metal flowing underneath the towers for a few posts - once again ignored in all official reports - absolutely no way of getting such high temps in a hydrocarbon fire which they WTC's were.
But thermite, or thermate (residue of which has been found on WTC's steel) would create temperatures up to 3000 degrees - and create molten iron.

Edit: PS, it IS true that a lot of people who worked on the Manhattan project were unaware of what they were doing and didn't know until after the fact. How do you explain that to 9/11 though? Don't you think ONE of the people would come forward and say "I was hired by the government to go lay down wire/plant bombs in the WTC before 9/11"? I mean how do you keep people in the dark about 9/11? It seems like the sort of work they'd be hired to do would seem awfully suspicious after the Towers collapsed. The WWII people were hired being told they were "working on a secret project" that they would know about after it was finished. They were kept in the dark for the Manhattan Project because after the fact they knew what they were working towards and it made sense. I guess for 9/11 the government just had them do these weird things to the WTC and then nobody asked questions after the Towers collapsed, huh.

Just because we cannot understand why someone would be part of such an act - although you find it extremely easy to undestand how someone thousands of miles away has a motive....
However reason for keeping silent, if whoever it was had the power to carry out 911 then be very easy to create fear of something happening to family members or yourself if you went public. Fear is a very strong tool of control.

[QueenAdrock]

First, yes it was a process. Don't you remember seeing the planes hit, and then seeing them collapse AN HOUR LATER? It was NOT a matter of seconds that the core was destroyed. IT WAS A PROCESS, THAT TOOK MELTING AT HIGH TEMPERATURES. Debunked in your Google link? 911weknow.com vs. Discovery Channel. Gee, I wonder which one is biased, which one should I believe, hmmm. I bet Discovery Channel was paid off by Bush and his cronies! You can just tell that they're in the back pockets of Republicans, and aren't dedicated towards bringing the public scientific proof and knowledge. So is Popular Mechanics. I don't think I'll believe anything they say ever again. I mean, they're also the ones perpetuating the myth of evolution. What a bunch of liars.

Oh forgotten to mention molten metal flowing underneath the towers for a few posts - once again ignored in all official reports

So where'd you hear it? From one of your trustworthy .org sites?

although you find it extremely easy to undestand how someone thousands of miles away has a motive

Yeah, almost as easy as understanding why the Japanese had a motive to attack Pearl Harbor. They hated us. They declared war on us. The terrorists hate us. They declared on America a while ago, so it's quite believable that they did this.

As for the last part, you're saying that the administration didn't let the 9/11 workers know what they were doing (as you stated, it was "compartementalised"), but now you say they used fear? How does that even work? "We're going to have you do stuff for us, you won't know what it is, but I swear to God if you tell anyone we'll hunt down your family and kill them." Uh-huh. I bet they got the workers to agree to work for them that way. Or maybe they were told only after they were done and figured it out! And that's when the government came and told the people that they had to be shut up about it. Let me bring up the rationale that drizl couldn't understand. How come Bush and his cronies can use fear to shut up people from blowing the lid off of 9/11 but is UNABLE to stop simple scandals from coming out, such as the Mark Foley problem, or the Valerie Plame affair? Those were MUCH lesser affairs, and they couldn't keep that under wraps. So how the hell do you think they can shut up every last person that got involved with this? How can you stop a leak with SUCH A HUGE CONSPIRACY? It's been SEVEN YEARS, and not a single PEEP from ANYONE who knows about the conspiracy. Fear is a good tool, but it's not THAT good. Nice try.

[Carlos]

First, yes it was a process. Don't you remember seeing the planes hit, and then seeing them collapse AN HOUR LATER? It was NOT a matter of seconds that the core was destroyed. IT WAS A PROCESS, THAT TOOK MELTING AT HIGH TEMPERATURES. Debunked in your Google link? 911weknow.com vs. Discovery Channel. Gee, I wonder which one is biased, which one should I believe, hmmm. I bet Discovery Channel was paid off by Bush and his cronies! You can just tell that they're in the back pockets of Republicans, and aren't dedicated towards bringing the public scientific proof and knowledge. So is Popular Mechanics. I don't think I'll believe anything they say ever again. I mean, they're also the ones perpetuating the myth of evolution. What a bunch of liars.

please instead of giving out your intial "thoughts" look at both sides of an argument - I dare you to watch it :-) http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=911+mysteries



So where'd you hear it? From one of your trustworthy .org sites?
Well I posted it in the other thread I made, but I just thought I'd bring up another bit of physical evidence that contradicts any official story/mechanisms.
Seems like you'r clutching at straws rather than answering any of the highly valid questions I am raising.

Yeah, almost as easy as understanding why the Japanese decided to attack Pearl Harbor. They hated us. They declared war on us. The terrorists hate us. They declared on America a while ago, so it's quite believable that they did this.
lol.. yeah pearl harbor was also "allowed" US governement put out the candy and the Japenese happily obliged. Good analogy.
Look I'm not saying that it wasn't Muslim extremists flying those planes - but there is no way plane + fire could bring down those towers: the designer even said so - they were designed to take such an impact, from a comparable size jumbo jet.

As for the last part, you're saying that the administration didn't let the 9/11 workers know what they were doing (as you stated, it was "compartementalised"), but now you say they used fear? How does that even work? "We're going to have you do stuff for us, you won't know what it is, but I swear to God if you tell anyone we'll hunt down your family and kill them." Uh-huh. I bet they got the workers to agree to work for them that way. Or maybe they were told only after they were done and figured it out! And that's when the government came and told the people that they had to be shut up about it. Let me bring up the rationale that drizl couldn't understand. How come Bush and his cronies can use fear to shut up people from blowing the lid off of 9/11 but is UNABLE to stop simple scandals from coming out, such as the Mark Foley problem, or the Valerie Plame affair? Those were MUCH lesser affairs, and they couldn't keep that under wraps. So how the hell do you think they can shut up every last person that got involved with this? How can you stop a leak with SUCH A HUGE CONSPIRACY? It's been SEVEN YEARS, and not a single PEEP from ANYONE who knows about the conspiracy. Fear is a good tool, but it's not THAT good. Nice try.

once again, you specualte all you want - I have no idea how many, nor do you. So no point in arguing over that - but a great way of distracting peopel away from all that is important: what doesn't add up with the story we were fed by media and government.
33 minutes after the first attack the news outlets were reporting Osama was responsible. How were they so sure?

[EN[i]GMA]

Totally not playing dumb here, but who's Taibbi? I thought I was original. :(

Matt Taibbi.

Author of the article I've posted a few times which I believe you said you enjoyed: http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/42181/

He's also the author of a very funny book about the 2004 Presidential election entitled "Spanking the Donkey" but that's tangential.

[fucktopgirl]

I love how it doesn't even bother to cross your mind that "Wow, all these people seem to believe that it was Islamic extremists. Could *I* be the one in the wrong here? No, no it's them. Definitely them. They obviously haven't dug out any information, regardless of all the links provided proving their points."

HUmmm, interesting point but i dont say i am right, but you guys seem to think you are, without a doubts , RIGHT. Did it cross your miind that you are maybe too much into cnn and fox news and all the others news propaganda that just speak the reality they want the citizens to believe. Maybe you have been fooled with a ten foot pool in the ass .





That's another thing, conspiracists - do you have any idea how tricky it was for Bush to use juuuust the right semantics to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? He had to say that they're connected because Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists and Hussein is also a bad man who inflicts terror, so since we have a war on terror, we need to get rid of all possibilities of terror in the world, and Hussein is therefore a target. Don't you think it'd be a LOT easier if Bush was behind the whole "bombings" of the WTC/Pentagon to say that it was Hussein in the first place? If he's able to convince people of faulty evidence about Iraq possessing WMD's, it'd be nothing to convince them that Hussein and his America-hating minions were the true ones behind 9/11. Seems kind of a long shot to blame it on Bin Laden and then attack Iraq. I mean, he's gotten a SHITLOAD of criticism for that. You think he'd be smart enough to say it was Iraq in the first place.

A nice rhetoric that dont prove anything but blablabla, were are the facts?
Absurd and full of preconceptions and anticipation ; what if "this" and "that" was mean to be"this way " and why not "this way" instead. See make no sense, you cannot base a theory on speculations.

Why they made a correlation between laden and saddam? Maybe because ,at one extent, the "hiding in the cave' was getting ridiculous" and they had to find a more tangible , solid way to continue their invasion . We all know that it was and is to take control of the petrolium, the blackgold of our century.
But really , we cannot, i certainly cannot, know the truth, the real one, even if you suck bush dick or chenney or any of the others jerks for that matter, you will never find out what was the real deal is but be aware that fucking lies has been spilled all over the fucking place. What is important is to take conscience that your government manipulate you as he please to go forward with his own agenda. It is an oligarchic system and the elite want to be more rich and want to dominate more and expande their hegemony.

What i personnaly find amusing in this case is the pentagon and the boeing that hit it; the hole in the building dont fit with the size of a boeing, there was practically no fragments of the plane and the most ironic things is that we never saw a footage of the plane in full action. Now you would think they would show us that piece of proof just to shut up the "conspiracists " but NO ... wich is really weird if you consider the fact that cam are everywere at the pentagon, even in the ass security guard. Really weird, so i propose that you go see a footage of the pentagon damage and then come back. If you are still with the version that the boeing was indeed the reason of this, well...urm..i have pity for you.

Another thing too is the WCT falling apart, really weird and look very similar to control demolition wich correlate with firefighter hearing explosion at the bottom of the buildings. I mean, thoses guys dont lies for the hell of it, they have nothing to gain or lose to tell the truth, contrary to your president, they were in full action and report what they were witnessing.

There is scientific evidences that show logically and with clarity that there is missing links in the official version.

And yeahwho, sorry for my mistake but try to write in french to see if you would be any better !!!

Anyway, i am pretty much alone in this , on this board, at the exception of Carlos( no idea who he is, maybe another alias) oh well, i will survive!

[QueenAdrock]

HUmmm, interesting point but i dont say i am right, but you guys seem to think you are, without a doubts , RIGHT. Did it cross your miind that you are maybe too much into cnn and fox news and all the others news propaganda that just speak the reality they want the citizens to believe.

No, I come to my own conclusions based on what makes sense to me. In case you haven't noticed, I haven't posted shit from CNN or FOX or anything else. I also don't go around posting shit from www.911CONSPIRACIES.com or Loose Change or whatever else. Those conspiracists do the thinking for those who want to believe 9/11 was created by Bush, and give them the "evidence" that they can use to spread their theories. Not one thing I've heard from anyone on the board is original, it's just spewed rhetoric of those who created the theories. Shit like HAY WHY WAS BUILDING 7 DEMOLISHED or HAY HOW ABOUT THE FREE FALL SPEED etc. etc. It's tired. Nothing new, just recycled crap that others thought up for them. Who's the real sheep then?



A nice rhetoric that dont prove anything but blablabla, were are the facts?
Absurd and full of preconceptions and anticipation ; what if "this" and "that" was mean to be"this way " and why not "this way" instead. See make no sense, you cannot base a theory on speculations.

The hell are you talking about facts? It was me, using logic. I took my own thoughts on the situation, saying "It would make sense if they did this, as opposed to this." Like using the statement, "Hey, I don't think my friend called me, because she doesn't get off until 5:00." No, I don't have fact that my friend never called, but knowing that she doesn't get off until 5:00 leads me to the assumption that it was not her who called. Get it? I used my brain to come to that conclusion. I know that logic is an absurd concept for you, so I didn't expect you to understand what I was doing there.

But the excuse that they got tired of saying Bin Laden hiding makes no sense. Someone who's smart enough to know how to pull off this huuuuge attack on America and not be caught and keep every single person involved under wraps is certainly smart enough to know that the "hiding in the cave" theory wouldn't work forever and eventually they'd have to use another justification to get into Iraq. It seems like they could have bipassed everything by just saying it was a joint Iraq/Afghanistan operation. But yet again, that's just me using logic.

[QueenAdrock]

lol.. yeah pearl harbor was also "allowed" US governement put out the candy and the Japenese happily obliged. Good analogy.

Oh my Jesus Christ.

Okay that's it. Any last lingering thread of any sort of credibility has been completely demolished. I'm done with you.

[QueenAdrock]

One last thing:


What i personnaly find amusing in this case is the pentagon and the boeing that hit it; the hole in the building dont fit with the size of a boeing, there was practically no fragments of the plane and the most ironic things is that we never saw a footage of the plane in full action. Now you would think they would show us that piece of proof just to shut up the "conspiracists " but NO ... wich is really weird if you consider the fact that cam are everywere at the pentagon, even in the ass security guard. Really weird, so i propose that you go see a footage of the pentagon damage and then come back. If you are still with the version that the boeing was indeed the reason of this, well...urm..i have pity for you.

