Holy shit what a fun thread. :D
Printable View
Holy shit what a fun thread. :D
It's not that the government doesn't have a history of using fear as a political tool, it's that there's a significant difference between manipulating established fears (for example, the GOPs use of anti-Castro propaganda in areas with significant ex-pat cuban populations), manipulating events as they happen or narrowly afterwards (anti-iraq misinformation during the first gulf war) and actually creating significant events from scratch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
The US does the first two quite often (as do most governments. It's a powerful tool for galvanising public opinion), but there's no evidence that they've done the third since the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
wow.... shocked you actually said that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistral
wow, i missed alot of questions! my connection is pretty slow on this website and alot of people reply at once. well its late here and i fall into the lazy category at the moment so i'm gonna direct those that have questions to a page a friend and i made as a project a while back with a bunch of sources to fall back on, take a look:
http://www.freewebs.com/hbme/911.htm
P.S - ignore the rest of the site, that was just a theme we did for a game we played
That site is pretty worthless from an academic perspective. Lots of assertions and claims, no citations or attempts to support those assertions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Wow I still can't believe this discussion is still going on, you'd think this guy would give up already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MuayThai65
wow, and youre still trolling
ETA: if you scroll down at the page we have a whole list of hyperlinked sources
What the fuck is trolling?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
But seriously, do you honestly think the U.S. planned the 9/11 attacks?
It's just WAY too far fetched to even be an option.
Glanced at your site. I'm a big fan of the "you have to prove me wrong, even though I can't prove I'm right" thing you've got going.
Edit: What Hypnos said. You took the time to write (although poorly) all that crap, but couldn't be bothered to clarify anything, or link the sources properly? Seems like a site made by a dumb teenager to me.
None of which are referenced to what you're saying in the main document and half of which are secondhand sources that themselves don't cite their info. I can't tell which ones are supposed to support which assertionsQuote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Not to mention how many of them are from rather dubious sources (hint: Infowars and Worldnetdaily have well-deserved poor reputations for accuracy).
[QUOTE=Not to mention how many of them are from rather dubious sources (hint: Infowars and Worldnetdaily have well-deserved poor reputations for accuracy).[/QUOTE]
and your proof is where? is everyone supposed to just take your word for it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Look, you said you love to debate, right? Please, show us that this is something you can do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
WND reports stories no other newspaper does, refuses to cite where they're getting their information from, mixes op-ed pieces into their news reports and generally does the exact same thing your site does: lots of claims, no details for them. This can be established simply by reading the articles on their website. They also have a bent towards racism, particularly of the anti-arab variety (for some reason, they have trouble realising that arab != muslim, and vice versa)Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Infowars doesn't cite sources and likes to ramble on about the illuminati and the NWO without providing evidence. Again, this can be seen simply by checking their site.
I actually encourage the other members of this site to check both those groups out. So that everyone is clear where they lay on this stuff.
Quote:
If the US government was able to covertly destroy two of the most recognisable buildings in the world and pull the wool over our eyes for six years, don't you think they'd be able to stop "the truth" from spreading via Google Video? Seriously, have you not heard of press leaks or something? In this day and age it would be nigh-on impossible to keep something of that magnitude under wraps for so long. Unless... oh man, unless they want us to believe they're imperfect, thus absolving them of any suspicion... :O
-----------------------
they did pull the wool over your eyes. thats why we're in iraq.
fighting the war on terror, remember?
-------
Quote:
Allright then. Explain the existence of us Non-US people who don't watch US news, don't like the government much (US or non-US, I'm not overly fond of either), understand the science and still don't buy your conspiracy theory.
-------
what doesnt add up?
----
Quote:
Spend more money to achieve what, again?
----
Larry Silverstine, two months before the attack, bought the whole world trade center complex and took out a record insurance policy on them for 3.5 billion dollars which he has now been payed. He then bought the SEARS tower, another big terrorist target.
that and we needed a reason to go to iraq so they put fear into americans to support america
bush also stated there were WMD's in iraq. there were never any WMD's.
----
Quote:
People seem to be forgetting that even though steel doesn't melt until it reaches around 1400 degrees celsius, it does start to weaken significiantly at lower temperatures. Jet fuel has been known to burn at anywhere between 250 and 1000 degrees celsius - in extreme cases that's certainly enough to cause a building's steel structural supports to lose their integrity and start to buckle, and that's even if you don't take into account the effects of a heavy, fast-moving, object crashing into its side. The towers were probably designed to be aircraft proof, yes, but it's not like that theory could be tested. Also keep in mind the advancements that have been made in aviation since the WTC was originally built. We're talking about different eras here.
-----
the towers were not only designed to hold an aircraft, but also to hold a fire for a few days before collapsing
----
Quote:
People voted Bush in merely because they're stupid, nothing else. Never underestimate idiocy. Never. An attempt towards his own people was NOT necessary for his return to the throne. Any other politician would have benefited from such an event had they said that retaliation would be swift and undeniable, which is pretty much what the Republican party and its heads implied would happen was Bush to be reelected. Lo and behold, he was placed back into office, and what happened afterwards is history. Whether or not you can come up with an explanation as to why and how 9/11 happened, it's still not believable that a few thousand people had to die for men to get a tad bit richer. Like I said, other means would have achieved just the same.
Also, if anything could be proven and used to demonstrate how the White House bombed its own people, I'm sure it would spread like wildfire and the last place I'd take it as credible would be the emulation forum I daily visit. Come on, now, get us either good empirical data or scientifically verified information, then we'll see. Until then, you're just another conspiracy theorist bred by the infected bowels of the internet. A word of wisdom would be that you stop believing every other clip you see on the net. Need you be reminded that EVERYONE has to gain, no matter which side of the fence they're on?
