# 911 Coverups?



## Ed (Sep 30, 2007)

Considering theres some political discussion here I was wondering what peoples thoughts are here toward any possible 911 government coverups. 

Just how much did the government know about these attacks in advance? If there is a coverup of some kind, is it because they would rather detract people from their own incompetence on that day? Or did they allow it to happen so they would have a reason for their war on terror? Or something far more serious, that they actually planned and carried it out in some way?

I think its clear the government lies to us. We already know they lied about the WMDs and we know they did know terrorists might use hijacked planes as weapons contrary to some of their statements. So I think its pretty clear there is a coverup of some kind, but how deep does it go?

EDIT: In case anyone happens accross this first post. Please watch 911 Press for Truth. 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360&q=press+for+truth&total=820&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &amp;plindex=0)


----------



## Alex W (Sep 30, 2007)

The idea that the US government planned 911 and carried it out themselves is retarded.


----------



## Ed (Sep 30, 2007)

So you dont believe there is a cover up *in any way*?


----------



## Alex W (Sep 30, 2007)

well while there's no substantial evidence of one, *no*.


----------



## Ed (Sep 30, 2007)

Alex W @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> well while there's no substantial evidence of one, *no*.



They lied about not having any warning or knowledge of a terrorist threat involving hijacked planes, and they lied about the existence of WMDs. Either of those is a cover up even if thats all it ever amounted to. So again, do you still not believe in any form of cover up?


----------



## Alex W (Sep 30, 2007)

I'll be the first to agree that the stuff about WMDs was blatant propaganda, although the Iraq war justification is too complex an issue to go into right now.

What are you talking about when you say they lied about not having a warning about a terrorist threat involving planes?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 30, 2007)

On a whole I think the conspiracy theories are ludicrous. The only remotely plausible one is that the government knew something. If they actually let it happen I doubt (but it's not technically impossible, like some of the others). It's more likely that they knew something general, and try hide their incompetence (intelligence reports suggest so). 

But I agree with Alex that the thought that they somehow are behind it is indeed retarded, just like a majority of the other theories. 

In fact conspiracy theorists are one of the population groups that can really wind me up! :D


----------



## José Herring (Sep 30, 2007)

It's not cover up. It's known as back pedaling. Kind of a save your ass type of thinking.

There where plenty of warnings and signs that an attack would occur "again" on the WTC buildings. But people were to worried about their jobs, career advancement, getting elected, ect.... and just assumed that somebody else like the CIA or FBI would handle it. But then nobody realized that the people in the CIA or FBI are also more worried about their jobs, career advancement and playing the politics to get ahead. So nobody was really paying any attention to what was happening.

So when something does happen then everybody starts the finger pointing. People get fired, other people get blamed, ect.... All in an effort to protect their own jobs, careers advancement, ect....

Basically nobody knew what was happening because really nobody was paying attention. In America we'd like to think that there are "secret" government agencies or the CIA or the FBI looking out for threats, ect....But both organizations have proven time and time again that they have no clue as to what's really going on. And if they do they're usually pretty afraid to do anything about it because if they make a mistake they lose their jobs, careers thus their house mortgages, kids private schools and ect...

So nobody does anything. It's pretty classic. It's obvious. Yet nobody admits it. But all you have to do is just think of the last time anybody in the government ever got anything done and you'll realize that most of the "conspiracies" that people complain about are just incompetencies.

Jose


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 30, 2007)

Well said.. I agree completely!


----------



## Ed (Sep 30, 2007)

Alex W @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> I'll be the first to agree that the stuff about WMDs was blatant propaganda, although the Iraq war justification is too complex an issue to go into right now.



The propaganda about saying they knew for a fact Saddam had WMDs, that they even knew where they were and that Iraq aided Bin Laden *all *turned out to be false and Bush has since admitted Iraq had "nothing" to do with 911. Now the truth has come out they have tried to claim they didnt say and play down what they very obviously did say at the time as a reason to go to war. Since they clearly didnt know Saddam had any weapons at all what was their reason to go to war? I dont claim to know what those reasons are but whatever the case they at least _covered up_ the fact that they lied about it. This may be "propaganda" (and propaganda is dishonest by definition) but that doesnt mean it wasnt a coverup because its not a conspiracy theory like the "moon-landing hoax" or the assassination of JFK because it is, for the same reason. 

I think Iraq is relevant when talking about 911 because without 911 the government would in all likelyhood never have been able to galvanize the public to make them angry and scared enough to think invading at least two countries (at the moment) for a "war on terrorism" was a good idea. And would they have gotten away with passing the Patriot act without it? I personally very much doubt it. 



> What are you talking about when you say they lied about not having a warning about a terrorist threat involving planes?



Bush and other senior officials including the director of the FBI stated several times in different ways that they had no warnings of 911 or that terrorists might use hijacked planes as weapons. Id give you some links but you only have to quickly google this fact to see. The question therefore isnt if they lied, but why. Just what are they covering up? Either its just incompetence and complete failure of the system, which seems rather implausible to me, or its something more. How much more, if there is anymore, is unknown; but whatever the case its still a coverup by definition. 

Ed


----------



## synthetic (Sep 30, 2007)

The tinfoil hat people will always find something to stress over. The idea that it's more likely that the US carried out the 9/11 attacks than Bin Laden (who had tried it once before with car bombs) shows that some people will believe anything.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Sep 30, 2007)

I think it's pretty simple. There were general warnings, just like 100's of others they get on a monthly basis. Some warnings did concern hi-jacking of planes which would then be crashed into high profile buildings. 

Now - when they say they did not know of such an attack they likely mean that they did not know of that specific attack (9/11). Atleast not enough to in any way prevent it.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

*Operation Northwoods*



Alex W @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> The idea that the US government planned 911 and carried it out themselves is retarded.



Really? Maybe you never heard of Operation Northwoods?



> Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.



http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7610092681841880478 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1841880478)

Also, Hitler's government put the German Parliament on fire and blamed it on Communism terrorism and used it as an excuse to invade Poland. And there's plenty more example of that. For example the Vietnam war was started based on a lie by Lindon Jonson who said the Vietnamese fires first on a US boat which was later prove to be a lie that was use as an excuse for war.

So as you can see it is not retard to suspect the US government would kill their own
and use it as a pretext to start a war. BTW, every body knows the war with Iraq was base on lies and the result killed more than 400 Americans, how is that different?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

The intelligence failure theory just doesn't cut it. I'm surprise you support that Jose.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

synthetic @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> The tinfoil hat people will always find something to stress over. The idea that it's more likely that the US carried out the 9/11 attacks than Bin Laden (who had tried it once before with car bombs) shows that some people will believe anything.



Let me ask you this, how hard is it for an f16 to catch a 767 that has transponders in them? The fact is NORAR, the guys in charge of protecting the north American skys, did successfully intercept 67 airliners in the year preceding 911 with in minutes. And yet they could not intercept one planes on 911? So is this a NORAD failure too? 

The US spends as much on military than all other nation combines but all you need is a few angry Muslim with box cotters to deliver a sever blow to the US, that IMO is ridiculous.


----------



## Dave Connor (Sep 30, 2007)

josejherring @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> It's not cover up. It's known as back pedaling. Kind of a save your ass type of thinking.Jose



Exactly.

Also, don't forget the screeners at the airlines let these guys on the planes with repeated failings of metal detector tests. Actually let them on board never knowing what was setting the detector off. So it's hard to blame that on a conspiracy cause these were regular folks.

The failings to prevent 9/11 ranged so far and wide as to stagger the mind.


----------



## Niah (Sep 30, 2007)

Personally I don't believe that the US government was responsible for it, and I don't think that's relevant. What is relevant to me is how the US government took advantage of such event: Bush's reelection, homeland security, war in Iraq, etc etc...

All those conspiracy theories are politically motivated and deviate from the real problems that are happening right now because of what happened in 911.


----------



## navidson (Sep 30, 2007)

> Let me ask you this, how hard is it for an f16 to catch a 767 that has transponders in them? The fact is NORAR, the guys in charge of protecting the north American skys, did successfully intercept 67 airliners in the year preceding 911 with in minutes. And yet they could not intercept one planes on 911? So is this a NORAD failure too?
> 
> The US spends as much on military than all other nation combines but all you need is a few angry Muslim with box cotters to deliver a sever blow to the US, that IMO is ridiculous.



Very nice, a string of rhetorical questions rounded off by an appeal to ridicule... although you forgot the obligatory "Open your eyes, sheeple!!"

Here's a rhetorical question of my own: why do some Americans believe that the only concievable threat to their country is their own government, and that an outside entity is able to cause such a historical event of destruction is completely absurd?


----------



## choc0thrax (Sep 30, 2007)

The U.S. government isn't competent enough to have been behind the attacks on 911.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

navidson @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> > Let me ask you this, how hard is it for an f16 to catch a 767 that has transponders in them? The fact is NORAR, the guys in charge of protecting the north American skys, did successfully intercept 67 airliners in the year preceding 911 with in minutes. And yet they could not intercept one planes on 911? So is this a NORAD failure too?
> >
> > The US spends as much on military than all other nation combines but all you need is a few angry Muslim with box cotters to deliver a sever blow to the US, that IMO is ridiculous.
> 
> ...



Because 911 was to big for terrorist. You know there's defence system against those type of attacks right? And it works and it was effective 67 time during the 9 months preceding 911.


----------



## Ed (Sep 30, 2007)

Niah @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> I don't see how.
> 
> The US government didn't need to cover up anything, *everything played in favor of their goals.*
> 911 made people afraid, so it is no surprise that Bush won the next elections, (the man who promised to protect America from terrorists attacks and to catch bin landen).



Exactly everything played in favour of their goals. I hate conspiracy theories but there seems like rather a lot of coincidences surrounding these issues which all seem rather implausible that they all occured all at the same time once you start to see them all mount up. But anyway, you said Bush "took advantage" of 911, which would make the lies a "conspiracy", in order to conceal their agendas, wouldnt it? I dont see how you can say you accept they lied to take advantage of the situation and not accept this was a "conspiracy", at least of some kind. I think you think conspiracy means something more than it does, because by definiton you propose a conspiracy. Once you talk about why they did what they did, you start to propose a conspiracy "theory". 



> Few people opposed the homeland security thing because everybody agreed that inòöÔ   bâsöÔ   bâtöÔ   bâuöÔ   bâvöÔ   bâwöÔ   bâxöÔ   bâyöÔ   bâzöÔ   bâ{öÔ   bâ|öÔ   bâ}öÔ   bâ~öÕ   bâöÕ   bâ€öÕ   bâöÕ   bâ‚öÕ   bâƒöÕ   bâ„öÕ   bâ…öÕ   bâ†öÕ   bâ‡öÕ   bâˆöÕ   bâ‰öÕ   bâŠöÕ   bâ‹öÕ   bâŒöÕ   bâöÕ   bâŽöÕ   bâöÕ   bâöÕ   bâ‘öÕ   bâ’öÕ   bâ“öÕ   bâ”öÖ   bâ•öÖ   bâ–öÖ   bâ—öÖ   bâ˜öÖ   bâ™öÖ   bâšöÖ   bâ›öÖ   bâœöÖ   bâöÖ   bâžöÖ   bâŸöÖ   bâ ö×   bâ¡ö×   bâ¢ö×   bâ£ö×   bâ¤ö×   bâ¥ö×   bâ¦öØ   bâ§öØ   bâ¨öØ   bâ©öØ   bâªöØ   bâ«öØ   bâ¬öØ   bâ­öØ   bâ®öØ   bâ¯öØ   bâ°öØ   bâ±öØ   bâ²öØ   bâ³öØ   bâ´öØ   bâµöØ   bâ¶öØ   bâ·öØ   bâ¸öØ   bâ¹öØ   bâºöØ   bâ»öØ   bâ¼öØ   bâ½öØ   bâ¾öØ   bâ¿öØ   bâÀöØ   bâÁöØ   bâÂöØ   bâÃöØ   bâÄöØ   bâÅöØ   bâÆöØ   bâÇöØ   bâÈöØ   bâÉöØ   bâÊöØ   bâËöØ   bâÌöØ   bâÍöØ   bâÎöØ   bâÏöØ   bâÐöØ   bâÑöØ   bâÒöØ   bâÓöØ   bâÔöØ   bâÕöØ   bâÖöØ   bâ×öØ   bâØöØ   bâÙöØ   bâÚöØ   bâÛöØ   bâÜöØ   bâÝöØ   bâÞöØ   bâßöØ   bâàöØ   bâáöØ   bââ              òöØ   bâäöØ   bâåöØ   bâæöØ   bâçöØ   bâèöÙ   bâéöÙ   bâêöÙ   bâëöÙ   bâìöÙ   bâíöÙ   bâîöÙ   bâïöÙ   bâðöÙ   bâñöÙ   bâòöÙ   bâóöÙ   bâôöÙ   bâõöÙ   bâööÙ   bâ÷öÙ   bâøöÙ   bâùöÙ   bâúöÙ   bâûöÙ   bâüöÙ   bâýöÙ   bâþöÙ   bâÿöÙ   bã öÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bã	öÙ   bã
> öÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bã öÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÙ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bãöÚ   bã öÚ   bã!öÚ   bã"öÚ   bã#öÚ   bã$öÚ   bã%öÚ   bã&öÚ   bã'öÚ   bã(öÚ   bã)öÚ   bã*öÛ   bã+öÛ   bã,öÛ   bã-öÛ   bã.öÛ   bã/öÛ   bã0öÛ   bã1öÛ   bã2öÛ   bã3öÛ   bã4öÛ   bã5öÛ   bã6öÛ   bã7öÛ   bã8öÛ   bã9öÛ   bã:öÛ   bã;öÛ   bã<öÛ   bã=öÛ   bã>öÛ   bã?öÛ   bã@öÛ   bãAöÛ   bãBöÛ   bãCöÛ   bãDöÛ   bãEöÛ   bãFöÛ   bãGöÛ   bãHöÛ   bãIöÛ   bãJöÛ   bãKöÛ   bãLöÛ   bãMöÛ   bãNöÛ   bãOöÛ   bãPöÛ   bãQöÛ   bãRöÛ   bãS              òöÛ   bãUöÛ   bãVöÛ   bãWöÛ   bãXöÛ   bãYöÛ   bãZöÛ   bã[öÛ   bã\öÛ   bã]öÛ   bã^öÛ   bã_öÛ   bã`öÛ


----------



## madbulk (Sep 30, 2007)

synthetic @ Sun Sep 30 said:


> I don't want to get sucked into this. Believe what you want to. Just step away from the web browser and think once in a while.



+1
Sorry to bump this thing at all, but it's sitting at maybe number three right now anyway. No offense, Ed. It's out there and lots of people are interested in it. I'm just casting my vote.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Sep 30, 2007)

I think it's important to understand something. Let's say you're ''the'' super power and a democracy at the same time with no other super power to challenge you. For some in this position it is logical to think they should take advantage of this situation to secure resources that are essential to their empire and it's future growth, or just an opportunity to get richer for others etc... So the next step is to take the necessary action to reach that goal and if that includes invading a country that has done nothing to you so be it. So now you have a few choice in front of you. You can just be honest about it and launch an attack against the country with the resources that you need and hope the people will support you. But since you're a democracy and the people in this democracy believe in freedom it's very unlikely they will approve your plan and even unlikelier they will re-elect you in the next election. You also know that your military might will make sure the invasion is rather easy and your opponent will turn to gorilla warfare as it is logical for the under dog to do in these situation. Now we know people always cheer for the under dog situations like that and the rest of the world will look at you as an evil empire/oppressor and you will loose support. 

