9/11 Facts ... you decide what the truth really is
Meta
Meta/Boomslang
Started Topics :
24
Posts :
1045
Posted : Nov 12, 2007 02:20
Don't waste your time, Kaz.
I went through all of this on the second page of this thread. As you have pointed out, all of the conspiracy theorists talking points have been repeatedly debunked by peer-reviewed journals and scientists.
A large percentage of people will always be eager to believe in conspiracies, no matter how ludicrously, increasingly, impossibly complex the conspiracy must become to stay cohesive as more and more parts of it are disproved or explained.
Psycosmo
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
42
Posts :
787
Posted : Nov 12, 2007 06:48
Gaspard (hey man how you been?) you def misunderstand if you think that not believing in the conspiracy thing means thinking that Bush and the Neocon crew are good folks. Ive said it before and I'll say it again, my best reading of the situation is that some crazy fucking islamic extremist nutjobs managed to hijack some planes and fly them into buildings, they caught us with our pants down and that really shook people up.
In response to the attacks, the world rallied behind the USA, and the citizens of the USA rallied around their president.
The President and the people behind him saw that this was their big chance. They "seized the moment" and got the Patriot Act passed, and then they got us stuck in Iraq. Now that they're there they can use (justified) fears of what would happen if we pulled out to continue the war even after there is broad consensus that it was in error. That and Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, "extraordinary rendition", a privatized miliatry (Bill Clinton also had a hand in that btw) and a whole host of other outrages and obscenities.
Bush and Co. were damn lucky to have 9/11 happen on their watch, they coldly used it to their advantage and the detriment of the world, pissed on the good will and support of the world that came in the wake of the attacks, and I fucking hate them for that.
Still, it is reverse logic to use that to assign causality. What I've seen proves that they are sick fucking people, nothing more and nothing less.
I, like Kaz, try to go by Occams razor, and the above seems like the most likely explanation.
gaspard
Yab Yum
Started Topics :
50
Posts :
641
Posted : Nov 12, 2007 12:44
Good morning !
Thanks Kaz and Psycosmo for the great answers (hi James, I’m very well and yourself ???). Nice to have some of my questions answered. However I’m still far from convinced… I have a few points to pick up with you. About the little amount of money spent on the investigation, you said that it « had the potential to topple all the main leadership of the government, military and supporting industrial sector ». Why would it if they are innocent ? To me that says they do have something to hide.
With regards to the buildings falling, the twin towers were actually built to withstand a plane crashing in to it. (Funny coincidence that one really, I mean the odds of that actually happening). It is the first time buildings fall after fire in the world. And two of them fell within 2 hours. It seems as thought the core of the buidings were not on one single beam but a whole center piece made of several beams.
If I may I’d like to put other questions to you as I’ve never seen satisfactory answers to these elsewhere :
The buildings collapsed, again, in a similar way to controlled demolition in that the steel beams were basically all the same conveniant lengths (perfect for fitting on a truck). To me that is too strange to be overlooked. I mean, I really doubt that when constructing such a building you have its demolition in mind so why would these beams end up like this ? Furthermore, the way the beam’s edges were seemingly cut, again like in controlled demolition, says somehting about the way the buildings fell. Also, I dont get why these beams were then shipped off and destroyed before the investigators were able to have a look at them.
What about all the firefighters/cops/people who heard several explosions on 911 ? The firefighters are adament about the series of explosions sounding like controlled demolition ones.
Another one I find odd : a few weeks previous to 911, the twin towers were emptied several times for « drills ». Now that would give people time to fit in whatever s needed to bring the towers down.
Apparently security guards with explosive seeking dogs were no longer used in the towers a few weeks previous to the attack, whereas they’d been used on a regular basis up until this point. Again this would give someone time and space to fit in explosives.
