Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingm)
    Motives for a war with the middle east: money, oil, establish more bases in the middle east, and more money.
    ALL of which are easily justifiable without 9/11. Extraordinary risk necessitates extraordinary reward for taking that risk, it just doesn't add up.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the bear)
    The US Govt had trained a crack team of beavers to gnaw through the steel supports for the towers. They timed it so the last beaver finished at exactly the moment the planes ( which were remotely controlled of course ) hit the South Tower.
    Why no beaver DNA in the rubble you may ask... obviously they were genetically modified beavers which had been provided with cloned alien DNA at Area 51.
    it was Area 52...

    if youre going to post the truth then get your facts right... :pierre:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This really riles me - people that belive this ****, they'd belive that a pizza slice is triangle because of the illuminati (which is not a real thing, just ****ers with nothing better to do than find signs in things that have no meanings.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingm)
    And to counter that, if you're dumb enough to tarnish every person who might believe in a conspiracy with one brush then you are beyond help. It's very easy to say it wasn't a conspiracy. Very easy. The 9/11 debacle goes so deep that not even those that are willing to accept that it may have been orchestrated by powers higher than government have even touched the surface. 9/11 has been a hugely successful event for the US. Fact. Is it so impossible to believe they didn't no it was going to happen/help it happen? I don't think so.
    No, I'm not dumb enough to tarnish everyone with the same brush- I'm bright for doing so.

    Every single 9/11 myth has been categorically debunked. Anyone who refutes the overwhelming evidence, is in my eyes, an idiot.


    If Bill Clinton couldn't get a BJ without being caught do you really, seriously believe that an event of this magnitude could've been orchestrated without even a hint of somebody catching wind of it? I don't think so.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    If you're dumb enough to believe everything the government says is true then you're beyond help. The Iraq war was all lies, doesn't that at least make you THINK for YOURSELF.

    Also, look up Operation Northwoods.
    No, I don't believe everything the government says- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

    I didn't mention the Iraq War, which, unlike government claims, was not started due to WMDs- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

    Concurring with what a government says on some issues does not mean I am not a free thinker; unlike disbelieving everything the government says.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The conspiracy theories are ridiculous. If it was planned, any word of it ever got out (and let's face it, quite a few people would have been involved in planning something this big) would mean the entire Bush cabinet on Death Row (if they hadn't been killed in a military coup first), the permanent reputation-tarnishing and suspicion of anyone who funded or backed Bush's presidential campaign, and the Republican Party would be dead in the water. The UN Security Council would never pass a resolution in favour of the US ever again, and the US might even be taken off the SC.

    A pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq isn't worth taking that level of risk.

    What I think is a more interesting issue is the nature of 'Al-Qaeda'. The American and British media both tend to portray it as a single unitary organisation. In reality, it's probably more like the IRA; in the same way there's the 'Real', 'Official', 'Provisional' and 'Continuity' IRAs, as well as the Irish Peoples' Liberation Organisation and the Irish National Liberation Army, there's probably lots of relatively distinct groups who all call themselves 'Al-Qaeda'.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingm)
    Motives for a war with the middle east: money, oil, establish more bases in the middle east, and more money.
    (Original post by Pete_Lawton)
    ALL of which are easily justifiable without 9/11. Extraordinary risk necessitates extraordinary reward for taking that risk, it just doesn't add up.
    ^That, basically. Plus you don't just get money from a war; with an operation like that the USA ran you'd have to somehow generate billions of dollars from it before you got anywhere need a profit. And even if you factor in a potential gain like this the government outlook on the killing of thousands of its own people is at worst still rampant sadism, and at the absolute best malicious indifference. Think about how many people you'd need involved in an operation as large as an inside job of 9/11 - it'd be thousands, a good chunk of the executive. Do you really think that that many people are so cruel and malevolent as to comply with the slaughter of thousands of innocent people without a single complaint from anyone? I don't.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    What's with thr Muslim conspiracy theories.
    Not all Muslims believe in these theories. Some non-muslims believe in them aswell, just today some people were discussing this topic in the study centre in the sixth form I go to and some sounded like they believed in some of these theories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    There are many questions, but not many answers. I find it hard to believe Bin Laden was responsible - there's a strong case he died in 2001.
    But I also find it hard to believe how such a cover-up could be maintained.

