9/11 discussion

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shaun]

oh lord.

[Shasown]

So 9/11 and the subsequent invasion and occupation of Afghanistan were simply part of an insurance scam so that Silverstein could knock down the towers and rebuild at no real cost to himself?

Yeah that stands up to scrutiny.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shasown]

feeble and pathetic debunk attempt

it is only ONE of MANY pieces of damning evidence and only ONE of MANY aspects of the truth.

watch the videos, you seriously telling me that guy is telling the truth?


Damning evidence my arse, a series of circumstances that conspiracy nuts weave into something that my nipper could rip apart.

I dont know Silverstein, therefore I dont know how he acts and reacts in real life, is he naturally nervous, or just in front of people? Some people do get nervous when public speaking or appearing on TV, even businessmen.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shasown]

that same old fail tactic of dismissing someone as a conspiracy nut
MILLIONS of people believe it was a cover up and want to know the truth

you watched those videos and all you say is oh maybe he was nervous? what a complete joke argument
HE IS A LIAR 100%

No I didnt say maybe he is nervous. I said some people are naturally nervous. I dont judge a person or what they are saying solely on appearing to be of a nervous disposition.

Although he does stutter at times and is quite verbose in his explanations, other aspects of his body language are not betraying him as a liar.

You are the one saying he is a liar, find some real evidence to back up your assertion.

[arista]

Yes the Saudi Terror Gang
did well at 9/11.

Making GW Bush as Evil as Bin Laden

Carpet Bombing the Iraqi public
had nothing to do with 9/11

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shasown]

other aspects of his body language are not betraying him as a liar????

lets break it down

his normal daily routine is to go to WTC every morning and have breakfast and talk to his tenants, this is how he descibes it HIMSELF
for some reason on 9/11 he does not follow this routine
WHY?
there are 2 conclusions
first is that he knows WTC will be attacked and so obviously stays home
second is his story he tells 2 separate interviewers



What about the second conclusion, he is telling the truth, feels self doubt, guilt etc for not being in the building at the time of the crash? Lots of people who miss aircraft that crash during the flight they were supposed to be on act and react in a similar vein.


how about when he said pull it, clearly referring to pull the building down, later on realising he backtracks and says he meant pull the firefighters out
if he was referring to firefighters why he say pull IT, he sees them as animals or something?
he said he spoke to a certain firefighter but one researcher spoke to that firefighter and denied the conversation, that was the Q asked at conference which he avoided over and over
so there is just 2 occasions where it is proven that he is a compulsive liar
now we supposed to believe some convoluted cover story and ignore all his shaking of the head and just say oh i believe him because i don't wanna be a conspiracy nut

What was interesting is the conspiracy theory backers dont show the full interview either, a few seconds earlier in that particular interview the words "firefighting effort" were used.

He didnt refer to firemen but the concerted act of fighting the fire in the building when he says pull it. If as the conspiracy theorists he had charges prelaid to demolish the building wouldnt he have just said blow it, or drop it? Bear in mind the theorists use two tactics here, one is question his choice of words and the context they were said in, the second is then to question that the actual conversation happened by throwing into doubt who he was speaking to, then implying the conversation didnt take place at all.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Not this old pish again. Move on ffs.

[Tom4784]

If there was anything more to it there would be solid and truthful evidence of it by now in this age of wikileaks and such. Given that it's just conspiracy nuts going on about it though, I can't take it seriously.

[Vicky.]

Ive read/watched a LOT about this. I agree some of the official explanations dont really add up. However, I think its a bit silly to assume that it was all manufactured for whatever reason.

The conclusion I have come to myself (and call me a conspiracy nut if you like)...is that the American government KNEW what was going to happen/elements of it at least, and allowed it to happen. For what reason...I dont know. Maybe it was for money, maybe it was for a reason to go to war, maybe it was something else entirely. I just find it hard to believe that with all the security around the pentagon/WTC that nothing at all could be done to prevent it or anything :/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Ive read/watched a LOT about this. I agree some of the official explanations dont really add up. However, I think its a bit silly to assume that it was all manufactured for whatever reason.

The conclusion I have come to myself (and call me a conspiracy nut if you like)...is that the American government KNEW what was going to happen/elements of it at least, and allowed it to happen. For what reason...I dont know. Maybe it was for money, maybe it was for a reason to go to war, maybe it was something else entirely. I just find it hard to believe that with all the security around the pentagon/WTC that nothing at all could be done to prevent it or anything :/

Dont be ridiculous and stick to the evidence

[Vicky.]

Dont be ridiculous and stick to the evidence

Evidence?

I have yet to see any 'evidence' that the government did not know that the attacks were going to happen. Please show me...

[arista]

We have had this thread before
Best to lock it Dezzy
the Wise one here

[Tom4784]

It's not breaking any rules yet Arista and all topics always pop up eventually which I find good as old topics can always benefit from fresh perspectives.

If it leads to an argument or grossly off topic then I'll do something but there's nothing wrong with the topic for the moment.

[arista]

It's not breaking any rules yet Arista and all topics always pop up eventually which I find good as old topics can always benefit from fresh perspectives.

If it leads to an argument or grossly off topic then I'll do something but there's nothing wrong with the topic for the moment.


OK

[Crimson Dynamo]

Evidence?

I have yet to see any 'evidence' that the government did not know that the attacks were going to happen. Please show me...

and do you have any evidence that the masons ordered the attack or the hells angels?

is there any evidence to suggest that katy perry was not aware the attacks were happening?

[Crimson Dynamo]

OK

thats you told off Arista. Dont let this happen again. :nono:

[Vicky.]

and do you have any evidence that the masons ordered the attack or the hells angels?

is there any evidence to suggest that katy perry was not aware the attacks were happening?

Nope. Yet I refuse to lap up all the bulls*** I get told without questioning anything. Thats all ;)

[Crimson Dynamo]

Nope. Yet I refuse to lap up all the bulls*** I get told without questioning anything. Thats all ;)

No you are ignoring evidence and believing speculation. The 9/11 information came from a myriad of sources not from the US government solely.

[Vicky.]

No you are ignoring evidence and believing speculation. The 9/11 information came from a myriad of sources not from the US government solely.

LOL. Ok. No problem.

But if its ok by you I will continue believing that we are not getting the full story ;)

[Barbie]

The bit where he says "pull it and we watched the building fall" can be taken in so many ways: the way i heard it was that he said to pull everyone out of the buildings and then it fell and so he ha saying they made the right decision. But consipracy wants to see this as pull it and then the building fell. What i don't understand is, if it was a secret that they pulled the buildings down then why would he say it in the way the consipracy theorists believe he said it? surely thats just shooting yourself in the foot.

Because of this i don't think thats what he meant by that comment at all. Why would he say that if it was a big secret. I don't think so. He meant pull the emergency services out, and then the building fell so they were out just in time.

[Crimson Dynamo]

LOL. Ok. No problem.

But if its ok by you I will continue believing that we are not getting the full story ;)


zMelmLspMP0&feature=related

[Harry!]

If it was all a government scam then why would they want to cause all the pain and suffering to families who are now without loved ones, Not forgetting the thousands who lost their lives stuck in the towers. A cost of a life can not be covered by any amount of money.

[Vicky.]

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

[Crimson Dynamo]

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

There is no such thing as governments as an entity they are made up by people who have families and children and there is no way that a patriotic country like the USA would not only do what you suggest but have the ability to cover it up.

[Liberty4eva]

I've looked into the 9/11 debate for years now and I am absolutely, 100%, convinced that it was an inside job. As an American, I do find it peculiar that in countries like the UK, Ireland, Australia, and Canada people think American foreign policy was evil, people thought George W. Bush was evil, yet the vast majority of them would not go the extra step and say that he could have been behind the whole 9/11 thing. It's as if they're allowed to think he was evil but not THAT evil.

All it takes is a little bit of understanding of physics and the knowledge that there is no way, in this world, that building 7 could have collapsed without explosives being involved.

hm1u6qZyQ4w

I hate to quote Star Trek but once you've eliminated the impossible whatever remains however unlikely must be true. There is so much more evidence that supports the controlled demolition theory and contradicts the official story. It really is a mountain of evidence. When you finally realize 9/11 was an inside job and there were people at the top who planned it you will then realize that there has been a web of deceit and lies by the government and media. You'll realize that supposed anti-Republican, anti-Bush media like MSNBC and anti-Bush icons like Michael Moore were not as anti-Republican and anti-Bush as they lead you to believe. Fahrenheit 9/11 appeared to hurt Bush and be a 2 hour hit-piece on him but in actuality it helped them cover up the truth. Michael Moore when confronted on 9/11 truth by private individuals said he talked to firefighters who heard explosions and we don't know half of all the things that happened on 9/11 yet he has never given public support to 9/11 truth. When you finally put 2 and 2 together you'll realize the world is a scarier place but at least you'll be awake.

Someone mentioned that if it was an inside job it would have shown up on wikileaks by now. Wikileaks outright lies on Building 7 when they say no one reported hearing explosions around WTC 7. There was eye-witness testimony from Peter Jennings who was inside the building and heard and experienced explosions and there is video of someone outside WTC 7 and you hear explosions in the video. All these people at the top have a vested interest in covering up the truth and propogating the myth and are not beneath lying to accomplish it.

