Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

9/11 Conspiracy watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    There is one very compelling theory that does not suggest the White House killed it's own but since I read it a few years ago has become more convincing as each new fact slots neatly into place.
    In 2000 Iraq started to deal it's oil in euros. Syria looked likely to follow suit.
    To understand the threat to America you have to understand the financial state of the US. A simplified explanation 'I promise to pay the bearer on demand' means that the govt will exchange your paper money for 'real money'. Theoretically the Gov't must hold bullion stocks to match the number of promissary notes but of course they don't. The reality is the 'notes' stay in circulation and the govt's have a deficit. America has a massive deficit.
    What happens if the billions of dollars circulating in the oil industry were to come home to roost? First sign of the banks having a problem and everyone would take their money out of dollars.
    America supports 100s of countries through trade etc. If it went bust the worldwide effect would be catastrophic. Potentially worse than any disaster we have ever known.
    Who else would be panicked? The Saudis definately. Who did Bush spend the night with on 10/11?
    Who was flown out of USA when all other planes were grounded? Into what family was Osama Bin Laden born?
    The real question is why did Bush use 9/11 to justify the invasion of Iraq.
    Bush had every reason to go to war. He may well have prevented worldwide disaster but it had nothing to do with 9/11 and terrorism. In fact the connection is so tenuous it's hardly likely Bush would have blown up the towers as a means to that end.
    So you have a motive for war (and a good one) but one that the public would not have supported.
    The Saudis bring an awful lot of money into the US as the biggest arms customer (remind me again what is it Bush's father sells?)
    The article suggested that if...the Saudis had wanted the US to invade Iraq, and if...Bush had said 'not possible' then the Saudi's may have used a more persuasive argument. They certainly had the resources and the connections with the people who did blow up the towers.
    You have to admit it's a good theory and over time it gets consolidated. I read today that people are suing the US govt for preventing them from killing Osama Bin Laden. Do we really believe he could have stayed hidden if the US had wanted to find him?
    Perhaps..He is after all a Saudi prince. His family may have helped. His family may have had influence.
    I'm not saying any of this is true, just that if you want to write this thesis, you need to look at a much wider political spectrum and assume that whatever was done was done by people who felt 100% justified in doing what they did.

    Watch that bit of film where Bush gets the news.
    That's where I start to believe the theory. Suddenly his inexplicable behaviour and body language make sense. He knows... and it's not what we know.

    What do I believe? I believe that conspiracy theories are neccessary. We must question everything and more importantly we must be allowed the freedom to question everything.
    No. All the conspiracy theories haven't been disproved. Half of them haven't been invented yet.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DustyM)
    What do I believe? I believe that conspiracy theories are neccessary. We must question everything and more importantly we must be allowed the freedom to question everything.
    Taking a few strands of 'evidence', linking them together in a dubious fashion, creating an incredibly implausible theory with idiotic conclusions and ignoring any actual evidence contrary to your claims (or just claiming THEY'RE WORKING FOR THE SUPER EVIL GOVERNMENT!!!) is a pretty crap way to question the government if I'm honest.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It wasn't terrorist attack.

    It was US HQ who decided that they need to invade iraq to continue funding their world superiority with Middle Eastern Oil.

    Obviously, they needed a reason to do so, so there was 9/11 who was planned and executed by Osama Bin Laden (who infact was a good friend and a partner of J W Bush back in the days)

    But because Americans are stupid in general (because of lack of education) people just went with story that it was a terrorist attack (doh).

    I can write a book about but i can't be arsed
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miza)
    It wasn't terrorist attack.

    It was US HQ who decided that they need to invade iraq to continue funding their world superiority with Middle Eastern Oil.

    Obviously, they needed a reason to do so, so there was 9/11 who was planned and executed by Osama Bin Laden (who infact was a good friend and a partner of J W Bush back in the days)

    But because Americans are stupid in general (because of lack of education) people just went with story that it was a terrorist attack (doh).

    I can write a book about but i can't be arsed
    ... I hope you aren't serious. You claim to know the 'truth' about how the US government were behind the 9/11 attacks. You arrogantly claim to know more than what the evidence shows and what people smarter than you have proven.

    Obviously you are wrong. I would still be annoyed if you were just wrong... But... 'i can't be arsed'? You believe that the US government was behind one of the most heinous events in recent history, you believe that they are directly responsible for the deaths of many many innocent people. You believe that they have engineered a massive conspiracy to wage war for oil?

    You believe this and you believe you have enough evidence to write a book... Yet you can't be arsed. You can't be arsed exposing the greatest conspiracy of all time... You can't be arsed bringing to justice the people who you believe were really responsible for the deaths of innocent people. Why aren't you exposing them? Why aren't you meting out justice?

    If I believed that I had evidence pointing to who killed lots of people I sure as **** wouldn't be saying 'Oh yeah they did it but i cant be arsed exposing them'.

    I'm not even going to ridicule the fact that you generalised Americans as stupid.

    You're not just wrong. You're morally questionable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think there was a conspiracy. Al-Qaeda conspired to crash four planes into US landmarks. They had a 3/4 success rate.

    I think people who believe in it are just trying to make their own dull lives more interesting by believing that the US government would attack it's infrastructure. They wouldn't.

    I do however think the intelligence services are guilty of letting it happen, in order to provide jus ad bellum to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and start a legitimate war in the Middle East (ad to get the oil pipeline that the Taliban opposed built).

