Questioning what happened on 9/11
- Thread starter moghrabi
- Start date
I have studied this for 2 years now and even now I am willing to go back on everything I believe, as long as anyone can show me their proof that there wasn't something else besides the planes that brought the world trade centers down.
--------------------------------------jjw1965---------------
I'm not sure what quality of 2 years study that was, nor is the burden of proof upon others to disprove whatever you believe, but rather the burden of proof is very much upon you to look for anything that might dismantle what you believe. That's the Scientific Method, with all of its rigor that defies prejudice of every kind. It is not for others to do that for you.
You certainly have so jaundiced a view of Bush Amerika that you gravitate to any idea that supports such bias.
Even the idea of someone setting up demolition explosions to implode the tower and also making sure two airplanes fly into it beget so many questions as to the logic of someone setting up demolition in such a way not to have those towers lean like dominos destroying a whole avenue of skyscrapers. And then the logic twists even further to wonder of the beauty of the architural expertise of designing those structures to fall in upon themselves.
Even any belief in the conspiracy of demolition of those buildings defy your prejudice simply by the way they fell in upon themselves.
--------------------------------------jjw1965---------------
I'm not sure what quality of 2 years study that was, nor is the burden of proof upon others to disprove whatever you believe, but rather the burden of proof is very much upon you to look for anything that might dismantle what you believe. That's the Scientific Method, with all of its rigor that defies prejudice of every kind. It is not for others to do that for you.
You certainly have so jaundiced a view of Bush Amerika that you gravitate to any idea that supports such bias.
Even the idea of someone setting up demolition explosions to implode the tower and also making sure two airplanes fly into it beget so many questions as to the logic of someone setting up demolition in such a way not to have those towers lean like dominos destroying a whole avenue of skyscrapers. And then the logic twists even further to wonder of the beauty of the architural expertise of designing those structures to fall in upon themselves.
Even any belief in the conspiracy of demolition of those buildings defy your prejudice simply by the way they fell in upon themselves.
Re: RE: Questioning what happened on 9/11
:lol: First of all lets get something straight, Bush Has nothing to do with my opinion on what happened to the towers, My dumbass voted for him in 2000 8O ,Big mistake on my part! It was what I observed after the Pentagon got hit that started my belief.
In my opinion Bush is to stupid to come up with such a scheme, he is just a puppet taking orders from someone else.
And I don't stop with Bush, I look at the history of this country and what it is capable of doing.
jimmoyer said:
:lol: First of all lets get something straight, Bush Has nothing to do with my opinion on what happened to the towers, My dumbass voted for him in 2000 8O ,Big mistake on my part! It was what I observed after the Pentagon got hit that started my belief.
In my opinion Bush is to stupid to come up with such a scheme, he is just a puppet taking orders from someone else.
And I don't stop with Bush, I look at the history of this country and what it is capable of doing.
Re: RE: Questioning what happened on 9/11
...and just as damnable are those that refuse to believe, because they can't stomach what it would mean if it were true...
...I think that if there is some nefarious conspiracy afoot, that they conspirators would breathe easy knowing that the insanity of the plot would make it unbelievable to most pragmatists...
jimmoyer said:
...and just as damnable are those that refuse to believe, because they can't stomach what it would mean if it were true...
...I think that if there is some nefarious conspiracy afoot, that they conspirators would breathe easy knowing that the insanity of the plot would make it unbelievable to most pragmatists...
The most vaunted article that attempts to debunk the most common 9/11 conspiracies was the Popular Mechanics article entitled:
9/11: Debunking The Myths
It's really quite an amazing coincidence that the senior research editor for that piece was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of the Director of Homeland Security...
Then of course the conspiracy theorists set out to debunk the debunkers...have they accomplished that?
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
If one should take the time to take a closer look at the official government story of the events of 9/11, you find that they defy logic far too often to be factual...if you don't want to see that, then that's your business...but you should not deride those that would like to know the truth, if there is any...
9/11: Debunking The Myths
It's really quite an amazing coincidence that the senior research editor for that piece was Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of the Director of Homeland Security...
Then of course the conspiracy theorists set out to debunk the debunkers...have they accomplished that?
Reply to Popular Mechanics re 9/11
If one should take the time to take a closer look at the official government story of the events of 9/11, you find that they defy logic far too often to be factual...if you don't want to see that, then that's your business...but you should not deride those that would like to know the truth, if there is any...