[Shasown]

I've looked into the 9/11 debate for years now and I am absolutely, 100%, convinced that it was an inside job.....


All it takes is a little bit of understanding of physics and the knowledge that there is no way, in this world, that building 7 could have collapsed without explosives being involved.


I hate to quote Star Trek but once you've eliminated the impossible whatever remains however unlikely must be true.



Thats as maybe but a greater understanding of physics as applied to building weight loadings etc and you would know the opposite.

Its not originally Star Trek you know, its a quote by a character called Sherlock Holmes frequently used throughout the storires wrote about him by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. (Go figure.........)

[Judas]

Harry, do you really believe that governments care more for peoples lives than for money/power?

... Kind of. Yes, you can argue they don't care about lives in war, and it's silly of me to suggest that power is not a big influence. But I don't think governments are made of monsters like these kind of theories believe and suggest.

[Shasown]

... Kind of. Yes, you can argue they don't care about lives in war, and it's silly of me to suggest that power is not a big influence. But I don't think governments are made of monsters like these kind of theories believe and suggest.

No but it does suit the nuts who use conspiracy theories to explain why people at the bottom of the social strata cant better themselves after all it couldnt be their own inadequacies could it?

[letmein]

There is no such thing as governments as an entity they are made up by people who have families and children and there is no way that a patriotic country like the USA would not only do what you suggest but have the ability to cover it up.

Naive... tragically naive.

[Liberty4eva]

Thats as maybe but a greater understanding of physics as applied to building weight loadings etc and you would know the opposite.

The reaction you get from people who are experts at buildings being presented with footage of Building 7 collapsing is at odds with what you say. Danny Jowenko is European demolition expert and this is his reaction to seeing footage of Building 7 collapsing.

877gr6xtQIc

In fact the 9/11 truth movement is comprised mostly of professionals. There are a lot of loud people in movement, the "9/11 was an inside job" chanters, but it is mostly professionals.

But, IMHO, you don't even have to be an expert in buildings to be able to know that it's a CD. Hate to quote more popular culture, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.

[Shasown]

The reaction you get from people who are experts at buildings being presented with footage of Building 7 collapsing is at odds with what you say. Danny Jowenko is European demolition expert and this is his reaction to seeing footage of Building 7 collapsing.

877gr6xtQIc

In fact the 9/11 truth movement is comprised mostly of professionals. There are a lot of loud people in movement, the "9/11 was an inside job" chanters, but it is mostly professionals.

But, IMHO, you don't even have to be an expert in buildings to be able to know that it's a CD. Hate to quote more popular culture, but if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it's a duck.

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.

Yeah it does look a lot like a controlled demolition, that doesnt mean to say it was, as for Jowenko he says "oh thats controlled" at first, then when additional facts were pointed out, like when it actually happened and the fact the building was on fire at the time of collapse, he doesnt press the fact it was a CD, he says he cant explain it.

Think about it would a demolition team go in and rush a job that would normally take a team several days to do, while the building above and around them was on fire?

Wouldnt the fire officers and police officers and other people at the scene notice the dems team, (Jowenko says about 30 - 40 men)?

Would a skilled demolition team take the risk in wiring up charges with det cord? Which if its burnt can kick into demo mode, ie fast burn and trigger all the dets in the string? But not with the same effect as a CD.

One other point, large buildings in the US have to follow Federal and State (and even localised zoning) Building Regulations, these include design rules, stress rules and failsafe collapse systems.

That means when certain stresses are achieved, under certain circumstances the building flat pack collapses onto its own footprint. Most of the conspiracy believers seem to forget that!

So if a fire weakens the structure and starts a collapse, pre stressed in built weak points will also collapse and progressively (within a few seconds) stop the building collapsing outwards. In other words the initial collapse point may move the parts of the building just above the collapsed area off the footprint but the rest of the building collapses on itself.

Incidentally if you actually read the full FEMA report you will indeed see the wording "requires further investigation", several times in fact. This merely acknowledges that the FEMA investigation wasnt able to reach a full and satisfactory conclusion to the exact cause of collapse ( where it specifically started etc) Funny old thing that, it had a couple of other minor things to investigate at the same time.

Saying that however conspiracy theorists who love to quote those 3 words seemed to have completely forgotten all about the follow up more detailed NIST led investigation which really went into detail on 7WTC.

It stated the building had collapsed as a result of structural damage which occured from the collapse of the twin towers, and then subsequent multiple fires occuring throughout the building caused even greater structural damage.

They also conveniently ignore the fact that firemen in the building attempting to fight the fires heard the building creaking and groaning as bits fell off. In other words the building was not structurally intact at the time of collapse.

If explosives were used to drop the building then surely some flying glass would have been observed on one of the many films of the fire fighting attempt at the building or its subsequent collapse. And wouldnt all those bangs going off simultaneously create one mother****er of an explosion that people would hear even out of the safety cordon?

Or did the US government develop some new super explosive that is not only invisible, doesnt produce any outward blast but is also soundless, just for this job?

[billy123]

I have a suspicion the people who look at Building 7 collapsing and don't see an eerie similarity between that and a controlled demolition have a psychological need to deceive themselves and not see the world as it actually is.
http://www.learnamericanenglishonline.com/American_Expressions/images_for_expressions/h_expressions_images/hit%20nail.jpg
This possibility scares people so much that they go into denial. The possibility that over a trillion dollars has changed hands in a war against iraq (a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11) might just be more valuable than 2000 human lives is so scary to some people they will ignore the obvious to placate themselves.

[Livia]

I think the whole 9/11 thing was organised by the man on the grassy knoll.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I think the whole 9/11 thing was organised by the man on the grassy knoll.

I think you mean Newman?

px2SxKuaHWk&playnext=1&list=PL6FAA287E7A69331A

['Conor]

erm what happened in 9/11? as far as i remember terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers..

[arista]

erm what happened in 9/11? as far as i remember terrorists hijacked planes and crashed them into the twin towers..



Yes Evil Saudi Arabia Bin Ladens Clever Master Plan
Worked so well as the metal melted in the structures
due to the Oil Burning getting Intense and Super Hot
from those 2 Deadly Planes.



And What Stupid Evil G W bush do
Carpet Bombed all the Iraqi public in one Deadly go.

And Iraq had Feck all to do with 9/11.

[Shasown]

Yes Evil Saudi Arabia Bin Ladens Clever Master Plan
Worked so well as the metal melted in the structures
due to the Oil Burning getting Intense and Super Hot
from those 2 Deadly Planes.



And What Stupid Evil G W bush do
Carpet Bombed all the Iraqi public in one Deadly go.

And Iraq had Feck all to do with 9/11.

No thats not the whole truth.

Bush declared war on terrorism. Formed the Office of Homeland Security and brought in the USA Patriot Act of 2001. And also invoked article 5 of the NATO pact, meaning all NATO countries should help in any subsequent military actions in response to the attacks.

At the same early intelligence led the US to believe Al Qaeda to be at least part responsible for the attacks. Consequently they asked the Afghanistan Government (the Taliban) to hand over the Al Qaeda leaders located in their country and close the training camps. (Something the US had been demanding for over a year as they wanted Bin Laden and co for other attacks)

The Taliban refused as they had not been furnished proof of the link between Al Qaeda and the attacks. The US then led an invasion into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, capture Al Qaeda leaders believed to be in the country and close the terrorist training camps.

Part of the intelligence that led the US to Al Quaeda and Afghanistan was furnished by an Anti taliban fighter called Ahmad Shah Massoud, he not only identified terrorist camps but also stated a couple of months before 11 Sept, that Al Qaeda would attack either mainland US targets or European targets in a massive attack.

Massoud himself was assassinated on the 9 Sept 2001.

Iraq itself was invaded under a separate pretext, in that they had failed to co operate with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission and for non compliance of UN resolution 1441. The US believed that Iraq had the capability of launching Biological and chemical attacks on the Eastern US seaboard.

There are uncomfirmed reports of an agreement between Bush and Blair to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power with or without UN agreement in Jan 2003.

The invasion of Iraq started March 20 2003.

[letmein]

No thats not the whole truth.

Bush declared war on terrorism. Formed the Office of Homeland Security and brought in the USA Patriot Act of 2001. And also invoked article 5 of the NATO pact, meaning all NATO countries should help in any subsequent military actions in response to the attacks.

At the same early intelligence led the US to believe Al Qaeda to be at least part responsible for the attacks. Consequently they asked the Afghanistan Government (the Taliban) to hand over the Al Qaeda leaders located in their country and close the training camps. (Something the US had been demanding for over a year as they wanted Bin Laden and co for other attacks)

The Taliban refused as they had not been furnished proof of the link between Al Qaeda and the attacks. The US then led an invasion into Afghanistan to remove the Taliban, capture Al Qaeda leaders believed to be in the country and close the terrorist training camps.

Part of the intelligence that led the US to Al Quaeda and Afghanistan was furnished by an Anti taliban fighter called Ahmad Shah Massoud, he not only identified terrorist camps but also stated a couple of months before 11 Sept, that Al Qaeda would attack either mainland US targets or European targets in a massive attack.