But what if you could find an excuse to invade that country and turn your future enemy/resistance into the bad guys at the same time by committing the worse crime imaginable and blame it on them? This is where a false flag operation or a black up against your own people come in very handy. You create an opportunity for war, a war that the people will support and nobody will blame you for and demonize your future opponent making sure nobody will care about their cause so you wont be viewed by the rest of the world as this evil empire.

Now did the US manifest it's desire to secure oil in the middle east? Yes they did in the paper Rebuilding America's Defences written by the PNAC in sept 2000. Here's an interesting quot from this paper:



> The process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one absent some catastrophic and catalysing event like a new Pearl Harbour



http://www.youtube.com/watcò÷   bí/÷   bí0÷   bí1÷   bí2÷   bí3÷   bí4÷   bí5÷   bí6÷   bí7÷   bí8÷   bí9÷   bí:÷   bí;÷   bí<÷   bí=÷   bí>÷   bí?÷   bí@÷   bíA÷   bíB÷   bíC÷   bíD÷   bíE÷   bíF÷   bíG÷   bíH÷   bíI÷   bíJ÷   bíK÷   bíL÷   bíM÷   bíN÷   bíO÷   bíP÷   bíQ÷   bíR


----------



## Alex W (Oct 1, 2007)

Ed @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> They got rather a lot more than general warnings. For example even so much as two years before 911 they actually had a federal report that warned them that terrorists in Al-Qaida might hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon.



Still sounds pretty general to me.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 1, 2007)

Alex W @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Ed @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > They got rather a lot more than general warnings. For example even so much as two years before 911 they actually had a federal report that warned them that terrorists in Al-Qaida might hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon.
> ...



Exactly... 

I doubt they had any reports of the 9/11 attack. You can't rule it out 100% but there is no evidence to support it at least.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 1, 2007)

Anyone involved in video production (myself included) just rolls their eyes at these conspiracy videos. They spend hours attacking garden variety standard def interlaced NTSC artifacts. Or they attack uneventful shading changes based on the angle of the shot, which is even more ridiculous. Just go out and film some planes or birds etc from different angles and you will often end up with silhouettes.

Unfortunately many people are ignorant of such ho-hum things and swallow this junk right up.

They also consistently assemble brief confused quotes out of context.

Some of the home videos do cut out before the impact. Here's why...

"Oh jeeze towers hit!...."

6 minutes later...

"Oh I'll just pause this for awhile until something interesting happens"

2 seconds later plane hits

"Oh no! start filming quick!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Consumer camcorder takes a few seconds to actually start taping. Oops, missed the explosion.

There are other tapes with clear full views of the planes hitting.

Granted, some of the doctoring/editing of some footage is plainly evident, especially with regards to sound de-syncing. Most likely simple edits for dramatic effect by the media "hey bubba, get that frightened gasp in there earlier!"

There remain a few tapes that are a little more interesting with very obvious planned edits. And conveniently, the original footage straight from cam is nowhere to be found anywhere, much of it having been sold to major networks (at a very handsome price no doubt). Chances are, even if we had the raw footage of those videos, they may show nothing special.

Of course, everyone loves a good conspiracy. Legitimate investigation is good... I wish the nuts would do actual compelling investigative reports instead of concocting embarrassing ill-informed attempts to make the NTSC standard into a magical secret ghost world of unexplained phenomenon.

The most hilarious videos are the ones where they go through, frame-by-frame, on _INTERLACED_ footage, and say "look! two planes! then one plane! then two!" That's about as retarded as saying gravity sends you flying to Mars riding on an inflatable peacock drenched in mayonnaise.

The complete ignorance of how the audio circuitry in camcorders works is also embarassing... any numbnut who's ever filmed anything knows that loud, and especially deep volume is wiped right out. Just go film fireworks as a simple demonstration. The auto-voice-leveling (i.e. limiter) in the vast majority of camcorders also contributes. The shots of the explosion, where the crowd screaming right next to the camera operator are clearly audible, yet the jet thrust then impact is quiet is just what you would expect. That's how they are designed. It's why they sounds like poop no matter where and what you film with them.

Really these 9/11 conspiracy films are preying on ignorance of the laws of physics. It's interesting to ponder if the authors of these films have truly deluded themselves as well, and just refused to learn about video and audio technology, or if they are in on the joke and are calculatedly shamming people.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 1, 2007)

They have established themselves (also financially) around these conspiracies, which means they could never leave them - no matter how ridiculous they are.


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

[quote:d63a0b280a="Alò÷L   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c ÷M   c  ÷M   c !÷M   c "÷M   c #÷M   c $÷M   c %÷M   c &÷M   c '÷M   c (÷M   c )÷M   c *÷N   c +÷N   c ,÷N   c -÷N   c .÷N   c /÷N   c 0÷N   c 1÷N   c 2÷N   c 3÷N   c 4÷N   c 5÷N   c 6÷N   c 7÷N   c 8÷N   c 9÷N   c :÷N   c ;÷N   c <÷N   c =÷N   c >÷N   c ?÷N   c @÷O   c A÷O   c B÷O   c C÷O   c D÷O   c E÷O   c F÷O   c G÷O   c H÷O   c I÷O   c J÷O   c K÷O   c L÷O   c M÷O   c N÷O   c O÷O   c P÷O   c Q÷O   c R÷O   c S÷O   c T÷O   c U÷O   c V÷O   c W÷O   c


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2007)

I have to admit that they did have me going about the WTC being a controlled demolition for a few minutes a couple of years ago. That doesn't mean I took the next step to say our own government did it, but the WTC doesn't fall the way you'd expect it to fall. Then they say all this stuff about it going at free-fall speed, etc.

But then if you think about it, it wasn't such a neat collapse - both buildings sent debris all over for miles, and the things just collapsed under their own weight. It would take months to plant all those explosives anyway, and it would be nearly impossible to do that undetected.

Plus it's completely farfetched in the first place.

Also, the shots of the Pentagon after the plane crashed don't look like you'd expect it to look. There's no plane-shaped indentation, etc.

But this is reality and not a TV show. People saw the plane fly into the building, and the plane is gone.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 1, 2007)

Ed @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> Alex W @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> ...



So what you're basically saying is, 2 years before 9/11/01, the US government knew that Al-Qaeda might hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon at some point in the future. Therefore, they conspired to let it happen.

That's a weak argument, requiring a significant leap of faith on your part.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

Where were the air exercises happening? Remember that the USA is really, really big. It's not like England where you can get from one end to the other in 2 minutes on full afterburner. And if they were running exercises, then they probably weren't carrying live ammunition!

Sure, we knew this was possible. Heck, Tom Clancy wrote Debt of Honor in 1994 and wiped out the entire government with an airplane like that. Sure, the military could have done more, and I'm sure everyone involved is haunted by that. But the idea that they caused it is so ridiculous that I could have only read it on the internet.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2007)

I don't blame our administration for not detecting this, by the way. In hindsight it sounds like some people were arrogant and they ignored warnings, but saying they should have known is a little too easy.

Now, if you want my opinion about the reaction to this tragedy, that's another matter...


----------



## SvK (Oct 1, 2007)

The title of this thread is "retarded".......

it's exactly the kind of thing that gives serious democrats a bad name.

If your a democrat and believe such non-sense, stay of our side.....please

SvK


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> :roll:
> If the government was truly involved and these guy's information was true, well, they'd be the first to go in the government's process to cover up their involvement.


You mean the 911 Commission? The committee that was picked by Bush? The Committee where the executive staff director Philip D. Zelikow served on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board spending three years on the National Security Council working with both Bush and Condoleezza Rice and even helping write her book? The other members seem to have other interesting conflicts of interest, but Zelikow leading the commission seems like a pretty big problem with it already. I really dont see if the government were involved in some way why the 911 Commission would, out of everyone, be "the first" to expose it?

More information on the 911 Commissions problems here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commi ... commission



> It even reads that Iraq had nothing to do with the 911 terrorists attacks, so no one can claim it is trying to cover up government mishaps.



Thats what Bush eventually had to admit as well, along with the fact that "it turned out he didnt have any [WMDs]" after all, but previously he had said Saddam aided Al-Qaeda and implied links from 911 to Iraq in several different ways. 

You dont have to believe in full scale 911 -inside job- conspiracy theory to see the governent is telling naughty fibs and see that they need to be made to take responsibility for them.

Ed


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

SvK @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> The title of this thread is "retarded".......
> 
> it's exactly the kind of thing that gives serious democrats a bad name.
> 
> If your a democrat and believe such non-sense, stay of our side.....please



Its not retarded, but if you dont believe the government ever lies and "covers-up" truths no matter what then fine. But FYI Im not a democrat, Im not even American. This has nothing to do with republican or democrat imo. BTW if you really looked at the conspiracy theories, and Ill state right now Im not saying I believe them all, they say it doesnt matter what government it is thats in power left or right doesnt matter because its not them thats really in control. Additionally theres also 911 conspiracy debunker sites that also talk of "The Real Conspiracy" involving the government.


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

synthetic @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Where were the air exercises happening? Remember that the USA is really, really big. It's not like England where you can get from one end to the other in 2 minutes on full afterburner. And if they were running exercises, then they probably weren't carrying live ammunition!


That would be a good point, but do you really think they wouldnt they have armed aircraft on standby ready to intercept an ememy aircraft headed for the pentagon at all times? They had sucessfully "escorted" many aircraft in the past that got too close and their responce times have been drastically better than anything that happened on 911, but ignoring all of that the 911 commission was told the war games HELPED, not hindered, the responce. So consequently it cant be true that they were too far away or they werent armed _ because _of the drills. Dont forget they failed not just once but 3 times! And these planes were in roughly the same vicinity.



> Sure, we knew this was possible. Heck, Tom Clancy wrote Debt of Honor in 1994 and wiped out the entire government with an airplane like that... But the idea that they caused it is so ridiculous that I could have only read it on the internet.



Its not so ridiculous when you realise Hitler burned down his own buildings blaming it on the communists and when announcing the Gestapo to the public he said it was necessary to protect their homeland, much like Bush and co go on about terrorists and why we need the Patriot Act (which takes away all your civil rights). Its also not as ridiculous as it seems when you take a look at the declassified 1960 documents of Operation Northwoods where it turns out the US government at the time actually made a plan to see what would happen if it launched terror acts on its own citizens and blame it on the communists and Castro, so as to give them a reason to go to war. When you start to put all the coninsidences together and Northwoods seems rather a lot scarier than a coninsidence considering it was apparenlty signed off by the Joint Chiefs of staff at the time, it starts to not seem quite so ridiculous to suggest anymore. I know I once thought the idea was "retarded", now Im pretty skeptical about the official stories.


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

Alex W @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> So what you're basically saying is, 2 years before 9/11/01, the US government knew that Al-Qaeda might hijack a plane and fly it into the Pentagon at some point in the future. Therefore, they conspired to let it happen.
> 
> That's a weak argument, requiring a significant leap of faith on your part.



Thats not what I said at at all and I didnt even imply such a thing to you! You asked me to show you where they lied about their knowledge of the attack. I told you where, and now you pretend Im talking about something else? Please, Alex. It need not have anything to do with it, but that doesnt mean they didnt lie just as they lied about the WMDs. Theres lots of reasons they could have lied, one is that maybe they didnt want to admit their incompetence on nationl TV.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 1, 2007)

There are so many facts just wrong in almost any 911 conspiracy story that one must concluded after a while that they're just not true.

First this F16 story is just false. Anybody that knows anything about the military knows that no military plane is going to fire into a hijacked plane. For heaven sakes men this isn't a zero tolerance country like Israel where they just unload machine guns into bus loads of people because there's a suspected bomber.

First the fighter planes would have tried to get into radio contact with the pilot, upon that failing they'll try to force the plane down by tactical maneuvers. Failing that they'll fire warning shots. That failing they won't know what to do.

We've had hijackings before. This was nothing new. What is new is that these hijackers where on a suicide mission. No one suspected that.

These supposed "warnings" that something was going to happen would be no reason for alarm as America gets threaten by the middleeast almost daily. They're still doing it.

20/20 hindsight. It's easy to look back and say, "this should have happened, or this, or this and because they didn't the "government" knew about it". That's extremely easy to do. What's hard to do is imagine that somebody in the world would be nuts enough to purposely slam planes into a building. That's hard to do. It takes a lot of confront of evil, which quite frankly not many of us have. 

NORAD or the Pentagon or our military where not prepared for this. Just like Katrina, nobody was prepared for that either. So when it's happening nobody knows what the hell to do. Then again like Katrina after the fact there's a lot of finger pointing and a lot of scared upset people blaming everybody else.

Truth is you can blame yourselves. What did you do to stop 9/11 from happening? Why do we always feel like some government is protecting us. Plenty of ordinary citizens had plenty of info. These hijackers told at least 3 or 4 people what they where about to do and your ordinary citizen did nothing. Are they part of some grand conspiracy too? Or are they just people that had a hard time facing the fact that something bad was going to happen?

So when faced with so many contrary facts you have to throwout the theory. There are plenty of things that the people in government do that is evil. This just isn't one of them. If you have to make up lies to "prove" a conspiracy then the conspiracy is a lie. It's pretty simple to see that.

Jose


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

Ed, if you're right, and "yer either with us, or with the terrorists," then won't MI6 be busting your door down any minute?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 1, 2007)

> In the next video you can clearly see squibs of concrete going off on the side of the building.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqc ... ed&search=
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcl930gu ... ed&search=



Fernando... Here is a rethorical question for you. 

When a building that size starts to collapse, floor, pon floor, upon floor. What do you think happens to all the air in the building?

Heck, I'll answer: Air gets compressed and needs to go somewhere. The pops of dust you see blowing out the windows of WTC _as it collapses_ are exactly that.

As I said... try get the book I mentioned or the History Channel documentary... some of it may be on You Tube.


----------



## Ed (Oct 1, 2007)

josejherring @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> There are so many facts just wrong in almost any 911 conspiracy story that one must concluded after a while that they're just not true.



Unfortunalty theres going to be a lot of disinformation surrounding something like this. Theres a lot of crazy stories going around that are nonsence, for example "no plane theories" which suggest there were any planes at all and the media inserted the footage. 

My position at the moment is that planes piloted by terrorists that hijacked the passenger planes _did in fact _crash into the WTC1 and 2 and the Pentagon, although I think United 93 was shot down which might go someway to explain is why its seems like such a strange crash site. Although some of the men and women that worked at the site did made some rather odd comments about it. 

I did consider the Pentagon crash being rather strange for a while and wondered if it really could been a drone or missile but have since seen enough reason to think it actually was what they say it was as the alternative raises too many problems. Nevertheless, I dont see why they have only released 4 frames of video from a security tape of the event, the quality of which is so bad you really cant see if its even a plane at all! Why not just show the evidence instead of allowing all these conspiracy theroies about drones and missiles to thrive? Most people would be convinced if they could see it, and they allowed all kinds of high quality still images of the pentagon AFTER the crash, so what possible reason could they have to withhold shots of the 757 itself actually crashing? I have no idea. 