    In the end, 3000 died in the attacks. MILLIONS died in the aftermath at the hands of the NATO. The West are the real terrorists - how can people not believe this simple fact?


    Right I'm going to stop you there. You're not going to get very far by coming on to a British forum and saying the West are terrorists.

    To put it frankly Al Qaeda started this crap. Every single person that has died at the hands on Nato since 9/11 only has Al Qaeda to blame for it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
    I know what Northwoods was. But the difference there was that the USA was already at war with Cuba, so they had a motive for the acts that were supposedly planned. With regard to 9/11, why would the USA want to START a war with Iraq/Afghanistan? As I said in my original post (and you appear to have conveniently ignored) there is no clear motive for going to war there besides a) revenge for 9/11 as perpetrated by terrorist cells from those countries, or b) sadism, i.e. enjoying seeing people die.
    How about c) Resources. Everything depends on energy and resources. Absolutely everything. An economy fundamentally needs oil if it is to thrive - America being the biggest in the world. You can also argue about opium directly with Afghanistan but my knowledge is cloudy on that subject. You just can't underestimate the necessity of energy resources. Why did Iraq set fire to their offshore oil rigs? Tell me why.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kingm)
    Motives for a war with the middle east: money, oil, establish more bases in the middle east, and more money.
    So they chose to pin the blame on the Saudis, some of their most valuable allies in the region, and then invaded Iraq who they didn't even pretend had any involvement in the plot. Makes sense.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    No, I don't believe everything the government says- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

    I didn't mention the Iraq War, which, unlike government claims, was not started due to WMDs- I've seen the evidence and came to the conclusion on my own.

    Concurring with what a government says on some issues does not mean I am not a free thinker; unlike disbelieving everything the government says.
    This is what makes me question the motives for the Afghan war.

    1) A couple of years later, the Iraq was started, based on lies.

    2) It was a retaliation to an attack that killed 3000 people. This retaliation killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, many innocents. If the US didn't declare a war, they would have been better off in terms of US deaths (soldiers dying). An entire country's economy has been destroyed as well as essential infrastructure. Great 'democracy' promotion, eh?

    3) There are genuine facts surrounding the monetary gain of Bush, Cheney and their friends with the oil companies that they operated with in Iraq (which was a war to stop terror and promote 'liberty'). Why then take oil? Afghanistan has vast amounts of opium - ever wonder where it all circulates from?

    I could go on further.
    However, when you really think about it the economic gain must outweigh the moral implications caused by such war. None of us are in a position of ruling power so we don't have the 'scales' of decision if you like. War must be necessary if we are to enjoy the economic luxuries that we do, such as posting on a student website about **** which we have no power over! haha
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bronco2012)
    Right I'm going to stop you there. You're not going to get very far by coming on to a British forum and saying the West are terrorists.

    To put it frankly Al Qaeda started this crap. Every single person that has died at the hands on Nato since 9/11 only has Al Qaeda to blame for it.
    What?

    How many Americans did Al Qaeda kill before 9/11? Please give me a number. It will not be significant. How many middle easterns have NATO killed and tortured post 9/11? Is this not significant? How can you sit there and call them terrorists when the West have killed substantially more and the US continue to torture INNOCENTS in Guantanamo including the Brit Shaker Aamer?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midnightice)
    This is what makes me question the motives for the Afghan war.

    1) A couple of years later, the Iraq was started, based on lies.

    2) It was a retaliation to an attack that killed 3000 people. This retaliation killed HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, many innocents. If the US didn't declare a war, they would have been better off in terms of US deaths (soldiers dying). An entire country's economy has been destroyed as well as essential infrastructure. Great 'democracy' promotion, eh?

    3) There are genuine facts surrounding the monetary gain of Bush, Cheney and their friends with the oil companies that they operated with in Iraq (which was a war to stop terror and promote 'liberty'). Why then take oil? Afghanistan has vast amounts of opium - ever wonder where it all circulates from?

    I could go on further.
    However, when you really think about it the economic gain must outweigh the moral implications caused by such war. None of us are in a position of ruling power so we don't have the 'scales' of decision if you like. War must be necessary if we are to enjoy the economic luxuries that we do, such as posting on a student website about **** which we have no power over! haha
    You're creating facts to suit theories, not theories to suit facts.

    Investigation 101.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rooster523)
    You're creating facts to suit theories, not theories to suit facts.

    Investigation 101.
    One by one can you point out these 'created facts'. I didn't.

