New 9/11 video Watch

LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Rusty33)

Why, if the United Sates government wanted pull of the biggest conspiracy in the history of mankind, would they leave such a trail behind themselves. We are talking about the most powerful people in the world here. They have the most money, the most resources, and the most capability to cover their tracks, Why would they do it so sloppily?
Hubris? Reliance on the media to shun anything in conflict with the official account? Reliance on the trauma stripping pepl of their proper rationality.


(Original post by Rusty33)
Why do the buildings all fall differently? The WTC building, if you watch falls from the bottom down. The top of the building never deteriorates until its at the ground. But, in the other video, the Twin Towers banana peel down. Watch the video. They fall from the top down, and you can clearly see the floors below them. No windows or walls are effected until the above debris near them. How is that?
Maybe it was rigged that way? Maybe the difference in construction of WTC7 and the towers.

(Original post by Rusty33)
Thirdly, how can you use the argument, "No modern steel structure has failed in such a way." When is the last time a commercial jet flew into a building of this size?
The official account maintains fire brought the buildings down asn the planes didn't affect the main structure. Plenty of large buildings have suffered much bigger, feircer fires.
(Original post by Rusty33)
If we are talking about the pretense for war, oil, why do it this way? Wouldn’t it be much less costly to find another method? Think of the money we’ve spent in Afghanistan and Iraq. You can’t tell me there would be a less risky, more cost efficient way to try and trick your way in. It just doesn’t all add up.
War benefits the corporations and banks who provide the hardware and funding. The administration don't seem to care about the ammount of debt they rack up on the taxpayers behalf.
(Original post by Rusty33)
And, lastly, and this is the one argument that no one has managed to address: A conspiracy of this magnitude requires a great deal of people. Someone has to set those “explosives.” Someone has to ensure the terrorists, even if decoys, get on the planes. What about the phone calls of people on the planes? SOMEONE had to have had a change of heart. Someone had to have seen the possibilities, financially or popularity wise, of the choice of coming out. Why would no one have come forward yet?
How does the CIA/inner government keep it's secrets? A variety of ways.

1) Compartmentalisation. i.e. People in the CIA and other such organisations have no idea what anyone else is doing except when there is a "need to know". This limits the spread of information greatly.

2) The selection process / psycologicl profiling for secret ops is extremely sophisticated and strict. Anybody showing the sightest inclination that they might be a potential wistleblower would never make it.

3) The consequences of blowing the whistle might be too sever for anyone to think of it. This is illustrated by the FBI agents who approached Stanley Hilton prior to the attacks saying they knew the time and date if the attacks - they dare not go public for fear of the consequences.
0
quote
reply
Rusty33
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#22
Report 12 years ago
#22
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Hubris? Reliance on the media to shun anything in conflict with the official account? Reliance on the trauma stripping pepl of their proper rationality.




Maybe it was rigged that way? Maybe the difference in construction of WTC7 and the towers.



The official account maintains fire brought the buildings down asn the planes didn't affect the main structure. Plenty of large buildings have suffered much bigger, feircer fires.

War benefits the corporations and banks who provide the hardware and funding. The administration don't seem to care about the ammount of debt they rack up on the taxpayers behalf.


How does the CIA/inner government keep it's secrets? A variety of ways.

1) Compartmentalisation. i.e. People in the CIA and other such organisations have no idea what anyone else is doing except when there is a "need to know". This limits the spread of information greatly.

2) The selection process / psycologicl profiling for secret ops is extremely sophisticated and strict. Anybody showing the sightest inclination that they might be a potential wistleblower would never make it.