Massoud himself was assassinated on the 9 Sept 2001.

Iraq itself was invaded under a separate pretext, in that they had failed to co operate with the UN Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission and for non compliance of UN resolution 1441. The US believed that Iraq had the capability of launching Biological and chemical attacks on the Eastern US seaboard.

There are uncomfirmed reports of an agreement between Bush and Blair to invade Iraq and remove Hussein from power with or without UN agreement in Jan 2003.

The invasion of Iraq started March 20 2003.

No, the Neocons did, the CIA did not. The Right wing was looking for a way to go to war with Iraq the first day they set foot inside the White House in 2001. They let Osama bin Laden go, and ignored Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors in before the invasion in 2003. The US said that this was a setup. These morons were hell bent on invading.

With all this being said, it is very easy for someone to conclude that the powers that be had some hand in 9/11 to get what they wanted. I personally don't believe this, but see it as a self-fulfilled prophesy. They always screamed that government didn't work, and they made it so. They let 9/11 happen, and then saw it as an opportunity to do what they always wanted to do, no matter how illegal it was. There was always a silver lining in their incompetence. They should all be in prison for war crimes.

[Shasown]

No, the Neocons did, the CIA did not. The Right wing was looking for a way to go to war with Iraq the first day they set foot inside the White House in 2001. They let Osama bin Laden go, and ignored Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors in before the invasion in 2003. The US said that this was a setup. These morons were hell bent on invading.

With all this being said, it is very easy for someone to conclude that the powers that be had some hand in 9/11 to get what they wanted. I personally don't believe this, but see it as a self-fulfilled prophesy. They always screamed that government didn't work, and they made it so. They let 9/11 happen, and then saw it as an opportunity to do what they always wanted to do, no matter how illegal it was. There was always a silver lining in their incompetence. They should all be in prison for war crimes.

Again thats only part of the truth, Saddma Hussein did allow inspectors in quite often between the end of the first gulf war and the start of the second. But then at other times escorted them out of his country, a few times at gunpoint.

To the weapons inspectors it appeared that Iraq was only tokenly complying with the inspection requirements in order to prevent further sanctions or bombings etc. The Iraqi authroities deliberately hampered and misled the inspectors throughout the inspection regime.

They disposed of their own records of the disposal of outlawed weapons and materials consequently the actual amount of materials could never be effectively verified. When further questioned about disposal locations methods etc, they would often become unco-operative and then hours later the inspectors would be expelled from the area or even the country.

There was very little the US could have done prior to 9/11 particularly to prevent it occuring, they didnt have effective intelligence about it.

However it did prove a god send for GW to remove both the Taliban and Hussein. Both of which he was already trying to do.

His administration was already in communication with the Taliban to effect the removal of Al Qaeda and its training and support network from Afghanistan, 9/11 provided him with the reason to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and deal with Al Qaeda.

The paranoia in the US in general but particularly in both the Senate and Congress allowed him to push consent for the invasion of Iraq through both houses especially after rumours were circulated about Hussein's UAV capability and also his "support" for AQ. Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration.

Both the UK and the US administrations presented flawed information and reports to their own governments and also the UN. Whether or not that was deliberate is open to interpretation.

[letmein]

Again thats only part of the truth, Saddma Hussein did allow inspectors in quite often between the end of the first gulf war and the start of the second. But then at other times escorted them out of his country, a few times at gunpoint.

To the weapons inspectors it appeared that Iraq was only tokenly complying with the inspection requirements in order to prevent further sanctions or bombings etc. The Iraqi authroities deliberately hampered and misled the inspectors throughout the inspection regime.

They disposed of their own records of the disposal of outlawed weapons and materials consequently the actual amount of materials could never be effectively verified. When further questioned about disposal locations methods etc, they would often become unco-operative and then hours later the inspectors would be expelled from the area or even the country.

There was very little the US could have done prior to 9/11 particularly to prevent it occuring, they didnt have effective intelligence about it.

However it did prove a god send for GW to remove both the Taliban and Hussein. Both of which he was already trying to do.

His administration was already in communication with the Taliban to effect the removal of Al Qaeda and its training and support network from Afghanistan, 9/11 provided him with the reason to remove the Taliban from government in Afghanistan and deal with Al Qaeda.

The paranoia in the US in general but particularly in both the Senate and Congress allowed him to push consent for the invasion of Iraq through both houses especially after rumours were circulated about Hussein's UAV capability and also his "support" for AQ. Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration.

Both the UK and the US administrations presented flawed information and reports to their own governments and also the UN. Whether or not that was deliberate is open to interpretation.

Completely and utterly incorrect, and it is NOT open to interpretation.

I'll leave you with one term: yellowcake uranium.

If you don't know what you're talking about, cease from posting. Thanks.

[Shasown]

Completely and utterly incorrect, and it is NOT open to interpretation.

I'll leave you with one term: yellowcake uranium.

If you don't know what you're talking about, cease from posting. Thanks.

With all due respect to your obvious self education on the subjects at hand, could I recommend you use unbiaised sources? I do know exactly what I am talking about unlike yourself. I dont base my knowledge of these situations from partial truths gleaned from sites set up to prove conspiracies.

Bin Laden had been placed on the Most Wanted List in 1998 after the US Embassy bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam. That was under Clinton, he instigated amongst other actions cruise missile strikes agaisnt targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.

The Bush Administration formerly requested the arrest of Bin Laden in August 2001. (thats before the twin towers attack in Sept 2001). They also decided to increase the limited support to anti Taliban forces should the Taliban refuse to comply with their requests.

Go read up on Massoud's intelligence to the US and John O'Neil's( a former Assistant Director of the FBI - counter terrorist) comments on it.

As for Iraq, Bush's advisors were receiving reports that Iraq was stockpiling WMD's and also reports that Iraq wasnt in possession of WMD's. These reports came from a variety of sources, not only the UNMOVIC, CIA, DIA, NSA, British, French(Sabri) and German(Curveball) Intelligence sources.

If you were in his administration which ones would you believe and choose to go with, those that will hamper Bush's efforts to get rid of Hussein or those that back up his claims.

As for the phrase "Naturally those rumours werent started by his administration." Could I recommend you look up the word sarcasm and examine the concept?

Can I also recommend you read up on the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, brought in by Clinton.

Urania reports from the CIA were discredited by Wilson however Bush then ran with reports from MI6 which came from different initial sources.

By all means continue to post on this and other subjects but at least have some idea what you are talking about. Not just a "rage against the machine" attitude that believes everything bad said about governments must be true.

[Liberty4eva]

Yeah it does look a lot like a controlled demolition, that doesnt mean to say it was, as for Jowenko he says "oh thats controlled" at first, then when additional facts were pointed out, like when it actually happened and the fact the building was on fire at the time of collapse, he doesnt press the fact it was a CD, he says he cant explain it.

Think about it would a demolition team go in and rush a job that would normally take a team several days to do, while the building above and around them was on fire?

Wouldnt the fire officers and police officers and other people at the scene notice the dems team, (Jowenko says about 30 - 40 men)?

Would a skilled demolition team take the risk in wiring up charges with det cord? Which if its burnt can kick into demo mode, ie fast burn and trigger all the dets in the string? But not with the same effect as a CD.


It seems to me the apparent reason why Jowenko speculates that a team rushed in and demolished the building is because, in his mind, THAT was more likely than fire bringing the building down. He doesn't think fire demolished it at all and there's an extended version of this video somewhere where he goes into more detail. I think to him, in his mind, it's morally impossible for people in our government to be behind it and, to him, it's physically impossible for fire to cause the building to collapse. The only other alternative is 9/11 happened and there was an immediate decision to plant explosives and bring the wtc 7 down. Silly as it sounds, to him that's the only viable option. Personally, I think the events and evidence concerning 9/11 make a heck of a lot more sense when you look at it from the "inside job" theory.

"needs further investigating" doesn't even belong in the top 10 weird and peculiar things that arouse my suspicions about WTC 7.

There was the BBC coverage where a reporter announced WTC 7 collapsed when the building was STANDING behind her and would last another 15 or 20 minutes. Then there was the late Peter Jennings' eye-witness testimony of being in WTC 7 and experiencing explosions. Then there was presidential candidate John Kerry's answer to WTC 7's collapse where he said it was done in a "controlled fashion". Then there was Larry Silverstein's infamous "we made the decision to pull it and then we watched the building collapse". Then there's the pools of molten metal under WTC 7, then there's the fact that some people reported hearing the police or fire department (can't remember which) give a count down before the collapse, then there's the fact that the building just disintigrated and we don't see a pile of floors which one would expect if we believe the "pancake" theory. Then, just recently, there was a radio interview with former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld where he at least pretended that he had never heard of building 7 (how could he not have heard about it?)