    At the end of the day, 9/11 is now irrelevant. If Al Qaeda were behind it or even if they weren't there has been no victory for anyone.
    NATO are now perceived to be just as murderous as those they are fighting against. How many terror attacks have ocurred after 9/11 in the US? You can say they have stopped such attacks, but they have also turned them on to innocents in Pakistan, Yemen etc. Obama uses his drone policy to incessantly blast away civilians and destroy their lives, yet if this happened in America there would be outrage... The war has been a mess, and because of this I doubt our governments are dumb rnough to be involved unless there's another underlying motive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The reason the fire caused the building to collapse is because it weakened the steel truces through heat and then each floor fell falling in top of the other causing a chain reaction. Of it was an inside job the level of planning and coordination required would be too great to keep under wraps. Also what about the actual people who were killed what are they up to?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robbie242)
    It's not being solidly dis-proven though, don't link me to debunking 9/11 site because some of their debunks are ****ing retarded.
    Which of the debunks are retarded? At the end of the day, you need to have quite extensive knowledge of explosives and structural engineering to make a bold statement such as "WTC 7 fell due to a controlled demolition" or any other conspiracy. Do you have such knowledge? Are you an expert in explosives? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are. In that case, you have to trust someone's testimony on what actually happened.

    There are two main categories of people that people choose to trust.
    1) demolition experts, structural engineers, the vast majority of whom believe the official story. (http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf - structural engineers explain their view)

    2) neckbeard virgins on Youtube, with very little knowledge on either structural engineering or demolitions, making 10 minute poorly edited video clips, with no professional support.

    I realise this resembles an argument from authority. But do you really want to take the jump and say you trust group 2 rather than group 1?

    No I feel that the bush administration was evil, not the whole of the US administration. I accept events like 7/7 were Muslim terrorists in response to 9/11, but 9/11 it self looks point blank like an inside job to me. I'm not a paranoid wreck, I share my thoughts on the internet and when people ask, I don't obsess over 9/11, I discuss it when it comes up in conversation. Try to convince me it was planes that brought down two skyscraper towers designed to withstand 5 plane crashes.

    Anyway Alex Jones is a ****ing nutcase
    lol what??
    How can you believe the bush administration to be evil but not the whole US administration to be evil? A false flag operation of this size would require many people to be involved, ergo you have to assume the entire government is evil.

    Let me ask you this, do you believe Obama is evil?
    I'd wager you probably don't. That's because you like Obama. You don't want to think of him as evil. But if you think one Presidents whole administration is completely corrupt and shadowy, that implies that the next government is still going to be in on it. There will be civil servants under Obama's employment that worked for Bush too.

    And why don't you believe 7/7 is an inside job? There are thousands of conspiracy nuts who believe that too. If you asked them about it, they would produce all kinds of "evidence"* to convince you. and yet you would deny that evidence. why deny that "evidence" but not the "evidence" for 9/11 being an inside job ? They are both as convoluted. You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe, rather than actually looking at the evidence objectively and coming to a rational conclusion.

    *example of evidence given by conspiracy nuts saying 7/7 was an inside job: http://wideshut.co.uk/77-inquest-ana...hone-evidence/
    Why do you not believe this, but you do believe 9/11 was an inside job?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    On a purely practical level, the amount of time you would need to invest in setting and covering up an incident like this effectively enough, you could invest in undertaking many more effective political activities to improve the government's standing.

    I find it hard to believe that such a complex operation could go ahead without anyone remotely involved in its coordination feeling the need to whistleblow and save thousands of innocent civilian lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Martyn*)
    Tower 7 is a bit of a mystery for me.

    (Original post by miles_cynic)
    If you just focus on building 7 alone you would come to that conclusion. Building 7 the 3rd tower to collapse into it's own foot print in the same manner as the other two towers was not hit by a plane. Had some fire on a few floors, that it. But you see it goes against the laws of physics and science for fire to cause a sky scraper to collapse at near free-fall speed (i.e. as if it had no resistance).

    (Original post by rjm101)
    I believe it was, just look at the way the WTC building fell. Just totally random and it falls right within its foot print. Buildings dont collapse like that unless they were controlled demolitions. It's a bit of a joke really. What about the black smoke? and the multiple pop sounds that have been picked just before the towers fall and what about the steel core? Fire doesnt do jack to steel foundations and what about the news reports of one the buildings reported to have fallen but didnt actually fall yet? WTF. Then there are photos showing something mounted under the plane and the fact that it looked gray rather than an AA 747 and what about the time delay? If I remember correctly the second tower falls before the first. Plus plenty of other real interesting things I havent mentioned.

