9/11 a staged attack

Post Reply New Topic

It's only keeping an open mind if you choose to accept that which is correct.

yes thats right, but what is at question here is what exactly is correct. i accept that there are numerous possibilities, none of which i know to be correct with any degree of certainty.

People keep bringing up the same points after I contradict them, without contradicting my points about those points! It's really annoying, so please, look at my previous posts in this thread. I have stated arguements in response to people's points on the Bush Administration's incompetance, the lack of "fact," and the supposed impossibility of this. Will someone please explain, specifically and thoroughly, how this is impossible? Will someone please listen to what I've been saying, instead of just saying, "there's not enough evidence," "it's nonsense," etc. You know, there's plenty of things that have been reported on in the news that have minimal evidence. You'll readily believe what the government, which has already proven that it lies as much as a sociopath, tells you without worrying about evidence, but when free-speech, independant media (media that isn't controlled by the government) brings up theories and several facts could be strung together, then it's automatically "nonsense"?

Here's another point, too: the Bush Administration is incompetant with things that are out in the open, not things that aren't. Bush became president, and still is president, because of this. Need I remind you that he successfully cheated his way into becomning president in two elections?

It's very possible that they weren't behind 9/11, but what if they were? What would you say if it came out in the open, and everybody learned it, and enough evidence was dug up to show that this was the case? Would you accept this theory even if there WAS enough "sufficient evidence"? Or would you just continue calling it nonsense like you are doing now?

Again, read some of my previous posts in this thread, and contradict them before mindlessly restating yourselves. You sound like the Bush himself when he's facing criticism: continuing to just repeat the same things over and over without contradicting the points that contradict what is being repeated.

It's not COMPLETELY impossoble, just improbable to the point of "de facto" impossibility. Bush's freinds and supporters all suffered a heavy blow on 9/11. If Bush simply wanted a war, ther ar FAR LESS DESTRUCTIVE ways to do this.



This is a Philosophical Construct. We have now way to prove or disprove this statement. Therfore, it's B.S.

Republican efforts to stop the Democrats from tampering with ENDLESS voting recounts does'nt constitute "stealing". Preventing someone from stealing does'nt constitute stealing. That's anti-logical.



You're already contradicting yourself.


I'd place a bet in Vegas you can't produce evidence! If you could. Seeing is believing.



If you make some points that make sense, I'll consider them.

Well thanks for at least admitting it's, er, vaguely possible. ^.^ Now, yes, there would be less destructive ways, but many of them would turn the people against him. Like I said, the point wasn't strictly to start a war, it was to put the US people in a state of fear--regardless of who was behind it. Give me a couple of ways to start a war that wouldn't have pissed off a lot of his supporters. They suffered a heavy blow, but they supported him all the more after it. Not a lot of people who were previously Bush supprters changed their views. Not a lot of people who didn't already hate him called him incompetant. Just the people who hated him already.



How? I can back it up with evidence--I already have. I gave examples of their failures in Katrina, the War with Iraq, etc. being all out in the open, while they were victorious at cheating their way through two elections, acts that were more behind the curtain.



Oh, I wasn't talking about that! Again, I already got way more in depth about all this in my previous posts.



I was talking about that.



And that.



No I'm not. I never said it was impossible for this not to be the case, just that I believe it to be. That's like saying you contradicted yourself by saying that it's possible. I'm acknowledging that it's possible that they weren't behind it, not that that's what I believe.



You didn't answer my question. I never promised that I'd produce evidence that would satisfy you. I was asking you how you'd respond if you WERE confronted with it.



My points might make some more sense if you read the rest of my posts. In that single post (the only post you replied to) I was speaking generally, since I'd already discussed those things in greater detail beforehand--which was why I kept telling you to look at my previous posts, the better of which still haven't been refuted at all.

There's the contradiction. Need I say anything more? I believe the term is "Talking out of both sides of your mouth"

How do you PROVE things that aren't out in the open? (and therefore NO verifiable evidence)

When you are'nt talking out of both sides of your mouth, you're talking out of your a$$.

You have'nt proven a damn thing!! ! Not one solid point. Nothing but unfounded allegations and inuendo. You've got Zip, Nada Zilch to back up any statement you've made.

I still don't see the contradiction. I never said it was impossible, just that I believe it. I'm acknowledging the possibility that I'm wrong, not saying that I believe that they weren't now.