I also think some details of WTC7 seems rather suspicious, and theres other eye witness reports including the "911 Hero" that worked as a janitor that said he heard bombs in the basement before the planes hit. Etc etc. Anyway, Im rather on the fense about how much they may have actually participated or not. I just have a lot of questions about it where things dont seem to make sence. Also dont know if Bush really is just a freakin' fruitloop when he stated he was actually _watching _the first plane hit on TV like everyone else, even though he obviously couldnt have seeing as only 1 person filmed it and it wasnt a news station and he was in a school at the time. Bush "seems" pretty slow sometimes so I can imagine this to be the case, still it doesnt help quel the conspiracy theorists any when he can say something so stupid. Speaking of the school thing, that seems rather odd too seeing as how they didnt seem too conserned to rush the president away even though the building was apparently located near an airport. 



> First this F16 story is just false. Anybody that knows anything about the military knows that no military plane is going to fire into a hijacked plane. For heaven sakes men this isn't a zero tolerance country like Israel where they just unload machine guns into bus loads of people because there's a suspected bomber.



Which F16 story do you mean? The one Im talking about was cited by the 911 Commission and its on the public NORAD tapes. And what do you mean they wouldnt ever fire on a hijacked plane? You cant be serious? General Ralph Eberhart the Chief of NORAD told the 911 Commision that _"yes, we could shoot down the airplanes_" and unsurprisingly that this would be the "_force of last resort_.". Of course they would have shot it down, and apparently Cheny did order Flight 93 shot down though they say this wasnt passed onto to the pilots. Today many countries say they would and US fighter pilots are being trained to do just this. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3161354.stm 



> We've had hijackings before. This was nothing new. What is new is that these hijackers where on a suicide mission. No one suspected that.



I think you'd have to be pretty stupid to know terrorists might hijack a plane and use it to crash into government buildings, which they did, yet not be aware they might not be so conserned about their own lives,.



> These supposed "warnings" that something was going to happen would be no reason for alarm as America gets threaten by the middleeast almost daily. They're still doing it.


Fact is they ignored all the imminent warnings yet they still claimed total ignorence concerning *any *of it. 



> What's hard to do is imagine that somebody in the world would be nuts enough to purposely slam planes into a building. That's hard to do. It takes a lot of confront of evil, which quite frankly not many of us have.



Rice didnt say its "hard" to imagine", she said "no one" imagined. This means shes saying the US didnt even considering it because shes saying no one imagined anyone would do such a thing. 



> NORAD or the Pentagon or our military where not prepared for this. Just like Katrina, nobody was prepared for that either. So when it's happening nobody knows what the hell to do. Then again like Katrina after the fact there's a lot of finger pointing and a lot of scared upset people blaming everybody else.



You can say it was a coincidence, and maybe they really _are _that crap, but to me them failing 100% that day to stop all 4 hijacked planes blamed merely on incompetence seems rather implausible but if that were true I believe they the should be investigated properly and someone should be made responsible for such a complete failure.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

> Moonchilde @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > :roll:
> ...



And how would that look huh? Don't you think people might get a little suspicious? 
For now their strategy is to ridicule those who want an other independent investigation by labelling them conspiracy terrorist. Which is kind of funny cause the official story is a conspiracy theory that they cant even prove.

And they covering it up. Just try to contact any of the mainstream media and ask them to show how WT7 came down that day and see what you get.


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 1, 2007)

::sigh::

The problem with 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that they are not interested in rational truth. Like religious fervor, they only want to see things a certain way, regardless of common sense and hard evidence.

They simply ignore any rebuttal and evidence to the contrary, and repost the same illogical videos attacking NTSC artifacts and the law of physics. On youtube, they delete posts exposing their fiction.

Rationality has nothing to do with this kind of thing. They are not skeptics, but rather the idea becomes the end unto itself, the holy word to which they can never stray once entrenched.

This thread is over for me. Please, anyone swallowing these videos, learn about physics and the NTSC standard, and get your facts straight.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> > In the next video you can clearly see squibs of concrete going off on the side of the building.
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncql4Fqc ... ed&search=
> >
> ...



Look again and you will see they are puffs of concrete not glace from the windows or what ever. BTW, a sky scraper is not like a giant tomato that you can squash ƒæ    ãµ÷y   cæ    ã¶÷y   c W    ã·÷{   c È    ã¸÷|   c9    ã¹÷|   cª    ãº÷}   c    ã»÷   cŒ    ã¼÷€   cý    ã½÷€   cn    ã¾÷‚   cß    ã¿÷„   cP    ãÀ÷…   cÁ    ãÁ÷…   c2    ãÂ÷‡   c£    ãÃ÷‡   c    ãÄ÷‡   c…    ãÅ÷Š   cö    ãÆ÷‹   cg    ãÇ÷   cØ    ãÈ÷’   cI    ãÉ÷•   c
    ãÊ÷™   c+    ãË÷™   cœ    ãÌ÷›   c     ãÍ÷ž   c~    ãÎ÷Ÿ   cï    ãÏ÷Ÿ   c`    ãÐ÷    cÑ    ãÑ÷£   c@    ãÒ÷¥   c±    ãÓ÷§   c"    ãÔ÷§   c“    ãÕ÷¨   c    ãÖ÷«   cu    ã×÷­   cæ


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

In the next video you can here the owner of the leas of the WTC complex centre Larry Silverstein admitting he gave the order to pull WT7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

Anyone interested to see what really happens to a sky scraper that burned for several hours should have a look here. Those tow buildings were of the same design. 

http://judicial-inc.biz/Madrid_skyscraper.htm


----------



## Pando (Oct 1, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Why is it that the towers were strong enough to withstands all it's weight and more but could not slow down the collapse? What kind of physics is that? Don't you think it should have slowed down the collapse a bit more?



No. The buildings were designed to withstand their static weight plus a good margin. But when you have quarter of a million tons of mass MOVING, there's no structure that can widthhold it or slow it down in any way, shape, or form.

It's kind of like saying a freight train should slow down considerably when it hits a car at a railroad crossing.



> Here's a fact. *The collapse should have taken much longer *according to the laws of physics as every floors should have offer resistance to the collapse. And you talk about physics? :roll:



How much longer? Write a report showing your detailed calculations, publish it on a scientific and engineerign journals, and see what you get.

You might have a point if the building was a block of solid concrete. Actually, it was mostly air.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

Here's an other fact:

No sky scraper in history ever collapsed due to fire before 911. The only building to ever collapse due to fire all happened on 911. And no the planes did not bring down the towers. According to the official story the fire did.

An other fact: the Bush admin took more than a year before opening an investigation on 911. In fact Bush tried to stop an investigation from taking place but he eventually had to cave in due to pressure from the families who lost loved one on 911.

Why is it that the Bush admin didn't want to investigate the worse crime in US history? 
Isn't it a bit odd? 

Keep in mind that investigation were started a fews days after Pearl Harbour and the JFK assassination. Hell there are investigation for murder of individuals shouldn't there be an investigation on this mass murder that was 911? You guys are OK with that?


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 1, 2007)

Just answer me one question, Fernando:
How do you feel about the September Clues videos?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

> Pando @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando Warez @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> ...



Yea! there was no metal in there just air. :roll: And you guys make fun of the conspiracy theorist?

The only thing that could explains the speed of the collapse is if there were explosives that would get out of the way the resistance on every floor just before the collpase. And we have more than enough witness that saw and heard explosive. 
We have squibs etc... 

And what about the first tower that clearly tilted as it started to collapse moving it's weight on one side only? We still saw a symmetrical collpase as if the weight was spread evenly, what about that? Did it changed it's mind in mid air and came back to put it weight evenly to create this symmetrical collapse?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

VonRichter @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Just answer me one question, Fernando:
> How do you feel about the September Clues videos?



I think you know how i feel about that!


----------



## VonRichter (Oct 1, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> VonRichter @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Just answer me one question, Fernando:
> ...




Just answer the question please.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

VonRichter @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > VonRichter @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> ...



Why don't you tell me what you think about it first?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 1, 2007)

Fernando, the thing to remember is how huge the WTC towers were. Each floor was a city block, I believe. Imagine how much force that is when it's falling. One can't, of course, but that's the point. There's a huge difference between the frame holding up a building and holding up I forget how many floors falling all at once - just like a soda can holds itself up fine until you stomp on it.

As I said, they had me going for about five minutes, but the more I thought about it the less plausible the idea seemed. The comparisons to other buildings that didn't collapse due to fire or that were controlled demolitions are irrelevant.

Also, the only way it's going to fall is straight down - it's way too huge to do anything else. The controlled demotion theories always include "how can it fall straight down and pile up neatly in its basement?!" Well, the answer is that it couldn't possibly do anything else.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

If the military was behind it, why bomb the Pentagon?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

> Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando, if the thing to remember is how huge the WTC towers were. Each floor was a city block, I believe. Imagine how much force that is when it's falling. One can't, of course, but that's the point. There's a huge difference between the frame holding up a building and holding up I forget how many floors falling all at once - just like a soda can holds itself up fine until you stomp on it.
> ...



That's just isn't true. Look at WTC 2 collapsing and you can clearly see it's tilting so it is going some where. But the floors below give away anyway and symmetrically although the weight is not spread evenly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-736262871641918799 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 1641918799)

BTW, the building was design so it wouldn't collapse. I heard one of the architect clearly say this was not suppose to happen. Will built so that it would sustain plane crashes and fire and that it would not collapse. The guy was just amazed at what he saw. I'll trust him over any of you if you don't mind.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

OK guys, here you can compare the so called collapse and the explosion of a small nuke in the Nevada desert. Explain to me why it looks so similar? 

Now remember an explosion is a burst of energy going in all the direction and a collapse 
is energy going down. So we have 2 different phenomena here and I'd like to know why they look so similar.

http://www.c2ore.com/media/3/20060821-WTCHydro.jpg

http://www.c2ore.com/media/3/20060821-HydroSmall.jpg

http://www.c2ore.com/media/3/20060821-WTCFall.jpg

Look at that mushroom cloud above both pics and how the direction of the debris is the same


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

synthetic @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> If the military was behind it, why bomb the Pentagon?



I don't know? To make sure it would be perceived as an act of war?


----------



## synthetic (Oct 1, 2007)

Mushroom cloud ≠ nuclear explosion.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 1, 2007)

synthetic @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Mushroom cloud ≠ nuclear explosion.



I should have said puff of smoke instead cause it's not really a mushroom. But that's not the point, the point is that the so called collapse look pretty much like that explosion in the desert, the direction of the debris and all..


----------



## Alex W (Oct 1, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> synthetic @ Mon Oct 01 said:
> 
> 
> > Mushroom cloud ≠ nuclear explosion.
> ...



THAT PROVES IT!!!


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 1, 2007)

hahaha...


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 1, 2007)

> No sky scraper in history ever collapsed due to fire before 911. The only building to ever collapse due to fire all happened on 911. And no the planes did not bring down the towers. According to the official story the fire did.



The fire weakned the steel to a point where it collapsed. But the initial plane crash at 400mph desimating a few floors played a role I would imagine. 

As for the constructors and engineers saying what it was built to withstand... Think about it. A few months ago a bridge totally collapsed in a US state. Everyone would agree "it was built to hold traffic" ... but hey... it diden't! They were wrong, it fucked up... Do you see my point? Or perhaps the government set charges on the bridge to secure more funding for infrastructure?

3 times longer to fall? Listen if that was right, or even remotely right all engineers would be unanimously pointing this out... But they are not. Laws of physics dictate the building should fall exactly as it did. After a few floors collapse it's over... It comes down. Also - as for piling nicely on itself: It dident.. sure it came strait down but HUGE chunks went out the sides and destroyed large areas next to the towers (including a big section of WTC7). 

And the nuke theory... Thats the first time I heard that one. Lovely.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 2, 2007)

Fernando, you're asking some very good questions. My answer to every one of them is the same: "And yet the buildings surely did collapse the way they did without being rigged with explosives."

I too saw the video of the top part of the building looking like it was going to topple. It didn't, though - it fell straight down when the bottom part underneath it gave way.

We can have a good parlor game speculating about how it's impossible that what happened happened. But it did. Meanwhile there's the reality that 3000 people got killed and countless peoples' lives will never be the same because of 20 imbeciles with box cutters.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 2, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> > No sky scraper in history ever collapsed due to fire before 911. The only building to ever collapse due to fire all happened on 911. And no the planes did not bring down the towers. According to the official story the fire did.



The fire weakned the steel to a point where it collapsed. But the initial plane crash at 400mph desimating a few floors played a role I would imagine. 

As for the constrò÷´   cý÷´   cþ÷´   cÿ÷´   c ÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c	÷´   c
÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c ÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c÷´   c ÷´   c!÷´   c"÷´   c#÷´   c$÷´   c%÷´   c&÷´   c'÷´   c(÷´   c)÷´   c*÷´   c+÷´   c,÷´   c-÷´   c.÷´   c/÷´   c0÷´   c1÷´   c2÷´   c3÷´   c4÷´   c5÷´   c6÷´   c7÷´   c8÷´   c9÷´   c:÷´   c;÷´   c<÷´   c=÷´   c>÷´   c?÷´   c@÷´   cA÷´   cB÷´   cC÷´   cD÷´   cE÷´   cF÷µ   cG÷µ   cH÷µ   cI÷µ   cJ÷µ   cK÷µ   cL÷µ   cM÷µ   cN÷µ   cO÷µ   cP÷µ   cQ÷µ   cR÷µ   cS÷µ   cT÷µ   cU÷µ   cV÷µ   cW÷µ   cX÷µ   cY÷µ   cZ÷µ   c[÷µ   c\÷µ   c]÷µ   c^÷µ   c_÷µ   c`÷µ   ca÷µ   cb÷µ   cc÷µ   cd÷µ   ce÷µ   cf÷µ   cg÷µ   ch÷µ   ci÷µ   cj÷µ   ck÷µ   cl              ò÷µ   cn÷µ   co÷µ   cp÷µ   cq÷µ   cr÷µ   cs÷µ   ct÷µ   cu÷µ   cv÷µ   cw÷µ   cx÷¶   cy÷¶   cz÷¶   c{÷¶   c|÷¶   c}÷¶   c~÷¶   c÷¶   c€÷¶   c÷¶   c‚÷¶   cƒ÷¶   c„÷¶   c…÷¶   c†÷¶   c‡÷¶   cˆ÷¶   c‰÷¶   cŠ÷¶   c‹÷¶   cŒ÷·   c÷·   cŽ÷·   c÷·   c÷·   c‘÷·   c’÷·   c“÷·   c”÷·   c•÷·   c–÷·   c—÷·   c˜÷·   c™÷·   cš÷·   c›÷·   cœ÷·   c÷·   cž÷·   cŸ÷·   c ÷·   c¡÷·   c¢÷·   c£÷·   c¤÷·   c¥÷·   c¦÷·   c§÷·   c¨÷·   c©÷·   cª÷·   c«÷·   c¬÷·   c­÷·   c®÷·   c¯÷·   c°÷·   c±÷·   c²÷·   c³÷·   c´÷¸   cµ÷¸   c¶÷¸   c·÷¸   c¸÷¸   c¹÷¸   cº÷¸   c»÷¸   c¼÷¸   c½÷¸   c¾÷¸   c¿÷¸   cÀ÷¸   cÁ÷¸   cÂ÷¸   cÃ÷¸   cÄ÷¸   cÅ÷¸   cÆ÷¸   cÇ÷¸   cÈ÷¸   cÉ÷¸   cÊ÷¸   cË÷¸   cÌ÷¸   cÍ÷¸   cÎ÷¸   cÏ÷¸   cÐ÷¸   cÑ÷¸   cÒ÷¸   cÓ÷¸   cÔ÷¸   cÕ÷¸   cÖ÷¸   c×÷¸   cØ÷¸   cÙ÷¸   cÚ÷¸   cÛ÷¸   cÜ÷¸   cÝ              ò÷¸   cß÷¸   cà÷¹   cá÷¹   câ÷¹   cã÷¹   cä÷¹   cå÷¹   cæ÷¹   cç÷¹   cè÷¹   cé÷¹   cê÷¹   cë÷¹   cì÷¹   cí÷¹   cî÷¹   cï÷¹   cð÷¹   cñ÷¹   cò÷¹   có÷¹   cô÷¹   cõ÷¹   cö÷¹   c÷÷¹   cø÷¹   cù÷¹   cú÷¹   cû÷¹   cü÷¹   cý÷¹   cþ÷¹   cÿ÷¹   c  ÷¹   c ÷¹   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c 
÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c  ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷º   c ÷»   c ÷»   c ÷»   c ÷»   c ÷»


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 2, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> As I said, those people had me going for a while. I'm not avoiding anything at all, I've just come to the conclusion that these weren't controlled demolitions.
> 
> And no, WT7 isn't "hard to deny." I'm not a structural engineer and can't tell you where it failed, but it did. Really, the whole idea that it was a controlled demolition is totally groundless.