But the thing that seals it for me is the fact that the building was in complete freefall collapse for at least some of the time during it's 7 or 8 second collapse. The phrase "collapsed like a house of cards" gets tossed around a lot and as far as I know, I am the only one who has thought of this theoretical "mind experiment": Let's say that it was possible to construct a house of cards of equal height to WTC 7 and let's say someone built it right next to WTC 7. Now the fastest a house of cards could collapse, like anything else, is at the speed of gravity. If you were to walk up and give this theoretical house of cards a push at the moment building 7 begand to collapse, that house of cards wouldn't collapse a moment sooner than WTC 7. To me, it's preposterous to think that a building that is designed to withstand high-winds, rain, sleet, hurricanes, and, yes, office fires, could collapse at the same rate as something as weak and vulnerable as a house of cards, which is one wind gust away from complete collapse.

I think you're making this more complicated than it actually is. To me, there is so much evidence that SCREAMS controlled demolition.

[Shasown]

It seems to me the apparent reason why Jowenko speculates that a team rushed in and demolished the building is because, in his mind, THAT was more likely than fire bringing the building down.

I think you're making this more complicated than it actually is. To me, there is so much evidence that SCREAMS controlled demolition.

At the time of Jowenkos interview he was told to all intents and purposes WTC 7 was intact, he wasnt informed about the damage to the north side of the building.

Wasnt just the BBC who prereported WTC -7 had collapsed Aaron Brown of CNN announced the building had or was collapsing, then like a minute later announced it was about to collapse. Reporters live misspeak on occasion, using it as proof of a conspiracy shows how lacking your critical thinking skills are.

Given the overall confusion fear and panic isnt it possible she got confused? The BBC reporter on the spot was taking live feed from the London studio which in turn was taking live feed from US TV stations.

Remember that the Fire dept chief expected the building to collapse and issued orders pulling people away from WTC 7 at 3:00 in the afternoon.

Kerrys answer has been taken out of context he was asked about the sequence of events, he answered it had been controlled in that when it was realised that tower 7 was damaged and had numerous fires, all occupants were evacuated safely, whilst the fire department attempted to prevent the spread of fire, after the evacuation the on scene controllers advised it was unlikely the building could be saved, the decision was taken to pull the emergency services out, they withdrew in a controlled manner ensuring they all got out safely, later the building dropped.

As for witnesses hearing explosions did they hear explosions, what sounded like could be explosions or did they hear the sound of reinforced concrete supports cracking under the immense loadings?

As for the free fall of the building, what way do you expect a building to drop if lower floors collapse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7485331.stm

[Zippy]

is there any evidence to suggest that katy perry was not aware the attacks were happening?

:laugh2:

[Zippy]

Well...

I can't deal with all this technical stuff about buildings collapsing and how theyre supposed to fall. I know nothing. But as far as I know theyve never actually flew a plane into a building that size before to test it. Right?

So are we suggesting that the US goverment is behind this or the insurance scammers? Im getting confused. Problem is to start believing in all that you basically have to assume that the people involved are of such an evil and greedy level of humanity that they would literally have horns growing out of their heads. Mass murderers of mammoth preportions. And killing all those people and creating such a humongous global disaster for what? Money? Power? Sorry but Im not sure thats quite enough motivation. And then there's the small business of actually arranging it all and carrying it all out in a way that was never traced or discovered. Im thinking that would make the great train robbery look like a random whim. Then to insure everybody involved kept it zipped? Yeah this is looking mighty complicated already and Im just skimming the surface here.

On the otherhand you have the terrorist theory. Driven by an insane desire to make an earthshattering impact on the world media and strike a knockout blow to the mighty USA. No care whatsoever for the loss of mostly American lives(afterall the US has killed many of our people, they say in defence) In fact the more deaths and destruction the juicier the headlines. Win win. All carried out by suicide terrorists who are quite happy to be blown apart for their cause. Yeah this suddenly looks like a more coherent and believable option.

Maybe Im just too simplistic but Im gonna stick with the latter theory. Sometimes things really are what they seem to be. Despite those niggling unanswered questions.

[Liberty4eva]

At the time of Jowenkos interview he was told to all intents and purposes WTC 7 was intact, he wasnt informed about the damage to the north side of the building.

Wasnt just the BBC who prereported WTC -7 had collapsed Aaron Brown of CNN announced the building had or was collapsing, then like a minute later announced it was about to collapse. Reporters live misspeak on occasion, using it as proof of a conspiracy shows how lacking your critical thinking skills are.

Given the overall confusion fear and panic isnt it possible she got confused? The BBC reporter on the spot was taking live feed from the London studio which in turn was taking live feed from US TV stations.

Remember that the Fire dept chief expected the building to collapse and issued orders pulling people away from WTC 7 at 3:00 in the afternoon.


It begs the question: HOW DO THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO COLLAPSE? No other building in the history of steel-structured buildings completely collapsed due to fire. They tell you it's going to collapse because that way when it does collapse people, most of whom have no knowledge of buildings, won't think it's peculiar.

Of course she could get confused but the BBC's reaction when asked about the "confusion" suggests something more. They at first said they couldn't find the video in their archives which was laughable, considering that it was perhaps the biggest event of the last decade.


As for witnesses hearing explosions did they hear explosions, what sounded like could be explosions or did they hear the sound of reinforced concrete supports cracking under the immense loadings?


The term "explosion" gets used by dozens and dozens of eye-witnesses. But the phrase "building cracking", "building collapsing" nor any other phrase not using the word "explosion" gets used by eye-witnesses when describing the sounds.


As for the free fall of the building, what way do you expect a building to drop if lower floors collapse?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7485331.stm

I would expect the building to collapse gradually, not in the same manner as a controlled demolition. When a building collapses by natural means, there are dozens of ways it can collapse. Because the building supposedly suffered asymetrical structural damage, one would think it would collapse in the direction of the damage and not straight down into itself. If it collapsed due to fire I would expect it to collapse gradually over the course of hours and not seconds.

Someone once said "the bigger the lie, the easier the sell". The buildings were demolished in broad daylight with a million eyes and cameras on it. Who would ever suspect that anyone would have the audacity to do such a thing? The people who collapsed those buildings and the people who sold the lie had an advanced understanding of mass human psychology. They understood that it would be so obvious that it would be invisible to most people.

[Shasown]

It begs the question: HOW DO THEY KNOW IT'S GOING TO COLLAPSE? No other building in the history of steel-structured buildings completely collapsed due to fire. They tell you it's going to collapse because that way when it does collapse people, most of whom have no knowledge of buildings, won't think it's peculiar.

No other steel structured building has collapsed because of fire? Crap, try the Sight and Sound Theatre, Strasborg, Pennsylvania, 1997 or the Kader Toy Factory 1993.

They knew it was going to collapse because of the fires and the structural damage, they had worried over it collapsing for hours, thats a proven fact sustained by radio transmissions, even TV broadcasts etc that the conspiracy theorists like yourself conveniently ignore.

XImQ6a-VrnA



Of course she could get confused but the BBC's reaction when asked about the "confusion" suggests something more. They at first said they couldn't find the video in their archives which was laughable, considering that it was perhaps the biggest event of the last decade.

Dont know anything about the BBC's decisions on their answers to requests for the tapes, but whatever way you look at it they would have been damned if they did and damned if they didnt produce by conspiracy nuts, "see she admitted they knew it was going to collapse" against "the BBC are in on the conspiracy". Thats the way conspiracy nuts work.

But no tell you what lets assume you are correct, the wicked perpetrators of this dastardly plot gave a foreign news outlet a script of the afternoons business so they could follow it easier. Do you realise how insane that sounds?

If you actually follow up on the supposed preknowledge why did Reuters admit to pushing out a report the building had collapsed timed at a few minutes before the BBC reporter announced the same live on air, shortly after realising their mistake and pushing that out on the wire?


The term "explosion" gets used by dozens and dozens of eye-witnesses. But the phrase "building cracking", "building collapsing" nor any other phrase not using the word "explosion" gets used by eye-witnesses when describing the sounds.

Yeah because people hear loud bangs and assume explosion, after all they see and hear the same on TV all the time, how many times do you reckon anyone has heard a reinforced concrete support pile snap because of pressure?

You do realise using other footage from other TV coverage there isnt the blast wave from an explosion nor the pause for the inertia buildup when the building finally does collapse? Something that would happen in a controlled demolition, again facts conveniently ignored by conspiracy theorists because it doesnt fir the conspiracy. You cant change the laws of science.



I would expect the building to collapse gradually, not in the same manner as a controlled demolition. When a building collapses by natural means, there are dozens of ways it can collapse. Because the building supposedly suffered asymetrical structural damage, one would think it would collapse in the direction of the damage and not straight down into itself. If it collapsed due to fire I would expect it to collapse gradually over the course of hours and not seconds.

Large buildings are designed to stand enormous pressures and strains, otherwise they would collapse in high winds etc. Consequently buildings will take an enormous amount of damage before exentually dropping straight down. Big heavy buildings will drop due to the way its built, you do realise certain methods of building are not allowed in skyscrapers to reduce the possibility of toppling? You cant change the laws of physics just to suit your theory.

WTC7 also had other pecularities, which necessitated strange engineering to overcome, an electrical substation partially underneath, the load over this area was therefore shared over the rest of the building by the use of cantilevers.