    It's a long time since I last watched this but I found it very interesting at the time:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwayjX4ipFc
    http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf
    Structural engineers debunk the WTC 7 conspiracies and show that is not "scientifically impossible".

    What is your response to them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tabzqt)
    Which of the debunks are retarded? At the end of the day, you need to have quite extensive knowledge of explosives and structural engineering to make a bold statement such as "WTC 7 fell due to a controlled demolition" or any other conspiracy. Do you have such knowledge? Are you an expert in explosives? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you are. In that case, you have to trust someone's testimony on what actually happened.

    There are two main categories of people that people choose to trust.
    1) demolition experts, structural engineers, the vast majority of whom believe the official story. (http://www.structuremag.org/Archives...sanz-Nov07.pdf - structural engineers explain their view)

    2) neckbeard virgins on Youtube, with very little knowledge on either structural engineering or demolitions, making 10 minute poorly edited video clips, with no professional support.

    I realise this resembles an argument from authority. But do you really want to take the jump and say you trust group 2 rather than group 1?



    lol what??
    How can you believe the bush administration to be evil but not the whole US administration to be evil? A false flag operation of this size would require many people to be involved, ergo you have to assume the entire government is evil.

    Let me ask you this, do you believe Obama is evil?
    I'd wager you probably don't. That's because you like Obama. You don't want to think of him as evil. But if you think one Presidents whole administration is completely corrupt and shadowy, that implies that the next government is still going to be in on it. There will be civil servants under Obama's employment that worked for Bush too.

    And why don't you believe 7/7 is an inside job? There are thousands of conspiracy nuts who believe that too. If you asked them about it, they would produce all kinds of "evidence"* to convince you. and yet you would deny that evidence. why deny that "evidence" but not the "evidence" for 9/11 being an inside job ? They are both as convoluted. You are just picking and choosing what you want to believe, rather than actually looking at the evidence objectively and coming to a rational conclusion.

    *example of evidence given by conspiracy nuts saying 7/7 was an inside job: http://wideshut.co.uk/77-inquest-ana...hone-evidence/
    Why do you not believe this, but you do believe 9/11 was an inside job?
    Should I structure my wording such that 'there is some evidence to suggest that the tower did not fall from controlled demolition, however there is more significant evidence to suggest that tower 7 fell by controlled demolition. That way I'm saying this is my opinion, there is some evidence for both sides, neither is definite and a lot is opinionated, just like history (apart from facts, dates etc).

    I don't entirely trust their viewpoint, what if there are background links to the US government, nobody knows, so the evidence isn't evidence if its told by someone, it can be reworded, similar things happen on the conspiracy side as well.

    Group 1 also includes professional engineers such as AE911truth who suggest that it was an inside job, and yes they are licensed engineers, who specifically specialise in this area.

    So yes Group 1, I consider the provenience of the source of evidence (talking like this is history which it technically is), if its some random kid or random person, I must dig deeper or only trust official sources.

    Personally, I despise Obama. His drone program is sickening and yes to an extent I'd agree he is evil, but I don't think he has the mental capacity to pull off such an even as 9/11. That is true and there has being evidence of communications between the president and other government figures, before and after the attacks.

    I simply don't believe 7/7 is an inside job because of the overwhelming evidence presented that challenges that view, I find it more believable that a bus was half destroyed and trains wrecked by a terrorist than planes driven by inexperienced drivers managing to coordinate a plane crash into a tower which somehow imploded due to structural failure, and then led to the collapse of subsequent buildings, a distance of the imploded tower? So there is greater evidence which suggests 7/7 wasn't an inside job.

    The science of 9/11 is what leads me to believe it, I find it highly unbelievable that a plane led to the collapse of two towers.

    This is just my opinion though, neither side has definitive evidence, you can't claim it is or it isn't using a debunking site

    Though on edit, the WTC 7 engineer post you sent to the other people does look quite reputable, however on the whole either events could have occurred leading to the fall of WTC7, hence why I think it is more possible that it was demolition, but it was nice to get another perspective, I may change my mind in the future, depends
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.