:lol: Groundless? Except that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition.

Here it is again in case you missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn5d50ix ... h_response


Well you got to admit those ultra hawk neocons were very lucky on 911 right? They got the perfect excuse to put their plans to reshape the middle East in action. That's some luck! But not so much for the people of NY though... Some say there's no luck at that level. Some say you make your own luck at that level. 

BTW, the US is building a pipeline in Afghanistan, and their are building 4 military bases all along that pipeline. I just thought you guys would be interested to know in case you thought Afghanistan was about the WOT. Clearly the location of those bases suggest it's about the resources and the safe transport of those resources.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Alex W @ Mon Oct 01 said:


> Well what are you implying then?
> 
> If all you're trying to say is that a bunch of politicians stretched the truth in a number of public addresses in order to forward their agendas and cover their own ass, then golly gee, welcome to politics 101. Notice that I said "stretched the truth" and not outright "lied." You are yet to prove to me that the government was aware of the specifics of the attack before it occurred.



Ive already posted this but:

"*I don't think anybody could have predicted* that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon;* that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile*,'' - Condoleezza Rice. 

She claims *total *surprise and doesnt think anyone could have predicted terrorists might hijack a plane and slam it into a building. She also mentions the Pentagon specifically and we know they had at least one federal report on this. Bottem line is we know they had intelligence and were even acting on intelligence from many sources which detail this exact method of attack. Theres no way she couldnt have known that when she said it, so by definition its a lie and I dont know how you could call it anything else. Similar sentiments had been echoed by other higher-ups too of course.



> By the way, saying that they "lied about the WMDs" isn't correct.


Well I dont know about you but to me a lie is stating something you already know to be false as if it were true with an intent to decieve people into believing that falsehood.



> They were wrong about them sure, but that doesn't A) instantly prove that there was no defiant intent to construct them and B) mean that war with Iraq wasn't justified. Again, that in itself is a highly complex issue which would be best discussed elsewhere.



Well first I think its very relevant to the thread, it is related to 911 pretty closely _no matter how you look at it_. 

Secondly, the government didnt just "get it wrong", they claimed certainty that they "_knew_" Saddam had WMDs, that they actually knew _where _they were that they had intelligence that he aided Al Qaeda and that he was a very real threat to the US because of all this. They said what they were saying was based on facts that they werent assumptions. Yet eventually then they had to admit they didnt know Saddam had WMDs and they evidently didnt know where they were, but that it turned out he didnt have any after all and that there was _no _connection from Iraq to 911! These guys went on TV and tried to convince the public the war on Saddam was justified and right by making statements they already knew to be false. If their statements werent lies I dont know what they are. They intentionally mislead the public, end of story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYmEFoN8 ... ed&search= 

I dont know what some of you are afraid of. Just because they're a bunch of liars and wanted to go to war and were willing to lie to gain support doesnt mean you have to believe they were responsible for 911. You dont have to be so stubborn about everything just because you cant go that far.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> And no, WT7 isn't "hard to deny." I'm not a structural engineer and can't tell you where it failed, but it did. Really, the whole idea that it was a controlled demolition is totally groundless.



Im skeptical of WTC7 but I havent ruled out that it may very well have came down like they say it did. What I find interesting is that other WTC buildings got a lot more damage from WTC2 yet werent brought down, and the fires in 7 were relatively minor compared to other high rise fires that raged far worse and for a lot longer and they never collapsed. Im not saying it was definitely brought down purposefully, I just think theres some interesting questions about these events that I feel many dont have satisfactory answers to. Oh and for the record I personally dont think they were squibbs, or at least, the idea that its trapped air seems more plausible to me. I also think while its pretty weird Silverstein said "pull it" the fact remains its very implausible they could rig a building that quickly.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 2, 2007)

[quote="Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 02, 2007 9:10 am] Yea! The bridge was very convenient wasn't it it? But it's irrelevant as you one is an horizontal structure and the other is a vertical structure. Beside I've seen bridges come down for other reasons too.

Also, do you have proof the fire weaken the metal? Because I've never seen it?

First of all the bridge was an example. You must agree that there are loads of cases where someone claims something is able to do something, yet it isn't when put to the test. [/quote]

I have no proof for fire weakening steel other than this is what the majority of engineers claim. 



> You also said earlier there were tones of debris from the plane found at the pentagon. Do you mind showing me those because i haven't seen it? In fact we have no solid proof that a plane did hit the pentagon. The pentagon is one of the largest building on hearth and the head office of the most powerful army in the world so i think it's safe to say there are loads of camera on the roof top everywhere. How come the military doesn't show us a clear image of the plane hitting the pentagon? That shouldn't be too hard to do right? Why did the FBI confiscated the video tape of the Hotel in front of the pentagon within 10 minutes?



Google it. Many photos show wrekage clealy marked with UA colors, not to mention that a vast majority of witnesses saw a plane.



> You also said there was a large chunk of the building taken off from WT7 by the collapse of the tower, can you show me that? Because all I've seen was minor damage. And why don't you explain to me how WT7 did collapse while you're at it



No I can't show you that. Or perhaps I could if I was inclined to look. But fact is that most footage from WTC7 was not shot from the angle where the damage could be seen. Additionally it may be added that WTC was a weak building engineeringwise with no internal support colombs. This may also answer Ed's question why WTC7 went down but not WTC2 (I don't know, I'm not familiar with the case)

You should really look up that book and film I mention. They answer all your questions in detail.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 2, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giFYm7Zo408

History Channel on WTC7


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 2, 2007)

Where's that darn "Delete Post" button? (I double posted)


----------



## Mike Greene (Oct 2, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> Fernando Warez @ Tue Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, do you have proof the fire weaken the metal? Because I've never seen it?
> ...


That's pretty standard construction and building code stuff. It's not uncommon for an engineer to call for wood (usually paralam) beams instead of steel (which would be cheaper) because the metal will weaken so much in a fire and structurally fail before a wood beam would.

I just went through this engineering discussion when I contracted my garage a couple years ago. Of course, I suppose the conspiracy might extend all the way to engineering schools, so perhaps everything he told me was just part of the coverup.

In skyscrapers, by the way, wood would be impractical because of the spans and larger dimensions wood requires for the equivalent structural strength.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> Google it. Many photos show wrekage clealy marked with UA colors, not to mention that a vast majority of witnesses saw a plane.



While the Pentagon crash has many bizzare details that initially caused me to doubt that it was a 757 the eye witness' and the explanations of what happened to the plane along with other photographs make me believe there probably was a real plane. Also plausible explanations of what happened to the passengers on the actual flight hasnt ever been adequently addressed by theorists as far as I know, and I dont think there ever will be unless any evidence turns up which I dont think it will. To me it doesnt really seem like it matters much as to if theres a real conspiracy or not, and several "911 truth" sites Ive been on attack the idea that it was a missile or drone as well. Still, I do wish they would release all the footage they confiscated apparently needlessly. 4 frames with no plane in it is pathetic.. 



> No I can't show you that. Or perhaps I could if I was inclined to look. But fact is that most footage from WTC7 was not shot from the angle where the damage could be seen. Additionally it may be added that WTC was a weak building engineeringwise with no internal support colombs. This may also answer Ed's question why WTC7 went down but not WTC2 (I don't know, I'm not familiar with the case)



I think even if the building was 25% damaged like they say it is, and Popular Mechanics claims theyve been allowed to see all kinds of classified photographs we the public apparently arent allowed to see that shows this, it still is odd that it came down. Remember it came due to "fire" they said, yet other high rise steel buildings had been ablaze for worse than WTC7 was. But that wasnt hit by falling debris from something like the WTC, they say. So my issue is that if thats the case, then fire didnt bring it down the damage did. 

You mightsay it was a combination of the two. However it doesnt seem to make sence considering how bad the fires were releative to other buildings, as you'd think if those small fires could weaken the steel sufficiently then those other high rises would probably have collapsed in some way as they burned much much worse. And as for the damage, the other WTC buildings were left standing even though they were reported to have much worse damage than WTC7. Yet it managed to come down so neatly including even the core core columns? I dont get it.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 2, 2007)

> You mightsay it was a combination of the two. However it doesnt seem to make sence considering how bad the fires were releative to other buildings, as you'd think if those small fires could weaken the steel sufficiently then those other high rises would probably have collapsed in some way as they burned much much worse. And as for the damage, the other WTC buildings were left standing even though they were reported to have much worse damage than WTC7. Yet it managed to come down so neatly including even the core core columns? I dont get it.



Check the video I posted. There was no core column like what you have with regular skyscrapers. 

What I dont get is: Even if the collapse of WTC7 was odd, weird and unpresedented - it still stands more reasonable to me that fire+structral damge caused the collapse, rather than an elaborate government plot involving explosions. As the guy in the video says - not a single blastcap, or other physical evidence supports this. 

In regards to the unacounted for passengeres - I'm obviously in complete agreement. The president can't even hide getting his cocked suck by an intern. 

In fact to me it's insulting to the families of 9/11 victims that claims are made that the phone calls they got from U93 were fabricated. How an this be more plausibel than the official story?

The only thing in my mind which _could_ be true is that U93 was shot down. I dont think it's the case (again because I think it would have come out) but it's within the realm of beleivability.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 2, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Ive already posted this but:
> 
> "*I don't think anybody could have predicted* that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon;* that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile*,'' - Condoleezza Rice.
> 
> Notice how she claims *total *surprise and doesnt think anyone could have predicted terrorists might hijack a plane and slam it into a building. Yet we know they had intelligence and were even acting on intelligence from many sources which detail this exact method of attack. Theres no way she couldnt have known that when she said it, so by definition its a lie and I dont know how you could call it anything else. Similar sentiments had been echoed by other higher-ups too of course.



The above quote from Condoleezza utilizes the usual political obfuscatory tactics in order to cover her ass and her friend's asses. No surprises there.

The fact remains that at the time, they didn't have any specific details of the impending attack which would have allowed prevention. Can you prove otherwise? Nothing you've provided so far could be considered specific.

As I said to you, there are many facets to the Iraq war justification. I've already agreed that WMDs were a major part of the propaganda used to drum up support for the war and that it turned out to be false. However, to say that the necessity for coalition intervention hinged entirely on whether or not there were WMDs is a gross oversimplification.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> The above quote from Condoleezza utilizes the usual political obfuscatory tactics in order to cover her ass and her friend's asses. No surprises there.



She said something she knew not to be true in order to "_cover her ass and her friend's asses_". Thats what a lie is.



> The fact remains that at the time, they didn't have any specific details of the impending attack which would have allowed prevention. Can you prove otherwise?


Thats a different point Alex, one which Im not sure is worth debating with you as you cant seem to accept they even lied at all. 



> As I said to you, there are many facets to the Iraq war justification. I've already agreed that WMDs were a major part of the propaganda used to drum up support for the war and that it turned out to be false. However, to say that the necessity for coalition intervention hinged entirely on whether or not there were WMDs is a gross oversimplification.



Maybe, but the fact remains they did intentionally decieve the public as to how much knowledge they had. They said they *knew *Saddam had WMDs they said they *knew *where they were and specifically linked Iraq it to Bin Laden. These all turned out to be lies. You are claiming the WMDs were just a small part of the reason to go to war. Well I agree completely actually, but the WMDs was the biggest reason they played upon with the public that was already scared and angry due to 911 and I feel they should have to answer for it.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 2, 2007)

The whole justification for the Iraq war was a monumental faliure in intelligence - historic proportions. I also think that Bush and his minions (or is it the other way around) _wanted_ the Iraq war badly and someone lied - knowelingly I'm sure. 

Many lies were told - in fact I'm suprised that Bush is still in office and not in jail... again bring back Lewinsky. Whats worse?

All that said there is still quite a stretch from that to saying that the US gov. orchestrated 9/11. Likewise is there still nothing which suggests that they had actionable intelligence... (obviously - or they would be finsihed)


----------



## Alex W (Oct 2, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Alex W @ Tue Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > The above quote from Condoleezza utilizes the usual political obfuscatory tactics in order to cover her ass and her friend's asses. No surprises there.
> ...



I guess you'll have to excuse me for finding the whole argument of "whether or not Condoleezza Rice lied about having a few unspecific generic pieces of intelligence prior to 911 to cover her ass" highly uninteresting. You seem to be enthralled by it, well... have fun marching on Washington to demand your apology.

As long as you're not trying to imply that the US Government either planned 911 or conspired to let it happen, I'm happy to leave it there I think.


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> Interesting video thanks. I wasnt aware the design of WTC7 didnt have
> 
> Check the video I posted. There was no core column like what you have with regular skyscrapers.



Interesting video thanks. I wasnt aware the design of WTC7 didnt have the core columns like WTC1+2. Althoug I did a quick search for any responces to the documentary and Im still looking for any responces to the exact part you posted it seems it doesnt do such a great job of debunking _all _the most important issues such as the one Im watching now which has to do with the part about the Pentagon. (But just so you know I think it probably was what they say it was) Shame really. I think to get closer to the the truth one needs to hear a claim made, then get the responce and then the counter responces and see which one makes the most sence and is the most resonable. Eventually you should be able to make a better formed opinion. 



> What I dont get is: Even if the collapse of WTC7 was odd, weird and unpresedented - it still stands more reasonable to me that fire+structral damge caused the collapse, rather than an elaborate government plot involving explosions. As the guy in the video says - not a single blastcap, or other physical evidence supports this.



Well thats what makes me lean towards it coming down as they say it did, but Im still not 100% as I still have questions. In fact, Im not 100% about anything, something just doesnt seem right about the whole thing, and Im talking generally not specifically about about WTC7. 