QYzLu7gDbJs

How do you know the damage was asymetrical on all floors, a lot of fuel oil was stored on certain floors for use in emergency power outages, when that lot went up it gutted the whole floors not just one small area.

Someone once said "the bigger the lie, the easier the sell". The buildings were demolished in broad daylight with a million eyes and cameras on it. Who would ever suspect that anyone would have the audacity to do such a thing? The people who collapsed those buildings and the people who sold the lie had an advanced understanding of mass human psychology. They understood that it would be so obvious that it would be invisible to most people.



Ah yes everyone would swallow the apparent truth apart of a few people who dont follow the pack, they saw right through the conspiracy eh? :wink:
Even nowadays most people know the truth that the moon is pretty much a dead lump of rock but you still get people howling at it. Because they know the real truth eh? ;)

[Callum]

10 years since it happened next month, can't believe it's been that long. :( There was a programme about the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 on BBC2 last night, in fact there are lots of them on in the next 2 weeks, I still fully believe that terrorists were behind it personally.

[Ninastar]

10 years since it happened next month, can't believe it's been that long. :( There was a programme about the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 on BBC2 last night, in fact there are lots of them on in the next 2 weeks, I still fully believe that terrorists were behind it personally.

x2

[InOne]

I've weird how 9/11 get's a mention on here all the time but 7/7 never does

[Niamh.]

I've weird how 9/11 get's a mention on here all the time but 7/7 never does

The death toll was alot smaller and it wasn't anywhere near as gob smacking as 9/11

[MTVN]

Yeah plus there isnt all the conspiracy theories surrounding 7/7, I think I did hear about one but it's basically been debunked

[arista]

10 years since it happened next month, can't believe it's been that long. :( There was a programme about the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 on BBC2 last night, in fact there are lots of them on in the next 2 weeks, I still fully believe that terrorists were behind it personally.



That Conspiracy on BBC2 was Utter Rubbish.


Of Course it was Saudi and other Terror gangs.


ITV1 and ITV1HD are doing a special on 9/11
on thursday 9PM

[arista]

I've weird how 9/11 get's a mention on here all the time but 7/7 never does



Because 9/11 was the main start of it
and smashing into the World Trade Centre
with planes full of fuel
was one of the most Clever Evil terror attacks.


7/7 in our underground and that bus
are terrible and just as Evil
led by Terror Leader Khan
who was a simple supply teacher.

[Callum]

That Conspiracy on BBC2 was Utter Rubbish.


Of Course it was Saudi and other Terror gangs.


ITV1 and ITV1HD are doing a special on 9/11
on thursday 9PM

Yeah I saw the advert for that, will be watching. There's one on History channel too.

I have a really bad feeling that they're going to want and try to do something for the 10 year mark, I hope I'm wrong. But saying that the security around the world is a lot better than it was 10 years ago so I don't think they'd get very far.

[InOne]

There is something on ch5 at 8 about the kids or something, the one that lost parents

[CharlieO]

I am truly facinated in everything to do with 9/11. It all amazes me and I think I actually do believe some of the conspiracy theories. I need to watch more documentaries about it because it's been a while since I have seen some.

[Jordan.]

I'm watching the program on C5 now.

[Jarrod]

The C5 Program is sad. :/

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[InOne]

That prog on ch5 was so depressing D:

A good insight to the lives affect though I guess

[Livia]

The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me about 9/11 was that a plane hit the Pentagon and left no wreckage. Until someone can explain that, I guess the "missile" theories will continue.

[GypsyGoth]

The thing that sticks out like a sore thumb to me about 9/11 was that a plane hit the Pentagon and left no wreckage. Until someone can explain that, I guess the "missile" theories will continue.

In a show the other night they said that the person heading the crime scene investigation had it all removed so it could be examined, she was interviewed and it showed photos of people carrying some wreckage away.


edit: this was one of the pics I think http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_18.html

[Livia]

In a show the other night they said that the person heading the crime scene investigation had it all removed so it could be examined, she was interviewed and it showed photos of people carrying some wreckage away.

How long would it take to remove wreckage from a passenger plane? I've seen aerial photographs taken less then an hour after the impact; there were marks on the ground, lamp posts had been bent horizontal but there was no wreckage. I expect all sorts of photographic evidence exists but I've not seen anything yet that makes me think, ahhh yeah - that's what happened. I'm not saying I buy into the conspiricy theory, but when things don't add up you start making up your own ending.

[lostalex]

I'm not anti-conspiracy theorists at all, I love conspiracy theories. I'm way into UFO's especially, so i'm not gonna be the kind of person who will say that conspiracy theorists are stupid or crazy or just trying to sell books...

...that being said, I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job. If it was an inside job it would literally require THOUSANDS of people to put it togther, and i don't believe for a second that thousands of Americans could keep their mouths shut. Americans are KNOWN around the world for being loud mouths lol, and it's true.

I think people see the American =government as being in control of everything all the time, almost omnipotent, but they arn't. The US government can't even balance the budget, but you think they could conspire and hide something as big as this?

America doesn't need an excuse to start wars, just look at Iraq. So why would they do 9/11 just to invade afghanistan, a country that NO ONE cares about, and has NO OIL, and NO benefit to America whatsoever.

Ibelieve 9/11 was exactly what it seems. Especially because it had already been tried before in 1993.

I would like to ask the conspiracy theorists, do they also believe that the al-queda attack on the twin towers in 1993 was also an inside job?

[Zippy]

the official version of 9/11 is bull****

people who blindly accept anything they get told are ****ing morons and deserve everything coming to them

libya war is bull****. bin laden death was bull****

you people all love your bull****

once it kicks off in iran and pakistan there will be a false flag nuclear attack on america and all the same people will believe the bull****

BASTARDS

well why don't YOU enlighten us and tell us exactly what went down seen as you obviously know it all? Funny how people on internet forums always think they know the real truth.

and whatever theory you come up with I bet it throws up far far more baffling questions than the official version.

Me, Ill stick with the simple notion that it really was a spectacular terrorist attack. Because, frankly, that really does make the most sense. By far.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Livia]

USA has a debt of around 14 billion. Who does it owe this debt to?
The same people who OWN the USA. Just like any company or business, they need to make money. Huge amounts of money.
War is a great way for them to make money.
Doesn't matter what they fight for, as long as there is WAR.
USA has to "borrow" MONEY to fight all these wars it engages in.
Sometimes the wars have bonuses such as OIL or in the case of Afghanistan OPIUM (Taliban put a virtual end to opium farms).
There always has to be "the enemy".
For a long time is was the dirty communist. Any enemy of the USA was labelled a commie, dirty red scum. Why? Because they were opposed to capitalism. Why is this bad? MONEY. Its bad for business.
Now the enemy is ISLAM. War on terror. 9/11 triggered everyone to fear and hate Islam. They are the boogeyman.
The US government is a puppet of the mega wealthy and powerful bankers and businessmen. The world is a business. The board are evil.
Majority of people are stupid and naive, they make excellent customers and consumers.


Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Zippy]

I love how Grimnir speaks of America like its run by cold calculating robots on some evil mission.

Be more specific. These decisions are made by humans. Who exactly are you accusing and what is their individual motives for being involved in such evil plotting? How many do you think are in on all of this? Don't you think there would be leaks?

Its easy to make these sweeping accusations but when you zoom in on the individuals who run America its very hard to see why they would behave in such a ruthless calculating way. They have way too much to lose if caught out. You speak as if theyre some tight collective with the same twisted thinking. Who exactly are you accusing?

for all your yapping about US debt and motive you fall way short on specific details.

[lostalex]

For a long time is was the dirty communist. Any enemy of the USA was labelled a commie, dirty red scum. Why? Because they were opposed to capitalism. Why is this bad? MONEY. Its bad for business.


If you think the only reason communism is bad is because of money, then you really need to study communist regimes. It's not MONEY that makes them so evil. They are totalitarian regimes that strip rights from everyone supposedly for the "greater good" Dude seriously, talk to people who actually lived under communist regimes in soviet russia, or china, or north korea, or cuba, and then tell me that it's just about money.

Communism isn't about money, it's about totalitarianism. America was right to fight it.

[MTVN]

If you think the only reason communism is bad is because of money, then you really need to study communist regimes. It's not MONEY that makes them so evil. They are totalitarian regimes that strip rights from everyone supposedly for the "greater good" Dude seriously, talk to people who actually lived under communist regimes in soviet russia, or china, or north korea, or cuba, and then tell me that it's just about money.

Communism isn't about money, it's about totalitarianism. America was right to fight it.

It's not like those things are actually inherent in Communism though, and most Communists would deny those countries were anything like what Socialism should be, especially China and North Korea (who dont even claim to be Communist anyway)

[Livia]

or maybe you are scared of truth and prefer to live in ignorance because its easier that way
you refuse the possibility that you could be on the side of evil

I'm not living in ignorance. I like to think I can keep an open mind about stuff... but people who bang on about the evils of capitalism and how America is the ultimate evil are usually the ones who accuse others of being "stupid and naive"... which is exactly what you said in your previous post.