That is not entirely true. I thought your arguments were reasonable and I admitted that the bit of video tape was not enough evidence to prove anything. I also said that the events in 1963 when JFK was killed also resulted in tons of conspiracy theories as well. Anyway, these things would be better topics to discuss if there weren't so many lives cut short.
RE: Questioning what happ
Personally with reguards to Tower 7 there are a lot more questions reguarding its collapse than answers.
Personally with reguards to Tower 7 there are a lot more questions reguarding its collapse than answers.
Reader Comments On Disbelief Tehran Building Didn't Collapse
As you will be aware, a C-130 hit a building in Tehran. Everyone on board (94 passengers and crew) are dead.
I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.
I have no idea what went wrong. How can these people build a structure that withstands the ferocious fires fuelled in part by jet-fuel, when the Americans lose not only the buildings that were hit by planes, but also a selection of Silverstein-owned surrounding buildings?
I think the Americans (and the rest of us) should rush over to Iran and ask their architects to help out with decent designs!
More
As you will be aware, a C-130 hit a building in Tehran. Everyone on board (94 passengers and crew) are dead.
I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.
I have no idea what went wrong. How can these people build a structure that withstands the ferocious fires fuelled in part by jet-fuel, when the Americans lose not only the buildings that were hit by planes, but also a selection of Silverstein-owned surrounding buildings?
I think the Americans (and the rest of us) should rush over to Iran and ask their architects to help out with decent designs!
More
RE: Questioning what happ
Do you guys remember what gave Hitler power? He had his party burn down the Reichstagg and claimed it was the commies trying to destabilize the country. In reality, it was him that was trying to destabilize the country, yet it gave him the reason to pass the enabling act, which gave him absolute power and stripped the German citizens of all their power to do anything. The Bush administration passed the patriot act. I've read the entire act, and all of the documents it ammended. Basically, if you are labelled a terrorist, you have no rights in the US. They can put you under surveilence of all kinds, arrest you without cause, and detain you indefinitely on nothing more than suspician. What do they need to label you a terrorist? Whatever they can muster really, as they left it rather vague. I think to understand truly what is happening in the US, you have to look at the whole picture, and you'll start to see how worrying our neighbors to the south are.
Recently in ohio they passed some interesting new laws making it illegal to criticize the electronic voting machines they use. The machines can be easily tampered with, and in the last election some of the machines would light up Bush after selecting kerry. Two referenda that they had that used these machines ended up with opposite results of what polls suggested, and the difference obviousely proved tampering. Similar legislation in other republican dominated states is also being pushed through at the moment.
Keep a real close eye on the next election, it's most likely going to end with a straight up tie. They'll do a recount and get the same result. This will result in another vote, with the republicans winning. The purpose of it will be to divide the country so on the second time around the entire country will solidify under the elected leader. After this, you'll see the most nationalistic country in history, and more wars are going to be waged in the middle east. Eventually, tension over scarce resources and rising aggression from many countries will create a misunderstanding that will bring us into WWIII.
Why? Many don't see it, but civilization has peaked, along with most resource production. We've entered a scenario where there isn't enough for everyone to live like we do, but the rest of the world still thinks they're going to. China played the US quite nicely by tieing their money together so the US can't break their promise without retaliation, while simultaneousely using money made from their trade relationship to build their army to invade anyone they see fit.
The thing to remember about the mentality of political relations between countries is that everyone is trying to get the upper edge, but what happens when a giant loses the upper edge to a country they could easily squash? Politicians need to tread lightly with foreign policy these days, as we're reaching the same levels of economic turmoil that led us into WWII.
We have to watch our backs because we have what everyone wants, arable land and vast resources.
I can't prove most of what i'm suggesting, it's more like a very educated guess based on what is being done, and the situation we'll be facing in the near future. However, the ideas that i'm suggesting weren't thought up by me, and have been around for centuries as political strategics. I just read them, and noticed which ones fit our current situation.
Do you guys remember what gave Hitler power? He had his party burn down the Reichstagg and claimed it was the commies trying to destabilize the country. In reality, it was him that was trying to destabilize the country, yet it gave him the reason to pass the enabling act, which gave him absolute power and stripped the German citizens of all their power to do anything. The Bush administration passed the patriot act. I've read the entire act, and all of the documents it ammended. Basically, if you are labelled a terrorist, you have no rights in the US. They can put you under surveilence of all kinds, arrest you without cause, and detain you indefinitely on nothing more than suspician. What do they need to label you a terrorist? Whatever they can muster really, as they left it rather vague. I think to understand truly what is happening in the US, you have to look at the whole picture, and you'll start to see how worrying our neighbors to the south are.