---
Operation Northwood is a de-classified document from the 1960's that talks about harming U.S. civilians and blaming it on the Cubans as a pretext to go to war with Cuba. (Sound familiar? Harm civilians by bringing down towers. Blame it on the Arabs. Invade Middle-East.)
----
QUOTE
What's to say he didn't have a backup plan. Say, a couple tourists or dudes working at the towers hiding bombs in briefcases? It would explain why nobody mentioned seeing demo equipment, as you wouldn't need to run wiring through the building (yes, timed explosives are a possibility, but hardly synchronized well enough to pull a blast of that scale adequately). It's not like people didn't get bombs in there before.. It'd also be hard to make sure that terrorists inside detonated due to the fact that the corpses would've been pretty freakin' mangled by the time anyone found them, and it's not like people were inspecting EVERY INDIVIDUAL PEICE FOR EXPLOSIVE EQUIPMENT.
----
Part 1: Demolitions
707 and 767 are "comparable"
Which I suppose is code for "the 767 weighs AT LEAST 50 000 KG's MORE when empty."
Last I checked that wasn't "comparable", that was about 1/3 of a 707. Notice the "at least"? I could spend time tracking down specifics as to what model the TT's were built to withstand and as to what hit the towers, but I have better things to do with my time, and you're already wasting it with this video. I suppose after a "week without sleep" numbers are hard to do.
Two pockets of fire
I don't know about you, but that's what it looked like to me from the outside as well. HOWEVER that doesn't mean the fire wasn't there. I honestly can't see shit inside the building (offices, people) doesn't mean it isn't there.
Fuel used up on initial impact, plane couldn't make that hole, etc. etc.
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/mov/2007/HoffmannWTC.mov
Seems solid enough for me.
If you've ever made your own fire, you know smoke etc. etc.
For starters, I highly doubt the maker of this video has EVER started a fire (no, I'm not a pyro.... although it would explain my urge to burn things then have sex with them). Smoke doesn't always mean a fire is ENTIRELY oxygen deprived. It can also be from the burning of certain objects, substances and chemicals, say, the kind you find in an office complex? Heck the high volume of smoke would probably indicate that there WAS a fire inside the building (there goes your "the fire was minor and the fuel was used up in the initial blast" argument). Way to go video maker, you just discredited yourself. Have a cookie. I baked it with anthrax.
Hmm, they got the manager of the build, but not the designers or engineers. Nor any aeronautical engineers responsible for building and designing boeings. How very odd... perhaps they *gasp* said the director was full of shit? "I believe that the building probably " ? Sounds rather unsure of himself don't he?
yadda yadda, no steel buildings trashed by fire, yadda
Sure, but how many of those fires were started by explosions or plane crashes? All it takes is a combination of a bent structure combined with high heat for the whole thing to go, given it's the right supports and the right place. Ever played jenga? same shit basically.
EDIT- Oh, and remember the Concord? The so called "uncrashable jet"? Then one crashed. Just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it's impossible.
According to this video, it took 30 minutes for the FIRST tower to fall. Odd, I figured oxygen starved fires would've burned out by then. Not to mention 30 minutes of heat can do quite a bit to metal. Don't beleive me? Stick a nail on a burner set to a low setting, come back in a half hour. Hardly scientific of an accurate model, but an example nonetheless. Combine that with wear and tear, the SIZE of the building compared to the others mentioned, and the fact that there was a PLANE CRASH and an EXPLOSION and you have a totally different situation.
As for the "fires/fuel not considered when making a building plane proof" statement, well I suppose you can chalk that up to lazyness or cheapness. Unless the government is somehow causing big construction companies to cut corners by creating several generations of slackers in preparation for 9/11, but at that point you're just making an ass of yourself.
Look at this steel
I'm looking, and I'm seeing an end cleanly sheered off. Wait a minute, it's so obvious, an army of saw wielding suicidal government employees did it! A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, as a girder is only as strong as whatever's holding it in place. if it's possible to beleive that a bomb could've detached a girder or two, it's possible to believe a plane PLOWING THROUGH A BUILDING AND EXPLODING could've done the same.
it was like they detonated, boom boom boom boom boom
Where are the visible fucking explosions, the priming cables, and the team of guys working the detonators, etc? Oh, I know. They don't exist. Which I guess also accounts for why none of the people in the buildings mentioned seeing explosives, wiring, modified structures for containing the explosives, or dudes flicking switches. Y'know, it's kinda funny how the word "explosion" automatically means "bomb". I mean it's not like there were other things that could've exploded in the building right? Or separate gas tanks in the plane. Or possible other sources. Yup, it's ALWAYS the guys with the shades and the suits. Oh, and the windows would've shattered outwards or something were this a controlled blast. Unless of course the government slacked on the explosions. Yup, they set up this big thing yet they took the chance that they wouldn't have enough explosives to do the job right.
And that's the 15 minute mark.
egh, I'm sure the majority of this needs some referencing or clarification. Regardless, I've had my fill for this setting. More statements to come unless someone else beats me to it.
-----
Building 7 was the farthest bulding away from the twin towers and surprisingly it caught fire while buildings that took large chunks of debris right into them did not. Building 7 was designed to withstand temperatures over 2000 degrees for days if need be. Larry Silverstine admitted that they had to "pull it down" because there was nothing that could be done. A building in Madrid Spain caught fire and burned for two days and people were just waiting for it to collapse but it did not. It takes days to set up a controlled demolition, but they brought down bulding 7 in the afternoon of 9/11. What was in bulding 7? Department of Defence, CIA, Office of Emergency Management, Secret Service, and the City's command bunker. (Overseeing the entire operation), along with other things. In other word, Bulding 7 contained all the evidence.
World Trade center complex engineers reported to have designed the buildings to withstand at least 2 Boeing-757 crash impacts and not collapse.