[lostalex]

It's not like those things are actually inherent in Communism though, and most Communists would deny those countries were anything like what Socialism should be, especially China and North Korea (who dont even claim to be Communist anyway)

Well it may not be inherent, but i don't think you can give me an example of a successful communist regime that wasn't totalitarian, can you?

Can you name any successful communist regime that wasn't totalitarian, that actually had democracy and freedom at it's core? I can't think of any.

The whole point of communism is that the government tells you how to live your life, for the greater good of the country. You don't get to choose how you live, or what you study, or how many children you have, or who your leaders are, Communism in every practical sense, is totalitarian.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[MTVN]

Well it may not be inherent, but i don't think you can give me an example of a successful communist regime that wasn't totalitarian, can you?

Can you name any successful communist regime that wasn't totalitarian, that actually had democracy and freedom at it's core? I can't think of any.

The whole point of communism is that the government tells you how to live your life, for the greater good of the country. You don't get to choose how you live, or what you study, or how many children you have, or who your leaders are, Communism in every practical sense, is totalitarian.

In the very early days after the Russian Revolution, that was probably the closest that somewhere has come to resembling proper Socialism, and in Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War although that is more an example of Anarchism

The ultimate goal of Communism is to have a stateless and classless society, but the fact there is a lot of conflict among Communists as to how to get there, some would hold more of authoritarian stance following the likes of Lenin and Stalin but most support bottom up workers democracy and control of the economy.

But anyway we're getting way off topic here

[Livia]

.........much better to just take the money, keep schtum and accept the status quo
keep their heads buried in sand just like everyone else does


Everyone... except you, presumably.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[lostalex]

the reason for the cold war was not to make people fearful and hateful of the communist system, but to make them embrace the capitalist system

if you raised a group of 30 children on a desert island and taught them pure communism and pure capitalism, then once they reached a certain age asked them to vote on which system they wish to live under, they would choose communism

but if you raise them to believe communism is an evil system and teach them the "american dream" you will have a capitalist society


so then remind me again why the Soviet Union collapsed?

Remind me again why Cuba is such an abject failure, they arn't exposed to capitalism AT ALL. (have you ever heard of an American dying in raft trying to escape evil capitalism, to get to communist Cuba? i havn't)

Remind me again why the people of North Korea are starving to death...

You cannot be serious.

[Zippy]

Grimnir

so please be specific about who you believe was responsible for 9/11? who plotted it, executed it and has thousands of peoples blood on their hands?

see, this is where we get down to specific accusations against specific people.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Stu]

I had my money on it being Hans Gruber :(.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[lostalex]

You describe Cuba as a failure not me

I would rather live there than USA



You've obviously never been to Cuba (at least not outside of the specifically set up tourist zones)


You do realize that you'd be put in jail immediately for half of the things you've said on this forum, right?

You do realize they have ZERO freedom of speech right?

you do realize that you wouldn't even have access to the internet in Cuba, right?


I can't take you seriously anymore.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Zippy]

you can accept that 19 muslims were responsible for 9/11 right?

can you accept the idea that it was "americans" responsible?

There is documented evidence of Osama bin ladens involvement in the 9/11 attack going back to 1996. Including video footage of him actually with two of the hijackers prior to the attacks. There is recorded confessions of his participation and prior knowledge of the attacks.

The vast majority of the 19 hijackers involved were from Saudi arabia with the other few from UAE, Lebanon and Egypt.

Are you saying Osama wasn't involved? That the hijackers were not guilty of the crime? Or they were actually Americans?

TBH Im not even sure what you're saying because you're being very vague and clouding the issue with references to slavery and communism etc.

I just want you to put out there a clear and precise version of what you think happened on 9/11. Who planned it and who is directly responsible for nearly 3000 deaths. The topic is specifically about 9/11.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shasown]

ever wonder to yourself why they couldn't catch bin laden for 10 years?

why did tapes always conveniently turn up at al jazeera every so often? how were they recorded? how did they arrive at the tv station? when it was found out who courier was, why were unable to trace them back to source?

remember when we got told bin laden had been killed in a raid, how everyone kept giving conflicting reports and changing the story?
one minute they say they watched the raid on live webcam like a ****in video game, then they changed it and only saw the opening credits
then he was armed, then unarmed, then had a human shield, then he was in his underpants

its a complete ****in joke that so called intelligent sentient beings believe bull**** hogwash bollocks like this
truly amazing the ignorance

i forgot the icing on the cake

buried at sea...... **** off my arse bull****

Tapes turned up at Al Jazeera every so often because thats the way Al Qaeda works, they like to taunt, claim responsibility for things every so often, didnt you know that how terrorists work? Commit a murder or bombing then crow about it, every so often make demands etc to make them seem legitimate.

Why couldnt they follow the courier? jesus its a radio station a bit like radio one, imagine how many couriers they have, in dropping off packages and parcels. On top of which every simpleton knows if you keep using the same courier all the time he is going to get caught so they would periodically change the ones they use.

Of course Bin Liner isnt dead he is currently a guest of Obama at the Guantanamo Country Club and no doubt when his usefullness has ended he will go for a swim in a weighted sack in the Caribbean.

[Shasown]

You've obviously never been to Cuba (at least not outside of the specifically set up tourist zones)


You do realize that you'd be put in jail immediately for half of the things you've said on this forum, right?

You do realize they have ZERO freedom of speech right?

you do realize that you wouldn't even have access to the internet in Cuba, right?


I can't take you seriously anymore.

Thats not strictly true, the Cubans have a lot of freedom. Good education system and health care comparitively.

While certain areas of the internet may be censored they do have internet access, I have accessed the internet in Cuba.

They may be a poor country but thats only because of US led embargoes on their produce.

They may be fed a lot of propaganda by the regime in power, but their lot is a better lot than under previous regimes. Everyone gets educated, a job and health care.

And the US led Embargo on them actually has been counter productive, it strengthened the Cubans nationalist feelings and turned them all against you.

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Zippy]

Im very impressed you have all this secret info.

Im amazed the US goverment haven't assassinated you.

[Shasown]

if the US government were serious about trying to catch bin laden, do you not think that after the first tape turned up at al jazeera, CIA or some other agency would set up security at al jazeera and monitor incoming packages in an ATTEMPT to discover bin laden's whereabouts?
there would be a trail back to where ever bin laden recorded the tape

the truth is that bin laden made all the tapes whilst in custody of the CIA
when obama said in the press conference, "we have possession of his body" that was the one line of truth, they had him for over 10 years

Yes mate. I did wonder, then I thought about it logically. Al Jazeera while owned and headquartered in Qatar has several oulets over the middle east, so the CIA would have had to put security teams at every entrance(even tradesmens ones) of every radio station in the Al Jazeera chain. Some of those outlets arent in US friendly countries.

So apart from the enormous manpower necessary to first off locate the courier by covering every single entrance to every single station building , there would have been serious risks to all covert surveillance teams operating on this op. Why? Because even US friendly countries in that area have plenty of people who would love to catch a member or even team from the CIA.

The tapes appeared at random intervals so therefore the CIA or other intelligence agencies would have had to have eyes on every doorway to every part of the Al Jazeera chain every minute of every day for months on end.

That would have been a non starter. Common sense really, appears to be in short supply in some locations.

Not only that but while they use the word courier, that doesnt mean it was one person taking the tape from Bin Liner and then handing over at a desk in Al Jazeera Main station, they could have been hand delivered but heres the funny thing they have a postal service in a lot of countries thoughout the world, even middle eastern ones.

[Callum]

Programme about the firefighters from 9/11 on Channel4HD tonight at 9pm

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Shasown]

video surveillance not teams of fat security guards dotted around

if they posted it, surely they would be able to trace it and focus their search in that area

bottom line is i think its highly unlikely someone responsible for 9/11, who they are hunting down like a dog, could evade capture for 10 years

makes all the intelligence services seem pathetic

actually wouldn't the NSA or someone be able to just hack into the existing surveillance, it is after all a matter of national security

Video surveillance, all well and good in principal, video cameras still need to be positioned and replaced.

As for tracing posted material, you reckon? They cant even trace posted material in the US without the full co operation of the US postal Services, remember the posted anthrax thing in the US in 2001? What happens if the package was posted in an non US aligned country, are all middle eastern countries using similar system to the US?

Why would the NSA need to hack into their own security services, do you even understand the American Intelligence community setup?

As for him being able to hide and run a terrorist organisation, why shouldnt he be able to, thats exactly what the CIA had trained him to do when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan so not only had he got the theoretical training he had a few years of practical experience to put him in good stead.

I mean its great throwing out all these questions and accusing us of being sheep, but do you have a clue what you are talking about?

[Grimnir]

:elephant:

[Grimnir]

9/11 was an inside job.

The culprit is













































































































AVQ8byG2mY8&feature=related


>>>>>>> :elephant:

[Callum]

9/11: Day That Changed the World airs on ITV1 tonight at 9pm, should be interesting. Features interviews with all of the key decision makers.

[Kazanne]

Watching it again brings back so much sadness,so many lives lost that day,the people hanging out the windows and jumping makes me go cold,what a black day for humanity .

[joeysteele]

Watching it again brings back so much sadness,so many lives lost that day,the people hanging out the windows and jumping makes me go cold,what a black day for humanity .

