9-11... Who really did it?

Post Reply New Topic

I totally agree Macbeth, and so do various demolition experts, it looks like it fell down due to demolition charges.
Certainly looks that way with World Trade centre 7 that fell down and wasnt even hit by an airplane, or didnt you know about that?, best one is to see the BBC live broadcast where they stated it had fallen down 20 minutes before it actually did, somebody read the pre-written script to early.

Those 16 Arabs they put pictures of on the front page of all the papers, I want to know when they are going to publish the 9 or so that have come forward since, to say they are still alive.

Why is it so easy to belive men with brown skin who have nothing to gain can do this, yet so hard to belive men with white skin who have everything to gain and have proved themselves liers to you, (Iraq WMD, Iran Nucleur WMD), did?

TBH theres enough evidence for either end of the argument, if you look in the right places. I dont consider it inconceivable that someone could hijack a plane (happens all the time) and fly it into a building, nor do i consider it inconceivable that the US government could pull a Reichstag number. As for controlled demolition.. the third building could well have been taken down deliberately, simply as a safety measure, and then someone might have realised that it would make the whoel thing look terribly dodgy if they admitted that. However, flying a 757 into a skyscraper is pretty unprecedented, so theres not really enough proof to say that it couldnt have taken the towers down.. of course if someone does it AGAIN, then I suspect a lot of things would be cleared up quite fast.

The first time anything happens, its a surprise, with a lot of variables. I think we can safely assume that if Bin Laden did organise it, he probably didnt expect it to do as much damage as it did.

Mostly, I find the Reichstag argument a little odd, because there were plenty enough reasons to start a war with Iraq without doing this, so why go to all that effort? Not to mention the fact that they went to a completely different country with no international pull at all first. If its a cover story, its a needlessly elaborate one.

My personal belief is: It was a planned terrorist attack, that shouldnt have worked, but did because the US government f****d up and didnt do enough to stop it, and its like. Any conspiracies and stories coming from that are simply smokescreens to cover the fact they f****d up and got a lot of people killed. So there IS a conspiracy, but its to disguise the fact the US government and its intelligence forces are s**t. (After all, look at the bay of pigs, or those rendition flights. if they were any good at being secret agents, they would be a SECRET.)

However, i also think that Bin Laden missed a trick. With a bit more planning he could have nailed the towers, gone for the pentagon, and crippled the american infrastructure in a huge way.. it would have just required more fanatics and well placed explosives in firestations, bus stations, police stations, pubs and bars etc stateswide. Least thats what I would have done. Go for the BIG takedown, and keep hammering at it, rather than just the one thing.

is this the right forum for this sort of argument? this doesn't seem like news to me, more like it belongs in the politics forum..

How the hell do you know how it really was as you werent there and do not have security clearance to know.

Really??? Like WMD for example?

I have it, one of the perks of Illuminati membership. I thought id share a little knowledge with Macbeth.

Unlike your posts in the gay child abuse thread, you seem to be at least interested in discussion on this topic, and you only resort to telling people that your opinion is fact when you feel attacked or frustrated; at least, that seems to be my take on the issue. Stay away from preachy-ness, and simply present your arguments and counterpoints. I think you have the ability to do this. Maybe the other thread touched a personal nerve, I don't know - either way, you started this thread in a way that encouraged debate rather than a pissing contest, so you have my respect in that regard.

So - who's really responsible for 9/11? There are plenty of arguments, and plenty of evidence, for all views. Whenever a man-made tragedy of this scope occurs, there is always a *ton* of speculation. Depending on how people react to that speculation, I think this is a good thing - complacency is the first step towards slow death.

First, as a terrorist strike: If Al Quaeda and the Arab extremist terrorists were responsible, then Christ-on-a-four-wheeler, they are STUPID. The World Trade Center was a *world* trade center, and many other powerful countries had people and investments there. This would be equivalent to Hitler directly targeting the US. The most successful takeovers are those that begin insidiously. Best example: How the United States assimilated Hawaii.

The second biggest mistake with a course of action like this is that, by simultaneously destroying an international icon of civilization and also snuffing out thousands of lives, *everyone* felt the blow. Hence the extreme unification of the country under a banner of aggressive "patriotism."

Basically, all they succeeded in doing was pissing off an entire pit full of snakes and ensuring that their enemy would be stronger and more determined because of the psychic injury they caused.