Listen to this one: CIA's website admits having NORAD training for a drill that involved commercial planes crashing into tall buildings. Guess when this drill was practiced? Coincidentaly, it was on 9/11 on the same exact moments the true events were happening. What did this do? Confuse NORAD to think everything was a drill- delaying them so they could not react as fast. They still had time to stop the last aircraft. No one explains how FOUR airplanes were hijacked within two hours. Now- Bush on the week after 9/11 said he never heard of a plan to crash airliners in the world trade centers. (While NORAD was training for it)
let me know if i missed anything
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnos
youre entitled to your opinion, and i to mine.
since when does arab = muslim? muslim = arab?
ive more then 2 sources
You may be entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Learn the distinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Are you familiar with what "!=" means? It means "does NOT equal" or "is NOT equivalent".
I've noticed, but when two decidedly dodgy sources make up a significant chunk of your "argument", your credibility suffers by a similar amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnos
no, sorry, i over looked it
ive 10+ sources
you question 2 and automatically toss out the rest?
ETA: also gonna point out that im not raymond or anybody else in this thread
and that link he put up isnt a good source
i still recommend sitting down with a bowl of popcorn and watching mine
No, I toss out the parts that aren't supported. It just happens that somewhere between 1/3rd to 1/2 of your sources simply cannot be taken at face value and I have no way of knowing which sources are intended to support which points since you didn't record which sourves are for which claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
In future, you might want to footnote your cites, so that everyone knows right away which articles are intended to support which points.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnos
let me know what youre unclear on and ill be happy to help you dig
and thank you for the advice, i know that site is one huge clusterfuck but we did our best trying to keep the page organized with all the information we had
The iraq situation and the 9/11 conspiracy are mostly separate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Also, most people accept that the iraq invasion was BS in one way or another. Heck even mainstream news mentions it.
What he was stating was that if they were able to hide 9/11 for so long, why were they not able to stop a handful of people posting videos on the internet. It's not like it'd be hard. A couple people suffer "accidents", problem solved. CIA, black helicopters, etc.
Also it kinda calls into question how good the US is at hiding stuff. They can't secretly plant a couple nukes in Iraq yet we're supposed to beleive they pulled of a gigantic scam and yet a couple guys with a couple night courses in physics under their belt can somehow bust the whole thing wide open? Hard to swallow.
-------
Quote:
Allright then. Explain the existence of us Non-US people who don't watch US news, don't like the government much (US or non-US, I'm not overly fond of either), understand the science and still don't buy your conspiracy theory.
-------
Raymond2007's claim was that the reason we called BS on 9/11 was due to us being suckered by mainstream media and liking the US government, yet people not from the US who aren't exposed to US media still don't buy the conspiracy theories. Hypnos was asking him to explain how these people can exist if the only reason anyone believes CNN and the government media machine is because they're suckers who'll buy anything the government spoon feeds them. He wasn't exactly being nice about people who disagreed with him...Quote:
what doesnt add up?
And Larry is connected to an American/Afghani government conspiracy.... how?Quote:
Larry Silverstine, two months before the attack, bought the whole world trade center complex and took out a record insurance policy on them for 3.5 billion dollars which he has now been payed. He then bought the SEARS tower, another big terrorist target.
Getting a little ahead of ourselves aren't we?Quote:
that and we needed a reason to go to iraq so they put fear into americans to support america
bush also stated there were WMD's in iraq. there were never any WMD's.
If they wanted Iraq, why not make the terrorists Iraqi? What did they have to gain from Afghanistan?
Oh, and faulty intel and a BS reason for war is in no way relevant or similar to a conspiracy to kill thousands of american citizens. Yes, people stll die in war and so on, but they're military or civilians of someone else's country. It'd be a much smaller PR nightmare were a missle or two to blow a couple buildings in Baghdad to crap due to the US government. It just seems way too high risk for the US government to have actually done 9/11. Sure, they had reasons, but what they stood to lose far outweighs what they could've gained, at least from where I'm sitting.
Really?Quote:
the towers were not only designed to hold an aircraft, but also to hold a fire for a few days before collapsing
No no no, Northwood is a declassified document from the 1960's that talks about CREATING THE ILLUSION of US civilians being harmed by cubans. It was all supposed to be staged and fake. Nobody really died. 'cept soldiers and cubans in the ensuing battles.Quote:
Operation Northwood is a de-classified document from the 1960's that talks about harming U.S. civilians and blaming it on the Cubans as a pretext to go to war with Cuba. (Sound familiar? Harm civilians by bringing down towers. Blame it on the Arabs. Invade Middle-East.)
Ever lit a fire on an elevated platform? Stuff nearby doesn't get the embers, stuff at a distance does. That's how a fire spreads. Even if it was a conspiracy, then there was no real loss of life at that building, as the fire was smaller and started later. Sure, you could argue that it was because those people were government agents. But I could also claim it was because the situation was less serious there, and that the fire was not connected to any big conspiracy, just a couple flaming chunks hitting it.Quote:
Building 7 was the farthest bulding away from the twin towers and surprisingly it caught fire while buildings that took large chunks of debris right into them did not. Building 7 was designed to withstand temperatures over 2000 degrees for days if need be. Larry Silverstine admitted that they had to "pull it down" because there was nothing that could be done.
A building in Madrid Spain caught fire and burned for two days and people were just waiting for it to collapse but it did not. It takes days to set up a controlled demolition, but they brought down bulding 7 in the afternoon of 9/11. What was in bulding 7? Department of Defence, CIA, Office of Emergency Management, Secret Service, and the City's command bunker. (Overseeing the entire operation), along with other things. In other word, Bulding 7 contained all the evidence.
The building in madrid didn't get hit with an exploding airliner, did it? Different situation, different results. The building could've also been more recent and smaller. Unless it was AN EXACT REPLICA of the WTC, built AT THE SAME TIME, suffering the same WEAR AND TEAR, and subjected to an IDENTICAL CRASH, it's not a controlled experiment, and therefore there's no reason to believe that a building in madrid not collapsing means a building in NYC shouldn't have collapsed.