Very true, I was only 9 at the time but as I watched it with my Parents and Brothers it unfurled like a horror story.

[billy123]

Tragic but nothing compared to the 920,000 people murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to it.

[lostalex]

As for him being able to hide and run a terrorist organisation, why shouldnt he be able to, thats exactly what the CIA had trained him to do when he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan so not only had he got the theoretical training he had a few years of practical experience to put him in good stead.

I mean its great throwing out all these questions and accusing us of being sheep, but do you have a clue what you are talking about?


The CIA never trained Osama Bin Laden, that is one of the many lies told by thew conspiracy nuts. The CIA gave money to Pakistan, who in turn supported the Muhajadeen, of which OBL was a part. There was never any direct contact between the CIA and OBL.

[lostalex]

Tragic but nothing compared to the 920,000 people murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to it.

Murdered by who? Oh yea, the insurgents and al-queada and the taliban, NOT by the UK and US.

[Vicky.]

Just came across this on YT. I'm in one of those moods where I view random stuff like tsunamis, volcanos etc.

hZEvA8BCoBw

Its nowhere near as long as the other ones tend to be, but quite interesting.

*fully expects to be written off as a conspiracy theory nut but doesn't particularly care*

[Callum]

Was going to try and rent the film United 93 to watch, read a lot of extremely positive reviews on it but it appears that it's being shown tomorrow at 11pm on ITV1. Anyone seen it?

[Roy Mars III]

It's a very good film, in my opinion. I think it handles the whole thing really well.

[King Gizzard]

y'all should watch the loose change documentary

[Kerry]

Seen so many films and documentories now about it I don't know which is called what

The one that makes me sick is about that woman who pretended she'd been there yet never was. Sick beyond belief

And "The Falling Man" is heartbreaking. Well, they all are but what a gut wrencher

I saved the newspapers from that day. The falling man was on the front. I looked at the papers the other day and felt so sad :( I remember watching it all unfold. My toddler laid beside me yet watching peoples lives be destroyed.

I'll never, ever, forget it

[InOne]

Seen so many films and documentories now about it I don't know which is called what

The one that makes me sick is about that woman who pretended she'd been there yet never was. Sick beyond belief

And "The Falling Man" is heartbreaking. Well, they all are but what a gut wrencher

I saved the newspapers from that day. The falling man was on the front. I looked at the papers the other day and felt so sad :( I remember watching it all unfold. My toddler laid beside me yet watching peoples lives be destroyed.

I'll never, ever, forget it

Yeah the 9/11 liars or something, think I saw that a few years ago, made me pretty mad

[Kerry]

Yeah the 9/11 liars or something, think I saw that a few years ago, made me pretty mad

There she is

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/09/27/nyregion/27survivor.xlarge1.jpg

[Roy Mars III]

Terrible woman.

[Kerry]

Terrible woman.

To put it politely

[Callum]

United 93 on in a few minutes ITV1

['Conor]

im watching united 93

[Lewis.]

Just came across this on YT. I'm in one of those moods where I view random stuff like tsunamis, volcanos etc.

hZEvA8BCoBw

Its nowhere near as long as the other ones tend to be, but quite interesting.

*fully expects to be written off as a conspiracy theory nut but doesn't particularly care*

Very interesting and very suspicious. I don't like to look much into things like 9/11 because there are so many stories and conspiracies that need to be looked at before you can come to a complete conclusion about what you feel and I just don't have the time for that, but this has made me think a lot tonight.

[Kerry]

Got the news on. Obviously about 9/11..... sending so many shivers through me :(

[Callum]

World Trade Center (film) on Channel 4 now

[lostalex]

Tragic but nothing compared to the 920,000 people murdered in Iraq and Afghanistan in response to it.

920,000(that's not an accurate number, but i don't give a **** enuf to argue right now) were kille by the same al quedaa an taliban that cause 9/11.

The terrorists kille those people just like they kille the inocents on 9/11, so get yur facts right.

no other country has spent more time an money to protect civilian lives than America has. No other country in the HISTORY of warfare has spent more time an care to protect the innocents. How many hospitals did the british build for the germans during ww2? How many schools did you build for them? How many roads? All of the innocents died, these wars were started by because of the terrorists, not America.

how dare you imply otherwise.

[Marsh.]

I remember watching the documentary about the woman who lied about 9/11.
From what I recall she didn't pretend she was there, she pretended one of the victims was her boyfriend and wormed her way into his parent's lives and got loads of publicity and stuff. Pretty horrid thing to do, didn't they say she's out there somewhere and no one knows where she is?

[Pyramid*]

920,000(that's not an accurate number, but i don't give a **** enuf to argue right now) were kille by the same al quedaa an taliban that cause 9/11.

The terrorists kille those people just like they kille the inocents on 9/11, so get yur facts right.

no other country has spent more time an money to protect civilian lives than America has. No other country in the HISTORY of warfare has spent more time an care to protect the innocents. How many hospitals did the british build for the germans during ww2? How many schools did you build for them? How many roads? All of the innocents died, these wars were started by because of the terrorists, not America.

how dare you imply otherwise.

*Cough* VIETNAM *Cough*

[Shasown]

no other country has spent more time an money to protect civilian lives than America has. No other country in the HISTORY of warfare has spent more time an care to protect the innocents. How many hospitals did the british build for the germans during ww2? How many schools did you build for them? How many roads? All of the innocents died, these wars were started by because of the terrorists, not America.

how dare you imply otherwise.

No other country since the start of last century has the highest number of civilain coolateral damage. Or Blue on blue incidents (you call them friendly fire, when rounds start zipping around your ass they are far from friendly even when fired by allies).

Would recommend you read up on an unbiaised WW2 history, the US didnt want to involve itself in reparations or any other form of civil assistance after WW2 initially.

There were lots of schools, hospitals and churches etc built and rebuilt or simply funded by the British after WW2, you see we were at a slight disadvantage, we had held germany off for a few years before the US decided to join the party, during which time we took the brunt of the German War machine.

How many bombs fell on the US mainland during ww2, I dont mean own goals either but dropped by enemy forces?

You were late turning up for the party in France and Belgium (WW1) too. Bad form that.

[lostalex]

*Cough* VIETNAM *Cough*

America didn't fight against Vietnam, we fought FOR vietnam, with the people fighting against communism. We didn't start that war, we just chose a side. Vietnam was a civil war.

just like the French helpe America in our civil war.

[Marsh.]

Bugs me when people get into a history argument and use "we" and "us" as though you were personally involved. Your country, your ancestors, but you? No.

[lostalex]

No other country since the start of last century has the highest number of civilain coolateral damage. Or Blue on blue incidents (you call them friendly fire, when rounds start zipping around your ass they are far from friendly even when fired by allies).

Would recommend you read up on an unbiaised WW2 history, the US didnt want to involve itself in reparations or any other form of civil assistance after WW2 initially.

There were lots of schools, hospitals and churches etc built and rebuilt or simply funded by the British after WW2, you see we were at a slight disadvantage, we had held germany off for a few years before the US decided to join the party, during which time we took the brunt of the German War machine.

How many bombs fell on the US mainland during ww2, I dont mean own goals either but dropped by enemy forces?

You were late turning up for the party in France and Belgium (WW1) too. Bad form that.

No other country has RECORdEd the numbers like America. Obviously there were more friendly fires in other wars, they just weren't counted. any intelligent person would agree.

If you count them all, tell me how many friendly fires is britain guilty of in history??? you don't know because they weren't counted.

[Shasown]

No other country has RECORdEd the numbers like America. Obviously there were more friendly fires in other wars, they just weren't counted. any intelligent person would agree.

If you count them all, tell me how many friendly fires is britain guilty of in history??? you don't know because they weren't counted.

Not a lot because even now the US are adopting British Small unit tactics which reduce the number of blue on blue incidents. For example correct positioning of support fire teams, Unit fire control, decent FAC. and a lot of other improvements.

The UK forces may only be small but we are a lot better than most countries, aftr all when you care enough to send the very best.

[Pyramid*]

America didn't fight against Vietnam, we fought FOR vietnam, with the people fighting against communism. We didn't start that war, we just chose a side. Vietnam was a civil war.

just like the French helpe America in our civil war.

Tell that to the Vietnemse innocents that the Americans killed in their attempts to control communism and 'contain' a civil war when America decided to 'just chose a side'.

[lostalex]

Not a lot because even now the US are adopting British Small unit tactics which reduce the number of blue on blue incidents. For example correct positioning of support fire teams, Unit fire control, decent FAC. and a lot of other improvements.

The UK forces may only be small but we are a lot better than most countries, aftr all when you care enough to send the very best.

that sounds very theoretical, an not at all like cold hard numbers.

Where are the numbers?

If we are to talk about American friendly fire, let's hear about British friendly fire. it's only fair. right?

[Pyramid*]

Bugs me when people get into a history argument and use "we" and "us" as though you were personally involved. Your country, your ancestors, but you? No.

How do you propose people discuss history then? Replacing British by us, Russians by them - makes no difference whatsoever.