There is one « coincidence » that I find too much to be overlooked: on the day it happened there was a simulation of an attack on the US, and the scenario was planes being hijacked and crashing into buildings. And even weirder, on 070707 in London, there was also an exercise where bombs were set off symultaneously on the underground. On the very days where horrendous attacks happene, there were simulations with the very scenario of the attacks. I mean, even putting aside all the conspiracy theories,that does strike me as very very strange indeed.
My more general questions are these : it seems that this type of tactic is common-place. You use people to attack your own side in order for you to use this to your advantage. The Nazies did this in order to invade poland and it seems that Pearl Harbor was a similar situation. This does have the effect of people giving their leaders full power to do what they want with little resistance.
My apologies for bringing morality into the equation. Of course it does complicate things, and it does serve the conspiracy theorists well. And I absolutely agree with you about political heavyweights being immoral and pragmatic, but I find it personally very difficult not too have these factors in my mind when thinking about this. I’ll try not to bring them into this debate. I’ll also try and keep the exclamation points and rhetorical questions to a minimum. I didnt mean to sound personal ( !).
Meta mate, just because Noam Chomsky says this doesnt prove anything. He does say that he is isloated in the left. He also says « who cares » ? I personally cant think this. I feel it is important to know the truth (whatever that might be). I would love to be proved wrong, but to me the evidence still points to « inside job ».
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Terry Pratchett
Kaz
IsraTrance Full Member
Started Topics :
90
Posts :
2268
Posted : Nov 12, 2007 15:33
Quote:
About the little amount of money spent on the investigation, you said that it « had the potential to topple all the main leadership of the government, military and supporting industrial sector ». Why would it if they are innocent ? To me that says they do have something to hide.
Retrospect is a great teacher, and just like in every democracy, after every war, major faults are found in the military, information and industrial sectors, which are then sometimes corrected. This goes from bottom-up usually. There's always that one intelligence report that warns about something like this, that is kept quiet because it is one voice against many who happen to say what the government wants, etc.
In anything like this, the head of state - with "proper foresight" could have avoided this. Nowadays it would be much harder to do the same attack, and obviously the fact that it wasn't harder back then was... whoever was in charge of national security then. In the military, political and industrial sides of it (the national security advisor, head of the CIA, the president, secretary of defense, the air companies, airport security, flight instructors, the guys responsible for the safety standards of the twin towers, the list goes on and on). All of these guys share the blame and they know it. Not as much blame as Al Qaeda, but with more influence in the US for sure.
Quote:
With regards to the buildings falling, the twin towers were actually built to withstand a plane crashing in to it. (Funny coincidence that one really, I mean the odds of that actually happening). It is the first time buildings fall after fire in the world. And two of them fell within 2 hours. It seems as thought the core of the buidings were not on one single beam but a whole center piece made of several beams.
As I mentioned earlier, the structure of buildings is based on concrete re-enforced with steel, concrete can crack in a collision and lose it's integrity (due to being inflexible), but the steel beams are more than strong enough to make it hold. As I mentioned earlier though - the flame was at a temperature that would cause the steel to lose over 50% of it's strength, making the weakening process gradual - it takes time to heat up that much metal, especially when some is shielded by concrete.
If you remember - it DID withstand the collision. It was damaged, and if repaired it could be fixed. But the calculation for a collision didn't factor in that there would be secondary damage caused by flames heating up the steel to over 800 degrees, causing a much greater loss of strength. Beyond a certain point, gravity does the rest.
Quote:
The buildings collapsed, again, in a similar way to controlled demolition in that the steel beams were basically all the same conveniant lengths (perfect for fitting on a truck). To me that is too strange to be overlooked. I mean, I really doubt that when constructing such a building you have its demolition in mind so why would these beams end up like this ?
Actually, in the building of skyscrapers they do have the possible destruction scenario in mind - the structural integrity of the building is first and foremost so it won't topple sideways (hence the necessity for a steel frame, it's much more flexible than concrete and will make sure that any pressure from the side would first damage the main supports far before it would keel over). The damages to adjacent buildings in case it fell sideways would be far greater, and architects will always have that in mind when building tall structures. They are taught this before they become certified.