EDIT- Also, the building in madrid (if it's the one I'm thinking of) was a "towering inferno". Big open fire. Big flames. But the thing is, the heat had somewhere to escape to and the building was constructed of materials that burned readily. When that plane entered the side of the building, a bunch of fuel and crap spilled all over the place and the various materials and furniture went up. The fires were contained to certain areas. And if we are to believe the statements that the towers are built of crap that doesn't burn, is it not hard to beleive that for that period of time those buildings were smoking the fires were trapped to certain areas? Now picture what that plane did to the side of the building, tore open some walls, maybe kinked a couple girders? Alright, you now have fire trapped to a small area, burning at, according to cosmic, "250 - 1000 C" (this is, of course, not taking into account the materials inside the building, and merely the jet fuel) for, let's say, a half hour. All that heat had to go somewhere, right? but the hole was only so big, the stairwells and vents were only so big. So what are you left with? A big ass oven several dozen stories up. On exposed steel. Probably bent exposed steel. Thing about bent steel is that it doesn't distribute weight right. As any blacksmith will tell you, warm steel and a shitload of weight is a good recipe for bendin'. Toss in the fact that there may have been bends put in by the impact and explosion, and you notice that the weight wasn't distrubuted the way it was supposed to be. So a couple girders give way. And that causes some of the other ones to take too much weight. They give. Now you have a smoking crater. All of this is entirely theorhetical and bullshit taken from my basic understanding of heat, engineering, and shit, but it seems solid enough for me. Need an idea of what this is getting at? Find an oven. Crank it up, toss in some food, give it a half hour. It'll cook. Take the top off, crank it up, it'll take you a lot longer to get the same results, if you get it at all. You're losing heat. Now this is far from a great theory or a well explained deal, but it kind of explains (in my mind anyway) how a big freaking fire may generate less heat over an area than a smaller, more contained burn. Or maybe I just had a few too many and need a refresher course in "how shit burns 101"
Oh, and I'd like to see the video of a big boom at WTC7. Also, "pulling it down" just as easily calls up a mental image of a bulldozer tearing the joint down. Didn't have to be a bomb.
No, they built it to take Boeing 707's. All info I've found on it said it was designed to take only one, but I'll let you have your "it could take 2". Also, the 757 didn't exist when the towers were built. so I don't see how they could've built to prepare for a non existant plane.Quote:
World Trade center complex engineers reported to have designed the buildings to withstand at least 2 Boeing-757 crash impacts and not collapse.
And your reference for this is...?Quote:
Listen to this one: CIA's website admits having NORAD training for a drill that involved commercial planes crashing into tall buildings. Guess when this drill was practiced? Coincidentaly, it was on 9/11 on the same exact moments the true events were happening. What did this do? Confuse NORAD to think everything was a drill- delaying them so they could not react as fast. They still had time to stop the last aircraft. No one explains how FOUR airplanes were hijacked within two hours. Now- Bush on the week after 9/11 said he never heard of a plan to crash airliners in the world trade centers. (While NORAD was training for it)
EDIT- By which I mean show me this on the CIA website.
danny0990 double posted i dont think that should go unpunished.
edit: are you doing some project or something because you really seem to want to prove your point (which is weak) why did you sign up to this forum? was it really just to push this 9/11 thing? if you are so desperate for answers or for someone to argue with why not find a forum dedicated to solving the 9/11 mystery. you haven't posted anywhere else you already said you weren't coming back to this thread. everything you give us as "proof" is either 10 pages long or a three hour movie no one will read/watch and are about as coherent as a kindergarten report on global warming. stop being so horny to argue.
===
QUOTE
And Larry is connected to an American/Afghani government conspiracy.... how?
===
they used larry to carry out their plans
====
QUOTE
No no no, Northwood is a declassified document from the 1960's that talks about CREATING THE ILLUSION of US civilians being harmed by cubans. It was all supposed to be staged and fake. Nobody really died. 'cept soldiers and cubans in the ensuing battles.
====
either way you slice it, it was meant to deceive
======
QUOTE
Ever lit a fire on an elevated platform? Stuff nearby doesn't get the embers, stuff at a distance does. That's how a fire spreads. Even if it was a conspiracy, then there was no real loss of life at that building, as the fire was smaller and started later. Sure, you could argue that it was because those people were government agents. But I could also claim it was because the situation was less serious there, and that the fire was not connected to any big conspiracy, just a couple flaming chunks hitting it.
The building in madrid didn't get hit with an exploding airliner, did it? Different situation, different results. The building could've also been more recent and smaller. Unless it was AN EXACT REPLICA of the WTC, built AT THE SAME TIME, suffering the same WEAR AND TEAR, and subjected to an IDENTICAL CRASH, it's not a controlled experiment, and therefore there's no reason to believe that a building in madrid not collapsing means a building in NYC shouldn't have collapsed.
Oh, and I'd like to see the video of a big boom at WTC7. Also, "pulling it down" just as easily calls up a mental image of a bulldozer tearing the joint down. Didn't have to be a bomb.
======
youre comparing building 7 with the WTC, although the WTC's claim to not have been fire tested (doesnt mean the insulation wasnt installed), building 7 DEFINITELY was.
there is no big boom like you see in the movies, however there were recordings of firefighters that were inside the WTC saying they heard loud explosions. ever see how the WTC collapsed? rather neatly, yes? and the debri afterwards was scrapped A.S.A.P
Bush went on live TV saying building 7 burned down with the towers but the owner said building 7 had been pulled. id say they contradict each other, yeah? (video proof is available)
====
QUOTE
And your reference for this is...?
=====
my friend pulled that information out, but im gonna go out on a limb here and say...the cia website...lol?
=====
QUOTE
Getting a little ahead of ourselves aren't we?