....aaaaand now I have to go before I can play devil's advocate to myself. ; ; Husband just got home with my foods. I'll post more later.

Well i used to defend their freedom of choice until i realized there is an agenda to sodomize society.

Really? The possibility was brought up when the Towers were designed, and they were built to withstand a crash from a 707, which is bigger than the 757s actually used. And you still haven't explained WTC 7. Not that anyone can without admitting it was a controlled demolition. And why did the media have advance knowledge?

Because the current flavor of the ruling class had just "won" an election largely by criticizing the interventionism of their foes. Sure, there were compelling reasons for invading Iraq- help to solidify the police state, expand and entrench federal power, concerns of imperialism and "influence" over the Middle East. However, they could not cite these reasons while attempting to stir Americans up into a jingoistic, blood-thirsty frenzy. Here is a quote from Mr. Orwell's essay Politics and the English Language, written 1946.

The feasible reasons for why we should go to war with Iraq do not sit well with most people, so new reasons had to be invented. Simple as that, and every justification we were given for the war has been shown to be mere fabrication.
I would have modicum of respect for them if they could at least admit their ulterior motives. I remember, several years ago, seeing an interview on the BBC about an upcoming presidential election in Belarus. They were talking to the candidate from the opposition party, and I was overjoyed to see how openly he could talk about the reality in his country. The candidate was just sitting there telling the BBC interviewer things like, "Well, Belarus of course is not a democracy, so I already know I'm not going to win the election, but I hope to be able to be an example to my countrymen and help spread ideals of freedom so that we can begin moving towards a democratic government." (Note:very much a paraphrase, it was years ago, but he did say repeatedly "Belarus is not a democracy"). Today (Constitution Day, incidentally) someone in my history class brought up the issue of people simply being held for several months without being charged, and he was quickly shut up and his claims rejected as nonsense, despite those claims being well-documented and openly admitted facts. At least in Belarus they get to point out the real flaws in their country without being written off as a paranoid nutcase.

It is all a vast conspiracy.
Everyone is out to get everyone else.
End of story.

People often have ulterior motives. You can mock me all you want, but your derision willnot change reality. I certainly do not believe that it was "everyone" in the US governemtn involved in some massive conspiracy, that would be absurd. But certain elements of the government, who have something to gain by these events, I am less willing to take on their word.

The media is in on the propogander lies as well,
Scroll down to find the links to an in-depth study of the live footage

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?viewmode=flat&topic_id=5693&forum=24

I have been desperately trying to find a rather convincing doco I saw through my stumbleupon activities, unfortunately I cannot, however I will keep looking and if I find it post a link.
It had footage of the supposed plane that crashed into the Pentagon, then an analysis of the situation and a breakdown of all the seized CCTV footage along the supposed flightpath.
I have an interest in aircraft and weapons and over the years have seen footage of air disasters and the results of war. I am prepared to accept that something more was going on than Osama's terrorism here.
The damage to the Pentagon building is consistent with a missile attack, the footage of the 'approaching aircraft' shows no large object and the resulting wreckage is almost zero, however there was a lovely fireball and noise.

If this was an inside job as they say then it would not be the first time,
1/ The 'bay of Tonkin' incident that was used to justify US involvement in Vietnam was a set up by the CIA.
2/ Madeline Albright told Saddam that 'as long as the oil supply remains uninterrupted, an Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was of no concern to the US'.
3/ The WMD scare to justify invading Iraq a second time was complete rubbish.

Sometimes there are conspiracies in the world, not always but sometimes, peace j

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

This is it I found it, I had been looking in the wrong place, lol.

This is why I am willing to doubt the official story, you make up your own minds...

peace j

That pentagon video was from a parking lot security camera with a framerate of one frame per second... the plane was travelling at 600mph, which works out to 880 feet per second. A 757 is 155 feet 3 inches long, which means that the plane could have passed in front of that camera in excess of 5 times in between frames.

So how do you explain the lack of debris? the character of the damage and the thorough way in which all video footage was seized so quickly and why they will not release it now? all those eyewitness accounts?...
I don't know what happened but power causes people to do strange things and Bush and his cronies wouldn't be the first to commit crimes against their own in order to justify draconian measures against their own populace, which is pretty much what has happened.
peace j