> In regards to the unacounted for passengeres - I'm obviously in complete agreement. The president can't even hide getting his cocked suck by an intern.


Hehe. You know I once put off thinking about what happened to the passengers until eventually I saw a lot more debunking sites and videos make some reasonable arguments against it and even 911 conspiracy sites that argued against the same thing, I couldnt put off addressing it any longer. It is interesting that Operation Northwoods contained a plan to send intelligence agents on a plane posing as college students and then secretly land it and remove them retake off and crash that plane claiming all died onboard and then assign blame to the communits. The logistics of this I think would have been rather difficult achieve silence had they actually carrid it out but 911 I think would have been even harder to pull off. But its even worse because these were real people and I think its a huge stretch to say they removed the passengers and/or murdered them all just to support the idea that there was no plane. 



> In fact to me it's insulting to the families of 9/11 victims that claims are made that the phone calls they got from U93 were fabricated. How an this be more plausibel than the official story?


iI agree. Though not all conspiracy groups and sites claim the same thing. Ive seen many argue against each other on various details. For example theres several people that claim there never was a plane at all "re: the September Clues film". As far as I can see these guys arent very popular at all or taken very seriously in the general movement. They are kind of like the Flat Earthers of Creationists in my mind. I have to say a lot of conspiracy websites and films do fall into the trap of trying to list every piece of possible link no matter how far fetched or hearsay "evidence" it seems just to have more to say. Its a shame but rather unfortunately inevitable that even if we assume something like this were true you would have the same kind of responce to it and I believe its necessary to be patient and sift though a lot of it and see if it has any validity instead of saying its all nosnence just because you get one obviously cooky theory.



> The only thing in my mind which _could_ be true is that U93 was shot down. I dont think it's the case (again because I think it would have come out) but it's within the realm of beleivability.



Well I dont have time at the moment but I saw some argumets that seemed interesting about U93 getting shot down and I could probably find the video again if I tried where I think it was Cheny "slipped" up answering a question and said something about a missile taking down one of the planes. I have also seen a conspiracy _debunking _suggest they did shoot it down but are "understandably" covering it up to "protect the familes".


----------



## Ed (Oct 2, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> I guess you'll have to excuse me for finding the whole argument of "whether or not Condoleezza Rice lied about having a few unspecific generic pieces of intelligence prior to 911 to cover her ass" highly uninteresting. You seem to be enthralled by it, well... have fun marching on Washington to demand your apology.
> 
> ...
> 
> As long as you're not trying to imply that the US Government either planned 911 or conspired to let it happen, I'm happy to leave it there I think.



You still dont say why you dont find it interesting that she lied, and you still dont say why you dont consider them lying about WMDs is so bad. Oh well I guess you answered my inital question, you do believe they lied you just cant bring yourself to say that word. I need not have even brought up 911 coverups at all and you would apparently have argued the same way as you did here. Dont you remember why you were asking me to show you this in the first place? It was just to show you _that _they lied, not _why_.


Ed


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 2, 2007)

"Groundless? Except that it looks exactly like a controlled demolition."

Fernando, I've seen those videos before. The truth is that you and I haven't spent a lot of time watching buildings collapse. We can only sit at our desks and guess what it's "supposed" to look like. I wouldn't expect it to look any different.

As to the rest of what you're saying about this playing into those nutty neo-cons' hands, absolutely. Yes. They're still using those tragedies for political gain, in fact that jackass Guiliani is hanging his entire campaign on it. And I've posted about the Afghani oil and natural gas pipelines myself. Of course this wasn't only about the Taliban allowing Bin Laden to operate (although I do believe that was a big part of it, unlike the published reasons about the Iraq war).

But the jump from there to the WTC collapse being a government plot is very long.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 2, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> You still dont say why you dont find it interesting that she lied, and you still dont say why you dont consider them lying about WMDs is so bad. Oh well I guess you answered my inital question, you do believe they lied you just cant bring yourself to say that word. I need not have even brought up 911 coverups at all and you would apparently have argued the same way as you did here. Dont you remember why you were asking me to show you this in the first place? It was just to show you _that _they lied, not _why_.
> 
> 
> Ed



I don't find it interesting, because frankly, it's not. The idea that politicians lie to forward their own agenda is neither surprising or in any way thought provoking. It's simply a fact of life.

Now if you want to say that they lied to cover up anything other than their own asses, then that's different - but you are yet to provide any evidence of this. And until you do, I will remain in this state of pure boredom.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 2, 2007)

Ed @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giFYm7Zo408
> ...



I agree that it's a little messy... But here is my take on it.

_"... but it has nothing to do with it"_ - meaning: "no bombs went off"

_"...that causes all the vertical columbs to fail simultaneously, that's exactly what it looks like and that's what happned"_ - meaning: The columbs failed simultaneously. Once the top gave in they failed due to the energy of the collapse. So yes, that's what it looks like. 

I mean when he says "and that's exactly what happned" to people really think he referes to hsi comments on how it looks like a controlled demoltion, or rather the sentance just before it where he says "...cause all the vertical columbs collapse simultaneously...".

Secondly I would like to add that I saw one of the "debunking history channel" vidoes. It made me cringe how manipulative and silly it was. I saw the one where they talked about the crash into the pentagon. There main "debunk" was a computer graphic that The History Channel use to visualize and dramatize it for the viewer. They then peg this on Popular Mechanics saying that they claim this is some kind of proof. They have nothing to do with that graphic, and it's not meant as proof. It's simply a visualization, similar when we show shots of planes hitting the WTC - we just dont have those shots from the pentagon. 

That was it - I knew I did not have to watch the rest because it's simply mindblowingly stupid and preying on ignorants souls to spread the message. 

Also... even _if_ Popular Mechanics made a few factual misteps, it should still be glaringly clear to anyone who either reads the book or watches the documentary in it's entirety that there really is no larger case for a conspiracy. And when all is said and done it is nothing compared to the factual errors that the so called Truth-Movement is feeding the people.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2007)

For example, do we know that no other steel-framed building has collapsed after catching fire?


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> For example, do we know that no other steel-framed building has collapsed after catching fire?



Hehe - well, at least it's a claim we here again and again. If it isn't true then the "truth movement" is in worse shape than I thought.

My take on it is, that even if it is true - we have no comparable examples where a building of that size and build was hit by a plane at full throttle after which fire ensues. So to me it proves nothing that it hasn't happned before. 

Ed - regarding UA93 I agree with the assesment that it could have been shot down and they are covering it to "protect" the families. I would even go so far to say that it is understandable and even justifiable to have shot it down. I guess that's why it's one of the claims that seems like it could be within the what we call reality :D

The reason I dont think it happned is that I'm sure it would have leaked and that witnesses and technicians on the scene would have noticed it, photographed it, and eventually it would leak. 

I also assume (just talking out of my ass here) that the debris would have been scattered differently than it has by plowing nose first at full speed into a field.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giFYm7Zo408
> 
> History Channel on WTC7



Many lies in that disinformation piece.

1) They say pull it is not a therm use by demolition companies but it is. At 1:46 minute in the next video you can hear a demolition team say ''were ready to pull WTC 6''.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDU ... ed&search=

They also say Larry Silverstein didn't mean to pull the building but to pull the firefighters 
out of the building. But that's ridiculous. First of all he should have said pull ''them'' out not it. And second this guy doesn't give order to firemens, and third according to FEMA, NIST and the fire chef every body was out by 10:30 that morning. So that doesn't work either. 

2) They also say there were no sign of a control demolition but that was a lie as many people heard explosives. See here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-lu ... ed&search=



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlAkF7E2 ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZ4dVo5QgYg&NR=1

You can also see a shock wave going up right before of the collpase of WTC 7 u this video which is a clear sign of a demolition.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn5d50ix ... h_response

We also know that the fire on that day were not hot enough enough to melt steal and 
that is a scientific fact. Jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steal or anything else that burned that day. And yet there is evidence of molten metal. See this piece of fused concrete and molten metal here. And BTW, C4 and other explosives can melt steal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbMu2w7fSG8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpZdulv66n8

On this 30 sec video you can clearly hear the rescue workers say 
the building is about to blow up move back.

And here air force reserved medic and 911 first responder Kevin Mcpadden witnessed the count down to the demolition of WTC 7.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tr6cbQxE8Yk&NR=1

3) They also say that it didn't look like a control demolition but everyone know that it looked like a classic control demolition, even 5 years old know that.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

Here is more evidence of explosives. But I'm sure you wont see it right?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=171383957524672460 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7524672460)


----------



## synthetic (Oct 3, 2007)

If it was a conspiracy to invade Iraq, why involve Bin Laden at all? Why not just point the finger at Iraq and fake some evidence of it? 

It's just too big of a conspiracy to be hidden, like the Moon Landing or JFK Coup. 50 years later someone would have talked by now. There are just too many people involved. Like the rescue worker saying, "get back it's gonna blow up" – so every rescue worker in New York was in on it now? The guys who earn 20k/year to risk their lives are in on the blowing up buildings and their friends, and every one of them is cool with that? Please, come to New York and run that theory past a few firefighters. Would they a) look around in hushed silence and say they don't know what you're talking about, or b) beat the crap out of you? I'm guessing B. 

Even if they weren't in on it, all of these firefighters would have noticed an explosion, blasting caps, whatever. And believe me, they would be the first ones to raise hell. I'm in NYC right now, and when you walk around you see the fire stations with plaques of names of the members who died that day.


----------



## synthetic (Oct 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> For example, do we know that no other steel-framed building has collapsed after catching fire?



Not just fire, JET FUEL fire. I'm guessing that burns hotter than copy paper and ceiling tiles.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

synthetic @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > For example, do we know that no other steel-framed building has collapsed after catching fire?
> ...



Jet fuel doesn't melt steel and is very volatile and most of it if not all burned on impact in that big ball of fire remember?


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 3, 2007)

You're so sure of all this ridiculous nonsense, Fernando! Meanwhile a lot of people are in very real pain. I'm sorry, but it's almost offensive.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

Here's a firemen who was there that day and he thinks something else went on that day.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 7846396761)

And here an other one who say the truth movement is doing the right thing and the families of the victims say the same. Why is it so hard to open an other investigation?
An independent one this time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myONzwU4imQ


And BTW, why spend 65 millions on Bill Clinton's blow job investiagtion and only 15 millions on 911? What's wrong with this picture?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 03 said:


> You're so sure of all this ridiculous nonsense, Fernando! Meanwhile a lot of people are in very real pain. I'm sorry, but it's almost offensive.



You know as well as me it's not ridiculous. And yes, the families are in pain and want to find out the truth.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 3, 2007)

And synthetic, I've provided you with more than enough evidence of explosives. And many firemen say their heard explosives. It's all the videos I've provide you with.

I did not expect to convince you guys as i felt you were not open about this from the start. And i also know the bad guys have their supporters on web. I don't know how much they are getting to betray their country but i hope it's a lot.


----------



## Ed (Oct 5, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> I don't find it interesting, because frankly, it's not. The idea that politicians lie to forward their own agenda is neither surprising or in any way thought provoking. It's simply a fact of life.



According to you then you believe its fine if the government screwed up that day that because of their own incompetence and negligence allowed the terrorists to hit WTC1+2 and the Pentagon killing over 3 thousand people. And its fine if they lie about it, its what governments do when they screw up. Its boring, right? To state the obvious? Why should anyone want those that are responsible for it to take responsibility for it? We should just let them say what they like because governments lie to forward their own agenda and cover their own asses and is neither surprising or in any way thought provoking, right? 



> Now if you want to say that they lied to cover up anything other than their own asses, then that's different - but you are yet to provide any evidence of this. And until you do, I will remain in this state of pure boredom.



Well at least you're not denying they lied anymore. "To cover their own asses" is still pretty serious but you dont seem to care.


----------



## Ed (Oct 5, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Tue Oct 02 said:


> I agree that it's a little messy... But here is my take on it.
> 
> .....So yes, that's what it looks like.



Yes, watching that again I see what he meant. I just watched it and posted it here without thinking which is why I said it seemed really weird  



> Secondly I would like to add that I saw one of the "debunking history channel" vidoes. It made me cringe how manipulative and silly it was. I saw the one where they talked about the crash into the pentagon.
> 
> ...
> 
> That was it - I knew I did not have to watch the rest because it's simply mindblowingly stupid and preying on ignorants souls to spread the message.



I watched some too, but I didnt switch off as soon as I got to a bit I didnt agree with. I dont believe eveything in these conspiracy theories, far from it, but I also dont believe everything with these offical story videos either. And even if I agree with a position I can also argue against and disagree with an argument _for _that position if I think its nonsence, but that doesnt mean automatically agree with the opposite position. 



> Also... even _if_ Popular Mechanics made a few factual misteps, it should still be glaringly clear to anyone who either reads the book or watches the documentary in it's entirety that there really is no larger case for a conspiracy.


Except Popular Mechanics should be read tentatively just as everything you find where people seem have a strong bias. It has a vested interest in supporting the official story and the war on terror. It cheerleaders advanced crowd control technology and anti-terror weaponary. A large amount of its advertising relies on the military and defense contractors. So Popular Mechanics appears not to be as impartial as they make out. Add to this that it is owned by Hearst Publishing and William Randolph Hearst is famous for what known as "yellow journalism". If you check the entry for that in Encyclopedia Britannica (see link below) scroll down the page and Hearst is given as one of the biggest examples for this kind of shoddy journalism. Its probably also worth pointing out that the senior researcher Benjamin Chertoff is also the cousin to the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security which was created in the wake of 911. Simply believing them then is just as bad IMO as just believing what Conspiracy sites tell you without checking anything for yourself. 
http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:5LR6XKxAwN0J:www.britannica.com/eb/article-9077903/yellow-journalism+Hearst+yellow+journalism+britannica&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=uk (http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:5L ... cd=1&amp;gl=uk)



> when all is said and done it is nothing compared to the factual errors that the so called Truth-Movement is feeding the people.



I agree there are a lot of errors, but after checking over a lot of this and weeding through both sides things still seem to suggest something is going on. 

We know the government lied about not having any idea this might happen and having no idea terrorists might use planes as weapons, that they might use a plane to crash it into the Pentagon or WTC etc. And to me if they lied about that they did so to, as Alex put it, cover their a asses, they did so for a reason. The reason being they felt that if the truth be known they might be up on some kind of negligence charges, or at least be forced to resign maybe? 

What we do know is that they knew the WTC was under thread of terrorism at the very least due to the 1993 bombing (of which there is reason to think the FBI may have even allowed to happen) Bin Laden is also reported to have said that he was disapointed the tower didnt fall that time. And not only did they have a federal report on the real threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners to fly it into the Pentagon two years beforehand, but they had multiple warnings from other countries security agencies which told about how terrorists were mounting an imminient massive attack that would likely include hijacking commercial airliners. The shoot down orders for hijacked planes were only a short time before 911 transferred to only very few high up people like Cheney and Bush, instead of generals and instead of a general in control of NORAD that day it was was under command of Dick Cheney. On the day they were conducting many war games and several of which mirrored what was about to happen in New York in crashing planes into buildings. There were live fly exercises where they would have several faked hijacked airliners. There were war games had been set up so that many fighters were too far away to get back in time. NORAD personnel were clearly confused by all these war games when we get exchanges like this:

 8:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

8:37:56
WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
The mission commander Major Kevin Nasypany said "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early'". We have Secretary of Transportations Norman Mineta's testimon to the 911 Commission about a strange incident involving the Pentagon crash. 