And is that the only bit you're gonna reply to? Why is it that whenever I make any good points, they're just ignored by the people on the other side of the debate? It always just gives the impression that they can't reply or don't know how, or have nothing to say that contradicts it...which is basically the same as being defeated but not accepting it, and just not being able to admit it, or something. I know that that's not always the case (not insinuating it is here), it's just the impression that I get. People just ignore my stronger points, and it bugs me. They could at least say, "Well, damn, I dunno what to say to that one," or announce their departure if they've just decided, "Screw it, it's not worth it," or whatever. Sorry, mini-rant.

EDIT: However, I would like to add that I did contradict myself elsewhere. Before I said that the rationale was to start a war, then decided that it wasn't strictly to do that but to put the country in a state of fear. That was contradictory, and I appologize for that bit. I stand by both: I think that the rationale was to put the country in a state of fear so as to start a war with minimal controversy. (Didn't entirely work for those who already hated him, of course, but this wasn't really for them...I mean if they changed their tune then great, but yeah.)

Last edited by Veresae on 08 Jun 2006, 8:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Oh, good, so you were gonna respond to more.

Actually, there was plenty of varifyable evidence to show that they cheated both elections. Just because it's not out in the open doesn't mean that there isn't evidence, just that it's not reported on by major news sources, because the government controls them. (Though you probably don't believe that, either, eh?) What about the thousands of callers who complained about the electronic voting machines, or the insiders who talked about how they had to make the votes of many Florida African-Americans not be counted? Look this stuff up, there's evidence. I myself haven't proved anything, no, but I have backed my claim up with events that have been proven.

EDIT: Fixed "collars." Dang typos.

How can you belive something that you believe is likely wrong??

The problem is you never make good points. You simply bury people in a mountian of BS

Not nearly enough in my opinion. And how is it paranoia to believe this? I don't think that the government's out to get me, and I'm not coming up with bizarre ideas for future government plots and believing them. I've watched documentaries on or relating to the subject, such as "Outfoxed" or "The Corporation," that have some pretty convincing stuff in them. The thing is, the media is run by corporations, you can't deny that--you see their bloody logos. Corporations are nearly always concerned with one thing, profit, and because the government has a mostly laizees-faire policy, and doesn't contol corporations very much anymore, is it unreasonable to assume that the corporations have control of the government? The government's actions have repeatedly demonstrated their concern for corporate activities, such as their need for oil.

And like I've said before, how many major news sources have run stories that are arguably with minimal or unverifyable evidence? Major news sources are extremely biased. They definately run some stories that are somewhat critical of the government, but it's usually quite mild, and oftentimes seems done just because they feel like they have to or something so that their viewers won't accuse them of being biased. So, they show an anti-war protest, but they only make it for 30 seconds and instead of showing the proest itself or interviews with the protestors, they show the cops looking disgruntled about the protest. There's a lot of stuff like that--stuff that should be critical of the government, but is minimal and seems like it's just done to seem unbiased.



Not always. I can be quite critical, but only when I see a motive for misinformation or something that doesn't fit. I see no reason that the Bush Administration wouldn't be involved in 9/11, and plenty of reasons why they would. Doesn't automatically assume that it's the case, but that means I'll be a bit more open to believing it than I would otherwise. Now, in this case, with the electronic voting machines, wouldn't it be easy for the Bush Administration to rig them? It fits, it jives with the rest of their actions, it's possible. Plus--more to the point--I've heard some of these calls on various free-speech radio stations. It's not like people can just call up CNN and talk about this, and if they do, do you think CNN will be allowed to run the story? Remember what happens in films like "The Insider" or "Good Night, & Good Luck"? Some station tries running a story that's critical of the higher powers, and that station faces the concequences. So people turn to the only place where they CAN publicly tell their story: the independant sources, which not enough people listen to for the government to be concerned about.

Now, why would stations that are as critical of the democratic party as they are of the republican party forage these phone calls? Because they'd hope that it would get out in the open? Nope, others don't believe it because it's an independant source. Because it might get the democrats to grow some backbones? Please, nobody can be that unrealistically idealistic and be as critical of politics as free speech independent radio news is. What motive would there be to go to the trouble of creating this "misinformation," especially to such an elaborate extent, what with getting so many different voice actors? Plus, all of these voice actors would have to be paid, which the independant station wouldn't even be able to do because it's independant and therefore doesn't have the biggest budget. Thus, with this in mind, I believe it.




Okay, now you're just being insulting. I never insulted you for your lack of belief, so don't insult me for my belief. I could call you naive or unwilling to accept an idea, or too literal, or unable to understand that not everything that happens is proven, but I haven't done so, and I'm not going to. So don't call me an idiot just because I believe this.