Quote:
Furthermore, the way the beam’s edges were seemingly cut, again like in controlled demolition, says somehting about the way the buildings fell. Also, I dont get why these beams were then shipped off and destroyed before the investigators were able to have a look at them.
How is it that tanks support beams always break at certain points (and very cleanly at that)? You weaken the supports in certain places in certain ways to make sure that they break how you want them to. This is part of the design of such things, in order for the damage to be controlled and:
a) easily fixed
b) minimal
As to why they were shipped off? I think you can still buy pieces of the building on eBay. It's called looting - and people did it. As to why they were destroyed - how can one claim to know how the destruction happened (clean cuts) and then claim that this was not investigated? Obviously, one of these points is wrong.
Quote:
What about all the firefighters/cops/people who heard several explosions on 911 ? The firefighters are adament about the series of explosions sounding like controlled demolition ones.
Another one I find odd : a few weeks previous to 911, the twin towers were emptied several times for « drills ». Now that would give people time to fit in whatever s needed to bring the towers down.
Fuel storage is divided in planes in order for wing damage to not cause a loss of the entire fuel supply. Fuel (despite the movies) explodes only when it's vaporized - it takes time to heat it up, or the right combination of pressure and movement (like in a jet engine). As to drills... who knows? New head of security, rumors of an inspection, whatever. We're talking previous weeks, not days.
Quote:
Apparently security guards with explosive seeking dogs were no longer used in the towers a few weeks previous to the attack, whereas they’d been used on a regular basis up until this point. Again this would give someone time and space to fit in explosives.
The entire concept of explosives is dubious. Someone would have noticed, there are just too many people around - including the fact that maintenance crews would get a look of every square inch (the standards this place were very high, everything was checked often and thoroughly).
Quote:
There is one « coincidence » that I find too much to be overlooked: on the day it happened there was a simulation of an attack on the US, and the scenario was planes being hijacked and crashing into buildings. And even weirder, on 070707 in London, there was also an exercise where bombs were set off symultaneously on the underground. On the very days where horrendous attacks happene, there were simulations with the very scenario of the attacks. I mean, even putting aside all the conspiracy theories,that does strike me as very very strange indeed.
The US military runs loads of different simulations a day, at one level or another. Not all of them are serious. I'm sure they also simulated wars with Iran, Iraq, Russia, China and 4 different attempts on the president's life the same day. It's what they pay the military and intelligence agencies to do. And it's one coincidence in a big list of easy to explain things. Far more probable than any other explanation.
Quote:
My more general questions are these : it seems that this type of tactic is common-place. You use people to attack your own side in order for you to use this to your advantage. The Nazies did this in order to invade poland and it seems that Pearl Harbor was a similar situation. This does have the effect of people giving their leaders full power to do what they want with little resistance.
Claiming that the US staged Pearl Harbor is ridiculous. The Japanese had planned the attack on their own and thought that it would be a killing stroke on the US navy, which it wasn't. It was also the greatest proof of the American industrial strength (at the time, unparalleled worldwide). Yes, the Nazis did it. But there are no checks and measures in as ruthless a dictatorship as that, while the democracy in the US has far too many fail-safes for that to happen (brought to a peak with the paranoia-induced McCarthyism from the late 40s to late 50s).
Again - it's tempting to think about Bush and Co. as scum of the earth, but even if they were that bad, wouldn't it be more profitable for them to stage something that wouldn't backfire in their face? If they have the power to pull something like this off, why not peg it directly on Iraq (or another country with loads of oil) and not some fanatical rich guy? Wouldn't it be more prudent to time this less than a year after Bush was elected?
These guys aren't all powerful. They aren't evil. They're just selfish. And frankly, I doubt Bush is clever enough to pull something like this off. He was in the right place, in the right time, and with the right contacts to get him there... and has enough political instincts to use the situation to his advantage - after all, he was born to this (just like Jeb, who'll wait for 2012 or 2016).