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?""And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" - Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission, May 23, 2003.

Theres lots of reasons to be suspicious of NORAD orders and activities that day, more than what Ive talked about above and my feelings are in the end the evidence shows that at the very least someone or a group of those in command did not do their job correctly and deserve to be forced to take responsibility. I also find it strange that as all this is going on and considering all the advanced knowledge Bush sits calmly in a classroom while planes are being flown into the the WTC. How did they know the terrorists wouldnt try flying planes into the school or perform similar terror attacks nearby? Again, is this just incompetence "we didnt think of that!", or is there something more? How likely does that seem to you?[/i] I realise its ramifications are hard to accept but the question still stands. Why was Bush not rushed out and away from any potential danger? Things just dont seem to make sence. 

And regarding building 7 the History Channel doc and Popular mechanics make out this is a building so poorly constructed it could be brought down with the slighest damage. It only had a small amount of damage when compared with the huge damage to the other WTC buildings _that remained standing_. It had only a few fires even when you see all the pictures and when you compare it to other buildings that have been on fire like the Windsor building in Madrid that burned furously for over 20 hours! I find it very hard to believe they would construct building 7 so badly that the amount of damage could bring it straight down so perfectly in such a short time and is what gives me pause when considering everything else they say about it even though they can make some good points elsewhere. My belief in some kind of conspiracy doesnt hinge on building 7 however, I just find it interesting.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 5, 2007)

Ed @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Alex W @ Tue Oct 02 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't find it interesting, because frankly, it's not. The idea that politicians lie to forward their own agenda is neither surprising or in any way thought provoking. It's simply a fact of life.
> ...



Yeah sure Ed, I don't care that 3000 people died. Get a fucking clue.

You seem to be having real trouble interpreting what I'm saying. I'll try and make it as simple as possible.

You said that their negligence caused 911. I ask you to prove this. You still haven't.

You assume that just because they knew something about the attack, that they knew enough about it to prevent it.

That's where our disagreement is. You think they had enough information beforehand to prevent it, but every time I ask you to prove it, you say "who cares about that!!! they lied!! That's bad!!! omg lolz!!! they lied!!!"

And just so you know, my mind is open to believe what you're saying, as long as you provide me with good evidence. It still hasn't happened, and I still remain completely unconvinced.


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2007)

Alex W @ Fri Oct 05 said:


> Yeah sure Ed, I don't care that 3000 people died. Get a [email protected]#king clue.


 :roll: I didnt say that. I said you dont appear to care if the government was negligent or otherwise incompetent regarding the counterterrorist responce on 911, and that if they were its just not interesting that they lie about it as thats what governments do. 



> You seem to be having real trouble interpreting what I'm saying. I'll try and make it as simple as possible.



Irony?



> You said that their negligence caused 911. I ask you to prove this. You still haven't.



No that wasnt what _we _were discussing, thats what you wanted to say I was talking about once you couldnt keep claiming they didnt lie. You asked me to show you where they lied about their intel on 911. So I showed you and you claimed it wasnt really a lie. Then a few posts later you say governments are expected to lie to cover up their mistakes and that its just not interesting. We've only now just got to the point where we could talk about WHY they lied, a discussion Im not really sure is worth having with you anymore.



> You assume that just because they knew something about the attack, that they knew enough about it to prevent it.



They must have thought so too, otherwise why did they need to lie to "cover their asses"? Like I said while theres lots to say on this Im not sure if this is worth discussing with you anymore. 



> That's where our disagreement is. You think they had enough information beforehand to prevent it, but every time I ask you to prove it, you say "who cares about that!!! they lied!! That's bad!!! omg lolz!!! they lied!!!"



I dont know why you put all that in quote marks as I never said that to you or implied it. Is that what you see when you read my posts? :roll: But the reason I didnt want to get onto the possible reason _why _they lied is that you said you didnt believe they lied in the first place.



> And just so you know, my mind is open to believe what you're saying, as long as you provide me with good evidence. It still hasn't happened, and I still remain completely unconvinced.


I find it hard to believe you are open to anything considering our conversation this far.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

Alex asked for proof that the government was negligent, and i would add incompetent.
Here it is:

Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.

Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.

Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.

Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.


----------



## Ed (Oct 6, 2007)

Well, I'd say theres a lot more than just that the celebrating Israelies and Ive mentioned some of it in several posts. btw I dont understand that last video, are they sayng the Jews did it? :?


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

Ed @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Well, I'd say theres a lot more than just that the celebrating Israelies and Ive mentioned some of it in several posts. btw I dont understand that last video, are they sayng the Jews did it? :?



I've provided the videos for the interview they contain not for the video itself...

Yes, there is a lot more about the celebrating Israeli. I missed the part you wrote about it.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 6, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Sun Oct 07 said:


> Alex asked for proof that the government was negligent, and i would add incompetent.
> Here it is:
> 
> Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
> ...




Wow, a bunch of Israelis dancing, that proves it. There were a bunch of fucking idiots dancing around at my college the day 911 happeneòú’   c¨(ú’   c¨)ú’   c¨*ú’   c¨+ú’   c¨,ú’   c¨-ú’   c¨.ú’   c¨/ú’   c¨0ú’   c¨1ú’   c¨2ú’   c¨3ú’   c¨4ú’   c¨5ú’   c¨6ú’   c¨7ú’   c¨8ú’   c¨9ú’   c¨:ú’   c¨;ú’   c¨<ú’   c¨=ú’   c¨>ú’   c¨?ú’   c¨@ú’   c¨Aú’   c¨Bú’   c¨Cú’   c¨Dú’   c¨Eú’   c¨Fú’   c¨Gú’   c¨Hú’


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

Here it is again:

Alex asked for proof that the government was negligent, and i would add incompetent.
Here it is:

Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.

Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.

Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military''s "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.

Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 6, 2007)

Fernando-I think you might find this interesting and helpful. 

http://www.criticalthinking.org/article ... critic.cfm


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

Do you mind tell me what's on your mind? I'm afraid i don't have time to reed all this.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

artsoundz @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> Fernando-I think you might find this interesting and helpful.
> 
> http://www.criticalthinking.org/article ... critic.cfm



Well since you wont answer I'll have to assume you were being a smart ass. To bad we cant keep these debate civilize. 

Feel free to come back when you have any arguments.


----------



## Fernando Warez (Oct 6, 2007)

US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.

The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?


Lets practice some critical thinking here. What are the chances of wargames of a specific type and that very same type of real event happening the same morning? 

The laws of probability indicate that it's so unlikely that it's fair to say it wont happened.

And guess what? They were running the exact excise as the attack on the 7/7 London boombing too.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 6, 2007)

Fernando Warez @ Sat Oct 06 said:


> artsoundz @ Sat Oct 06 said:
> 
> 
> > Fernando-I think you might find this interesting and helpful.
> ...



I wasnt being a smart ass. You assume too much. I was busy today and didnt feel coming back to this was a priority, 

Really immature response.It doesn't do much for your credibility.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Oct 7, 2007)

So after reading all this, I'm pretty surprised, and also disgusted. I just had a few comments.

1. Fernando, stop spamming the same damned links please. If I was a mod I would've warned you by now. I understand you want to get your point across, but shoving it down our throats isn't going to work.

2. Regarding the initial main tower collapse: First of all, if this was a controlled explosion, you would've seen the fireball from the jet fuel be pushed out a very far distance, and various pieces of metal and such would have been SHOT out of the building for probably a 12-15 block radius. Even watch mythbusters? The episode where they blow up the car. First with pyro explosives, then real controlled high velocity explosives, big difference in the effect and look of it. Or how about the WWI myth where they used a large amount of explosives to replicate a WWII bomb? They had to recover pieces of metal wrapped around a damned tree!

Also, when a 747 crashes into a building at 300+mph, forget the fire or the force of the explosion. We're talking a SEVERE amount of G force here, enough to rip the steel like toothpicks. We're talking 300+ g's and up.

3. When it comes to WT7, that didn't really resemble a controlled demolition. First of all, it tipped to the side quite a bit when falling, which isn't something that happens with a controlled demo. Second of all, there would be windows and pieces of metal blasting out the bottom about 5-6 seconds before from the initial explosion, then the building would finally give way.

WT7 could've been fire and such, but I believe it could've been a result of the pressure that the towers create when falling. Not saying it's solely that, but could be part of it.

And response to the "steel can't melt due to airplane fuel" probably not when they tested it, but in a contained environment, the heat would probably get past that temperature.

And as far as those videos go that "prove" things. There is a such thing as video editing, and home videos with crap quality can be the easiest to edit.


----------



## Ed (Oct 7, 2007)

Nathan Ive read good arguments against conspiracy claims but I dont think yours are much good.


----------



## Nathan Allen Pinard (Oct 7, 2007)

Well, I guess you could just call those my opinions. I'm just speaking on a visual sense, because that is what Fernando keeps pushing. What I'm saying isn't proof at all, it's theory, just like the stuff he's posting.


----------



## Ed (Oct 8, 2007)

Id like to point out that even comspiracy debunking sites talk about "The Real Conspiracy". 

http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm

"What a real conspiracy looks like. Real conspiracies have very few players and even then, they are usually exposed. Enron, Watergate, Iran/Contra and the rest have few people involved and someone always comes out to blow the whistle. 

The evidence for a conspiracy to use 9/11 to invade Iraq is significant. While there is not one shred of evidence the government blew up the World Trade Center, there is evidence that they used the tragedy to remove Saddam Hussein using poor WMD evidence.
"


----------



## Alex W (Oct 8, 2007)

Ed @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Id like to point out that even comspiracy debunking sites talk about "The Real Conspiracy".
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm
> 
> ...



No one in their right mind would contest that the US government capitalized on the tragedy of 911 and used it in their "pro war marketing campaign," but that in itself does not in any way prove that A) they knew it was coming and let it happen on purpose or B) that the Iraq war wasn't necessary regardless.

I'm no warmonger, but there's a solid case that UN intervention was necessary to some degree. Iraq's a failed state, it's been a problem for decades and a solution like this has been arguably inevitable.

[can of worms]...


----------



## Ed (Oct 8, 2007)

So Alex to clarify then you dont contest whats on that page?


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Mon Oct 08 said:


> Alex, I argue that this solution was absolutely not inevitable. It was a very bad idea from the start.



Yes it was. The Downing Street Memo is pretty interesting as it shows how much they lied to everyone and how Bush wanted a war. http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/


----------



## Alex W (Oct 9, 2007)

Ed @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> So Alex to clarify then you dont contest whats on that page?



I didn't read the page


----------



## Alex W (Oct 9, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Alex, I argue that this solution was absolutely not inevitable. It was a very bad idea from the start.



To agree with that would be to say that the previously existing status quo, Saddam Hussein and economic sanctions were good enough, which I wont.

I'm of course horrified by the attrocities that have gone on there, I still think it could get much worse before it gets better, but it was never a problem that could be ignored as though the country didn't exist.

Having said that, I do think it's possible to be pro UN intervention, while agreeing that it isn't going too well.


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Ed @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > So Alex to clarify then you dont contest whats on that page?
> ...



Yea.. and this is why I dont think theres any point discussing this subject with you.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 9, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> ...



It's a large page, sum it up for me, or extract some interesting bits that you want to discuss.


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> ...



Its not that large Alex. You arent a child. But aside from the other part from the page I already quoted:

"[...]Those are just some of the people who have come out saying there was incompetence before 9/11 and a rush to war regardless of what the Intel said.[...]Many republicans view this evidence (Not all but too many. Liberals do it too but for other issues) and make rationalizations. They cherry pick quotes just as conspiracy theorists do in order to dismiss this evidence. They will character assassinate the people on this list one by one[...] The evidence is often taken apart and viewed separately. 

[...]I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE if the administration cherry picked intel to go to war. But I know for sure it deserves an investigation because evidence points to them cherry picking intel to rush to war. I also can conclude from evidence that Ashcroft lied to congress about his incompetence on counter terrorism before 9/11. Not having any money in the budget for it is evidence I can't ignore. More evidence below[...]"

Theres also a video the same site links to suggesting the government is also covering up the real reason the terrorists might want to attack the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7EB1FxE ... sama%2Ehtm

And I already linked in my post to Nick about the Downing Street Memo.
http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Like I was trying to argue at the start, it doesnt matter wether or not the government didnt place bombs in the WTC, it doesnst matter if they didnt know the attacks were coming but chose to let it happen because they wanted a reason to go to war, it doesnt matter if the 757 really did crash into the pentagon, it doesnt matter if WTC7 really was brought down by fire and structural damage. Because if thats true that still doesnt mean there isnt a cover-up and it doesnt mean there isnt a conspiracy. It seems a lot of people that seem so against these conspiracy theories like "911 truth" movement seem to act like someone can just discredit one point of a conspiracy theory that they have therefore proved there isnt one at all.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 9, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> Like I was trying to argue at the start, it doesnt matter wether or not the government didnt place bombs in the WTC, it doesnst matter if they didnt know the attacks were coming but chose to let it happen because they wanted a reason to go to war, it doesnt matter if the 757 really did crash into the pentagon, it doesnt matter if WTC7 really was brought down by fire and structural damage. Because if thats true that still doesnt mean there isnt a cover-up and it doesnt mean there isnt a conspiracy. It seems a lot of people that seem so against these conspiracy theories like "911 truth" movement seem to act like someone can just discredit one point of a conspiracy theory that they have therefore proved there isnt one at all.



Ed, since when does incompetence equal conspiracy?

Can you point me to any good evidence of anyone covering up anything more than incompetence?


----------



## Ed (Oct 9, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> 
> 
> > Like I was trying to argue at the start, it doesnt matter wether or not the government didnt place bombs in the WTC, it doesnst matter if they didnt know the attacks were coming but chose to let it happen because they wanted a reason to go to war, it doesnt matter if the 757 really did crash into the pentagon, it doesnt matter if WTC7 really was brought down by fire and structural damage. Because if thats true that still doesnt mean there isnt a cover-up and it doesnt mean there isnt a conspiracy. It seems a lot of people that seem so against these conspiracy theories like "911 truth" movement seem to act like someone can just discredit one point of a conspiracy theory that they have therefore proved there isnt one at all.
> ...



Well did you read the websites? Did you watch the videos?


----------



## Alex W (Oct 9, 2007)

Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:


> Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Wed Oct 10 said:
> ...



I watched the video. It's not news to me that US foreign policy towards Israel was among the major reasons that 911 occured. Placing sanctions on Saddam and military presence in Saudi Arabia are others. I'm surprised it's news to anyone, considering that Osama Bin Laden said as much himself in at least 1 video that was played mentioning their involvement in the plot.

I agree that the fact this reason in particular was covered up (or maybe "played down" is a more apt description) is typical dirty politics, and as a result, not overly surprising or interesting to me. People with a brain can see through that crap. It's not that I don't care, please don't read it that way. It is also no secret that Muslim fundamentalists are disgusted by numerous facets of our general way of life. However, what shocks me is that people out there actually believe that terrorist motivations lie, in majority, in this disgust and their hatred of "western freedom."