3) The consequences of blowing the whistle might be too sever for anyone to think of it. This is illustrated by the FBI agents who approached Stanley Hilton prior to the attacks saying they knew the time and date if the attacks - they dare not go public for fear of the consequences.
Though, possible, it is all still very subjective. As with the video, this is all propositional. No empirical data lies within the topic on point.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by JonathanH)
Rusty: All very good questions that I have asked before. You missed one however: How did they manage to sneak in to one of the most densely-occupied pieces of real estate in the country, plant enough explosives to bring down a huge building, leave it there for a while and have absolutely no-one notice the coming, the planting, the going or the massive amount of explosives sitting there?
Quite simple really. Under the guise of maintenance. Probably outside office hours. Head of security was Bushs brother i think. The way the columns broke at the joins suggests that the explosives were placed where where the columns meet. Next time you're in a large building note how much of the skeleton of the building is visible to public areas- none of it.
(Original post by JonathanH)
Furthermore, do you know how long it takes to plan a massive demolition project? Months and months. Combine that with all the time it would take to rig up such an incredibly complex scheme and you have a plan that would have taken ages to put in to place. Bush had barely been in office for 8 months and had been quite busy with running the country for that time.
Plus, the amount of people that would need to be involved is staggering, someone would have talked by now. Unless you think that hundreds, possibly thousands, of people, many of whom had dedicated their lives to defending the country, had absolutely no reservations about murdering 3,000 of their own citizens.
It could be preplanned prior to bush taking office. There was ample time for the implementation.
(Original post by JonathanH)
Also, why would they rig the building to fall in a manner where people might go 'oo, controlled demolition'? Why not rig it to fall another way?
1) Hubris again.
2) Reliance on the political climate to siffle too much questioning.
3) If the towers fell onto other buidings there would be a greater call for a proper investigation as more significant people would be damanding answers. -
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 12 years ago
#24
The same stuff you see over and over again. Still don't find it the least bit convincing.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by JonathanH)
Especially considering a truck bomb had been used on the target before, why not use that sort of thing again? Why rig a scheme that would involve aviation authorities, airline companies, military and many others?
In that case why would al qaeda bother seeing as it would be easier to use a truck bomb.
no.

It's all part of maximising the mental impact of the attack in peoples minds. 9/11 was the ultimate attack with the ultimate impact, both Karlheinz Schtokhausen and Damien Hirst have reffered to the attacks as a work of art. Bear in mind the purpose of the attack was a psy op intended to unfreeze peoples values and chang them.

(Original post by JonathanH)
The one thing it does do is make it painfully clear that all those people going 'the leaseholder admitted they pulled Building 7!11!' are talking rubbish, as it is obvious from the context that the guy is talking about 'pulling' the firefighters out as they couldn't contain the fire and had already lost so many men, rather than talking about pulling the building down. Also, why pull Building 7 at all, are the two main towers going down not enough to go to war on?
Really? 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

What is laughable about the explanation for this is that thre were no firefighers in the building at the time.

Journalists around the buildng were told to get back by police as they were about to pull it.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by Rusty33)
Though, possible, it is all still very subjective. As with the video, this is all propositional. No empirical data lies within the topic on point.
There is the seismographig evidence, the collapse of the buldings i.e. Speed of collapse, squibs, molten steel in the wreckage.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#27
Report 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
In that case why would al qaeda bother seeing as it would be easier to use a truck bomb.
no.
Erm maybe because they already tried that in '93?:rolleyes:

Journalists around the buildng were told to get back by police as they were about to pull it.
A) You seem to forget that the building had just been hit by a plane and debris was raining down constantly.
B) If the CIA (:rolleyes: ) had no problem killing thousands of innocent americans why would they warn a couple journalists to get out of the way? Plus that would mean these journalists would survive and tell people they were warned to move before the building was "pulled down" :rolleyes:
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
There is the seismographig evidence, the collapse of the buldings i.e. Speed of collapse, squibs, molten steel in the wreckage.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=5&c=y
0
quote
reply
eleri
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
This is illustrated by the FBI agents who approached Stanley Hilton prior to the attacks saying they knew the time and date if the attacks - they dare not go public for fear of the consequences.
???
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by JonathanH)
I realise that, but you realise that there was a large contingent of security people at the building, along with engineers etc.? And you still haven't explained how they got in, planted the charges and then got out with no-one noticing and then how no-one noticed there were charges placed for possibly weeks on end.
Bush brother was head of security. Security guards do as they are told. Charges probably placed under the guise if contract maintenance.