Really? Did you see the Pentagon in real life? I live right outside of DC and saw it. You know what the entire side of the building looked like, in real life, not in the pictures Loose Change gives you? IT LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING PLANE HIT IT. You know what else? I know people who were in the Pentagon and they said the whole fucking building shook when it was hit, a HUGE impact. You know how many people died with the "small" size of the hole (NOT including the people on the plane)? Let me refresh your memory:

PENTAGON

* Terry Lynch, consultant for New York's Booz-Allen & Hamilton and former congressional staffer* Lt. Gen. Timothy Maude, 53, Fort Myer, Va., Army's deputy chief of staff for personnel* * (ARMY)* Samantha Allen, Army civilian, 36, Hillside, Md.* Spec. Craig Amundson, 28, Kansas* Retired Master Sgt. Max Beilke, Army civilian, 69, Laurel, Md.* Carrie Blagburn, Army civilian, 48, Temple Hills, Md.* Lt. Col. Canfield Boone, 54, Indiana* Donna Bowen, Army contractor, Verizon Communications* Sgt. First Class Jose Calderon, 44, Puerto Rico* Angelene Carter, Army civilian, 51, Forrestville, Md.* Sharon Carver, Army civilian, 38, Maryland* John Chada, Army civilian, 55, Manassas, Va.* Ada Davis, Army civilian, 57, Camp Springs, Md.* Lt. Col. Jerry Dickerson, 41, Mississippi* Amelia Fields, Army civilian, 36, Dumfries, Va.* Gerald Fisher, Army contractor, Booz-Allen* Cortz Ghee, Army civilian, 54, Reiserstown, Md.* Brenda Gibson, Army civilian, 59, Falls Church, Va.* Ron Golinski, Army civilian, 60, Columbia, Md.* Diane Hale-McKinzy, Army civilian, 38, Alexandria, Va.* Carolyn Halmon, Army civilian, 49, Washington, D.C.* Sheila Hein, Army civilian, 51, University Park, Md.* Maj. Wallace Cole Hogan Jr., 40, Florida* Jimmie Holley, Army civilian, 54, Lanham, Md.* Peggie Hurt, Army civilian, 36, Crewe, Va.* Lt. Col. Stephen Neil Hyland, Jr., 45, California* Sgt. Maj. Lacey Ivory, 43, Missouri* Lt. Col Dennis Johnson, 48, Wisconsin* Brenda Kegler, Army civilian, 49, Washington, D.C.* David Laychak, civilian, 40, Manassas, Va.* Maj. Steve Long, Army, 39, Georgia* Teresa Martin, Army civilian, 45, Stafford, Va.* Ada Mason, Army civilian, 50, Springfield, Va.* Lt. Col. Dean Mattson, 57, California* Robert Maxwell, Army civilian, 53, Manassas, Va.* Molly McKenzie, Army civilian, 38, Dale City, Va.* Maj. Ron Milam, 33, Oklahoma* Odessa Morris, Army civilian, 54, Upper Marlboro, Md.* Ted Moy, Army civilian, 48, Silver Springs, Md.* Diana Padro, Army civilian, 55, Woodbridge, Va.* Spec. Chin Sun Pak, 24, Oklahoma* Capt. Clifford Patterson, 33, Alexandria, Va.* Scott Powell, Army contractor, BTG Inc.* Debbie Ramsaur, Army civilian, 45, Annadale, Va.* Rhonda Rasmussen, Army civilian, 44, Woodbridge, Va.* Martha Reszke, Army civilian, 36, Stafford, Va.* Cecelia Richard, Army civilian, 41, Fort Washington, Md.* Edward Rowenhorst, Army civilian, 32, Fredricksburg, Va.* Judy Rowlett, Army civilian, 44, Woodbridge, Va.* Robert Russell, Army civilian, 52, Oxen Hill, Md.* Chief Warrant Officer 4th Class William Ruth, 57, Maryland* Marjorie Salamone, Army civilian, 53, Springfield, Va.* Lt. Col. Dave Scales, 45, Cleveland, Ohio* Janice Scott, Army civilian, 46, Springfield, Va.* Michael Selves, Army civilian, 54, Fairfax, Va.* Marion Serva, Army civilian, 47, Stafford, Va.* Don Simmons, Army civilian, 58, Dumfries, Va.* Cheryle Sincock, Army civilian, 53, Dale City, Va.* Retired Lt. Col. Gary Smith, Army civilian, 55, Alexandria, Va.* Pat Statz, Army civilian, 41, Tacoma Park, Md.* Edna Stephens, Army civilian, 53, Washington D.C.* Sgt. Maj. Larry Strickland, 52, Washington* Maj. Kip Taylor, 38, Michigan* Sandra Taylor, Army civilian, 50, Alexandria, Va.* Sgt. Tamara Thurmond, 25, Alabama* Willie Troy, Army civilian, 51, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Md.* Lt. Col. Karen Wagner, 40, Texas* Meta Waller, Army civilian, 60, Alexandria, Va.* Staff Sgt. Maudlyn White, 38, Christianstead, St. Croix, Virgin Islands* Sandra White, Army civilian, 44, Dumfries, Va.* Ernest Willcher, Army contractor, Booz-Allen* Maj. Dwayne Williams, 40, Alabama* Edmond Young, Army contractor, BTG Inc.* Lisa Young, Army civilian, 36, Germantown, Md.* * * (DEFENSE AGENCIES)* Allen Boyle, Fredericksburg, Va.* Rosa Maria (Rosemary) Chapa, Springfield, Va.* Sandra N. Foster, Clinton, Md.* Herbert Homer, Milford, Mass.* Robert J. Hymel, Woodbridge, Va.* Shelley A. Marshall, Marbury, Md.* Patricia E. (Patti) Mickley, Springfield, Va.* Charles E. Sabin, Burke, Va.* Karl W. Teepe, Centreville, Va.* * * (NAVY)* Yeoman Second Class Melissa Rose Barnes, 27, Redlands, Calif.* Information Systems Technician 2nd Class Kris Romeo Bishundat, 23, Waldorf, Md.* Electronics Technician 3rd Class Christopher Lee Burford, 23, Hubert, N.C.* Electronics Technician 3rd Class Daniel Martin Caballero, 21, Houston.* Lt. Eric Allen Cranford, 32, Drexel, N.C.* Capt. Gerald Francis Deconto, 44, Sandwich, Mass.* Information Systems Technician 1st Class Johnnie Doctor Jr., 32, Jacksonville, Fla.* Cmdr. Robert Edward Dolan, 43, Florham Park, N.J.* Cmdr. William Howard Donovan Jr., 37, Nunda, N.Y.* Cmdr. Patrick Dunn, 39, Fords, N.J.* Aerographer's Mate 1st Class Edward Thomas Earhart, 26, Salt Lick, Ky.* Lt. Commander Robert Randolph Elseth, 37, Vestal, N.Y.* Storekeeper 3rd Class Jamie Lynn Fallon, 23, Woodbridge, Va.* Aerographer's Mate 2nd Class Matthew Michael Flocco, 21, of Newark, Del.* Capt. Lawrence Daniel Getzfred, 57, of Elgin, Neb.* Electronics Technician 1st Class Ronald John Hemenway, 37, of Kansas City, Kan.* Lt. Michael Scott Lamana, 31, of Baton Rouge, La.* Operations Specialist 2nd Class Nehamon Lyons IV, 30, of Mobile, Ala.* Electronics Technician 2nd Class Brian Anthony Moss, 34, of Sperry, Okla.* Lt. Cmdr. Patrick Jude Murphy, 38, of Flossmoor, Ill.* Illustrator/Draftsman 2nd Class Michael Allen Noeth, 30, of Jackson Heights, N.Y.* Lt. Jonas Martin Panik, 26, of Mingoville, Pa.* Lt. j.g. Darin Howard Pontell, 26, of Columbia, Md.* Aviation Warfare Systems Operator 1st Class Joseph John Pycior Jr., 39, of Carlstadt, N.J.* Information Systems Technician 1st Class Marsha Dianah Ratchford, 34, of Prichard, Ala.* Cmdr. Robert Allan Schlegel, 38, of Gray, Maine* Cmdr. Dan Frederic Shanower, 40, of Naperville, Ill.* Chief Information Systems Technician Gregg Harold Smallwood, 44, of Overland Park, Kan.* Lt. Cmdr. Otis Vincent Tolbert, 38, of Lemoore, Calif.* Lt. Cmdr. Ronald James Vauk, 37, of Nampa, Idaho.* Lt. Cmdr. David Lucian Williams, 32, of Newport, Ore.* Information Systems Technician 2nd Class Kevin Wayne Yokum, 27, of Lake Charles, La.* Chief Information Systems Technician Donald McArthur Young, 41, of Roanoke, Va.* * * (NAVY CIVILIANS)* Angela Houtz, 27, of La Plata, Md.* Brady Howell, 26, of Arlington, Va.* Judith Jones, 53, of Woodbridge, Va.* James Lynch, no age given, of Manassas, Va.* Retired Capt. Jack Punches, 51, of Clifton, Va.* * * (NAVY CONTRACTORS)* Julian Cooper, 39, of Springdale, Md.* Jerry Moran, 39, Upper Marlboro, Md.* Khang Nguyen, no age given, Fairfax, Va.* Marvin Woods, 58, of Great Mills, Md.

But that was just due to a "small" missile, huh?
And I certainly do hope you know that any and all material that goes on in the Pentagon is classified and will NOT be released to the public due to the highly sensitive nature of the material. The declassification process for these types of materials takes a long time, and often needs someone who needs it for official business and a secret security clearance to request the declassification. Pictures cannot be taken inside the Pentagon; camera phones are not allowed. The security surveillance tapes are classified material and will not be released just to "shut up" the conspiracy theorists because, as this poll has proven, you're all still a minority. If you were a palpable group of people bringing up serious accusations, I'm sure they would, to calm down the public. But most of the public doesn't give a shit because they know from other evidence that a plane hit it and there's no need for the footage. They really don't care to "prove" anything to you guys. They don't need to "shut you up" because you're not causing that big a stir.

[D_Raay]

Carlos, your post in no way answers what I asked.



But why blame it on a boogeyman that can't be linked directly to Iraq? Why not say it was a few fundamentalists in Iraq that have appeared in the past few years, and have ties to Hussein? It just seems like if they're able to lie about all that happened during 9/11 they would at least think through the aftermath. I mean, if they can "lie" about planting bombs all over the towers, setting them off and killing 3,000 people in the most elaborately planned hoax to ever be perpetuated on the American public (and the rest of the world, it seems), and can lie and pin it on Al Qaeda and plant tapes that have (a fake?) Bin Laden taking the blame and rejoicing in it (and have all of the world believe this), it just seems natural that they could come up with a simple lie saying it's a different and new terrorist cell living in Iraq instead. It doesn't have to be true; hell, we all know now that the WMDs were false, but "intelligence" told us otherwise so people believed it. Intelligence could have lied about anything and we'd eat it out of the palm of their hand. It just seems like they had to REAAAALLLY stretch to tie Al Qaeda + Hussein together as "both supporting terrorist activity" and convince the public that they were both threats when it would have been a lot easier to throw out another simple lie to get people to believe you.
Well, we are speaking hypothetically of course, right?

My experience with these guys is their gameplan almost always involves a bait and switch. It would be out of their normal routine, and more dangerous, to simply neatly wrap 9/11 up and drop it into one persons lap. The clearer they are about anything the more skeptical one should become of their intention.

That is also their fail-safe. When they are vague and cover their verbal tracks , they are simply trying to push an idea and see how it is accepted.

Now, simply blaming Saddam would require proof that they would not be able to obtain. Reason being Saddam wasn't willing to be the fall guy. At least, hypothetically, that appears to be the case as they have now effectively removed him and he was never given any serious forum to even plead his case or discuss his relationship with the Bush administration. And as I said previously, if they had blamed him initially, alot of folks, domestic and foreign, would have been knocking rather loudly on his door and that in turn would have given him a chance to defend himself on a scale they would not have been able to control.

Osama, on the other hand, would have been perfect. No one knows where he is, how he managed it except for speculating, or even what reason (other than the usual hyperbole that makes intelligent people cringe) he had exactly to carry out such a bold attack.

One of the key components of a plan so risky would be that the actual perpretrator of the attack would HAVE to be intimately involved with the conspirators, and be someone they would be able to protect (or eliminate easily). That would not have been Saddam. Nixon blew that for them back in the 70's with Chile.

With that being said, I didn't vote on this poll because I believe it could go either way really. We just don't know enough.

[QueenAdrock]

But saying that a group is linked to Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place would make more sense. I agree it is risky to blame it on Hussein himself, but to have a vague group that can be linked to his country (not Al Qaeda since it had been established they were not in Iraq then) would make more sense to me. I mean, Hussein and Bin Laden hate each other and that's been proven, it was VERY difficult to link the two together for their justification; I still think they could have made it easier.

As for having evidence to prove it, I don't think they'd need it. In the wake of 9/11 all they had to use was the "Believe us because we'll protect you" bullshit like they always had. They used faulty evidence of WMD's to get us into Iraq, so they could use faulty evidence to pin it on someone that could be linked to Iraq, too. It just doesn't add up.