Though of course none of this in any way validates the attack, or means that intervention in Iraq wasn't necessary.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 10, 2007)

I didn't watch the video (because I usually find them annoying and they take hours to their generally stupid points), but Bin Laden did say those three things were his grievances. That's the main reason I say Rudy Guiliani is such a terrible candidate - he has no clue what's behind all this.


----------



## Ed (Oct 10, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 09 said:


> I watched the video. It's not news to me that US foreign policy towards Israel was among the major reasons that 911 occured. Placing sanctions on Saddam and military presence in Saudi Arabia are others. I'm surprised it's news to anyone, considering that Osama Bin Laden said as much himself in at least 1 video that was played mentioning their involvement in the plot.
> 
> I agree that the fact this reason in particular was covered up (or maybe "played down" is a more apt description) is typical dirty politics, and as a result, not overly surprising or interesting to me. People with a brain can see through that crap. It's not that I don't care, please don't read it that way. It is also no secret that Muslim fundamentalists are disgusted by numerous facets of our general way of life. However, what shocks me is that people out there actually believe that terrorist motivations lie, in majority, in this disgust and their hatred of "western freedom."
> 
> Though of course none of this in any way validates the attack, or means that intervention in Iraq wasn't necessary.



Ok so you watched the video. Now read about the Downing Street Memo and the other page and you will start to see there is a cover up. Not just about 911 and the US' counterterrorism "failure" but that Bush wanted a war and didnt care about asking permission from either the UN or congress. It should be obvious they actively lied and mislead the public and deserve to be taken responsibility for it. And a coverup is a conspiracy if there is a plan or design behind it and Dubyas long term goals of war in Iraq is just that.


----------



## Ed (Oct 15, 2007)

Anyone still interested should take a look at the film "*911 Press for Truth*", availible for free on googlevideos. I had heard about it before but not watched it until recently. Its probably the best film you'll see on the issue. Its not about bombs in the WTC, its not about building 7. It follows primarily a group of women that have been come to have been known as the "Jersey Girls". They are a group of women who lost loved ones on 911 and are very unhappy with the governments official story and their official investigations. 

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360&q=press+for+truth&total=820&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &amp;plindex=0)

Now, Ive watched a lot of conspiracy theory videos and Ive watched and read a lot of rebuttals of those videos as well. This video I should point out is much less conspiracy theory than anything else Ive seen rather it is a question as to why the government lied so much and focus' a great deal around their apparent negligence and incompetence.


I admit, much to my disapointment, that its a lot of the conspiracy theorists own fault that 911 truth has gotten such a bad reputation. There is however a truck load of questions that still deserve answers. The problem is whenever I read or watch these conspiracy debunking videos or websites why do they always reprsent everyone as being just the same as the worst of them? Not everyone is a fiery advocate of ideas like those of Alex Jones and his Illuminate "Death Cult" beliefs! Not everyone believes Steven Jones knows what he is talking in regards to thermite! It also bothers me they imply the public should just shut up and not question anything because it hurts the victims families and that its insulting to the victims, only to fail to mention that many of the famlies started and are apart of the original 911 "truth" movements and were the among first to question the offical stories in the first place! And theres lots of these kinds of ommissions and distortions that gives me pause when I read or watch their "debunkings". I find it incredible that no one seems to want to know, that no one seems to want to ask the really important questions in case they're labelled as unpatriotic or a "tin foil hat wearing" conspiracy theorist. I read one review of the Press for Truth film and although it responded rather favourably to its credit on most of it, it still equated one section of it to belief in Time Cube (www.timecube.com). Ive heard other people respond to these conspiracy theories in the same kind of way, but it doesnt even matter what conspiracy theory it is, they all seem to imply its totally ridiculous to suggest anything bad about the government to do with this issue at all. 

Im not a total believer in every conspiracy theory surrounding this, Im skeptical about everything. Im certianly not going to believe something just because someone says it, but that goes both ways. Im not just going to just believe the government either. To equate Press for Truth to "Time Cube" is insulting and frustrating and makes me far more willing to believe in a conspiracy, frankly, if you are going to be so immature about it. 

Someone once told me the best way to find out if you're wrong about something is to go to the people who strongly disagree with the alternative view the most. And you go back and forth many times between the two groups and eventually you can get the picture of whos being more reasonable. The conspiracy debunking videos and websites that I have seen have almost exclusively supported the official story 100% and have implied any idea of a coverup and conspiracy to be be ridiculous and essentially insane. This just isnt reasonable to me at all and dampers their credibility significantly and makes the conspiracy theroists far more believable if they cant respond in a reasonable fashion or intentionally misrepresent in order to not have to deal with these issues. 

The fact is the government has lied and continues to lie about pretty much eveything in regards to 911 and their War on Terror. Whatever the truth is it deserves to be found and exposed rather than just pretending everythings okay and that nothings wrong. I sence theres a lot of resistence to any of this here, so this is probably falling on deaf ears. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2007)

So no one has any opinions on the "Press for Truth" film?


----------



## Ed (Oct 17, 2007)

Alex W @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> Ed @ Wed Oct 17 said:
> 
> 
> > So no one has any opinions on the "Press for Truth" film?
> ...



Uh huh. I would really *love *for you to show me how its "victim exploitative" especially when the majority of the film is following a group of 911 Victims families and their campaign for a proper investigation into 911. Would you like tell them their campaign also exploits victims? :roll: 

Second, its not really a conspiracy theory film . 

Oh and you claimed there were no warnings or not enough intelligence that the government could do anything to stop 911 from happening or do anything more to help. Well you dont even have to look at the evidence or believe me, because its not just me conspiracy theorists or widowed women saying these things. Because your view is still exactly the opposite of what Bill Kerry _who was on the 911 Commission _said! This was IN THE FILM. 

"...*there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster* in the first place…Mr. President you knew they were in the United States! You were *warned *by the CIA, you knew in July... The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government *ignored *repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and you *didnt *do anything to harden our border security, *didn’t *do anything to harden airport security, *didn’t *do anything to engage local law enforcement, *didn’t *do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and *didn’t *warn the American people... *what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see *on the 9/11 Commission."
- *Bob Kerry in an Interview with CNN* 11/8/04 [emphasis mine]

And yet you still claim theres no cover up. Its all fine an dandy the government lies. And anyone exposing it gets your responce above, even when you dont even care what they are really saying.Because we both know you werent aware of any of this because you obviously didnt bother to watch it but still felt its fine to trash it anyway.

You think the film is wrong? Show me. You answer the questions they pose. Show me where the 911 Widows are wrong, show me where those that lost their sons and daughters on 911 are wrong, dont just claim they have a "political agenda" and of all things "exploiting victims", because it makes you sound ridiculous.



> So you're going to believe in the conspiracy out of spite?.



No, what I meant was that I'm more likely to sway toward the conspiracy theories if the people claiming its all nonsence can be so unreasonable about it. As I said later on... "_it dampers their credibility significantly and makes the conspiracy theroists far more believable if they cant respond in a reasonable fashion or intentionally misrepresent in order to not have to deal with these issues_. "

Ed


----------



## Alex W (Oct 18, 2007)

Ed @ Thu Oct 18 said:


> Uh huh. I would really *love *for you to show me how its "victim exploitative" especially when the majority of the film is following a group of 911 Victims families and their campaign for a proper investigation into 911. Would you like tell them their campaign also exploits victims? :roll:



It uses victims' desperation to push a politically motivated agenda, ie, "what the US government did was wrong." In fact, the entire purpose of this film is to attack the government. I watched the whole film, there was no evidence that the US government had actionable intelligence prior to the attacks. Please read what I'm saying very carefully.

There is no evidence whatsoever to support any of their claims. Not a shred.



> Second, its not really a conspiracy theory film .



Making claims that the US government had actionable intelligence allowing prevention of the 9/11 attacks and chose to ignore it and keep it quiet isn't a conspiracy theory?



> Oh and you claimed there were no warnings or not enough intelligence that the government could do anything to stop 911 from happening or do anything more to help. Well you dont even have to look at the evidence or believe me, because its not just me conspiracy theorists or widowed women saying these things. Because your view is still exactly the opposite of what Bill Kerry _who was on the 911 Commission _said! This was IN THE FILM.
> 
> "...*there’s a credible case that the president’s own negligence prior to 9/11 at least in part contributed to the disaster* in the first place…Mr. President you knew they were in the United States! You were *warned *by the CIA, you knew in July... The 9/11 report in chapter eight says that, in the summer of 2001, the government *ignored *repeated warnings by the CIA, ignored, and you *didnt *do anything to harden our border security, *didn’t *do anything to harden airport security, *didn’t *do anything to engage local law enforcement, *didn’t *do anything to round up INS and consular offices and say we have to shut this down, and *didn’t *warn the American people... *what did you do? Nothing, so far as we could see *on the 9/11 Commission."
> - *Bob Kerry in an Interview with CNN* 11/8/04 [emphasis mine]



Bob Kerrey is a Democrat. He was governor of Nebraska. That's the cue for you to go ahead and say bye bye to his impartiality when it comes to his statements about the Bush administration. That's of course aside from the fact that while he makes a lot of claims, they have little substance. "You were warned by the CIA..." - exactly what was the warning? How specific was it?

Yes it's true there has been information that has come out since the event that, in hindsight, sticks out. But there was no reason for it to stick out at the time. At the time these warnings were just grains of sand at a beach - a beach of other terrorist warnings and possible extremist threats or plots.



> And yet you still claim theres no cover up. Its all fine an dandy the government lies. And anyone exposing it gets your responce above, even when you dont even care what they are really saying.Because we both know you werent aware of any of this because you obviously didnt bother to watch it but still felt its fine to trash it anyway.



I did watch it, don't be presumptuous.

The 9/11 commission wasn't an investigation into the attacks, it was a witch hunt. It was a plea for the victims for someone to take the blame. I agree that the Government delayed information and behaved questionably at times. But I don't see it being overly significant. The way I see it the US administration was understandably afraid of being lynched for their potential publicly perceived lack of action. Slip up and say one slightly thoughtless thing and all of a sudden it gets completely misinterpreted and misrepresented in the media and then there's a mob with torches beating down your door.



> You think the film is wrong? Show me. You answer the questions they pose. Show me where the 911 Widows are wrong, show me where those that lost their sons and daughters on 911 are wrong, dont just claim they have a "political agenda" and of all things "exploiting victims", because it makes you sound ridiculous.



I'm not about to go and debunk every point made in the film, that's ridiculous. How about you show me where it's right and I'll do my best to explain or direct you to information that can explain your question?

One which I found amusing at the time was something said by the one of the widows. One of them says "nearly 2 hours in which jets were flying around the US and the military did nothing." 0838 to 1003 is 1 hr 25 mins - not really "nearly 2 hours" is it? And that's only 10 minutes into the film - it doesn't start off too well.

There are plenty more falsehoods throughout the film that I could point out.


----------



## Ed (Oct 18, 2007)

Alex W @ Thu Oct 18 said:


> It uses victims' desperation to push a politically motivated agenda, ie, "what the US government did was wrong." In fact, the entire purpose of this film is to attack the government. I watched the whole film, there was no evidence that the US government had actionable intelligence prior to the attacks.



Prove it has a political agenda. If the film was about Watergate would you also say its just poltically motived conspiracy theory deserving to be discarded without a second thought? Apparently though thats all you base this comment on. In the film it doesnt imply either political side is better at all, in fact the only thing it says about it is how there was a strange lack of interest on either right or left.

If it had been up to people like you there would probably have never been a 911 Commission at all, since it was mostly due to victims family groups like the Jersey Girls putting pressure on the government that it was set up at all. 

You still didnt prove it exploited victims, you just said the film did even though the victims were saying exactly same things they were. Once again, would you tell the victims they are exploiting themselves?



> Please read what I'm saying very carefully.
> 
> There is no evidence whatsoever to support any of their claims. Not a shred.



The fact that you can sit there and type they have no evidence "at all" to think the government screwed up with 911 shows me you cant be reasoned with. And you first claimed you didnt believe me when I simply said they lied about having prior knowledge as to a terrorist threat "_involving planes_"!

But then you moved the goal posts! Then you did it again, and now you just deny everything. Apparently to "cover your ass" means something different to "coverup" to you and you can need to "cover your ass" even though you've done nothing wrong.

I would love to talk to someone about this properly, but you clearly dont want to. I wish Batz or Chris would come back. 



> > Second, its not really a conspiracy theory film .
> 
> 
> 
> Making claims that the US government had actionable intelligence allowing prevention of the 9/11 attacks and chose to ignore it and keep it quiet isn't a conspiracy theory?



Perhaps, but it doesnt claim to know why they did that unlike other conspiracy videos. It does no ally itself with the 911 Truth movement at all. Not Loose Change, 911 Mysteries, Alex Jones or anything like that. The fact is the government lied about not having any prior knowledge and yet they did nothing to prevent 911, nothing at all. You *yourself *said they lied to "cover their asses", and that this wasnt new or interesting. But when someone points out any reason *why *they might need to you have a baby. 