Recently in ohio they passed some interesting new laws making it illegal to criticize the electronic voting machines they use. The machines can be easily tampered with, and in the last election some of the machines would light up Bush after selecting kerry. Two referenda that they had that used these machines ended up with opposite results of what polls suggested, and the difference obviousely proved tampering. Similar legislation in other republican dominated states is also being pushed through at the moment.
Keep a real close eye on the next election, it's most likely going to end with a straight up tie. They'll do a recount and get the same result. This will result in another vote, with the republicans winning. The purpose of it will be to divide the country so on the second time around the entire country will solidify under the elected leader. After this, you'll see the most nationalistic country in history, and more wars are going to be waged in the middle east. Eventually, tension over scarce resources and rising aggression from many countries will create a misunderstanding that will bring us into WWIII.
Why? Many don't see it, but civilization has peaked, along with most resource production. We've entered a scenario where there isn't enough for everyone to live like we do, but the rest of the world still thinks they're going to. China played the US quite nicely by tieing their money together so the US can't break their promise without retaliation, while simultaneousely using money made from their trade relationship to build their army to invade anyone they see fit.
The thing to remember about the mentality of political relations between countries is that everyone is trying to get the upper edge, but what happens when a giant loses the upper edge to a country they could easily squash? Politicians need to tread lightly with foreign policy these days, as we're reaching the same levels of economic turmoil that led us into WWII.
We have to watch our backs because we have what everyone wants, arable land and vast resources.
I can't prove most of what i'm suggesting, it's more like a very educated guess based on what is being done, and the situation we'll be facing in the near future. However, the ideas that i'm suggesting weren't thought up by me, and have been around for centuries as political strategics. I just read them, and noticed which ones fit our current situation.
Re: RE: Questioning what happ
The Patriot Act, The Victory Act, P.N.A.C.'s Rebuilding of America's Defences all spell out what they have planned for the American people and anyone else who stands in their way.
More people need to wake up and see whats coming and whats already here!
Alberta'sfinest said:
The Patriot Act, The Victory Act, P.N.A.C.'s Rebuilding of America's Defences all spell out what they have planned for the American people and anyone else who stands in their way.
More people need to wake up and see whats coming and whats already here!
As you will be aware, a C-130 hit a building in Tehran. Everyone on board (94 passengers and crew) are dead.
I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.
I have no idea what went wrong. How can these people build a structure that withstands the ferocious fires fuelled in part by jet-fuel, when the Americans lose not only the buildings that were hit by planes, but also a selection of Silverstein-owned surrounding buildings?
I think the Americans (and the rest of us) should rush over to Iran and ask their architects to help out with decent designs!
----------------------------------jjw1965-------------------
That proves nothing.
You and I have both seen demolition experts not bring down a building.
So in one case dynamite or compound explosives set up by the experts fails, or succeeds.
In another case a building still stands or falls after a plane crashes into it. Angle of the dangle? Height of impact? Velocity?
Proves nothing.
Without more examination.
I waited and waited for the building to collapse like a house of cards.. {Because that's what happens if a plane hits a building ya know}... But as yet nothing of the sort has happened.
I have no idea what went wrong. How can these people build a structure that withstands the ferocious fires fuelled in part by jet-fuel, when the Americans lose not only the buildings that were hit by planes, but also a selection of Silverstein-owned surrounding buildings?
I think the Americans (and the rest of us) should rush over to Iran and ask their architects to help out with decent designs!
----------------------------------jjw1965-------------------
That proves nothing.
You and I have both seen demolition experts not bring down a building.
So in one case dynamite or compound explosives set up by the experts fails, or succeeds.
In another case a building still stands or falls after a plane crashes into it. Angle of the dangle? Height of impact? Velocity?
Proves nothing.
Without more examination.
Re: RE: Questioning what happened on 9/11
OK, what do you have to offer that the planes did bring down the towers and I'm just a conspiracy nutjob. And I don't want to hear about jet fuel and pancakes.
And as far as any examination, they went through a whole lot of trouble to get rid of the evidence when it was a crime scene, Dredging out the bottom of the river so barges loaded down with steel could remove all the evidence.
jimmoyer said:
OK, what do you have to offer that the planes did bring down the towers and I'm just a conspiracy nutjob. And I don't want to hear about jet fuel and pancakes.