[D_Raay]

^^Hey, you may be right. I really don't know and it makes my head hurt to think about 9/11.
------
I think it is a bit unfair of some of you to go after people that question the story. Does it really matter that a few people or even a few million people are focused on 9/11 "conspiracy theories" that will never affect any real change?
Why aren't you upset with the millions who are content to sit in front of the tv and care not one bit about politics? Why come down on 9/11 "nutjobs" in such an irrational manner? At least they're looking at some form of reality other than reality tv. Do you honestly think that the majority of Americans give two turds about either party? Most don't. The fact is, even if EVERY republican were to do a u-turn and suddenly decide to vote democrat, the democrats would still be beaten by the party of nonvoters. You should really start thinking about what that means.

The way I see it, at least the truth of 9/11 offers some hope for a grassroots revitalization. None of this other nonsense can do that, because the republicans will always beat democrats over the head with 9/11. The terrorists are gonna get you! It's a farce, and it underscores all the reasons most people don't take our system seriously. Democrats might alienate 5 or 10 million people by fully supporting the 9/11 truth movement, but they are alienating 50-100 million people by refusing to do so. I'm not saying the change should happen right now, but for chrissakes cut these people some slack. Most 9/11 whackjobs are just trying to get at the truth.

The problem is... this country doesn't have the time to heal. The right is raping this country, and they are using 9/11 as a weapon against the people. Can't you just take a step back and examine the significance of this? 9/11 has become the cornerstone of right wing rhetoric. These people have shown themselves to be rotten unscrupulous dishonest villians on every major issue, so doesn't it make sense to assume that if they latch onto 9/11 like they do, then something about the official 9/11 story must be rotten at it's core? Why else would they embrace the official 9/11 conspiracy like they embrace deficit inducing tax cuts for the rich, wars for global domination, and all those other bad things? They're all based on lies, and that makes lies the basis of right wing power.

All we know for sure is that we had an event where some planes were flown into at least 2 buildings (possbily only two), and that this administration benefitted immensely from that event. That's ALL we know for sure. Everything else is subjective.

[QueenAdrock]

I absolutely agree with you that people should question, get to truth, whatever else. But 9/11 for me is something that hits close to home, living near and working in DC. Close friends of mine were involved, and all evidence I've heard combined with testimonial from them has lead me to the conclusion that the official story is truth. It seems like an injustice to them to say that it was their government who killed them, if it's not true. I'm not one to trust Bush and his cronies one bit, but I'm also not one to believe stories based on the fact that I hate Bush. Majority of conspiracists I have come across have already hated Bush, so they enter the whole situation with a bias. It's like they hear the conclusion first (Bush is an evil man who orchestrated this) and agree with it without hearing the evidence first; evidence is considered after the fact. I've always been taught take in the evidence and learn from it before I make my decisions. Not make my decisions and then find evidence to support it. That's the big flaw.

I feel there are some out there who question both sides and are diplomatic about it, and I applaud them. There are others who just say I hate Bush and therefore this is truth, here is evidence I found from Loose Change, believe it or you're wrong. That's the wrong way to approach the situation.

Either way, I completely agree with you there are more important things to worry about. I don't really give a shit about the conspiracists because they're still a minority and don't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a pet peeve of mine to see people come online and spout stuff off that they saw on youtube. I do think we need to focus on voter apathy more, I'm trying to do my part to fight that by getting voters registered. Plus, I think Obama and other new candidates can refresh the scene and rejuvenate and inspire people. But, we'll see how that goes. ;)

[D_Raay]

I absolutely agree with you that people should question, get to truth, whatever else. But 9/11 for me is something that hits close to home, living near and working in DC. Close friends of mine were involved, and all evidence I've heard combined with testimonial from them has lead me to the conclusion that the official story is truth. It seems like an injustice to them to say that it was their government who killed them, if it's not true. I'm not one to trust Bush and his cronies one bit, but I'm also not one to believe stories based on the fact that I hate Bush. Majority of conspiracists I have come across have already hated Bush, so they enter the whole situation with a bias. It's like they hear the conclusion first (Bush is an evil man who orchestrated this) and agree with it without hearing the evidence first; evidence is considered after the fact. I've always been taught take in the evidence and learn from it before I make my decisions. Not make my decisions and then find evidence to support it. That's the big flaw.

I feel there are some out there who question both sides and are diplomatic about it, and I applaud them. There are others who just say I hate Bush and therefore this is truth, here is evidence I found from Loose Change, believe it or you're wrong. That's the wrong way to approach the situation.

Either way, I completely agree with you there are more important things to worry about. I don't really give a shit about the conspiracists because they're still a minority and don't matter in the grand scheme of things, but it's still a pet peeve of mine to see people come online and spout stuff off that they saw on youtube. I do think we need to focus on voter apathy more, I'm trying to do my part to fight that by getting voters registered. Plus, I think Obama and other new candidates can refresh the scene and rejuvenate and inspire people. But, we'll see how that goes. ;)
I agree with your points as well... like I said it makes my head hurt.;)

Either way, it's nice to know that there are intelligent people out there who have other people's welfare in mind.

[fucktopgirl]

. Those conspiracists do the thinking for those who want to believe 9/11 was created by Bush, and give them the "evidence" that they can use to spread their theories.[QUOTE]

Same with your side then, the difference is that they dont have real tangible evidence other then the "autority one"; the president , the minister of defense...have said, believe what the autority tell you and dont question anything. The official theory is the one and only one truth, the rest is just rubbish and why ? because we said so and are in charge of this country so we should know/tell the truth. You will come around and tell me that there is evidence to their theory, yes but if you put all of them together, just seem a bit ,urm, weak.



[QUOTE]
Not one thing I've heard from anyone on the board is original, it's just spewed rhetoric of those who created the theories. Shit like HAY WHY WAS BUILDING 7 DEMOLISHED or HAY HOW ABOUT THE FREE FALL SPEED etc. etc. It's tired. Nothing new, just recycled crap that others thought up for them. Who's the real sheep then?


You dont speak any different from the other sheep either, you dont have any factual evidence that the official truth is the one other then what your ears heard and eyes saw..if you really saw the pentagon you should know that is it just impossible that a boeing hit it., i bring proof when replying to you other post. But you discours is emotionnal more then anything else;that it is impossible that the government do such an horrific act; well check out all thoses soldiers that died in irak and for what exactly? Well, think a little bit deeper now...if they dont care to kill their own citizens in others countries= they dont care to kill them at all= they would certainly dont care to kill them at home.


The hell are you talking about facts? It was me, using logic. I took my own thoughts on the situation, saying "It would make sense if they did this, as opposed to this." Like using the statement, "Hey, I don't think my friend called me, because she doesn't get off until 5:00." No, I don't have fact that my friend never called, but knowing that she doesn't get off until 5:00 leads me to the assumption that it was not her who called. Get it? I used my brain to come to that conclusion. I know that logic is an absurd concept for you, so I didn't expect you to understand what I was doing there.

NIce logic, and were does this reasonning bring you? That you friend did not call you because she was supposedly at work? but maybe she was not at work that day and at lunch she met a guy , then rented a room and fucked him good but then , the guy in question was a maniac and try to hurt her so that why she called you! See , that kind of logic, assumption is , again, with any solid base or proof, just full of defaults, pure subjective speculations. And you cannot deal with countries affairs with that kind of weak logic. That the problem though, people do deal and think problem that way....


But the excuse that they got tired of saying Bin Laden hiding makes no sense. Someone who's smart enough to know how to pull off this huuuuge attack on America and not be caught and keep every single person involved under wraps is certainly smart enough to know that the "hiding in the cave" theory wouldn't work forever and eventually they'd have to use another justification to get into Iraq. It seems like they could have bipassed everything by just saying it was a joint Iraq/Afghanistan operation. But yet again, that's just me using logic.

Yea, why they change their gun of shoulder, why did they lied like that and swicht bad guy like you can swicht panty?

Fuck, we cannot know what is the buzz in their head, really, a mystery untill the end. THis is like watergate, kennedy...mystery that will never be solve.

[EN[i]GMA]

Oh my Jesus Christ.

Okay that's it. Any last lingering thread of any sort of credibility has been completely demolished. I'm done with you.

The CIA shot Lincoln too, by the way.

And hey, if the US was behind this attack, why not make the war seem more successful and proclaim that we got Osama and then plant some WMDs in Iraq so Bush say "well lookie what I found"?

You realize they just completely destroyed their own credibility by forgetting to do what is really totally obvious: make shit up. I mean, they lied to get into the war but didn't lie once they got there? THey couldn't toss a few tons of Anthrax in one of Saddam's palaces? Force a fake confession out of him?

Come on.

[Carlos]

QueenAdrock, you admit you are not willing to even look at anything you deem as a "conspiracy theory" so you admit you are as far from objective is as humanly possible - fair enugh....

if you had friends affected then I truly am sorry for those people. However do you not think you owe it to them to just LOOK at the scientific evidence, that contradicts the official story. Doesn't mean you will instantly be converted to a tin hat wearing conspiracy theorist... but at least you will be able to see why we ask these questions.

The fact that you now are getting more and more angry, shows that you are unable to register and rationally deal with the arguments put forth - saying that they are recycled blah blah, is laughable.

Very few people in this world come up with "new" ideas, but rather repeat things they have heard/seen.
So for me it is vital to look at as many different ideas as possible. and make up my own mind.

----
oh btw - after the wall at the pentagon collapsed - relatively soon after the inital impact - then yes a large section was missing - enough for a plane to have gone through. But the first footage, and pictures show a 16 foot round hole that went from the outer ring, right through to the C ring - 320 foot, and through 9feet of reinforced concrete - - but the strongest parts the engines made no impact holes? but once again - if the government wanted to put thatone to bed, then just release the CCTV footage from the sheridan hotel and gas station..

[QueenAdrock]

The funny thing is, you assume things about me, such as since I believe that the government is not behind 9/11 I therefore am a sheep and haven't considered the other side. It may surprise you to know that I once believed Loose Change, when it first came out I believed it made valid points. However, since it has come out I have seen evidence stacked against it, evidence that has proven to me that it is false. I've seen both sides, both come up with strong points until you closely scrutinize both and realize that the conspiracies fall apart. I've done research on the subject and come to my own conclusions, rather than just say I HATE BUSH, THIS MAKES SENSE, BELIEVE IT OR YOU'RE WRONG! That's my big problem with the conspiricists. I'm positive if the tapes were released and all evidence was air-tight and proved the theories wrong, you'd still find something to hold against the administration, because you're dead set on saying that Bush is the one behind it. It's not so much that you're worried about finding out the truth, it's that you're worried about pinning it on the GOP leadership. I have never heard one theory possibly saying "Perhaps there were bombs, but perhaps it was this group of people instead," or anything of the such. It's always the same tired old "evidence" and the same blame game. If you truly want to believe that Bush and his cronies did this, there's no amount of evidence that will make you change your mind.


you dont have any factual evidence that the official truth is the one other then what your ears heard and eyes saw..if you really saw the pentagon you should know that is it just impossible that a boeing hit it

Hahahaha...you have no proof other than first-hand evidence, Diana! Don't you know how unreliable your own eyes and ears are? You know what's more reliable? Second-hand information you get from .org sites online! :rolleyes: Tell me, did YOU see the hole in the Pentagon, or did you just see the pictures on the internet? Did you see it with your own eyes or did you see pictures that can be easily changed with photoshop? Yeah, I'm sure your "evidence" is much more trustworthy than mine. I should stop believing what I saw and heard, because loosechange.org tells me what to believe!

NIce logic, and were does this reasonning bring you? That you friend did not call you because she was supposedly at work? but maybe she was not at work that day and at lunch she met a guy , then rented a room and fucked him good but then , the guy in question was a maniac and try to hurt her so that why she called you!

Also true that it could be the RARE chance that this is correct. But when this has never happened before, she has never called me before 5:00 and one would think she would call the authorities before she called me if she was in trouble, and that if it WAS her and she was in an emergency situation, she would call me multiple times to try to get ahold of me OR LEAVE ME A VOICEMAIL TO TELL ME IT WAS HER AND TO CALL HER BACK ASAP BECAUSE SHE'S IN A BAD SITUATION. If my friend told me after the fact "Yeah, I got raped and he tried to hurt me," I'd say "What the fuck? Why didn't you leave me a message to tell me so? And why did you call me instead of the police?" etc. etc. Just like the conspiracy theories. It would be EXTREMELY UNLIKELY for that to happen, and if it did, a lot still isn't adding up to make you believe it.

[QueenAdrock]

QueenAdrock, you admit you are not willing to even look at anything you deem as a "conspiracy theory" so you admit you are as far from objective is as humanly possible - fair enugh....


:rolleyes:

See the first paragraph of the last post.