The problem with conspiracy theories is that if you apply the same amount of questioning to them that you do to the common theory - you see how they crumble to dust nearly instantly.
Hope I've been informative.
Braindrop
Braindrop
Started Topics :
140
Posts :
1730
Posted : Nov 22, 2007 02:26
There are many views to this incident. and the most interesting part here is, tht i can guarantee, tht none of us till date can say wat exactly happened there on tht day! Many theories, many insights, contradictions blah blah. Its been 6 years and still nobody has the real deal. Maybe they do or maybe they dont. Maybe they dont want to get it out. but i do like to share some information regarding this. sometime back i had watched a documentary regarding this. And it was quite a rage this documentary as it was really threatning the govt. Forgot wat the name of the documentary was. but anyhow, i''d liek to share couple of things tht caught my eye.
1. the author/director of the documenatry using certain technology zooms into a part of the building, prolly maybe a few floors below the portion where the plane had hit. Upon seeing it carefully, u cld see tht just prolly a few secs before the plane hits... u can see few small sparks goin on the side of the building...like an explosion. Which nobody can even think of noticing from far. And it was done proly just a sec or so.. before the plane hit.
2. if my memory recalls, all security/ground staff personnel were evacuated or asked to leave before the incident took place.
these 2 incidents r just few small but very strong points on this whole case.
anyways, as i said... there still seems to be no real answer for this. but if naybody remembers the name of this docmentary plzz lemme know!
BOOM!
www.braindrop.in
Eth-Lad
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
13
Posts :
118
Posted : Nov 22, 2007 19:19
... when it comes to staged attacks, yes, pearl harbor was not "planned" by the us government, they simply let it happen after having gotten aware of the japanese plans to attack there. us military command ordered the expensive carriers to leave the harbor and left 3 other ships there "to get sunk". don't argue with that, please, save your typing-breath.
the vietnam war, on the contrary, officially was the response to a complete fake information. there wasnt even a false flag attack. nothing. at all.
you might be interested in the 'rules of engagement' us-soldiers and officers had to obey to; a ridiculous set of instructions that was made accessible to the vietkong so they could plan according to it - efforts of the us-government undertook to let the war go on as long as possible.
did i mention us-banks invested into russian arms manufacturers that were known to supply weapons to the vietkong?
its all about business. everything that has to do with large scle politics is nothing but one hand of an economic body. everyone who fails to see this has some reading and even more thinking to do.
excuse me if any of this has been mentioned on earlier pages .. i admit, i lost track of this
kudos (or something similar) to anyone who is still reading this thread; regardless of your opinion or your lack of opinion. seriously. cheers!
Doom mooD
Started Topics :
1
Posts :
30
Posted : Jan 5, 2008 22:38
Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Jan 7, 2008 02:01
What happend to WTC 7?
I remember when I saw Loose Change Part 2 a couple of years ago I thought that it was pretty much an eyeopener for a deeper truth then the simple Al-Smurfo's hijacked a plane and simply flew it in to the building one after the other. I didn't think much about it or concider that maybe the truth is deeper when it happend in 01 --> Loose Change was the movie that made me think more about it, and for that I'm greatful. No one sais you have to swallow the whole conspirecy theary as the ultimate truth. But it can make you think beyond the media information box.
- Money earned on it. War is afterall very profitble. As Kaz mentioned, the US echonomic desaster situation was lifted because of WWII.
- Why did they make a fake Bin Ladin confession video? Why are plenty of the terrorist hijackers alive (they say their alive, i dont know)
- What the fuck happend to WTC 7?? And why is there only two buildings in the world that has dropped because of massive fires?
- IF THIS IS A INSIDE JOB!! Why did they do such a poor job? Sure, they achived what they wanted with invations, new laws, control with scare tactics. But I'm so suprised that they made so many mistakes ect. This bothers me a lot..