Okay, to clear this up: I don't think it's likely wrong. I think that it's likely that it COULD be wrong. I also think that it's likely that it did happen. I'm just acknowledging that I could be wrong about this.

There's still some points I made earlier on that have been ignored. And are you so quick to trust the BS of a news station that's controlled by sociopathic corporations and a government that has lied through its teeth over and over again (because both have every reason to do so), but not trust the "BS" of news sources that have no reason to BS and AREN'T controlled by these corporations and this government?

Well obviously their can't be any foul play, because as we all know there is a vast Liberal Media Conspiracy!

(Sorry, I have to sneak that in every now and again. The idea of Liberal Controlled Media makes me break out into hysterical laughter)

Bush family goes wayyyyy back with the Bin Laden's in the oil industry, and theyr both billion-aires... BinLaden and Al Qeida (did I spell it correctly?) were both on the CIA payroll. In fact (I wish I would have taped this) I seen a report 2 days after 9/11 where the media had briefly leaked that top level Bush Adm. executives had a meeting with the hijackers of 9/11 in Palestine... 2 days before it happened! I'm sure Bush adm hushed them up really quickly which is why it hasn't been mentioned since. But if Bush had nothing to hide, why does he keep blocking one investigation after another by independant agencies into 9/11? I think he was working with BinLaden to set it up... This was the catastrophe Bush needed to set the wheels turning in order to set up a police state.

Yeah, and then there's the bombs. Multiple physicists have contended that it'd have been physically impossible for the towers to have been toppled merely by the airplane crash, and that it is much more likely that bombs were set off to send the towers crashing down. Hell, even on multiple stations (ABC, NBC, etc.) on the days of the attacks there were reports of "a third explosion" and they spoke of how the falling of the towers looked just like a controlled demolition. However, this was only on the day of it happened and the days surrounding it, and soon they stopped talking about it altogether.

The two towers had 47 steel collums in their infrastructure, which were omitted from the 9/11 comission because it would show their "pancake" theory of the towers' fall to be physically impossible, even though they were pimped initially to be a big deal. The WTC designers believed that because of these, just one of the WTC buildings could survive multiple hits from the largest airplane that existed then, and the airplanes that hit the WTC buildings were smaller than that. It was compared to sticking a pencil in mosquito netting: it'll poke a hole, but not destroy the netting, because of the grid-like nature of the way the buildings were built.

Then there's the way WTC building 7 fell--again, in a way that looked just like a controlled demolition--even though it wasn't hit by any airplanes, and the way both it and the North and South WTC buildings fell to their feet. Had the pancake theory actually occurred, it would have happened in a much sloppier way and much more damage would have taken place to the buildings surrounding the WTC. It's likely that the WTC buildings would have actually crashed diagnally into the buildings surrounding them, not down to their feet, if the pancake theory had actually happened (or could actually happen).

Furthermore, the speed at which the towers fell was freefall, which couldn't have happened with this "pancake theory." And that's not even getting into all the dust that was created. You can look at the videos of the towers falling, it's obvious that all the destruction that's happening was caused by more than just fires. You can see chunks of the building falling with all the smoke, and as already stated, they wouldn't have been caused by one measly airplane.

Additionally, after the towers fell, those 47 steel collums were immidiately shipped onto trucks, and then from trucks onto boats headed for Asia, where they would be liquified. The trucks had logos that showed they belonged to--a demolition company.

Also, why was it that the first building to be hit fell after the second building to be hit? Why was it that people who worked in the basement of the towers gave interviews about explosions which killed several people in the basement? Why was it that major news stations quickly stopped showing these interviews or asking these questions not long after 9/11 happened? (Answer: because they weren't allowed to.) Why was it that the 9/11 comission gave a physically impossible reason for the falling of the towers if they weren't covering something up?

What's even more interesting is the unusual security blackouts that happened in the weeks leading up to 9/11, and the way that the company responsible for the security of both the WTC and the airport from which the planes that hit it took flight is Securicon, which is owned by President Bush's brother!

And what about the pentagon? What about the way that it sounded like a missile, and not a plane crash? They compared the two sounds, and it didn't sound like planes sound when they crash--it sounded like a missile. And then there were the multiple accounts of people claiming that it didn't even -look- like a plane, but rather--get this--a missile. What about the impact that airplane crashes leave, which couldn't be found here?

It's more than just speculation and theory, y'see. There's a lot of suspicious stuff that doesn't add up, and if you have answers for it all, do tell.

bear in mind also that at least a few of the alleged hijackers are apparently still alive. this was reported on the bbc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 559151.stm