PS The fact that you now are getting more and more angry, shows that you are unable to register and rationally deal with the arguments put forth - saying that they are recycled blah blah, is laughable.

Angry? How am I angry? Because I use sarcasm? News flash, I'm a sarcastic person, it doesn't mean I'm angry. I roll my eyes at you, getting angry wouldn't be worth my time. If I got angry with all the ignorance in the world, I'd be pissed off 24/7. The fact that you talk to ME about rationality is laughable.

Sigh.

[fucktopgirl]

One last thing:



Really? Did you see the Pentagon in real life? I live right outside of DC and saw it. You know what the entire side of the building looked like, in real life, not in the pictures Loose Change gives you? IT LOOKS LIKE A FUCKING PLANE HIT IT. You know what else? I know people who were in the Pentagon and they said the whole fucking building shook when it was hit, a HUGE impact. You know how many people died with the "small" size of the hole (NOT including the people on the plane)? Let me refresh your memory:

PENTAGONhttp://www.pentagonstrike.
co.uk/flash.htm (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm)


The music is somewhat a bit alarmist but, check it out!

[Carlos]

Oh my Jesus Christ.

Okay that's it. Any last lingering thread of any sort of credibility has been completely demolished. I'm done with you.

I suggest you actually look at history.
It has been heavily documented that your government knew full well that the japanese would attack, but did nothing.
Giving them a pretext for getting involved in the war - sound familiar?

[EN[i]GMA]

Well, we are speaking hypothetically of course, right?

My experience with these guys is their gameplan almost always involves a bait and switch. It would be out of their normal routine, and more dangerous, to simply neatly wrap 9/11 up and drop it into one persons lap. The clearer they are about anything the more skeptical one should become of their intention.

Yeah, because none was skeptical of these guys since the very begininning. What a brilliant ruse on their part.


That is also their fail-safe. When they are vague and cover their verbal tracks , they are simply trying to push an idea and see how it is accepted.

They could have at least FABRICATED a connection so, after the fact, they had 'irrefutable' proof that they were right and thus maintained a shred of credibility.

Why didn't they? How hard would it be to print up some documents, force a few confessions, kill a few key people, etc.? We know these guys are good, so why are they so incompetent?


Now, simply blaming Saddam would require proof that they would not be able to obtain.

No it wouldn't.

Proof can fabricated. In fact, I know a large contingent of the conspiracy movement thinks Osama's 'confession' tape was fabricated and that the evidence behind him doing it is flimsy.

Well, we bought it anyway, right?

If Mr. Bush, standing on the rubble 3 days after the attack said "we have irrefutable proof that Saddam was behind this" and he thew a few 'secrete interceptions' on the table, everyone would have lapped it up and he could have a rode a tank in Baghdad himself, two weeks after the fact.


Reason being Saddam wasn't willing to be the fall guy.

Actually, it appears he WAS willing to be the fall guy.

Funny how that worked out.

At least, hypothetically, that appears to be the case as they have now effectively removed him and he was never given any serious forum to even plead his case or discuss his relationship with the Bush administration.

WHich would have made it all the more easy to pin it on him originally.

"Shut up terrorist, we're sick of your lies!"

And as I said previously, if they had blamed him initially, alot of folks, domestic and foreign, would have been knocking rather loudly on his door and that in turn would have given him a chance to defend himself on a scale they would not have been able to control.

Why? Who could be more of archetypal villain? Not even Osama comes close to the tyranny and destruction Saddam is linked to in most people's minds.

It's not even close. He started two wars and committed an ethnic cleansing, and you really think they'd bend over backwords to pin a terror attack on him? He'll gas the Kurds but he won't fly a plane into a building?

Hell, you don't have to implicate him directly, you could just say he FINANCED it and make up some fake payment sheets. It's not hard.


Osama, on the other hand, would have been perfect. No one knows where he is, how he managed it except for speculating, or even what reason (other than the usual hyperbole that makes intelligent people cringe) he had exactly to carry out such a bold attack.

Well, if I had to pick a close runner-up for 'archetypal villain', Osama would be it.


One of the key components of a plan so risky would be that the actual perpretrator of the attack would HAVE to be intimately involved with the conspirators, and be someone they would be able to protect (or eliminate easily). That would not have been Saddam. Nixon blew that for them back in the 70's with Chile.

With that being said, I didn't vote on this poll because I believe it could go either way really. We just don't know enough.

It may be true that we don't know enough, I'm just going on what i've seen, including "loose change" and all that shit.

[Carlos]

:rolleyes:

See the first paragraph of the last post.

PS

Angry? How am I angry? Because I use sarcasm? News flash, I'm a sarcastic person, it doesn't mean I'm angry. I roll my eyes at you, getting angry wouldn't be worth my time. If I got angry with all the ignorance in the world, I'd be pissed off 24/7. The fact that you talk to ME about rationality is laughable.

Sigh.

Well why do you not share any of this proof with us on this board - rather than giving emotional accounts, and your so called logic.
Loose change (ask any true 911 researcher) is not the most conclusive videos out there - I have asked you to wach 911 Mysteries, now if you were truly interested the truth you would be prepared to watch it.
So you say you first believed loose change, then on watching (screw loose chage was it?) another video(s) you became this anti conspiracy extremist. I suggest to you that you are quite easliy influenced then. To swing from one extreme to the other is quite impressive.

However - from previous posts you give the impression you have not done much research at all - you aked about WTC7
I vaguely remember that day someone saying that they were going to pull it due to its structure being damaged beyond repair. I don't see how that's part of the conspiracy.
Not sure how you square the idea you have done your research with such questions?
"pull" is a demolition term. i.e prior knowledge: short video debunking popular mechanics use of the word pull: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWwMoJ_Tfdo

[yeahwho]

PENTAGONhttp://www.pentagonstrike.
co.uk/flash.htm (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm)


The music is somewhat a bit alarmist but, check it out!

That film answers it's own questions. Planes leave debris when they wreck. All of the plane wreck footage of that video is in open fields. 60 tons traveling at 530 mph+ into steel re-enforced concrete walls tends to obliterate an aluminum shelled plastic by-product jet fuel passenger carrying airliner.

Just my guess, whats yours?

[Carlos]

GMA']

Proof can fabricated.......................

Well, we bought it anyway, right?



so your arguing they could put WMD in another country without anyone noticing, but saying they couldn't get some guys up the maintenance shaft to plant explosives...

But I suppose the plan was to get in, once you're in, doesn't really matter. After the oil and reconstruction contracts were dished out, job done. thats why the place is a complete mess - objective was to secure oil fields, and hand out massive contracts to the oil and weapons industries. Everyhting else came way down the list.

[Schmeltz]

Alright, see what we have here is really a conflict between rationality and irrationality. It's a lot like the profound differences in the last century that characterized the debates between catastrophists and uniformitarianists - people who want to believe that history is chaotic and unknowable, and people who know that history is understandable and operates in essentially rational terms on the basis of consciously identifiable processes.

Naturally anyone is free to come down on whichever side they please. But the two are essentially combative and mutually contradictory. There's little in the way of productive consensus to be achieved. And quite frankly, I'm not really interested in achieving one. The catastrophists and the conspiracy theorists can believe all they like - as the poll demonstrates, everyone else will just move on.

So, see ya!

[QueenAdrock]

Well why do you not share any of this proof with us on this board - rather than giving emotional accounts, and your so called logic.
Loose change (ask any true 911 researcher) is not the most conclusive videos out there - I have asked you to wach 911 Mysteries, now if you were truly interested the truth you would be prepared to watch it.
So you say you first believed loose change, then on watching (screw loose chage was it?) another video(s) you became this anti conspiracy extremist. I suggest to you that you are quite easliy influenced then. To swing from one extreme to the other is quite impressive.

However - from previous posts you give the impression you have not done much research at all - you aked about WTC7

So I have to share proof with you all on the board, when it's already been posted? Okay, here's my proof. Take any of the links that one of the 25 members in the "Islamics flew into the towers" categories posted up, and read it. They have summed up my thoughts perfectly, and my posting would just reinforce what they say. But does it really matter if I posted up any kind of links for you? Would you not brush it off as bullshit anyways? Why do I have to go out of my way to post up valid points if you refuse to believe any of the previous valid points that HAVE been posted? That's what I like to call "wasted time."

I've done my research. I've watched the videos (all of them), read the official reports (stuff that I'm sure you haven't), talked to experts in the field. I had a long in-depth discussion with my father over the possibilities over bombs being in the buildings, to which he debunked it using his expertise as a senior forensic chemist and bomb specialist for over 30 years. I didn't ask about WTC, I never considered it an issue because I do remember hearing that day that they said many of the buildings structures were weakened from the collapse of the towers, and that several buildings were pulled because of it. No shit it was a demolition term, it was demolished because the structure was irreparable and the building was unusable. It never rang bells in my mind as ZOMG GOVERNMENT PULLED IT LOL! It was a non-issue.

I guess if you believe I'm easily influenced, you were also with Bush in believing that Kerry was a flip-flopper? People can't change their minds without being called "easily influenced" and unknowing, huh? Sounds like Bush rhetoric to me, that's the exact kind of dirty smearing that he's synonymous with. I initially took the points it made into consideration and thought it sounded like a good theory, until I had been proven wrong in that respect. How's that being extreme? If I said OMG CONSPIRACY THEORIES ANSWER EVERY QUESTION THAT HAS EVER BEEN ASKED ABOUT 9/11 and then swung to OMG ALL THE CONSPIRACIES ARE BULLSHIT, you may have a point. However, initially and tentatively believing something until it's been debunked by other, more credible sources that break it down point for point and explain why it's bullshit is in no way extremist. I should have just heard loose change and thought "Hey, they bring up a good point" and once I had been proven wrong, I guess I should have still believed it, too? That's what a non-flip flopper would have done. I need to stick to my guns. :(

But if I AM quite easily influenced, how come you haven't been able to convince me? Either that means I'm not easily influenced, your evidence sucks ass, or both. Your pick.

[yeahwho]

I find it almost insane that anyone in a rational state of cognitive thought thinks something else besides Flight 77 went into the pentagon.

The bigger question should be, "What happened to Flight 77?"

To actually make a plane disappear on 911 would be miraculous. That would be one hell of a hat trick to pull off, what did the goverment do with that 757? Answer that question first, then collaborate the missile story.

[na§tee]

wow, so much quotage. my head hurts.

i think it woz anna nicole smith wot dunnit!

[Carlos]

Alright, see what we have here is really a conflict between rationality and irrationality.....

So, see ya!

Exactly - it is totally irrational to believe that steel acts the way it was supposed to that day - it's called science?

There is are too much physical evidence that cannot in any way be explained by the official story, so logically you have to look for a mechanism that does explain these things. That is logic, and rationality - not just evangelically believe what you have been told.

[QueenAdrock]

You know what's ridiculous? Both sides just stick to their evidence, and say YOU'RE SHEEP to the other side and say bullshit like "not just evangelically believe what you have been told," when they themselves are guilty of just the thing they blame the other side of. Myself included. Everyone is doing it.

Look, you're not going to convince any of us. We're not going to convince any of you. Going on posting is ridiculous and running in circles and not accomplishing anything, and you and I both know it. I'd much rather listen to D_Raay and say it's time to focus on more important issues that are debatable. You and your 10% have your ideas, me and my 90% have our ideas. Let's just believe the other side is retarded and fucking MOVE ON. This is dumb and a waste of time.

[Otis Driftwood]

MOVE ON.
'Nuff said. (y)

[Carlos]

So I have to share proof with you all on the board, when it's already been posted?
Would be nice - otherwise you are just giving out your emotional oppinions.

I've done my research. I've watched the videos (all of them), read the official reports (stuff that I'm sure you haven't), talked to experts in the field.
So you have watched 911 Mysteries: please could you answer a question for me - what evidence do you have that steel doesn't have the properties it lays out. Why does a heater not melt through the steel water tank? Or a BBQ grill melt.
I am truly all ears!!

I didn't ask about WTC, I never considered it an issue because I do remember hearing that day that they said many of the buildings structures were weakened from the collapse of the towers, and that several buildings were pulled because of it. No shit it was a demolition term, it was demolished because the structure was irreparable and the building was unusable. It never rang bells in my mind as ZOMG GOVERNMENT PULLED IT LOL! It was a non-issue.
Er.. any kind of controlled demolition could not have been planned and execute in the aftermarth of the initial WTC's collapsing - especially as there was indeed a fire on a few floors. This is the whole point!!! It must have been rigged beforehand - and therefore prior knowledge. Again logic.

But if you have done all your carfeul research, why you got such a problem with people that don't reach the same conclusion as you. All I ask is that if you haven't looked at anything to do with 911 since then, and have just accepted what you have been led to believe then you owe it to all those that lost lives to look at all the evidence.

Watch '911 the Myth and the Reality', or '911 Mysteries': these are aknowledged to be 2 of the finest videos out there. Both free on google video.

[QueenAdrock]

Read the previous post. I'm done with you. This is like arguing to a brick wall and I don't care to waste my time anymore.