    But was it planned? Hell yes, by Al-Qaeda,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Saying that though, what was up with the united 93 crash site, it looked like someone just carried a huge pile of rubble and just dumped it in an open field. There were a couple of EMTs who were questioning the crash site as well.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    You can clearly see explosions happening up the side if the building just before it came down.
    But surely if they wanted nobody to know that it was a controlled demolition, they wouldn't have done it in a way that meant everyone could see the explosions? Surely they would want to avoid like the plague the possibility of anyone guessing what they were up to?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DustyM)
    Watch that bit of film where Bush gets the news.
    That's where I start to believe the theory. Suddenly his inexplicable behaviour and body language make sense. He knows... and it's not what we know.
    But again - surely if he knew all about it, and had planned it, he would not have planned for him to get the news whilst in front of the cameras? He would have planned to have received the news whilst he was inside the White House, away from the cameras. Surely his advisors (assuming that they were in on it too) would not have wanted the possibility of his body language being caught on camera, in case people analysed it and found it suspicious?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Inexplicable behavior? Seems pretty normal to me for a person being told 'that kind' of news. FDR was said to have been in shock for ages when he was told of Pearl Harbour, same deal here. He's trying to process the information that three of his nations most recognizable landmarks (the Pentagon, the WTC twin towers) have been attacked.

    I'd probably react similar to that kind of information. Hell I did react similarly when I learned about the attack.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    But surely if they wanted nobody to know that it was a controlled demolition, they wouldn't have done it in a way that meant everyone could see the explosions? Surely they would want to avoid like the plague the possibility of anyone guessing what they were up to?
    It wasn't obvious at first. The only people in the vicinity were the emergency services, many of whom died. The survivors all gave statements saying they heard explosions. The fact that the buldings came down just seconds after the explosions means people were in a state of shock and thought they merely imagined it. But when you look at the videos again you can clearly see explosions.


    Add to this the steel melting theory being disproved and the fact that the towers were built to withstand an impact 3 times that of an aeroplane, it kinda makes you wonder.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    course it was an inside job
    Americans=murderers
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalFlash)
    Farenheit 9/11 that's just scratching the surface. :holmes:
    Immortal Technique is the one.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I think US government at least made it easier for the terrorists.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    It wasn't obvious at first. The only people in the vicinity were the emergency services, many of whom died. The survivors all gave statements saying they heard explosions. The fact that the buldings came down just seconds after the explosions means people were in a state of shock and thought they merely imagined it. But when you look at the videos again you can clearly see explosions.
    Well if I were in charge of organising such a massive conspiracy, I would have realised beforehand that the emergency services would be bound to be in there and would easily be able to hear any explosions - and that when interviewed afterwards, they would recall this. If it was all a conspiracy then those in charge clearly didn't have a lot of common sense, which of course begs the question of whether it was one in the first place - such a massive conspiracy would surely have been planned down to the absolute last detail, leaving absolutely nothing to chance, and leaving nothing that would look suspicious.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    Well if I were in charge of organising such a massive conspiracy, I would have realised beforehand that the emergency services would be bound to be in there and would easily be able to hear any explosions - and that when interviewed afterwards, they would recall this. If it was all a conspiracy then those in charge clearly didn't have a lot of common sense, which of course begs the question of whether it was one in the first place - such a massive conspiracy would surely have been planned down to the absolute last detail, leaving absolutely nothing to chance, and leaving nothing that would look suspicious.

    Answer me this, what are the 'explosions' happening just as the building is collapsing then?

    Also if the building merely pancaked, why werent' the steel cores left standing (they were built to withstand an impact 3 times that of an aeroplane)?

    There would also be much more rubble, instead most of the wreckage was dust.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    Answer me this, what are the 'explosions' happening just as the building is collapsing then?

    Also if the building merely pancaked, why werent' the steel cores left standing (they were built to withstand an impact 3 times that of an aeroplane)?

    There would also be much more rubble, instead most of the wreckage was dust.
    I don't know, I never said I was an expert - all I was doing was mentioning a point I had wondered about and thought would be relevant. Look this stuff up on Google, I'm sure there are lots of sites which explode the conspiracy theories and explain the science behind it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    Answer me this, what are the 'explosions' happening just as the building is collapsing then?

    Also if the building merely pancaked, why werent' the steel cores left standing (they were built to withstand an impact 3 times that of an aeroplane)?

    There would also be much more rubble, instead most of the wreckage was dust.
    Here's a starting point.

    Read that site before coming to false conclusions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    I don't know, I never said I was an expert - all I was doing was mentioning a point I had wondered about and thought would be relevant. Look this stuff up on Google, I'm sure there are lots of sites which explode the conspiracy theories and explain the science behind it.
    Yup, there are. I've pointed him to one in my above post. Most conspiracy theorists don't want to see any evidence that goes against their false over simplified view on the world so I doubt it will do much good though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FormerlyHistoryStudent)
    I don't know, I never said I was an expert - all I was doing was mentioning a point I had wondered about and thought would be relevant. Look this stuff up on Google, I'm sure there are lots of sites which explode the conspiracy theories and explain the science behind it.
    I have done. Some of the explanations they give don't stack up. Why trust one website over another?

    The truth is we'll never know what really happened but from what I've read I'm starting think teh US goverment had a hand in it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    Why trust one website over another?
    Go for the most neutral ones? The ones that come from the most respected and non-biased sources?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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