Whats your favorite 911 smoking gun?

Post Reply New Topic

Giuliani sure gained a lot.

My cousin gained a lot of money when his mother died. Is this evidence that he killed her? Nope. The point that that article makes is that Silverstein's actions were fairly stupid if you assume that he knew what was going to happen. Regardless, even if he made a trillion dollars due to the events of 911, that isn't evidence that he was involved.

and did anyone notice the time-stamp says 9/12? You's think the PENTAGON time-stamps would be more accurate than that.

I am 100% convinced that our own government was behind 9/11.

There, I've said it.

I don't believe 9-11 is an inside job as much as I believe the government let it happen to further their motives in international policies. Let's look at all the policies that have been thrown at us using 9-11 as an excuse. The worst one is the patriot act, which would have caused massive public outcry. As it was legislated afterwards, nobody batted an eye to these totally unconstitutional policies. Look at the security upgrades at airports, city halls, and many other places that were all done in the name of 9-11. Most of these are just "showing face" as they would not really stop an act like what happened from occuring again, but are really done for other motives. Their guess is that the public just accepts them because they supposedly makes us more secure. 9-11 was used as an excuse for international policies, as the government has used 9-11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, which did not have anything to do with 9-11 attacks at all!

It is a known fact today that Pearl Harbor occurred in the same way. The American public did not want to get involved in World War II, and needed some sort of "smoking gun" to get them riled up enough to want to. Intelligence that the Pearl Harbor attack was going to happen was found at least a month or two in advance, but it was withheld so it would actually occur. We had the opportunity to stop it, but if it was stopped, would the American public want to go after Japan with the force it did?

That is simply not the case. The US government did know that the Japanese were about to attack. The problem was that they had no idea where that would be. Pearl Harbour would have been considered a rather unlikely point of attack by anybody at the time, for a whole lot of reasons. At any rate, war warning orders were sent out all over the Pacific in November.

Thats simply not the case either.
Why do you think the 3 aircraft carriers where mysteriously parked up in open sea rather than at Pearl Harbour?, because America needed those aircraft carriers and didnt want to risk losing them at Pearl Harbour.

I heard (or maybe dreamt) this a while back - The japanese plan was to declare war shortly before attack.

Theres a natural phenomenon (this is now well documented, but may still have been a mystery in the 40s) whereby several bands of pressurised air (or something, i dont understand the science) run at high altitude, creating about 3 (IIRC) sort of aerial highways running sideways along the globe. One runs westwards from nearby Japan, so by entering the right zone, its possible to make a pacific crossing much faster than otherwise.

Its possible the Japanese unknowingly entered this zone and arrived in the states a few hours early - before they were scheduled to (officially) attack.

Had they known in advance that Pearl Harbour was the intended attack, they'd have sent out the battleships in preference to the carriers. The aircraft carrier as the queen of naval combat is a concept only understood in hindsight. At the time, both the USA and Japan (and the UK and Germany and Italy, I might add) had yet to see that the CVBG would redefine naval warfare.

The title says "yer fave bit of evidence", not argue incessantly!!

~ahem~

Jet fuel is not particularly flammable. It doesn't need to be. Check the design of the typical jet engine. It's highly refined kerosene, and not as flammable as the petrol you put in yer car. Therefore, how did it burn hot enough to melt structural steel? In both buildings? I believe I've read on the internet where someone has physically demonstrated this and the heat is nowhere near that required to cause steel beams to buckle...

Good one Prof,
Further to your point, 3 months later, the steel in the remains of the World Trade Centre was still molten, it would take something really hot to cause that, something like thermite that they use to demolise tall buildings by wrapping it around steel columns at an angle of 45% so that the building slides off.

A bit like this column spotted at the World Trade Centre



Heres what thermite in action looks like

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk&search=thermite[/youtube]