[Carlos]

Read the previous post. I'm done with you. This is like arguing to a brick wall and I don't care to waste my time anymore.

touche, you will not answer anything specific I ask.. more intersted in spewing out hostility.

[QueenAdrock]

Are you really that blind that you can see this is going nowhere? I'm serious. Stop with the chest-thumping self-righteousness and step back from the situation. What have you convinced ANYONE on the board of? Have you changed the opinion of that 90% that doesn't agree with you? No.

Get over it, and yourself.

[fucktopgirl]

The funny thing is, you assume things about me, such as since I believe that the government is not behind 9/11 I therefore am a sheep and haven't considered the other side. It may surprise you to know that I once believed Loose Change, when it first came out I believed it made valid points. However, since it has come out I have seen evidence stacked against it, evidence that has proven to me that it is false. I've seen both sides, both come up with strong points until you closely scrutinize both and realize that the conspiracies fall apart. I've done research on the subject and come to my own conclusions, rather than just say I HATE BUSH, THIS MAKES SENSE, BELIEVE IT OR YOU'RE WRONG! That's my big problem with the conspiricists. I'm positive if the tapes were released and all evidence was air-tight and proved the theories wrong, you'd still find something to hold against the administration, because you're dead set on saying that Bush is the one behind it. It's not so much that you're worried about finding out the truth, it's that you're worried about pinning it on the GOP leadership. I have never heard one theory possibly saying "Perhaps there were bombs, but perhaps it was this group of people instead," or anything of the such. It's always the same tired old "evidence" and the same blame game. If you truly want to believe that Bush and his cronies did this, there's no amount of evidence that will make you change your mind.


What arguments make you stick with the official version?

I dont know who is resposable behing this 9/11 event but it has certainly something to do with the government in charge when it occur, a lack of their perspicacity to see it comming or else a participation. I am not a Bush hater ,per se, but i think he is just a big pile of shit, red neck and ugly on top of that, so indeed i dont have him in my heart but more in my ass.
And i prefer the unofficial theory , like millions of people, because it make more sense to me with all the reading and informations gathering i did the last few years, that all!

WE could also look at this tragedy with an economical perspective because a lot of the big corporations did make big $$$ on this one. Purely coincidental? hummm , maybe , maybe...




[QUOTE]Hahahaha...you have no proof other than first-hand evidence, Diana! Don't you know how unreliable your own eyes and ears are? You know what's more reliable? Second-hand information you get from .org sites online! :rolleyes: Tell me, did YOU see the hole in the Pentagon, or did you just see the pictures on the internet?


Well, when you regard matter with your own sensible sense and apply your emotions, prenotions( that it was really a boeing that hit it ) good chances are that your perception will be faulty. You have to be objective and neutral. And , indeed, i just saw footage of the damage on the net.



Did you see it with your own eyes or did you see pictures that can be easily changed with photoshop? Yeah, I'm sure your "evidence" is much more trustworthy than mine. I should stop believing what I saw and heard, because loosechange.org tells me what to believe!

I never build my opinion on loosechange, ever . anyway...YOu should believe what you want by being rationnal on the issue. Did YOU see the video i post? How on earth could they photoshop that much ? Were is the fucking boeing? Were is the corpse of the plane? how come the grass is greener then ever? What are yours arguments to counter mines other then a lot of people died and that you saw the hole in the building with your own eyes?


HOw do you explain the dissapearance of video surveillance that day ?
Did you ever ask yourself why they did not show thoses video? MAybe because it did not correlate with their theory?

I am concentrating on the pentagon because i really think it is the most absurd of all and quite easy to see and realise that the official version is a lie.
And it is pretty amusing that all of you, who believe in the government truth dont dare to reply to thoses simple questions wich contain a lot of information and revelation on this matter.

WHY THEY DONT SHOW THE ACTUAL FOOTAGE OF THE PLANE HITING THE PENTAGON? Clearly , something smell fishy here, fuck even Sherlock homes would agree!



Also true that it could be the RARE chance that this is correct. But when this has never happened before, she has never called me before 5:00 and one would think she would call the authorities before she called me if she was in trouble, and that if it WAS her and she was in an emergency situation, she would call me multiple times to try to get ahold of me OR LEAVE ME A VOICEMAIL TO TELL ME IT WAS HER AND TO CALL HER BACK ASAP BECAUSE SHE'S IN A BAD SITUATION. If my friend told me after the fact "Yeah, I got raped and he tried to hurt me," I'd say "What the fuck? Why didn't you leave me a message to tell me so? And why did you call me instead of the police?" etc. etc. Just like the conspiracy theories. It would be EXTREMELY UNLIKELY for that to happen, and if it did, a lot still isn't adding up to make you believe it.

I think we can go on and on with that kind of logic wich become absurd more we go further, the matter of the fact is that you never know, even if you try every path of the logic possibility, you can never know for sure that what you thought the reality was is indeed the reality. So this is to say , that if you base you opinion on that kind of thinking, well...chances are that you are a bit out of the loop. Now we need to think the matter in term of physical evidence and that why, again, the pentagon is a easy one to practice on!

Then after, if you acknowledge that there is a failure in their statement, you can go forward and assume that maybe there is something wrong with the WTC.

[Ali]

That's another thing, conspiracists - do you have any idea how tricky it was for Bush to use juuuust the right semantics to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda? He had to say that they're connected because Al Qaeda are a bunch of terrorists and Hussein is also a bad man who inflicts terror, so since we have a war on terror, we need to get rid of all possibilities of terror in the world, and Hussein is therefore a target. Don't you think it'd be a LOT easier if Bush was behind the whole "bombings" of the WTC/Pentagon to say that it was Hussein in the first place? If he's able to convince people of faulty evidence about Iraq possessing WMD's, it'd be nothing to convince them that Hussein and his America-hating minions were the true ones behind 9/11. Seems kind of a long shot to blame it on Bin Laden and then attack Iraq. I mean, he's gotten a SHITLOAD of criticism for that. You think he'd be smart enough to say it was Iraq in the first place.Iraq is a country, therefore its' actions are traceable. Al Queda is a shadowy terrorist organisation. There's no more evidence that Al Queda did it than Saddam, so it's easier to blame Al Queda than Iraq.

How the fuck did some guys with that amount of flight experience manage to fly those planes so well, especially when they were still cramming on their way to the airport and left their arabic flight manuals in the car? How did they know that there were going to be so many hijack drills on that day, so that the air traffic controllers would be so slow to respond? Why was the commission obstructed? How did those passports (belonging to people who are still alive) manage to survive the fireball which melted steel and be found so quickly and easily.

I am a rational person. I can see that a) it's not possible for an operation of this scale to have been pulled off by some madman in a cave 4,000 miles away (who's been hunted for years and so is under heavy scrutiny). b) the people who stood the most to gain by something like this happening were the US and Israel - both of whom DO have the ability to pull something like this off.

I find it a lot easier to believe the conspiracy than the reality, because the reality just makes no sense whatsoever.

[D_Raay]

I find it remarkable that this issue is still so polarizing.

The only way to play this game is simply not to play. It's like a massive game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

Perhaps that is what they want from us, or maybe schmeltz is right and this whole event just appeals to the those who are naturally suspect (and rightfully so especially today)of their government.

Either way, it's nice to see all of you posting and really getting involved.

[D_Raay]

It may be true that we don't know enough, I'm just going on what i've seen, including "loose change" and all that shit.
Yeah, I hear you. I guess we could always hypothesize alot of different scenarios that could be possible.

[fucktopgirl]

You are so diplomat D_Raay!!:D

[EN[i]GMA]

so your arguing they could put WMD in another country without anyone noticing, but saying they couldn't get some guys up the maintenance shaft to plant explosives...

Actually, it is. Think about it.

If you filled a C-130 with a anthrax (shit, it need not be real, just make sure you do the 'testing' and say it is), drop it off in a bunker in the middle of the desert, burn some papers, and voila, instant justification.

That's easy as hell.

It's a lot easier than rigging a giant office building to blow up without anyone noticing. Extensive measures go into blowing up buildings, tons of explosives, all of it strategically placed.

And I'm not saying that, beyond all doubt, the government couldn't have done it, or been behind it, I'm simply saying *follow the evidence and use logic.*

Novel idea, eh?


But I suppose the plan was to get in, once you're in, doesn't really matter.

What a shitty plan.

After the oil and reconstruction contracts were dished out, job done.

Why does the government need a war to hand out subsidies? They do it without wars ALL THE TIME. It's called corporate welfare, look it up. Government waste for personal profit is notorious even in times of peace.

thats why the place is a complete mess - objective was to secure oil fields,

And an Iraqi civil war is amenable to this HOW?

and hand out massive contracts to the oil and weapons industries. Everyhting else came way down the list.

This plan, literally, makes no sense.

Please, good God, think about it for 5 fucking seconds.

If you really think Iraq, as it stands today, is really going 'according to plan' to the neo-cons or anyone, you're a bigger fucking idiot than I thought, and you're not worth talking to.

[EN[i]GMA]

Exactly - it is totally irrational to believe that steel acts the way it was supposed to that day - it's called science?

There is are too much physical evidence that cannot in any way be explained by the official story, so logically you have to look for a mechanism that does explain these things. That is logic, and rationality - not just evangelically believe what you have been told.

I've seen all those claims debunked, in front of my very eyes, by a list of world-renowned scientists.

Schmeltz has too. Everyone has as well, probably. Shit, you have too.

You just chose not to believe it, likely because you're fucking deluded.

[EN[i]GMA]

I find it remarkable that this issue is still so polarizing.

The only way to play this game is simply not to play. It's like a massive game of Tic-Tac-Toe.

Perhaps that is what they want from us,

'They' want a bunch of moronic jack-offs to spout off inane banter at reasonable, intelligent people?

'They' are more facinorous than I thought...

[EN[i]GMA]

Yeah, I hear you. I guess we could always hypothesize alot of different scenarios that could be possible.

Of course we could. That's the point. Anyone could hypothesize any kind of stupid shit that is, barely, within the realm of possibility (and they do), but at some point, the rubber has to meet the road for sane, rational individuals.

[yeahwho]

I am just beginning to enjoy this thread. Whatever others do I don't care. It isn't a personal issue with me, I don't even find it a heated debate. This is the best thread in over a year. Carlos' and fucktopgirl's convictions and tenaciousness deserve credit.

I'm going to wait until I get a believable answer on what the goverment did with Flight 77 before I go anywhere. Just layout some facts of where the goverment destroyed the actual evidence of Flight 77 on 911.

[ms.peachy]

Carlos' and fucktopgirl's convictions and tenaciousness deserve credit.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

[fucktopgirl]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

You seem to know what you are talking about!

If you just got little petty insults to say, you should take a hike or else bring something to the table and answer some questions!

[ms.peachy]

You seem to know what you are talking about!
Thank you; Self-Reliance is one of my favourite works.
If you just got little petty insults to say, you should take a hike or else bring something to the table and answer some questions!

I did; I brought Emerson.

[saz]

the deepest I'm really willing to go in this is that there was some sort of warning, whether it be basic intelligence or quite detailed knowledge, but that it was perhaps consciously ignored or neglected in order to extend global American influence.

yeah i hear you. i think the administration had some idea that a major attack was coming, but failed to act, possibly because they wanted it to happen. the cold war had been concluded for a decade, and they desperately wanted a new enemy, in order to get the defence industry/military industrial complex running on all cylinders, and therefore raking in mountains of dough.


I find it almost insane that anyone in a rational state of cognitive thought thinks something else besides Flight 77 went into the pentagon.

The bigger question should be, "What happened to Flight 77?"

To actually make a plane disappear on 911 would be miraculous. That would be one hell of a hat trick to pull off, what did the goverment do with that 757? Answer that question first, then collaborate the missile story.

i don't know, man. see, i don't really buy into the 911 conspiracies and what not, however this (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Preloader) presents a pretty good case that a 757 couldn't have crashed into the pentagon. if it has been proven since then that it was a 757, and the argument presented in this video has been completely debunked, ditto the eye witness testimony, then great. i hope it is debunked, because to be honest, it kind of creeps me out. i whole heartedly believe al-qaeda attacked america on september 11, however if indeed it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the pentagon, i wouldn't necessarily be surprised if military intelligence ensured that the pentagon was hit, in effect to demonstrate a widespread attack, adding more fuel to the fire of the horrific wtc attacks, and overall a much more compelling case for war.

and mind you i stated military intelligence. governments aren't very good at keeping secrets. with a bunch fumbling, bumbing, clumsy hacks in suits, petty elements such as ego get in the way. they're amateurs, whereas in the military and their elite intelligence units, you not only follow orders and fully believe what you're doing is in the best interests of national security, but also one must sign away their constitutional rights, and disobeying orders will land you a one way ticket to fort leavenworth penitentiary for at least twenty years.