And as far as any examination, they went through a whole lot of trouble to get rid of the evidence when it was a crime scene, Dredging out the bottom of the river so barges loaded down with steel could remove all the evidence.
I really don't know jjw1965.
Sincerely.
What I look for is followup past all the questions ---some confirmation repeated by different sources who preferably don't like each other.
And then I can't be sure any more than you strive to be.
You ask a lot of questions and surmise an awful lot and you insinuate a lot, but none of that passes for proof and you know that.
But I'll give you one thing. I never heard about that bomb in a van.
Although I notice in that video that the reporter from MSNBC only reported the police surmising of a bomb in the van. And then what? Was it proven. Followup on that ?
You did get me to look at that. I'll keep that one as a question in the back of my mind.
There was a bomb in a van in 1993 that killed 6 people on the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center that blackened the basement garage and caused some structural foundation damage that took over a year to repair.
Sincerely.
What I look for is followup past all the questions ---some confirmation repeated by different sources who preferably don't like each other.
And then I can't be sure any more than you strive to be.
You ask a lot of questions and surmise an awful lot and you insinuate a lot, but none of that passes for proof and you know that.
But I'll give you one thing. I never heard about that bomb in a van.
Although I notice in that video that the reporter from MSNBC only reported the police surmising of a bomb in the van. And then what? Was it proven. Followup on that ?
You did get me to look at that. I'll keep that one as a question in the back of my mind.
There was a bomb in a van in 1993 that killed 6 people on the first attempt to bring down the World Trade Center that blackened the basement garage and caused some structural foundation damage that took over a year to repair.
RE: Questioning what happ
The only thing I can say is that when a major catastrophy happens, we scrutinize everything, sift through the evidence time and time over until we were absolutely sure. When a plane crashes, we collect every last nut and bolt that we can find, and try to piece together what happened, even if we had accounts from pilots. The only time that this isn't done, is if someone was trying to cover it up.
I think the biggest piece of evidence that points to a conspiracy is the fact that if a commercial plane deviates from it's flight path by more than a few Km. they are automatically contacted by the nearest air traffic controller. If they don't give a concrete reason for changing course, military planes are on it like white on rice. Don't believe me, try and fly an airplane 50km without filing a flight plan. It's a safety measure, and for it to fail is almost impossible.
The US also has the motive. We are entering an era of energy shortages where a superpower like the US doesn't want to let any country gain leverage over them through oil. These countries, many that do hate the US, could use their ability to manipulate oil supplies to collapse the American economy, and consequently the entire global economy. The US needed to do this to have a reason to move into the area and make sure that friendly governments are put in place to limit this possibility. If I was an American I'd support this because it is a serious danger that could have catastrophic effects. As a Canadian, I see it as them stealing oil from countries that are too small to defend their oil. The US is using a very large percentage of the oil imported from this region to fill giant salt caverns to reserve oil for a major conflict. What they're saying, and what they're doing don't coincide, so I call bullshit.
The only thing I can say is that when a major catastrophy happens, we scrutinize everything, sift through the evidence time and time over until we were absolutely sure. When a plane crashes, we collect every last nut and bolt that we can find, and try to piece together what happened, even if we had accounts from pilots. The only time that this isn't done, is if someone was trying to cover it up.
I think the biggest piece of evidence that points to a conspiracy is the fact that if a commercial plane deviates from it's flight path by more than a few Km. they are automatically contacted by the nearest air traffic controller. If they don't give a concrete reason for changing course, military planes are on it like white on rice. Don't believe me, try and fly an airplane 50km without filing a flight plan. It's a safety measure, and for it to fail is almost impossible.
The US also has the motive. We are entering an era of energy shortages where a superpower like the US doesn't want to let any country gain leverage over them through oil. These countries, many that do hate the US, could use their ability to manipulate oil supplies to collapse the American economy, and consequently the entire global economy. The US needed to do this to have a reason to move into the area and make sure that friendly governments are put in place to limit this possibility. If I was an American I'd support this because it is a serious danger that could have catastrophic effects. As a Canadian, I see it as them stealing oil from countries that are too small to defend their oil. The US is using a very large percentage of the oil imported from this region to fill giant salt caverns to reserve oil for a major conflict. What they're saying, and what they're doing don't coincide, so I call bullshit.