If they wanted Iraq, why not make the terrorists Iraqi? What did they have to gain from Afghanistan?
Oh, and faulty intel and a BS reason for war is in no way relevant or similar to a conspiracy to kill thousands of american citizens. Yes, people stll die in war and so on, but they're military or civilians of someone else's country. It'd be a much smaller PR nightmare were a missle or two to blow a couple buildings in Baghdad to crap due to the US government. It just seems way too high risk for the US government to have actually done 9/11. Sure, they had reasons, but what they stood to lose far outweighs what they could've gained, at least from where I'm sitting.
======
The government claimed that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was picked up in ground zero by a police officer. (The passport survived the impact fell out of the guy's jacket passed through the smoke and explosions and fires gushing out and landed scratchless on the ground.) For six months they reported they had this passport. It turned out the guy was alive in Morroco and then the government claimed it was a mistake and the passport story dissapeared.
you'd be suprised at what the upper ups will do just to carry out their own agenda
wow you were offline like three seconds ago and then you come back and post this gem... were you prepairing it in notepad?
i got logged out while typing my response, duh.Quote:
Originally Posted by skakidd
====
QUOTE
edit: are you doing some project or something because you really seem to want to prove your point (which is weak) why did you sign up to this forum? was it really just to push this 9/11 thing? if you are so desperate for answers or for someone to argue with why not find a forum dedicated to solving the 9/11 mystery. you haven't posted anywhere else you already said you weren't coming back to this thread. everything you give us as "proof" is either 10 pages long or a three hour movie no one will read/watch and are about as coherent as a kindergarten report on global warming. stop being so horny to argue.
====
yeah, actually, i was getting some roms today for the kids and this thread caught my eye on the main page, so i took it upon myself to register. maybe your brain can't take 10pages or a 3hour documentary (im a boring person, i watch many), but others can. if this theory is true or not (i believe it is, farfetched as it seems, it all adds ups) it really doesnt matter to me, i get a hard on discussing it. i actually plan on enlisting in the military when i graduate. anyway, im off to bed now.
night
Dan the Dentist
so danny why did you join an emulation forum to force your ideas and opinions on a bunch of gamers?
wait a fuck your first post was dirka dirka you crazy motherfucker who are you?
i see you viewing this thread what are you typing? hurry up im going to bed.
How so? He was just some billionaire. Why would the government risk it? The way I see it, they had a shitload at stake. Why risk it by approaching some billionaire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Oh hey, my. Larry sir, we'd like to kill a couple thousand new yorkers with some bombs in your building. It'll make you money. You in?
It's not like they could've just went up to him on the streets, they must've had some reason to beleive he'd want to be in on it, and I can't find anything linking him to either the US or the afghanis.
Barring secret societies of course. But then we can use imaginary links to tie everyone to everyone. WWII was staged. How? Churchill and Hitler were both Templars. Yup, I read it on the interwebs.
What? Politicians lie? UNHEARD OF :wacko:Quote:
either way you slice it, it was meant to deceive
We're not talking about lies, we're talking murder. Not even the same league.
Ah, my mistake.Quote:
youre comparing building 7 with the WTC, although the WTC's claim to not have been fire tested (doesnt mean the insulation wasnt installed), building 7 DEFINITELY was.
Have some FEMA
If you want a summary, the fireproofing was only rated for about 4 hours max.
How about a big boom like you see at OTHER demo sites? I was referring to IRL demos and such. The ones with the nice flashes, the loud thudding bangs, then the loud sudden wham of buildings slamming into the ground.Quote:
there is no big boom like you see in the movies, however there were recordings of firefighters that were inside the WTC saying they heard loud explosions. ever see how the WTC collapsed? rather neatly, yes? and the debri afterwards was scrapped A.S.A.P
Oh, and as I pointed out earlier, they "heard" explosions. They "heard" bangs. What's to say that wasn't the sound of metal tearing apart, the separate tanks in the 767 catching, some computers exploding, or some other source? Where there's smoke there may be fire, but where there's a boom, there's not always an explosion. :P
What's to say it wasn't pulled down to prevent a fire spread? From what the official statements said, the building was empty and the structure was unsound. It could've been dropped to prevent more buildings from catching.Quote:
Bush went on live TV saying building 7 burned down with the towers but the owner said building 7 had been pulled. id say they contradict each other, yeah? (video proof is available)
Nobody died when WTC7 fell, so they can lie all they want, it doesn't mean crap to me, nor does it show the US government is capable of murdering it's own people in a staged terrorist attack.
Yeah, I noticed that. I was trying to say link me to it. My bad.Quote:
my friend pulled that information out, but im gonna go out on a limb here and say...the cia website...lol?
Which again proves that the US was guilty of faking a reason for going after Iraq. IIRC that passport story started well after 9/11.Quote:
The government claimed that a passport belonging to one of the hijackers was picked up in ground zero by a police officer. (The passport survived the impact fell out of the guy's jacket passed through the smoke and explosions and fires gushing out and landed scratchless on the ground.) For six months they reported they had this passport. It turned out the guy was alive in Morroco and then the government claimed it was a mistake and the passport story dissapeared.
And I don't believe it was ever widely used by the government.
Whereas they said the hijackers were afghanis since, what, 9/13/01? Probably earlier. I don't recall hearing anything about iraq's supposed involvement with Al-Queda until there were plans to invade iraq being made public.