[yeahwho]

i don't know, man. see, i don't really buy into the 911 conspiracies and what not, however this (http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Preloader) presents a pretty good case that a 757 couldn't have crashed into the pentagon. if it has been proven since then that it was a 757, and the argument presented in this video has been completely debunked, ditto the eye witness testimony, then great. i hope it is debunked, because to be honest, it kind of creeps me out. i whole heartedly believe al-qaeda attacked america on september 11, however if indeed it wasn't a 757 that crashed into the pentagon, i wouldn't necessarily be surprised if military intelligence ensured that the pentagon was hit, in effect to demonstrate a widespread attack, adding more fuel to the fire of the horrific wtc attacks, and overall a much more compelling case for war.

and mind you i stated military intelligence. governments aren't very good at keeping secrets. with a bunch fumbling, bumbing, clumsy hacks in suits, petty elements such as ego get in the way. they're amateurs, whereas in the military and their elite intelligence units, you not only follow orders and fully believe what you're doing is in the best interests of national security, but also one must sign away their constitutional rights, and disobeying orders will land you a one way ticket to fort leavenworth penitentiary for at least twenty years.

Here is the other side of the coin (http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm) for that video (scroll down 3/4 of that page for eyewitness accounts). That video uses some very elementary propaganda techniques which kind of reminds me of reefer madness.

[yeahwho]

Here is the bottom line on the pentagon conspiracy.

The people who say a missile hit the pentagon ignore the bigger question of the whole picture, a 757 disappeared without any trace over US soil. How does that happen? It is a more amazing feat than the pentagon missile attack.

Think about it, of all the bizarre scenarios out there, this is the one that really makes even the most adept illusionist's on the planet earth envious. Explain the smoke and mirrors on how Flight 77 did not fly into the pentagon, what did they do with that 757? It is really much more interesting than all the rest of the theories presented on this thread, yet completely ignored.

Why?

[fucktopgirl]

Here is the other side of the coin (http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/pentahole_dimensions_est.htm) for that video (scroll down 3/4 of that page for eyewitness accounts). That video uses some very elementary propaganda techniques which kind of reminds me of reefer madness.

hahaha , i prefer my side of the coin, unbelievable that they found no debris of the plane but maybe like a bolt and a piece of metal with some colors that can make you believe that it was from a boeing.

And Yeahwho, this is a good question what happen to that plane? If indeed it did not hit the pentagon, maybe they make it crash into the WTC?
hehehe , no i actually dont believe that , really i dont know but weird , really weird indeed.

[D_Raay]

GMA']'They' want a bunch of moronic jack-offs to spout off inane banter at reasonable, intelligent people?

'They' are more facinorous than I thought...
See that is where you go over the line. I wouldn't consider many of these people to be "moronic jack-offs". Their belief stems from their own personal thought process, and their own power of cognition and interpretation of information. Hardly a moronic jack-off's way of discerning anything tangible and as complex as 9/11.

[D_Raay]

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

The truth, the hope of any time, must always be sought in minorities.

[Schmeltz]

It isn't a personal issue with me


Me neither, really. Ultimately I don't think that conspiracy theories carry any weight, irrespective of what I or anyone else has to say about them. But I do find it a little disconcerting that people are so willing to construct these irrealistic narratives simply because the "official story" (read: the stringently documented and well-supported consensus attained by a significant body of tenured experts in the fields relevant to this issue) doesn't appear to cover every single possible question that could be raised about this event based on, all too often, subjective opinions and exaggerated and insubstantiated claims focused on misleading particularities instead of the larger picture.

It's significant to me that the supporters of these theories so often trot out the charge that their opponents simply haven't taken all the evidence into account, when it's quite apparent that the real issue concerns not the depth to which the issue has been explored but the prejudices of individual observers. I have spent time looking into this issue and weighing the perspectives of the various contributors to the debate, and obviously so have most of the other people in this thread. And it seems to me that an honest and objective appraisal of the available information still leans toward the "official" conclusion, if only because the proposed conspiracy theory raises even more questions than it purports to explain. It is fruitless to fill the admittently existent gaps in the standard explanation with wild speculation and proposals at total variance with what is known not only about the event in question but about the very nature of modern society and the history behind it.

Again, it comes down to the principle we call Occam's Razor. All things being taken into account and equally assessed, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Constructing elaborate fantasy explanations for apparent gaps in prevalent theories is a poor substitute for reasoned analysis and logical conclusion. I suppose the proponents of these theories are to be somewhat commended for their passionate commitment to establishing the ultimate truth behind the events that have come to define the world in which we live, but so far they've failed to convince me of the realistic or practical nature of their proposals. And I daresay the poll reveals that most people feel the same way.

[Schmeltz]

Oh, and fucktopgirl - je pense que mon francais soit meilleur que votre anglais.

[fucktopgirl]

Et bien , je suis désolé de jeter ton rêve à terre, mais mon francais est sûrement meilleur que le tien, à moins que tu sois québécois ou bien français alors tu pourrais être égale, sinon, je crois bien que tu peux aller te recoucher.

Et puis, questionner la théorie officielle n'est point une perte de temps, il y a trop d'éléments qui ne concordent pas ensemble. Évidemment, ça ne va rien changer à la situation actuelle de finalement découvrir qu'il y a eu mensonges mais cela pourrait juste servir à éveiller la conscience des gens.

Qu'as-tu à répondre par rapport au boeing qui a supposément frapper le pentagon? Tu crois vraiment que c'est une réalité? Si tu as vu les videos sur le sujet et que malgré tout, tu crois dur comme fer, que c'est une vérité. Tu n'est pas si intelligent que ça ou bien tu devrais lâcher la drogue!:D

Sorry for thoses who dont comprehend english, but i had to answer schmeltz in french. Anyway, i did not say anything news.


So to conclude this super issue, it seem that the majority of the population believe in what their governement have told them, wich is a shame if you consider the state of affairs nowadays, even a retard would realise that something is going wrong. It is pretty obvious that people are well embbeded in their own little comfort zone and dont want to get out of it.
It is preferable to do , act and believe the 'law' and follow orders and never question that autority.

Pretty sad and it is one of the reason this world is fucked. But , not my problem to change the world, at least my conscience is not endoctrinate, the rest can do as they please ...

[EN[i]GMA]

See that is where you go over the line. I wouldn't consider many of these people to be "moronic jack-offs". Their belief stems from their own personal thought process, and their own power of cognition and interpretation of information. Hardly a moronic jack-off's way of discerning anything tangible and as complex as 9/11.

No, it's no different than what religious fundamentalists do.

You take one of their claims, any specific, individual claim, and I can debunk it. Anyone can debunk it given a little bit of time. But they'll never concede that they're wrong. Ever.

There have been some monumental ass-whoopings laid on some conspiracy theorists here before, but I've never seen one say "damn man, you're right." See, I try to be honest and objective, I'll change my opinion if it's shown to be wrong, and I have. All I ask for is a little reciprocity in that regard.

[Ali]

3,000 dead in 9/11 in 2001 and we have a 5 page thread in 2007

60,000 (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/) dead in Iraq (and counting) + 776,880 dead (http://www.unknownnews.net/casualties.html) (and counting) in Afghanistan, not to mention the injuries, mutilations and damage to insfrastructure and the carnage continues.

Aren't we debating the wrong thing here? Is 9/11 somehow more ghastly than what happened after it? The Republican party certainly want you to think so, which is why they keep bringing it up, to divert your attention from the terrible things they are doing in your name. 9/11 is their justification for everything they've done since. For Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Extraordinary rendition, backing Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah... the list goes on. If it weren't for 9/11 you'd never have let them get away with it.

Whoever did it knew damn well what would happen. The reaction and the ensuing carnage was part of the plan. Perhaps Al-Quaeda did want Afghanistan and Iraq to be attacked, for the US to establish permanent military bases in these countries. If they knew enough to pull off something like this, then surely they knew what would happen ergo they also wanted the reaction... they WANTED the US in the Middle East. But who is behind Al-Quaeda? Wasn't their leader once on the CIA payroll? Who continues to fund them? Bin Laden's not that rich and surely he's been disowned by the rest of his family and anybody funding him would be nailed instantly. Why are the Saudis never implicated in 9/11, even though most of the passports miraculously 'found' in the rubble were Saudi. WHY HAVE THEY NEVER BEEN CAUGHT? It seems that Iran's more of a danger to the US than Al Quaeda, even though there is no love (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0728/p01s02-wome.html) between the two.

How can you all be so sure about 9/11 with all this weirdness in the background?

I don't know who did really do it. I have my suspicions, but I have no proof either way. Until there is proof, I will continue to have my suspicions. Call me what you will, I wear my tin foil hat with pride.

[D_Raay]

GMA']No, it's no different than what religious fundamentalists do.

You take one of their claims, any specific, individual claim, and I can debunk it. Anyone can debunk it given a little bit of time. But they'll never concede that they're wrong. Ever.

There have been some monumental ass-whoopings laid on some conspiracy theorists here before, but I've never seen one say "damn man, you're right." See, I try to be honest and objective, I'll change my opinion if it's shown to be wrong, and I have. All I ask for is a little reciprocity in that regard.
I disagree! :D

[yeahwho]

Aren't we debating the wrong thing here? Is 9/11 somehow more ghastly than what happened after it? The Republican party certainly want you to think so, which is why they keep bringing it up, to divert your attention from the terrible things they are doing in your name. 9/11 is their justification for everything they've done since. For Afghanistan, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Extraordinary rendition, backing Israel against Hamas and Hezbollah... the list goes on. If it weren't for 9/11 you'd never have let them get away with it.

Whoever did it knew damn well what would happen. The reaction and the ensuing carnage was part of the plan.

How can you all be so sure about 9/11 with all this weirdness in the background?

I don't know who did really do it. I have my suspicions, but I have no proof either way. Until there is proof, I will continue to have my suspicions. Call me what you will, I wear my tin foil hat with pride.

Those are all valid points your bringing up and I semi-agree with some of your thinking. That is why I am not voting on the poll.

The one motivating factor I'm posting in this thread is the mechanics of that day. The engineering of the actual hijackings and carnage that followed. The idea that explosives and missiles were also needed to enhance what was already an insane act seems improbable. Yet many believe this is what happened. To what advantage does this (insert shadow goverment group here) give for an edge above the insanity that was already happening?

It is not good enough to exploit a tragedy of 4 passenger airliners flying into buildings and the ground? We need to use missiles and explosives to enhance the day? To somehow get the point across that multiple wars must be waged?

The fact that the Bush administration completely dropped any credibility on the response to this day goes without debate. They did award military contracts to friends and oil corporations have made record profits, coincidence? I highly doubt it.

The aftermath of the actual day doesn't concern me on this particular thread. If somebody says something to me about a car wreck I'm involved in was rigged, I want to know how that wreck was rigged.

As far as what Bush and his cronies are up to, we're keeping our eye on the ball (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_US_Iraq_Northwest.html) up here in the NW.

[fucktopgirl]

It is not good enough to exploit a tragedy of 4 passenger airliners flying into buildings and the ground? We need to use missiles and explosives to enhance the day? To somehow get the point across that multiple wars must be waged?

There is only one war, the capitalist war; because we are in a utilitarist mode, chaos is everwhere, we left the human part in the shadow and concentrate only on the rationnal side of the man and use nature to our own advantages without thinking about the consequences therefore putting human in a state of competition, jealousy, hate and power for the ressources of this planet.

THis 9/11 drama was and is a justification for this ungoing goal of the usa, to control the petrol ressources and to achieve their world hegemony, there is also a religion war inside the economic one (relate to "la terre promise").

POWER, MONEY AND CONTROL.

I personnaly see the 9/11 as an extension of a society who dont think further then her possession and domination. A society that is motivate by concurrence, prestige and a lack of human compassion. It is like this day will be, forever, their key to wage war without a end, so huge on the conscience of the american population that they will let their government do anything because of fears of another attack.

USA are the rulers of our time, the tyrant of the planet, they dont care about conventions and laws that were established long time ago for the well being of all and it is the only country who do such thing, a total lack of respect for the human population. They just do as they please and what is best for their aim. So, you can come to the conclusion that they just dont have any moral limits, therefore, it is not really hard to believe that they are behind the tragedy because since then , they have been pretty radical with their invasions , have taken from their citizens a lot of human rights and their only justification is the attack of the 9/11, it's the only reason that justify all their freaking insane politics moves " war on terrorist" wich is really ironic because they are acting like mad terrorists too. CAPITALIST EXTREMIST so, of course they can blasted the all muslims and put them in the same bag, with exageration too, since a big part of the world think they are the bad guys, but we know that it is not true. The major reason here is the petrol. The middle east contain a big chunk of the world petrol production, if they can put their hand on that,wich their did,, usa will assure their economic domination a little bit more. I mean they builted a permanent huge military base in irak , PERMANENT, why? Now we got Iran threat with their nuclear program, threat? WHo is the threat here, really? Who got more nuclear weapons then any other country ? Who use it twice on another country?