Oh, i see, we are meant to say, My Country, My Ancestors?....ie: the very same terminology, just different words.

[lostalex]

Tell that to the Vietnemse innocents that the Americans killed in their attempts to control communism and 'contain' a civil war when America decided to 'just chose a side'.

okay, an tell that to all the southern Americans who were killed by France financing the Union against the south.

It was right for the french to help the union soldiers in the American civil war, and it was right for America to help the pro-democracy soldiers in vietnam, and it is right for America to always help pro-democracy soldiers in all country's civil wars.. IMHO.

[Pyramid*]

okay, an tell that to all the southern Americans who were killed by France financing the Union against the south.

It was right for the french to help the union soldiers in the American civil war, and it was right for America to help the pro-democracy soldiers in vietnam, and it is right for America to always help pro-democracy soldiers in all countries. IMHO.


You made your position very clear on your thoughts on Southern Americans....... or was that only the ones in the deep south you didn't give a rats arse about?

[lostalex]

You made your position very clear on your thoughts on Southern Americans....... or was that only the ones in the deep south you didn't give a rats arse about?

Just because I don't want to BE southern, does not mean I don't value them as part of the Union.

Your logic fails.

You don't have to want to live in Scotland or Wales to value the Unite Kingdom.

[Pyramid*]

Just because I don't want to BE southern, does not mean I don't value them as part of the Union.

Your logic fails.

ah...so it's okay for Blacks to be sent to war to be killed....that's when you value them.

Nice.

[lostalex]

ah...so it's okay for Blacks to be sent to war to be killed....that's when you value them.

Nice.

I think if you read more history you will find many blacks fight in that war because they believe in it, not because they were "sent". also many Native Americans too. Even some Canadians (or "British North American's" as they were known at the time.)

[Pyramid*]

You don't have to want to live in Scotland or Wales to value the Unite Kingdom.

United Kingdom.

I disagree, that is an entirely subjective point of view and speaking as a Scot, I am quite at liberty to have.

[Pyramid*]

I think if you read more history you will find many blacks fight in that war because they believe in it, not because they were "sent". also many Native Americans too.

I was referring very obviously to your personal view on Blacks as you stated, non too subtley, on another thread - not whether Blacks went to war of their own violition.

[lostalex]

United Kingdom.

I disagree, that is an entirely subjective point of view and speaking as a Scot, I am quite at liberty to have.

LOL, my new keyboard is delivered on monday) my "d" key is broken, i have to paste every "d" into my posts.

it's much more labour intensive than you can imagine.

[Shasown]

that sounds very theoretical, an not at all like cold hard numbers.

Where are the numbers?

If we are to talk about American friendly fire, let's hear about British friendly fire. it's only fair. right?

First off its not friendly fire, live rounds travelling in excess of 900m/s from aircraft machine guns, or small arms (A-10 cannon = 990m/s M16 and L86 = 940m/s) arent friendly when they meet human flesh.

Lets play shall we, lets just do from mmmm the start of the first party in the desert

Number of US troops killed or injured by British Munitions havent managed as yet to find any declared incidents.

Number of UK troops killed or injured by US Fired Munitions, wow this may take a while google has pages and pages of incidents. well bugger me sideways with a banjo fancy that.

[Pyramid*]

LOL, my new keyboard is delivered on monday) my "d" key is broken, i have to paste every "d" into my posts.

it's much more labour intensive than you can imagine.

Didn't see you having too much bother with the other 5 times you had to do it in that same post.

;)

[lostalex]

United Kingdom.

I disagree, that is an entirely subjective point of view and speaking as a Scot, I am quite at liberty to have.

So you woul prefer Scotland was completely seperate? If most Scots feel that way, then why doesn't Salmon hold the referndum NOW????

[Pyramid*]

First off its not friendly fire, live rounds travelling in excess of 900m/s from aircraft machine guns, or small arms (A-10 cannon = 990m/s M16 and L86 = 940m/s).

Lets play shall we, lets just do from mmmm the start of the first party in the desert

Number of US troops killed or injured by British Munitions havent managed as yet to find any declared incidents.

Number of UK troops killed or injured by US Fired Munitions, wow this may take a while google has pages and pages of incidents. well bugger me sideways with a banjo fancy that.

You slipped that in there for good measure didn't you!

[lostalex]

Didn't see you having too much bother with the other 5 times you had to do it in that same post.

;)

Really? lol, i think i've had to edit almost all of my posts for the past week, but i'll take that as a compliment that you havn't notice.

[Pyramid*]

So you woul prefer Scotland was completely seperate? If most Scots feel that way, then why doesn't Salmon hold the referndum NOW????

Entirely different conversation for an entirely different thread.

[Pyramid*]

Really? lol, i think i've had to edit almost all of my posts for the past week, but i'll take that as a compliment that you havn't notice.

TBF, I don't tend to take a much notice of a lot of your posts overall generally.

[lostalex]

First off its not friendly fire, live rounds travelling in excess of 900m/s from aircraft machine guns, or small arms (A-10 cannon = 990m/s M16 and L86 = 940m/s).

Lets play shall we, lets just do from mmmm the start of the first party in the desert

Number of US troops killed or injured by British Munitions havent managed as yet to find any declared incidents.

Number of UK troops killed or injured by US Fired Munitions, wow this may take a while google has pages and pages of incidents. well bugger me sideways with a banjo fancy that.


I didn't ask about british friendly fire in the war on terror, i asked about british friendly fire in all of history.

numbers plzzz. :)

[Pyramid*]

I didn't ask about british friendly fire in the war on terror, i asked about british friendly fire in all of history.

numbers plzzz. :)

Google is your friend. Seek and ye shall find.

[lostalex]

TBF, I don't tend to take a much notice of a lot of your posts overall generally.

Well that's just rude. Am i meant to be offended? I am. :(

[Shasown]

I didn't ask about british friendly fire in the war on terror, i asked about british friendly fire in all of history.

numbers plzzz. :)

Until we started pallying up with you it wasnt a factor ever considered. therefore we can only assume it was almost negligible

And as I said its not called friendly fire in the UK forces.

[lostalex]

Google is your friend. Seek and ye shall find.

ok, so I guess as long as no one googles it, we can just pretend that Britain doesn't have any friendly fires. lol

hmmm.

[Pyramid*]

ok, so I guess as long as no one googles it, we can just pretend that Britain doesn't have any friendly fires. lol

hmmm.

Since you are being deliberately provocating in continuing to use that same incorrect terminology - it's 'fire' not 'fires'. ;)

[lostalex]

Since you are being deliberately provocating in continuing to use that same incorrect terminology - it's 'fire' not 'fires'. ;)

i am a disgrace, so i'll stop this conversation. I think we can all agree this is going nowhere.

I'll take the bullet. (no pun intended)

[Shasown]

I'll take the bullet. (no pun intended)

Dont give me ideas ;)

[lostalex]

Dont give me ideas ;)

mmmmmm, don't give ME ideas *prrrrrs*. ;)

[Shasown]

mmmmmm, don't give ME ideas *prrrrrs*. ;)

Dream on sugar lips.

Believe me, you couldnt handle me ;)

[Pyramid*]

mmmmmm, don't give ME ideas *prrrrrs*. ;)


Pussy.

;)

Dream on sugar lips.

Believe me, you couldnt handle me ;)

Pfft..... I could !! :angel:

PMSL. :laugh2:

[lostalex]

I'm quite sure that I have no idea what eigther of you are talking about.

[Shasown]

Pussy.

;)



Pfft..... I could !! :angel:

PMSL. :laugh2:

Yes I believe you could




BUT!!!!!!





Would I let you?




;)

[Pyramid*]

I'm quite sure that I have no idea what eigther of you are talking about.

That's that special little thing known as British sense of humour.

Prrrrrss is the noise which animal makes? ;)

[Pyramid*]

Yes I believe you could




BUT!!!!!!





Would I let you?




;)


:o:o:o:o:o





































:D

[Shasown]

:o:o:o:o:o





































:D


Yeah your right



I would ;)

[lostalex]

That's that special little thing known as British sense of humour.

Prrrrrss is the noise which animal makes? ;)

...and they say that Americans don't get irony? :hugesmile:

[InOne]

Never seen this footage fully before * warning, could be disturbing*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1315814553

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=188_1315813999

[Callum]

Never seen this footage fully before * warning, could be disturbing*

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cf1_1315814553

It's just horrendous that people thought they had no other option but jump to their death. When I was younger I used to think to myself why couldn't they put out trampolines or hammocks to catch the people falling.

[InOne]

I edited the post, 2nd one is awful too :/ all raw footage

[Callum]

Just horrible to watch, I am glad that none of the cameras got a closer look at the people falling or I think I'd probably be physically sick.

[lostalex]

It's unfortunate that some people use the 9/11 tragedy for their own political agendas. Especially the people that try to use it to attack America on the day that America was attacked. The irony is lost on those people, and they are shameless.

It would be like holding an anti-bankers rally at the aushcwitz concentration camp. They want to demonize the victims.

Much like blaming a rape victim. "well she was wearing a short skirt".

as if wearing a short skirt justifies rape. That is the same logic as those who would blame America.