I'll admit the government isn't exactly a bunch of boy scouts, but mass murders and conspirators? I'm not completely on board for that one.Quote:
you'd be suprised at what the upper ups will do just to carry out their own agenda
EDIT-
It happens to us all :lolQuote:
i got logged out while typing my response, duh.
yeah, actually, i was getting some roms today for the kids and this thread caught my eye on the main page, so i took it upon myself to register. maybe your brain can't take 10pages or a 3hour documentary (im a boring person, i watch many), but others can. if this theory is true or not (i believe it is, farfetched as it seems, it all adds ups) it really doesnt matter to me,
I can take them just fine, it's just that most 9/11 documentaries have the same reports, the same claims, the same couple of supposed experts who have doctor in front of their name and therefore we have to buy their theory as to why the towers went boom so bush could grab some oil. Every once in a while there's some new info or some new idea, but it's usually limited to a mini segment within some doc that rehashes the same couple claims.
That's me alright, crazy bizarre off the cup theories that somehow make just enough sense to be believable.
Dude, too much info :wacko:Quote:
i get a hard on discussing it
You know, this video really bothered me for a few reasons. I know that's what it was supposed to do but it really has had me pretty upset since I saw it. It's alot worse than that french-made vid from a few years back that talked about the plane that crashed into the pentagon "disappearing".
I'm not a scientist or any shit like that. But I guess that fires that burn in open air couldn't have made the WTC topple like it did, right? At first I thought maybe the plane didn't explode on impact, therefore it was still mashed inside the building and still burning. A plane exploding can be pretty damned significant, so if it were to blow up while burrowed into the structure then that should be enough for implosion.
What bothers me is the "squibs" they were talking about. I don't know if it's edited or not because I honestly don't remember seeing it the day I saw the towers fall, but that shit looks nasty. What else could make those things pucker out of the building like that besides bombs? I'm not trying to be argumentative or anything but...
i cant help but reply
====QUOTE
How so? He was just some billionaire. Why would the government risk it? The way I see it, they had a shitload at stake. Why risk it by approaching some billionaire?
Oh hey, my. Larry sir, we'd like to kill a couple thousand new yorkers with some bombs in your building. It'll make you money. You in?
It's not like they could've just went up to him on the streets, they must've had some reason to beleive he'd want to be in on it, and I can't find anything linking him to either the US or the afghanis.
=====
he had a HUGE profit from that deal, wouldnt you say?
====
QUOTE
We're not talking about lies, we're talking murder. Not even the same league.
====
what difference does it make wether people died or not? you were being deceived to believe it.
===
QUOTE
How about a big boom like you see at OTHER demo sites? I was referring to IRL demos and such. The ones with the nice flashes, the loud thudding bangs, then the loud sudden wham of buildings slamming into the ground
====
speaking of which, what was up with the pentagon? the plane hit it and made an almost perfect sphere in it...i didnt know an impact from a plane could make such a neat shape.
apparently that plane never hit the pentagon but an explosion went off at an area of the pentagon that was already evacuated.
====
QUOTE
Oh, and as I pointed out earlier, they "heard" explosions. They "heard" bangs. What's to say that wasn't the sound of metal tearing apart, the separate tanks in the 767 catching, some computers exploding, or some other source? Where there's smoke there may be fire, but where there's a boom, there's not always an explosion.
===
well sudden sounds of exploisons were heard by firefighters before the wtc collapsed.
===
QUOTE
What's to say it wasn't pulled down to prevent a fire spread? From what the official statements said, the building was empty and the structure was unsound. It could've been dropped to prevent more buildings from catching.
===
i pointed that out because they cant get their story straight.
it was going down either way to destroy evidence
===
QUOTE
Whereas they said the hijackers were afghanis since, what, 9/13/01? Probably earlier. I don't recall hearing anything about iraq's supposed involvement with Al-Queda until there were plans to invade iraq being made public.
===
when all the airports were shut down osamas family were flew from the US to the middle east
===
QUOTE
I'll admit the government isn't exactly a bunch of boy scouts, but mass murders and conspirators? I'm not completely on board for that one.
===
and again, you're cutting them too much slack. with the amount of power they have they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.
Jet fuel, in vapour form or under heavy compression, burns fast enough to produce explosions. Couple that with the steel buckling from the combination of heat and pressure, and you've got a reasonable explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by somedude
Yes. But would every person on the face of the earth take a couple billion when you're already wealthy to an insane degree over helping murder a bunch of people?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
You can't just pick a co conspirator out of the yellow pages. If he went public, it'd have been a nightmare. Assuming he was in on it and it was a plot. Why would they spend months getting everything in place and risk having some guy go public with the plans? Now the idea is that he could in theory have been connected with the government, and that's how they knew he'd go for it. But I can find NOTHING linking him to the US government, nor the Afghani government nor a terror group. The people who would've been in on the whole deal.
If the government is so careful and precise as to be able to pull this shit, why take the risk of getting some nobody from NYC who you couldn't pick from a lineup of rich dudes involved?
Money is the reason he'd be for it. Sure. But why him. Why not bill gates or donald trump? Why not someone else? Why not someone who is more closely connected to the government and loyal to the various secret and not so secret groups?
I find it hard to believe this guy was randomly chosen for no good reason and they took a chance with him simply because they believed all rich people are greedy bastards who won't exploit the story of the century for everything it's worth (if all this evidence was in his buildings and stuff, he could've made quite the case. That's front page of TIME stuff here, US government plot foiled by Billionaire with a conscience? Come on, most people would kill for that kind of publicity.)
Government propaganda and lies from the higher ups is nothing new.Quote:
what difference does it make wether people died or not? you were being deceived to believe it.
Plowing planes full of people into a crowded office complex is a whole different thing. Now you referenced Northwoods a couple times. Couldn't they have just as easily done something like that? A couple drones here, some altered news footage there, some arabs in Iraqi/afghani uniforms tossed in for good measure, the stage is set without a single death. Why 9/11, why killing civilians? It could've just as easily been staged. Or a terror attack on a government building in a major city getting blown up that was already long since evacuated, if that's what you'd prefer. They had no real reason to wipe out those people over a somewhat more "humane" method of propaganda.