If they just want to free thoses people and help them to become a democratic society, why on earth they did such a thing...

The missiles and bombs come up because their were certainly use, i dont think it is a matter of " enhancing" the event but maybe more an objective observation of the actual action: if you look at the physical damage of all the building; The pentagon ironic hypothese of a boeing crashing into his wall, the WTC collapses that look very similar to a control demolition and with testimony that support this theory.

So, If i resume in words my perception of the USA with their world politics; Lies, hegemony, power, control, petrol, nuclear. Personnaly, i dont find it hard to digest the fact that they have something to do with the 9/11.

It is a giant economic boost, we all have learn that war is a good thing for economy so....

[fucktopgirl]

If that video dont convince you..well....

http://documentaries.ws/1/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.130

[yeahwho]

I am finding almost every bit of evidence being presented to be damage that Jet Planes would do if used as missiles. Flying at extremely fast speeds loaded with thousands of gallons of fuel into man made objects.

Events of that day baffled Rumsfeld and his co-horts, they couldn't comprehend the damage done by such a simple cohesive action in our own Country. Talk about letting our guard down.

It's good to see your dedication and tenaciousness on this topic, nothing I've seen or read yet has got me changing my mind. I think the biggest mistake is when the missile theory into the Pentagon starts.....that would be the lesser of the problem, if someone was really freaked out about that missile they sure must be stupid to not be wandering about the plane that has never been found. Doesn't make any sense to this guy. Probably because I'm thinking the plane actually flew into the Pentagon. Strange as that may sound to the 138 people who think it didn't.

[Ali]

Talk about letting our guard down.Yes, let's talk about that.

http://standdown.net/

The United States Air Force (USAF) is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominate military force ever known to man. There were seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas.
http://www.af.mil/news/airman/1299/home2.htm


There were at least 28 other USAF bases that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.

Almost one hundred and thirteen minutes elapsed between the time American Airlines Flight 11 lost contact and was hijacked at 8:13:31 till the time United Airlines Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania at 10:06:05. One hour and fifty-three minutes went by and the USAF did not intercept any one of these four "hijacked" airlines. To understand all the rules, regulation and procedures that make this totally impossible to happen, please read:

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Standard Intercept Procedures http://www.StandDown.net/FAAStandardInterceptProcedures.htm

Vigilant Guardian (http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a630vigilantguardian#a630vigilant guardian) All of NORAD is participating in Vigilant Guardian on 9/11. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002] Vanity Fair reports that the “day’s exercise” (presumably Vigilant Guardian) is “designed to run a range of scenarios, including a ‘traditional’ simulated hijack in which politically motivated perpetrators commandeer an aircraft, land on a Cuba-like island, and seek asylum.” [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] However, at NEADS, most of the dozen or so staff on the operations floor have no idea what the exercise is going to entail and are ready for anything. [Utica Observer-Dispatch, 8/5/2004] NORAD is currently running a real-world operation named Operation Northern Vigilance (see September 9-11, 2001). It may also be conducting a field training exercise calling Amalgam Warrior this morning (see 9:28 a.m. September 11, 2001). NORAD is thus fully staffed and alert, and senior officers are manning stations throughout the US. The entire chain of command is in place and ready when the first hijacking is reported. An article later says, “In retrospect, the exercise would prove to be a serendipitous enabler of a rapid military response to terrorist attacks on September 11.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/2002; Bergen Record, 12/5/2003] Colonel Robert Marr, in charge of NEADS, says, “We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board.” [ABC News, 9/11/2002] However, Deskins and other NORAD officials later are initially confused about whether the 9/11 attacks are real or part of the exercise. (see (8:38 a.m.-8:43 a.m.) September 11, 2001). Fortunately, the hijackers happened to know about this excercise. How did they know about it? Are military excercises like this common knowledge?

When Boston flight control first contacts NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) to notify it of the hijacking of Flight 11 (see (8:37 a.m.) September 11, 2001), personnel there initially mistake it for a simulation as part of an exercise. Lieutenant Colonel Dawne Deskins, mission crew chief for the Vigilant Guardian exercise currently taking place (see (6:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001), later says that initially she and everybody else at NEADS thought the call was part of Vigilant Guardian. Whoever planned the hijackings knew about Vigilant Guardian.

Too late, she cried (http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/defense/aviationnow_jumpstart.htm)

Also an airline pilot, Duffy had a bad feeling about the suspected hijacking; something didn't feel right. Consequently, he jammed the F-15's throttles into afterburner and the two-ship formation devoured the 153 mi. to New York City at supersonic speeds. "It just seemed wrong. I just wanted to get there. I was in full-blower all the way," he said.

Unknown to Duffy, Nash and every commander being notified at the time, American Flight 11 had crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) about the time both F-15s were taking off. America's terrorist nightmare had begun.

[fucktopgirl]

It's good to see your dedication and tenaciousness on this topic


http://www.members.shaw.ca/truth911/truth911/blah2.html

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

http://911research.wtc7.net/

[JobDDT]

I personnaly see the 9/11 as an extension of a society who dont think further then her possession and domination. A society that is motivate by concurrence, prestige and a lack of human compassion. It is like this day will be, forever, their key to wage war without a end, so huge on the conscience of the american population that they will let their government do anything because of fears of another attack.

Yeah, shame on us for 9/11. We should be ashamed that we made those poor terrorists fly planes into our buildings.

[fucktopgirl]

Yeah, shame on us for 9/11. We should be ashamed that we made those poor terrorists fly planes into our buildings.


I should have precise ''the elite society'', the rest of the people just pretty accept and believe everything they say. I grant you that 2 planes crashing into the WTC is a big freaking scary thing ...but how and why it did happen is on what you have to question yourself.

Too many coincidence in this event and too many people did make big profits out of this catastrophe.

[Carlos]

news flash:

BBC reported that WTC7 (Soloman Building) had collpased due to fire damage a whole 23mins before it came down - it is even in the background of the live feed to the reporter in NY!!
Less than 5 mins before it does come down the live feed breaks up.. hmm

Think the 'story tellers' were a little too eager on that one:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2072999289423434892&hl=en-GB

There is no logical reason why someone would speculate that a steel frame building could come down due to fire, as it had never happened before (or since).

[kaiser soze]

yeah, I saw that video....very curious indeed

[Funkaloyd]

There is no logical reason why someone would speculate that a steel frame building could come down due to fire, as it had never happened before (or since).
WTC1-6 had collapsed or been damaged beyong repair that very day.

[Carlos]

update:

google has pulled the video for at least the third time now - i wonder why?

but it is here:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=49f_1172526096

[Carlos]

WTC1-6 had collapsed or been damaged beyong repair that very day.

WTC1+2 came down as we know - the others apart from WTC7 were damaged beyond repair - but were still standing days after - until the pulled them down (literally pulled them with wires - I have the footage - check '911 Mysteries' on google vid.

So they did not collapse due to fire.

So (according to the official explanation) only 3 buildings have ever collapsed due to fire: WTC 1+2+7. all on the same day, and in the same place - those terrorists are crafty, almost godlike in their ability to cause destruction.

[Funkaloyd]

only 3 buildings have ever collapsed due to fireEven if you remembered to qualify that with "steel", you'd still be wrong.

[Carlos]

Even if you remembered to qualify that with "steel", you'd still be wrong.

er... links? and I don't meant that tar roofed one story building from screw loose change.

But the point is: WTC7 is right behind the reporter, as they are saying it has collapsed. Until a couple minuted before it really collapsed, when the live feed to the reporter goes down - how convenient.

Seeing as FEMA and NIST still have not come up with a definite theory for how it came down, then whoever gave the BBC this information must have been psychic!!

[little j]

i think its both

[fucktopgirl]

I doubt that people will go check this out...but it might enlight some of you!!!


It is worty..just clear facts for like 1:23 hour, no hysterical dude talking, pure logic and facts!!

dare to check it!!

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=1336167662031629480&q=9%2F11+lie

[Funkaloyd]

Dare to check out the author's website.

http://www.erichufschmid.net/

[Lex Diamonds]

Seriously, it's pretty telling that the only options are Islamic fundamentalists or the government. You didn't even put an "Other" option. WHY do you think it's Islamic fundamentalists? Because that's what the government told you. Duh.

[QueenAdrock]

Those are the only two options because that's what the people on the board have been arguing over. No one has come forth with a "I think it's *insert theory here*" and argued it, so those were the two we were debating between.

And if you've read the rest of the thread, people have come forth with reasoning behind why it was Islamic fundamentalists, and it's not "The government told me." Majority of the people in this thread who voted for the Islamic fundamentalist choice are naturally distrustful of our government and I'd go so far as to say many of them hate the GOP. So it's not just blindly following what the government tells us; they must have come to their conclusions a different way.

[Lex Diamonds]

I'm just observing that it wasn't until after they had declared war on a Muslim country and killed thousands of innocent Muslims that the government announced to the world that the perpetrators were Muslims.

[QueenAdrock]

I believe they blamed Al Qaeda the day after. They blamed the 1993 WTC bombings on Al Qaeda, too, 8 years prior. They declared war on Afghanistan in October 2001, a month after they assigned blame of 9/11 to Al Qaeda.

[Documad]

I believe they blamed Al Qaeda the day after. They blamed the 1993 WTC bombings on Al Qaeda, too, 8 years prior. They declared war on Afghanistan in October 2001, a month after they assigned blame of 9/11 to Al Qaeda.
I remember that the individual hijackers were identified within a few days of the airplanes hitting the towers. 15 of the 19 were Saudi Arabian. The others were Egyptian, Lebanese, and from the United Arab Emirites. And as you say, we US citizens heard it was Al Qaeda on the news before we saw their photos or learned exactly how they trained for their terrorist mission.

Clinton bombed Al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan well before 9/11. Bin Laden was such an obvious bad guy that he had been ousted from more moderate countries.

[HAL 9000]

Comedian Russell Brand was fired for turning up to work at MTV (he was to do an interview with Kylie Minogue ) dressed as Osama Bin Laden on September 12th 2001. So it must have been common knowledge at that point that he was the suspect.

[Carlos]

I believe they blamed Al Qaeda the day after. They blamed the 1993 WTC bombings on Al Qaeda, too, 8 years prior. They declared war on Afghanistan in October 2001, a month after they assigned blame of 9/11 to Al Qaeda.


er.... actually they were being blamed 35mins into the attacks - a little after 9.15.. the 'story' started early on, and so everything since then has beenmade to fit the pre-planned skapegoat..

Bin Laden has NEVER admitted to the attacks - on the contrary, he actually made a statement in the days following it to say he had nothing to do with the attacks, and he was against them... oh unless of course you been taken in by the 'confession tape' where he wears a gold watch (not allowed by extremist islam) and writes with his wrong hand, not to mention that he doesn't even look like bin Laden. The confession tape was found in a flat in Kabul when the US forces invaded. A BLATENT FAKE. :eek:

....and Documad - Clinton did an interview, in which he gets REAL pissed off, and starts ranting about how he wanted to go after Bin Laden, and could have got him, but the CIA stopped him...

not to mention that he was visisted by a CIA agent just days beofre 911, in a pakistan hospital..

oh and 9 oh the 19 are still alive and well... so blatently had nothing to do with the attacks... oh and NONE of the names were on any of the flight manifests - infact there weren't even ANY muslim names.


makes you think eh?

wakey wakey america

[Funkaloyd]

Bin Laden has NEVER admitted to the attacks - on the contrary, he actually made a statement in the days following it to say he had nothing to do with the attacks
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1550477.cms

Clinton did an interview, in which he gets REAL pissed off, and starts ranting about how he wanted to go after Bin Laden, and could have got him, but the CIA stopped him.So he's one of, what, 3 people that weren't in on it? Rhetorical. Don't answer.

[QueenAdrock]

makes you think eh?

wakey wakey america

Not really. Credible links, perhaps?

[Carlos]

Not really. Credible links, perhaps?

sure.. although I know u made up your mind already Queen, no matter what evidence I show you. :rolleyes:

although I will admit I got the CIA visit mixed up, he was visited by a CIA agent in a Dubai hospital in July 2001: http://www.guardian.co.uk/waronterror/story/0,1361,584444,00.html

.....but was in a pakistan hospital on sept 10th 2001

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060909&articleId=3194

According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was hospitalized in Rawalpindi. one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, 2001.

"Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters.

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

Osama denial: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/

hijackers info: http://www.welfarestate.com/911/

re Hani Hanjour (alleged pilot of flight 77): "His name was not on the American Airlines manifest for the flight because he may not have had a ticket." So how he get on the bloody plane?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/graphics/attack/hijackers.html

Clinton pissed off:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYNI5RPOlp4&mode=related&search=
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/09/24/clinton.binladen/index.html


If Osama WAS behind the attacks, then why does Bushy boy care sooooooo little: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRY_BOYeySc&mode=related&search=

[QueenAdrock]

First off, thanks for (mostly) credible links. It does make one think a little more, though there's still some stuff that doesn't add up. Firstly, if Bin Laden claimed that he was not behind the attacks, who's to say that was actually him? There is no video footage to prove it, only what Al Jazeera claimed he has said. If one cannot fully believe the video footage, then I think it's also safe to say that one cannot fully believe what "bin Laden" supposedly said to the Middle Eastern media either.