(Original post by JonathanH)
TO take out a load of steel support columns? It'd take some pretty hefty charges.
Yep. This is what the seismographs show.

(Original post by JonathanH)
I thought the whole crux of the conspiracy was the government's involvement?
This is why conspiracy theories are tricky to disprove, because they tend to come in a hundred varieties, each with a different set of ideas about what happens, so you disprove one set and they just move on to the next. You can never quite pin the theorists down to one theory.
That's the thing with cumulative arguments. They don't rely on the validity of all the other parts.
(Original post by JonathanH)
So there was military involvement too?
No the good folk of the military stood down due to the drill.,
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#31
Report 12 years ago
#31
Yes i've seen that very poor effort at debunking before.
0
quote
reply
G_H_G
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#32
Report 12 years ago
#32
Do you lot not get bored of this?
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Erm maybe because they already tried that in '93?:rolleyes:
Oh you missed the New York times front page saying the 93' incident was an excecise where the FBI frogot to switch the real explosives for fakes.

Roll eyes less and read more.

(Original post by PadFoot90)
B) If the CIA (:rolleyes: ) had no problem killing thousands of innocent americans why would they warn a couple journalists to get out of the way? Plus that would mean these journalists would survive and tell people they were warned to move before the building was "pulled down" :rolleyes:
Oh dear. I'm not gonna dignify that corrupt reasoning with a response.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Yes i've seen that very poor effort at debunking before.
Well it's not like I expected you to admit you're wrong. Even when faced with accurate and conclusive info. you guys just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep blabbing away.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 12 years ago
#35
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Well it's not like I expected you to admit you're wrong. Even when faced with accurate and conclusive info. you guys just close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and keep blabbing away.
If youre just gonna throw a link in then im not wasting my time deconsrtructing it.

Raise some points from youre link and ill deal with them.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 12 years ago
#36
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Oh you missed the New York times front page saying the 93' incident was an excecise where the FBI frogot to switch the real explosives for fakes.

Roll eyes less and read more.
Um sorry, remind me who detonated the bomb?

Oh dear. I'm not gonna dignify that corrupt reasoning with a response.
Because you can't? Make stupid accusations less, read more.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 12 years ago
#37
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
If youre just gonna throw a link in then im not wasting my time deconsrtructing it.

Raise some points from youre link and ill deal with them.
Deal with them meaning quote your crackpot websites a dozen more times? Thanks, but I've heard enough of that. Someday maybe you'll come to reality.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 12 years ago
#38
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Um sorry, remind me who detonated the bomb?
Wasnt it the retarded muslim guy? Working for the FBI?

(Original post by PadFoot90)
Because you can't? Make stupid accusations less, read more.
Don't think so. Your point was very feeble. You might as well have said "well if the CIA dont care about killing american citiznens then why don't they just kill them"

And it was the regular state police telling peple to get back not the conspirators.
0
quote
reply
LoveYourSlavery
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#39
Report 12 years ago
#39
(Original post by PadFoot90)
Deal with them meaning quote your crackpot websites a dozen more times?
Oh I understand now. No I'll debate you.

This is getting petty, stereotypical insults 'n all.

If you expect the popularmechanics link to have any credibility then use som of he info on there to debunk my earlier points. If not then i'm not interested in a playground slanging match.
0
quote
reply
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 12 years ago
#40
(Original post by LoveYourSlavery)
Wasnt it the retarded muslim guy? Working for the FBI?
Replace Ramzi Yousef with "retarded muslim guy" and scrap the FBI part and you've got it.


Don't think so. Your point was very feeble. You might as well have said "well if the CIA dont care about killing american citiznens then why don't they just kill them"

And it was the regular state police telling peple to get back not the conspirators.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is. So state police told people to get back from a building that was on fire and basically falling apart. So what? Seems logical to me.
0
quote
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Were you ever put in isolation at school?

Yes (280)
27.56%
No (736)
72.44%

Watched Threads

View All