So maybe it wasnt a direct inside job, but an indirect inside job?
the american support to the Nazi party. Hitler blowing up his own building to have an excuse to invade and start it.. So much. So tactical, so smart, so stupid, so human, so unhumane.
Another thing that bothers me are ALL of the concirecies going around this topic, like 9/11 is just the tip of the iceberg. You got the indirect self responsibilety of pearl harbor, they wanted it to happen. You have Vietnam, the oklahoma building and the list goes on further back in time and in newer time scale. Sometimes it just feels like to much, it makes the world we live in seem VERY strange and bizzare.
But hey, if it is all (mostly) true, then oh my god, please let's clean up our system.
e. And all of these we can debunk (is that the expression used?) the points made out in Loose Change and zeitgeist. What about making a movie? You know, with cool music and stuff hehe
I think I'm leening more against a inside job (directly and indirectly) then a total 'It was the muslims, its Bin Ladin, it was the cave people God damn it!' I think the truth is much more complex then that.
Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Jan 7, 2008 02:32
By The Way!
The US goverment / corporations wouldn't kill it's own people? How many people died in WWII, Vietnam, Iraq and on and on and on?
pfft
Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Jan 7, 2008 04:44
Alias
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
32
Posts :
984
Posted : Jan 8, 2008 03:03
let me ask you a question....
why you did not mentioned european corporations that earned money as well ?
and swiss banks that storing all this money!
btw....i agree with kaz for 99% .....very smart and intelligent person i must say!
www.myspace.com/aliasix
Pt.
IsraTrance Senior Member
Started Topics :
236
Posts :
6106
Posted : Jan 8, 2008 03:30
Quote:
On 2008-01-08 03:03, Alias wrote:
let me ask you a question....
why you did not mentioned european corporations that earned money as well ?
and swiss banks that storing all this money!
btw....i agree with kaz for 99% .....very smart and intelligent person i must say!
Who, me?
The whole capetalistic world is power hungry, money driven and fucked up. The blame is on the general world, not ,,just" the US. The US is just the new superpower, and that makes it the biggest target.
Which 1% do you not agree with?
Alias
IsraTrance Junior Member
Started Topics :
32
Posts :
984
Posted : Jan 8, 2008 03:50
psytones don't be naive my friend.....power hungry is not only capitalistic world!
also this anti capitalistic preaching is bullshit ....especially when i hear it from those ppl that not lived under other social systems and regimes!
trust me....comunism for example is not "nice"....because i know and i "saw" what is this!
"The US is just the new superpower, and that makes it the biggest target."
you said it all.....especially european countries and europeans in privetly are angry that they lost their powers and their influence in the world!
thats why i must ask all those ppl that mentioned greedy zionists and american corporations
why you ppl did not mentioning european banks and corporations(oil co's also) in this thread!
www.myspace.com/aliasix
gaspard
Yab Yum
Started Topics :
50
Posts :
641
Posted : Jan 11, 2008 09:31
Quote:
On 2008-01-08 03:50, Alias wrote:
thats why i must ask all those ppl that mentioned greedy zionists and american corporations
why you ppl did not mentioning european banks and corporations(oil co's also) in this thread!
because this is a thread about 911 and whether or not the US govt was involved in it. seems pretty obvious. nobody s saying that european banks and corporations are "clean" but thats a different story in a different thread.
Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Terry Pratchett
TAS
Toxic Anger Syndrome
Started Topics :
21
Posts :
268
Posted : Feb 12, 2008 01:49
Hehe... so everything is debunked huh? Here you have some pics... Look for yourselfs... please give me and SCIENTIFIC answers to those questions there... 90degree "cutted" steelcolumns and thermate at the location?? Sure.. there's no reason to think there's something else behind it... That fucking 9/11 comission changes their opinions all the time and have no idea what happened to WTC 7...
hehe