As you pointed out later, there's a lot of claims about the pentagon being a rigged attack. Why not something more like that. Sure it lacks the punch of those towers, but it sure would've given a reason for war with the right press on it (I'm sure the pent attack would've gotten more attention were it not for the towers getting destroyed)
*extra info pending*Quote:
speaking of which, what was up with the pentagon? the plane hit it and made an almost perfect sphere in it...i didnt know an impact from a plane could make such a neat shape.
apparently that plane never hit the pentagon but an explosion went off at an area of the pentagon that was already evacuated.
Hey, I'm tired, cut me some slack *wacko* . Yeah, the pent attack is probably the fishiest part of the whole 9/11 thing. And some big post when I've had time to dig up some info on it (and caught some Z's in the meantime) is in order.
But nobody in the building earlier that got out mentioned seeing explosives.Quote:
well sudden sounds of exploisons were heard by firefighters before the wtc collapsed.
Nor anybody in the building during the "attacks". The equipment takes time to set up. Clearly it would've been hard for someone to get into the building with the rescue teams, set everything up, and detonate in the span of a half hour. So where and when could these explosives have been set? Demo equipment isn't exactly "toss bomb, hit button, watch it go boom!". A proper rigging can take at least a couple hours. And it's not exactly easy to hide that kind of thing. Not to mention if it were a demo job, the people involved in "pressing the buttons" were probably inside the building or not far from it. I find it hard to believe that nobody saw a single one, or that someone would suicide bomb a building full of people just so some rich dude can make some extra green.
Plus all that was stated was "sounds of explosions". That could've just as easily been fuel igniting, floors starting to cave, or any other number of phenomena. Plus it was "firemen". All it takes is one saying he thought he heard explosions, then suddenly EVERYBODY is claiming to hear it. It could've been bodies or debris hitting the ground (If I remember it right, people were hearing loud bangs for a while earlier, only to find it was people trapped on the top floors taking their chances with a freefall to splat city.) What's to say that wasn't a couple chunks shaking loose before the big fall? (yeah, there's nothing like that on the videos. I'm just trying to make a point)
Again, lies doesn't necessarily prove guilt. It doesn't look good, but it's not exactly a smoking gun. Plus it could've just as easily been that other guy not getting his story right. It's a two way street.Quote:
i pointed that out because they cant get their story straight.
it was going down either way to destroy evidence
Which explains the Iraq connection....how?Quote:
when all the airports were shut down osamas family were flew from the US to the middle east
All that explains is that the US was making plans with AQ (potentially). Which would've been an invasion of Afghanistan. Not Iraq (which is what we were discussing, how 9/11 is connected to the Iraq war). Also, they deported people who may have been involved with the terror plot. Doesn't exactly scream "they were in on it" to me. It just says "the US is getting people who may want to blow shit up as far away from the US as possible as soon as possible". I suppose one possible parallel I can give would be the rounding up of japanese Americans during WWII. You can say they were rounding them up to give them training to attack north america and then shipping them overseas as part of a conspiracy to end the great depression by creating a war (and thereby fill the pockets of americans, rich and poor), but just because you can make an accusation doesn't mean the accusation holds water. (whoo boy, this is bound to get some bizarre comments...)
Furthermore, just because they're related to a known terrorist doesn't make them accessories. Hell I have a hard time getting my family members to pitch in on some minor construction. Major international conspiracies and terror schemes is a definite no-go :wacko: (in fact, they'd probably make things harder for me, the bastards....)
Governments can only get away with what you let them get away with.Quote:
and again, you're cutting them too much slack. with the amount of power they have they're not afraid to get their hands dirty.
Which is why it's fine for people to ask questions and such of their government to try to keep them in line.
It's just that 9/11 seems WAY beyond anything the government has even CONSIDERED doing, let alone done (at least as far as declassified documents and the occasional government employee turned whistle blower goes)
The Titanic was "designed" to be unsinkable too. Again, the towers were intended to be aircraft and fire resistant but there's absolutely no way to test something like that until it's too late. Saying that the WTC could withstand a Boeing 707 crash doesn't mean much either since there are so many variants within just that one line of aircraft - different weights, different engines, different sizes... and as Ray, myself and others have tried to explain, 767s are typically much larger than 707s and are capable of flying at a greater velocity. Also remember that the WTC was designed to withstand a 707 coming in for landing, travelling at a relatively low speed of around 180mph with a minimal amount of fuel remaining. The planes that hit the towers not only had a lot of fuel left but were travelling at speeds of 470mph and 590mph respectively. I'm pressed for time at the moment so I'll edit this post later - for the time being I'm going to play the link game too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
http://www.rit.edu/~smo5024/papers/wtc/
the fact is... Iraq + oil = war.
When the oil in Iraq runs out, you won't see Iraq in the news
as for 9/11 lol... honestly, i don't care anymore.. was it osama? was it government? was it jews?
in nearly all these conspiracy videos the information and "video footage" is from the exact day the towers fell.. i love how these amateur video makers add scary music to try and buy peoples attention and somehow put a twist into the story and convince people..
people will be arguing about the WTC for many years to come until some fully proven evidence randomly pops up...
let's quote Ron Paul :wacko:
"they attack us because we have been over there, we have been bombing iraq for over 10 years"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8
you asshats better vote for him! bloody americans :wacko:
Main reason I don't even participate properly in this synaptic misfire is that it's akin to arguing with an angered child/midly retarded 30 year old. Anything you say isn't right in their mind or doesn't corroborate their ideas, and is therefore wrong. Any answers he has given thus far have been either in the "no, YOU'RE wrong" form or were just poorly structured tangents. I asked him why anyone should waste money investigating this again, with having in mind that pointing fingers at the government would only end up in, at worse, a tiny civil uproar that would be taken care off come the next elections, and what did I get? A rant about a billionaire. Say the government's guilty, what is there to be gained? Fuck all. Nothing will happen, EVEN if conspiracy theorists are right. He then went on rambling about Larry Whomever, a multi-billionaire who made *gasp* more money off a tragedy. News flash, kiddo, people are over the planet gain from tragedies. :shrug:
- But, hey, just for kicks, what have you got to say to the idea that the explosions people claim to have heard before the crashes were bombs planted by terrorists?