As for being in a hospital, I don't see what that has to do with the attacks. He was considered to be the mastermind and had given orders, but he himself was not a part of the actual plans, he just created them. It doesn't matter much where he was on the day of attacks, since he was not a part of the physical execution of the task.

And there's no doubt in my mind that Bush doesn't give a shit about finding Bin Laden. He didn't want to focus on Bin Laden, it's been said that ever since Bush got in office he was interested in going into Iraq, and when the attacks happened Bush asked counter-terrorism czar Clarke if he could find ANY links between Iraq and 9/11. There's no doubt in my mind that because of this catastrophe, Bush has profited from the ensuing war. It's what he wanted from the beginning. But to me, it doesn't add up that he's smart enough or capable enough that he could pull all of this off, and do it so perfectly that all the little loose ends are tied up, none of the hundreds upon hundreds of people who were "involved" would ever talk, all of the little intricacies of this plot were thought through within only 8 months of him taking office and executed. It doesn't make sense how that's possible.

What does make sense is what some of us call "Pulling a Homer" : success despite idiocy. Examples of this would be falling off a bar stool and finding a peanut. At one point, you looked like a complete asshole and a bumbling fool, but despite that, you have profited. He was caught with his pants around his ankles. The man is a dumbass. But because of this, he's been able to clumsily argue links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein (why didn't he manipulate intelligence in the first place to say Al Qaeda is in Iraq, not Afghanistan? You'd think he'd have that kind of power, if you believe the theories) and have an ensuing war. I simply don't think he or his administration are capable of such things, but I do know they profited. He's just a selfish asshole who saw an opportunity and took it.

[Ali]

if Bin Laden claimed that he was not behind the attacks, who's to say that was actually him?are you saying it's an Al-Jazeera CONSPIRACY?

[QueenAdrock]

:eek: MAYBE!

Naw, I just find it silly that one can dispute a source and cite so many reasons as to why it's fraudulent and yet accept something else without asking questions. The point is, you can't really trust anything you're given, it's all pick and choose.

[Carlos]

Hi queen... thanks for not just throwing it back in my face.. I honestly am not here to annoy anyone (even though I seem to be doing just that)

I understand why it can seem like things aren't connected, and I would in no way like to say I have all the answers for what is obviously extremely complex scenario.

But I'll try give some reaasons as to why some of the above things are important:

There is no definitive proof either way as to Bin Laden's involvement - the video is obviously a fake: http://infowars.net/articles/february2007/190207Osama_tape.htm

However like you say a written testimony is not proof - although it was supposedly an interview with a pakistan newspaper. Full transscipt: http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html Which aljazeera must have then reported on.
This was days after the attack, and as such I place it in more authroity than later so called testimonies... but I admit we cannot be certain either way.

The importance of the hospital visit is not that he couldn't of masterminded 911, but that Pakistan was, and is, a major ally, so surely looking after america's most wanted (he was a wanted man before 911 - the bombing of the navy ship in yemen, and embassy in kenya etc..), would be a seen as an act of war on Pakistan's part? Especially if he was responsible for 911.
So why have america not repremanded Pakistan at the very least.... I mean what happened to the taliban when they were supposedly harbouring Osama!! Got the shit kicked out of them.

Even more unbelievable is that a CIA agent boasted about seeing Osama in july of 2001. Or that the CIA and FBI wouldn't give clinton the resources to getting him...

So you say that bush is too dumb to of cooked up the whole thing, I couldn't agree more. He couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery :D (as we say over here in england).. but the CIA/intel services and other dark forces behind him do have the resources, and know how... cough dark lord cheney :rolleyes:

Queen, please just watch 911 Press for Truth: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481 - no talk of control demolitions, or missles hitting the pentagon. It's made by the families of those who lost loved ones in the 911 attacks. It highlights all the things the bush/cheney admin did, and more importantly didn't do. It sticks to documented facts, and the disgrace that was the 911 cOMISSION.

[QueenAdrock]

Bin Laden has NEVER admitted to the attacks - on the contrary, he actually made a statement in the days following it to say he had nothing to do with the attacks, and he was against them... oh unless of course you been taken in by the 'confession tape' where he wears a gold watch (not allowed by extremist islam) and writes with his wrong hand, not to mention that he doesn't even look like bin Laden. The confession tape was found in a flat in Kabul when the US forces invaded. A BLATENT FAKE. :eek:


An Al Qaeda operative has admitted full guilt, and says he works for Bin Laden. (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32456)

[Carlos]

An Al Qaeda operative has admitted full guilt, and says he works for Bin Laden. (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=32456)

no offense Queen, but you are joking right?

the guy was tortued for years then gives this statement, as well as conveniently admitting to numerous other terrorist acts. 1 of which was after he had been captured :p

it really cannot be trusted, bottom line.

[QueenAdrock]

So why would he admit it NOW, if he was tortured for years? You'd think if he was able to stand torture for years and years, there would be no need for him to admit it now (or lied about it to get them to stop, whichever you believe). The breaking point for torture is usually only a few days to a few weeks. If he were going insane from the torture, he would have admitted it then, to get them to stop whatever it was they were doing.

By admitting it now, it just seems to me like he did it on his own accord.

I do find it interesting which sources you seem to trust and which ones you don't. Al Jazeera = credible. US Military = uncredible.

[Ali]

His "confession" looks like it was hand-written by Dick Cheney!

Whoooo!!!! We caught one of the Boogey Men, whooooo look how scary he is!!! WHOOOO THERE ARE MORE OF THEM, ONLY WE CAN PROTECT YOU FROM THEM!!!!

Sheez, Queen. I had you pegged for someone who would see through this crap in a second. Are you feeling OK?

[QueenAdrock]

I don't find it that hard to believe that this guy was in some way involved with 9/11. Not one bit. I already believe that Al Qaeda was in charge of 9/11 (as does 85% of the rest of those who voted), so when I see something that is a confession of an Al Qaeda member, working for Bin Laden, saying that yes, he too was involved, it's not that hard to believe. Especially when you take into account that the 9/11 Commission Report officially stated that Khalid Sheikh Muhammad was the principle architect behind 9/11. It's not that outrageous to believe his confession, if you believe that the 9/11 Commission is a credible source, which I do. Does that mean that I believe his other confessions too? Hard to say, I'd have to look into them more. He could just be hyping them up to give himself more credit. But like I said, I don't think his confession to 9/11 is hard to believe, at all.

And let me reiterate, if it IS just the government masterminding this confession from him, why now? You'd think they would have done it back during election season, dontcha think? The war is incredibly unpopular now, hell, this confession wasn't even widely publicized. What good is it to make up this stuff now, if it doesn't benefit them in any way, shape or form?

[Ali]

The war is incredibly unpopular now, hell, this confession wasn't even widely publicized. What good is it to make up this stuff now, if it doesn't benefit them in any way, shape or form?To reinforce the reasons for the War on Terror?

Queen, this guy could have confessed on his first day in Gitmo. Do you think that information would have been released?

And you know full well that people will confess to anything under conditions of torture. This guy was confessing to stuff he didn't even do!

But hey, you trust what your government tells you, I don't. Each to their own.

[fucktopgirl]

endoctrinement is well spread!

[QueenAdrock]

To reinforce the reasons for the War on Terror?

Then how come it wasn't widely reported? I just found this through a military website I stumbled upon. You'd think if they wanted to reinforce the reasons and get people on their side, it would be more widely publicized than this.

And if he DID confess his first day of Gitmo, you're absolutely right they would have released it. They would have LOVED to say "Look! We're right! Everything we've been doing has been validated, we got a confession!" It makes no damn sense why they would have been waiting and keeping it from us until now, when it doesn't make any difference when it comes to support, due to the VAST unpopularity of the war.

And you know full well I don't trust everything the government tells me. I take everything on a case-by-case basis and make my decisions from there. Just because I don't trust some things they tell me doesn't mean that I automatically assume that EVERYTHING they say is a lie.

[Funkaloyd]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07

Yip.

[Ali]

Then how come it wasn't widely reported? I just found this through a military website I stumbled upon. You'd think if they wanted to reinforce the reasons and get people on their side, it would be more widely publicized than this.

And if he DID confess his first day of Gitmo, you're absolutely right they would have released it. They would have LOVED to say "Look! We're right! Everything we've been doing has been validated, we got a confession!" It makes no damn sense why they would have been waiting and keeping it from us until now, when it doesn't make any difference when it comes to support, due to the VAST unpopularity of the war.

And you know full well I don't trust everything the government tells me. I take everything on a case-by-case basis and make my decisions from there. Just because I don't trust some things they tell me doesn't mean that I automatically assume that EVERYTHING they say is a lie.

To you? That's impossible. It doesn't matter how much proof the other side is willing to offer, you're set in your ways and you're not open to hearing the other side; you're only open to debating it because you're already convinced anything the other side has to offer is crap. Quite a few people on this board are like that, and I admit I'm like that for a few issues too. It's like debating evolution, 9/11 conspiracy, all of that. These debates aren't cut-and-dry, there are no concrete infallible answers for either side. You just choose the answer that best fits your beliefs and sounds best to you based on the evidence you yourself have seen, and debate from there.

However, most of the time these debates turn into an "I'm right, you're wrong" thing and it's like two brick walls screaming at each other, and chest-beating commences as each side claims victory. It's tiring. Yes, it is.

[QueenAdrock]

Give me a break. From that post, I wasn't saying I'm infallible, I'm stating my case. That is debating. That is what this board is about. I absolutely believe my side, which is why I'm willing to defend it, but nowhere will you see chest-pounding "I'm right, you're wrong, all hail QueenAdrock" there. I nowhere say you're an idiot or call you a sheep or say "Stop drinking the punch" or "Grow some balls and see my side" like Qdrop does. You stated your case, I refuted it, you refute my case, whatever. That's what we do here. I may believe my side 100% due to what I've seen from the research I've done on the subject and what I've learned at my job, you don't have to. What I say to you won't change your mind, what you say to me won't change my mind (thus my "I admit that I'm guilty of this too" from the first paragraph). A lot of the time, we don't reach a middle ground with topics, that's the nature of politics. But I'm never condescending about what I believe, unlike your "Are you feeling okay today?" comment which I took as "Wow, what a fucking dumbass position you have. You should know better."

You completely missed the point of my post. The "tiring" part is the fact that so many people on this board are rude or try and act superior to those of differing opinions. I have no problem with people believing they're right and me not agreeing with them, that's going to happen. Just don't come storming in and be a dick about it.

[Ali]

What I say to you won't change your mind, what you say to me won't change my mind (thus my "I admit that I'm guilty of this too" from the first paragraph). A lot of the time, we don't reach a middle ground with topics, that's the nature of politics. But I'm never condescending about what I believe, unlike your "Are you feeling okay today?" comment which I took as "Wow, what a fucking dumbass position you have. You should know better."Sorry, Queen, I didn't mean it that way... I just meant that it's quite out of character of you to swallow what (I believe to be) a line fed to you by the US govt.

I really enjoy debating with you and don't mean to hurt your feelings or be condascending, I suppose I was trying to draw you on why you happen to believe the things the government tell you when they have lied so many times in the past. Call me a conspiracy nutcase if you will, but I have every reason to believe that your government is lying to you (again) and I want you to prove to me that they are telling the truth. Dunno how you are supposed to when I am so sceptical, so mebbe we'd better just drop this thread and respect one another's POV.

PLUR.

Alastair.

[QueenAdrock]

Call me a conspiracy nutcase if you will, but I have every reason to believe that your government is lying to you (again) and I want you to prove to me that they are telling the truth.

I work for them, and have heard and seen things everyday about Al Qaeda. Can't really tell you much other than the generalized idea that people and intelligence are working very hard on finding out more information about them and trying find ways to combat the problem (outside of this Iraq BS).

It may just be similar to you working hard on the coding for Y2K. Through your job, you knew it was a problem and you worked everyday on fixing it, but if people never see Y2K actually happen, then they consider it to have never been a threat at all. Nahmsayin?

But yeah, let's just leave it at that. (y)

[Ali]

Can't really tell you much... and this is why people like me, on the outside, find it so difficult to believe those on the inside.

Yes, I know it's because 'you' don't want 'them' to know how much 'you' know, but this makes 'us' nervous.

See?

Good point about Y2K. A lot of people thought it was a scam. Hey. Maybe AQ really is a terrorist network and atually did manage to somehow pull off 9/11 from a cave in Afghanistan... jeez I can't even bring myself to write it because it just seems so absolutely impossible.

Better to leave it be and swallow the official story.

[sam i am]

When you swallow, Ali, don't wash it down with the "punch."

;-)