- As it has been pointed out, the Northwood event was a means of scaring people in believing and supporting a particular view. Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of event if it were for terrorists to ACTUALLY attack the US? No no, the US attacked itself, wasting truckloads of money, ruining lives, etc. Of course, you'll say people believed it back then, so why not now? Easy enough, there's a substantial amount of proof that say so. When you can do as much to say that the Government did it, we'll see. ;)
-The Towers were built in 1966-73. Feel free to debate that they can withstand fire and plane crashes all you want, but do so while keeping in mind that that was 40 years ago. Not only has time taken its toll, but so have a fire and bombing. Not to mention all that was pointed out by others regarding the difference in size and speed of airplanes back then and now.
-Do you have anything, really, to base your claims on other than that botched website your school buddy and you threw together last night or that 3-hour-long biased rant?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
====
QUOTE
Money is the reason he'd be for it. Sure. But why him. Why not bill gates or donald trump? Why not someone else? Why not someone who is more closely connected to the government and loyal to the various secret and not so secret groups?
====
he's a nobody billionaire.
if they picked donald trump or bill gates and one of them spilled the beans then the accusations would be stronger. everybody knows them, killing them after they have made such an accusation would cause an uproar in the US.
===-
QUOTE
Plowing planes full of people into a crowded office complex is a whole different thing. Now you referenced Northwoods a couple times. Couldn't they have just as easily done something like that? A couple drones here, some altered news footage there, some arabs in Iraqi/afghani uniforms tossed in for good measure, the stage is set without a single death. Why 9/11, why killing civilians? It could've just as easily been staged. Or a terror attack on a government building in a major city getting blown up that was already long since evacuated, if that's what you'd prefer. They had no real reason to wipe out those people over a somewhat more "humane" method of propaganda.
As you pointed out later, there's a lot of claims about the pentagon being a rigged attack. Why not something more like that. Sure it lacks the punch of those towers, but it sure would've given a reason for war with the right press on it (I'm sure the pent attack would've gotten more attention were it not for the towers getting destroyed)
====
they wanted to go the extra mile in terms of manipulating america with fear (thats getting redundant, i know, but you keep mentioning lives as though they gave a damn)
==
QUOTE
But nobody in the building earlier that got out mentioned seeing explosives.
Nor anybody in the building during the "attacks". The equipment takes time to set up. Clearly it would've been hard for someone to get into the building with the rescue teams, set everything up, and detonate in the span of a half hour. So where and when could these explosives have been set? Demo equipment isn't exactly "toss bomb, hit button, watch it go boom!". A proper rigging can take at least a couple hours. And it's not exactly easy to hide that kind of thing. Not to mention if it were a demo job, the people involved in "pressing the buttons" were probably inside the building or not far from it. I find it hard to believe that nobody saw a single one, or that someone would suicide bomb a building full of people just so some rich dude can make some extra green.
===
they were told to keep their mouths shut, along with the firemen that found recordings of talks over their communicators (some kept quiet, others spoke out)
according to this theory they planted the bombs a week or so ahead of time before 9/11
===
QUOTE
Again, lies doesn't necessarily prove guilt.
===
it shows a cover up.
==
QUOTE
Also, they deported people who may have been involved with the terror plot. Doesn't exactly scream "they were in on it" to me. It just says "the US is getting people who may want to blow shit up as far away from the US as possible as soon as possible".
===
or they could contained them in a cell for interrogation
and the bush/bin laden family have history together
==
QUOTE
Governments can only get away with what you let them get away with.
Which is why it's fine for people to ask questions and such of their government to try to keep them in line.
It's just that 9/11 seems WAY beyond anything the government has even CONSIDERED doing, let alone done (at least as far as declassified documents and the occasional government employee turned whistle blower goes)
==
read my response with the 2nd quote
===
QUOTE
- As it has been pointed out, the Northwood event was a means of scaring people in believing and supporting a particular view. Wouldn't it be an interesting turn of event if it were for terrorists to ACTUALLY attack the US? No no, the US attacked itself, wasting truckloads of money, ruining lives, etc. Of course, you'll say people believed it back then, so why not now? Easy enough, there's a substantial amount of proof that say so. When you can do as much to say that the Government did it, we'll see.
====
im sure the goverment took a good chunk from the WTC's insurance policy
==
QUOTE
-Do you have anything, really, to base your claims on other than that botched website your school buddy and you threw together last night or that 3-hour-long biased rant?
==
biased? no.
im sure if you did take the time to look at my page you'd have found a good number of sources
So suddenly the U.S. government owns the WTC and had it insured? lol, this is not communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
I believe the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey technically owned the WTC, along with a few private investors. And Larry Silverstein had the insurance on it ;)
EDIT - The port authority leased it to Larry Silverstein in 2001.
jesus fucking christ on a stick, mike.Quote:
Originally Posted by Panda Man
That comment just screams, "Stupid Teenager."Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
Which is why it's been removed, since it adds nothing to this discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Panda Man
Basically just spam.
EDIT--
On second thought, this thread is all over the place--some spam, some serious.
So screw it, best to be consistent, so post undeleted.
the goverment gets a % from the insurance called insurance taxQuote:
Originally Posted by Panda Man
ETA: right, out of all the spam thats been put in this thread im the only that gets called on it?
Really? I've worked at a CPA office for 4 years now and don't recall ever hearing anything about "insurance tax." Are you sure your not confusing that for Life insurance tax shelter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny0990
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_insurance_tax_shelter
or FICA?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll..._United_States
There's also FUTA and SUTA...