Apparently to you anyone who disscents from the official story is a lying democrat and cant be trusted even though one was *ON *the 911 Commission appointed by Bush and congress, or we have senators like Ron Paul a *Republican *. Or how about Richard Clarke, who was Bush's former counterterrorism chief who testified to the 911 Commission: *"To the loved ones of the victims of 911.òÿ[\0\0\0dµ’ÿ[\0\0\0dµ“ÿ[\0\0\0dµ”ÿ[\0\0\0dµ•ÿ[\0\0\0dµ–ÿ[\0\0\0dµ—ÿ[\0\0\0dµ˜ÿ[\0\0\0dµ™ÿ[\0\0\0dµšÿ[\0\0\0dµ›ÿ[\0\0\0dµœÿ[\0\0\0dµÿ[\0\0\0dµžÿ[\0\0\0dµŸÿ[\0\0\0dµ ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¡ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¢ÿ[\0\0\0dµ£ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¤ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¥ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¦ÿ[\0\0\0dµ§ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¨ÿ[\0\0\0dµ©ÿ[\0\0\0dµªÿ[\0\0\0dµ«ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¬ÿ[\0\0\0dµ­ÿ[\0\0\0dµ®ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¯ÿ[\0\0\0dµ°ÿ[\0\0\0dµ±ÿ[\0\0\0dµ²ÿ[\0\0\0dµ³ÿ[\0\0\0dµ´ÿ[\0\0\0dµµÿ[\0\0\0dµ¶ÿ[\0\0\0dµ·ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¸ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¹ÿ[\0\0\0dµºÿ[\0\0\0dµ»ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¼ÿ[\0\0\0dµ½ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¾ÿ[\0\0\0dµ¿ÿ[\0\0\0dµÀÿ[\0\0\0dµÁÿ[\0\0\0dµÂÿ[\0\0\0dµÃÿ[\0\0\0dµÄÿ[\0\0\0dµÅÿ[\0\0\0dµÆÿ[\0\0\0dµÇÿ[\0\0\0dµÈÿ[\0\0\0dµÉÿ[\0\0\0dµÊÿ[\0\0\0dµËÿ[\0\0\0dµÌÿ[\0\0\0dµÍÿ[\0\0\0dµÎÿ[\0\0\0dµÏÿ[\0\0\0dµÐÿ[\0\0\0dµÑÿ[\0\0\0dµÒÿ[\0\0\0dµÓÿ[\0\0\0dµÔÿ[\0\0\0dµÕÿ[\0\0\0dµÖÿ[\0\0\0dµ×ÿ[\0\0\0dµØÿ[\0\0\0dµÙÿ[\0\0\0dµÚÿ[\0\0\0dµÛÿ[\0\0\0dµÜÿ[\0\0\0dµÝÿ[\0\0\0dµÞÿ[\0\0\0dµßÿ[\0\0\0dµàÿ[\0\0\0dµáÿ[\0\0\0dµâÿ[\0\0\0dµãÿ[\0\0\0dµäÿ\\0\0\0dµåÿ\\0\0\0dµæÿ\\0\0\0dµçÿ\\0\0\0dµèÿ\\0\0\0dµéÿ\\0\0\0dµêÿ\\0\0\0dµëÿ\\0\0\0dµìÿ\\0\0\0dµíÿ\\0\0\0dµîÿ\\0\0\0dµïÿ\\0\0\0dµðÿ\\0\0\0dµñÿ\\0\0\0dµòÿ\\0\0\0dµóÿ\\0\0\0dµôÿ\\0\0\0dµõÿ\\0\0\0dµöÿ\\0\0\0dµ÷ÿ\\0\0\0dµøÿ\\0\0\0dµùÿ\\0\0\0dµúÿ\\0\0\0dµûÿ\\0\0\0dµüÿ\\0\0\0dµýÿ\\0\0\0dµþÿ\\0\0\0dµÿÿ\\0\0\0d¶\0ÿ\\0\0\0d¶\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶	ÿ\\0\0\0d¶
ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ\\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ÿ]\0\0\0d¶ ÿ]\0\0\0d¶!ÿ]\0\0\0d¶"ÿ]\0\0\0d¶#ÿ]\0\0\0d¶$ÿ]\0\0\0d¶%ÿ]\0\0\0d¶&ÿ]\0\0\0d¶'ÿ]\0\0\0d¶(ÿ]\0\0\0d¶)ÿ]\0\0\0d¶*ÿ]\0\0\0d¶+ÿ]\0\0\0d¶,ÿ]\0\0\0d¶-ÿ]\0\0\0d¶.ÿ]\0\0\0d¶/ÿ]\0\0\0d¶0ÿ]\0\0\0d¶1ÿ]\0\0\0d¶2ÿ]\0\0\0d¶3ÿ]\0\0\0d¶4ÿ]\0\0\0d¶5ÿ]\0\0\0d¶6ÿ]\0\0\0d¶7ÿ]\0\0\0d¶8ÿ]\0\0\0d¶9ÿ]\0\0\0d¶:ÿ]\0\0\0d¶;ÿ]\0\0\0d¶<ÿ]\0\0\0d¶=ÿ]\0\0\0d¶>ÿ^\0\0\0d¶?ÿ^\0\0\0d¶@ÿ^\0\0\0d¶Aÿ^\0\0\0d¶Bÿ^\0\0\0d¶Cÿ^\0\0\0d¶Dÿ^\0\0\0d¶Eÿ^\0\0\0d¶Fÿ^\0\0\0d¶Gÿ^\0\0\0d¶Hÿ^\0\0\0d¶Iÿ^\0\0\0d¶Jÿ^\0\0\0d¶Kÿ^\0\0\0d¶Lÿ^\0\0\0d¶Mÿ^\0\0\0d¶Nÿ^\0\0\0d¶Oÿ^\0\0\0d¶Pÿ^\0\0\0d¶Qÿ^\0\0\0d¶Rÿ^\0\0\0d¶Sÿ^\0\0\0d¶Tÿ^\0\0\0d¶Uÿ^\0\0\0d¶Vÿ^\0\0\0d¶Wÿ^\0\0\0d¶Xÿ^\0\0\0d¶Yÿ^\0\0\0d¶Zÿ^\0\0\0d¶[ÿ^\0\0\0d¶\ÿ^\0\0\0d¶]ÿ^\0\0\0d¶^ÿ^\0\0\0d¶_ÿ^\0\0\0d¶`ÿ^\0\0\0d¶aÿ^\0\0\0d¶bÿ^\0\0\0d¶cÿ^\0\0\0d¶dÿ^\0\0\0d¶eÿ^\0\0\0d¶fÿ^\0\0\0d¶gÿ^\0\0\0d¶hÿ^\0\0\0d¶iÿ^\0\0\0d¶jÿ^\0\0\0d¶kÿ^\0\0\0d¶lÿ^\0\0\0d¶mÿ^\0\0\0d¶nÿ_\0\0\0d¶oÿ_\0\0\0d¶pÿ_\0\0\0d¶qÿ_\0\0\0d¶r\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òÿ_\0\0\0d¶tÿ_\0\0\0d¶uÿ_\0\0\0d¶vÿ_\0\0\0d¶wÿ_\0\0\0d¶xÿ_\0\0\0d¶yÿ_\0\0\0d¶zÿ_\0\0\0d¶{ÿ_\0\0\0d¶|ÿ_\0\0\0d¶}ÿ_\0\0\0d¶~ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶€ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶‚ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ƒÿ_\0\0\0d¶„ÿ_\0\0\0d¶…ÿ_\0\0\0d¶†ÿ_\0\0\0d¶‡ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ˆÿ_\0\0\0d¶‰ÿ_\0\0\0d¶Šÿ_\0\0\0d¶‹ÿ_\0\0\0d¶Œÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶Žÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶‘ÿ_\0\0\0d¶’ÿ_\0\0\0d¶“ÿ_\0\0\0d¶”ÿ_\0\0\0d¶•ÿ_\0\0\0d¶–ÿ_\0\0\0d¶—ÿ_\0\0\0d¶˜ÿ_\0\0\0d¶™ÿ_\0\0\0d¶šÿ_\0\0\0d¶›ÿ_\0\0\0d¶œÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶žÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ÿÿ_\0\0\0d¶ ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¡ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¢ÿ_\0\0\0d¶£ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¤ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¥ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¦ÿ_\0\0\0d¶§ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¨ÿ_\0\0\0d¶©ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ªÿ_\0\0\0d¶«ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¬ÿ_\0\0\0d¶­ÿ_\0\0\0d¶®ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¯ÿ_\0\0\0d¶°ÿ_\0\0\0d¶±ÿ_\0\0\0d¶²ÿ_\0\0\0d¶³ÿ_\0\0\0d¶´ÿ_\0\0\0d¶µÿ_\0\0\0d¶¶ÿ_\0\0\0d¶·ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¸ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¹ÿ_\0\0\0d¶ºÿ_\0\0\0d¶»ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¼ÿ_\0\0\0d¶½ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¾ÿ_\0\0\0d¶¿ÿ_\0\0\0d¶Àÿ_\0\0\0d¶Áÿ_\0\0\0d¶Âÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ãÿ_\0\0\0d¶Äÿ_\0\0\0d¶Åÿ_\0\0\0d¶Æÿ_\0\0\0d¶Çÿ_\0\0\0d¶Èÿ_\0\0\0d¶Éÿ_\0\0\0d¶Êÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ëÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ìÿ_\0\0\0d¶Íÿ_\0\0\0d¶Îÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ïÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ðÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ñÿ_\0\0\0d¶Òÿ_\0\0\0d¶Óÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ôÿ_\0\0\0d¶Õÿ_\0\0\0d¶Öÿ_\0\0\0d¶×ÿ_\0\0\0d¶Øÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ùÿ_\0\0\0d¶Úÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ûÿ_\0\0\0d¶Üÿ_\0\0\0d¶Ýÿ_\0\0\0d¶Þÿ_\0\0\0d¶ßÿ_\0\0\0d¶àÿ_\0\0\0d¶áÿ_\0\0\0d¶âÿ_\0\0\0d¶ã\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0òÿ_\0\0\0d¶åÿ_\0\0\0d¶æÿ_\0\0\0d¶çÿ_\0\0\0d¶èÿ_\0\0\0d¶éÿ_\0\0\0d¶êÿ_\0\0\0d¶ëÿ_\0\0\0d¶ìÿ_\0\0\0d¶íÿ_\0\0\0d¶îÿ_\0\0\0d¶ïÿ_\0\0\0d¶ðÿ_\0\0\0d¶ñÿ_\0\0\0d¶òÿ_\0\0\0d¶óÿ_\0\0\0d¶ôÿ_\0\0\0d¶õÿ_\0\0\0d¶öÿ_\0\0\0d¶÷ÿ_\0\0\0d¶øÿ_\0\0\0d¶ùÿ_\0\0\0d¶úÿ_\0\0\0d¶ûÿ_\0\0\0d¶üÿ_\0\0\0d¶ýÿ_\0\0\0d¶þÿ_\0\0\0d¶ÿÿ_\0\0\0d·\0ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·	ÿ_\0\0\0d·
ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d· ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d·ÿ_\0\0\0d· ÿ_\0\0\0d·!ÿ_\0\0\0d·"ÿ_\0\0\0d·#ÿ_\0\0\0d·$ÿ_\0\0\0d·%ÿ_\0\0\0d·&ÿ_\0\0\0d·'ÿ_\0\0\0d·(ÿ_\0\0\0d·)ÿ_\0\0\0d·*ÿ_\0\0\0d·+ÿ_\0\0\0d·,ÿ_\0\0\0d·-ÿ_\0\0\0d·.ÿ_\0\0\0d·/ÿ_\0\0\0d·0ÿ_\0\0\0d·1ÿ_\0\0\0d·2ÿ_\0\0\0d·3ÿ_\0\0\0d·4ÿ_\0\0\0d·5ÿ_\0\0\0d·6ÿ_\0\0\0d·7ÿ_\0\0\0d·8ÿ_\0\0\0d·9ÿ_\0\0\0d·:ÿ_\0\0\0d·;ÿ_\0\0\0d·<ÿ_\0\0\0d·=ÿ_\0\0\0d·>ÿ_\0\0\0d·?ÿ_\0\0\0d·@ÿ_\0\0\0d·cÿ_\0\0\0d·dÿ_\0\0\0d·eÿ_\0\0\0d·fÿ_\0\0\0d·gÿ_\0\0\0d·hÿ`\0\0\0d·Aÿ`\0\0\0d·Bÿ`\0\0\0d·Cÿ`\0\0\0d·Dÿ`\0\0\0d·Eÿ`\0\0\0d·Fÿ`\0\0\0d·Gÿ`\0\0\0d·Hÿ`\0\0\0d·Iÿ`\0\0\0d·Jÿ`\0\0\0d·Kÿ`\0\0\0d·Lÿ`\0\0\0d·Mÿ`\0\0\0d·N\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0\0y the government, the guy in charge of the Commisson was a Bush administration insider and only 2 of them had access to certain critical data and only they were allowed to determine if the rest of the Comission could see it. And if it was a witch hunt why does their report not reflect thi in the slightest? 

2. You think there shouldnt have been an investigation into the worst terror attack on America in history? Because without the families arguing for one, they probably wouldnt have done anything. 




I agree that the Government delayed information and behaved questionably at times.

Click to expand...


:| Yet you said there was "no evidence whatsoever" to support this, "not a shred".




But I don't see it being overly significant. The way I see it the US administration was understandably afraid of being lynched for their potential publicly perceived lack of action. Slip up and say one slightly thoughtless thing and all of a sudden it gets completely misinterpreted and misrepresented in the media and then there's a mob with torches beating down your door.

Click to expand...


Strange logic you have here. You think the government needed to lie cover their asses, even though they were innocent? That they were so scared of slipping up and saying "one slightly thoughtless thing" which might get "misinterpreted and misrepresented " its somehow understandable they lied? But how stupid do you take them for? That would make it even more damning when some journalist actually finds some dirt on them. See, if they really werent incomptent or negligent then all they need to do is tell the truth, but you say they need to lie even though they were innocent! If you havent done anything wrong theres nothing to cover up or cover your ass, becuase your ass is clean! 




I'm not about to go and debunk every point made in the film, that's ridiculous. How about you show me where it's right and I'll do my best to explain or direct you to information that can explain your question?

Click to expand...


Would there be any point? You wont even listen to anyone that says Bush's administration screwed up. Not Bush's counterterrorism chief who even apologised to the victims familes or the 911 Commissioners who said Bush did nothing to stop 911 in spite of many warnings or that the 911 Commission was hindered by the government from doings its job, or even the families who you say are just exploiting themselves for apparently some political agenda as well. If you wont be reasonable about anything, what point is there in going any further? I would like bring up the August 6th PDB and how Coni Rice lied about it and dodged questions, but I dare say theres no point.*


----------



## Ed (Oct 18, 2007)

[Continued from above post....]



> One which I found amusing at the time was something said by the one of the widows. One of them says "nearly 2 hours in which jets were flying around the US and the military did nothing." 0838 to 1003 is 1 hr 25 mins - not really "nearly 2 hours" is it? And that's only 10 minutes into the film - it doesn't start off too well.
> 
> There are plenty more falsehoods throughout the film that I could point out.



Firstly, you're wrong. The FAA alerted air defences at 8:38, but they lost contact with Flight 11 at *8:13* when they refused to respond to an order. U93 crashed around 10:03, so that *is *"nearly 2 hours". 

The only error here is that the film incorrectly presented the times before cutting to Laurie Aken. 

Secondly, even if you were right 1hr 25mins is still too long especially considering how many and how fast responce times were in previous possible hijack threats. And this wasnt even just 1 plane, it was 4! They knew from credible sources that a terrorist threat was imminent that they would very likely use hijacked planes as weapons and that the WTC and Pentagon would be the most probable targets. They still didnt have any planes ready to take down the third plane from going into the Pentagon even after WTC 1 and 2 were hit! Even NORAD said they could have shot the planes down had communication and information not been so bad that day.

Thirdly, even I can come up with a couple of errors in the film and they are actually much more _real _errors. Of course a few errors here and there are to be expected with *any *film. But *this *is the example you come up with of it promoting "falsehoods"? Please... :|


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 19, 2007)

on a related note. I just re-watched some clips of the planes flying into WTC and the towers crashing. When you see the force, the size of the explosion as well as how the towers clearly start collapsing at and above the crash point... All talk of bombs, and"fire not melting steel" seems so silly. Just check out how massive those explosions are. They expand larger than a city block! 

Not something I really want to discuss - just wanted to re-state it... as I had kind of forgotten just how much trauma was done to those buildings. 



> Secondly, even if you were right 1hr 25mins is still too long especially considering how many and how fast responce times were in previous possible hijack threats. And this wasnt even just 1 plane, it was 4! They knew from credible sources that a terrorist threat was imminent that they would very likely use hijacked planes as weapons and that the WTC and Pentagon would be the most probable targets. They still didnt have any planes ready to take down the third plane from going into the Pentagon even after WTC 1 and 2 were hit! Even NORAD said they could have shot the planes down had communication and information not been so bad that day.



Again, not something I wish to discuss. I really dont have the time... :(

But I would like to state my opinion. To me its just pretty obvious that the most straight forward answer is that the intelligence they had was no more credible or actionable than the myriad of other reports they get. They were not ready with fighter jets to take down planes because they did not beleive it enough. 

Just my opinion. I'll try watch the film when I get the time... is it that "Press for Truth" one?

I guess some things you cant dispute the facts of. Like for instance response time... The only thing left to debate is how you interprit those facts.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 19, 2007)

Ed @ Fri Oct 19 said:


> Prove it has a political agenda. If the film was about Watergate would you also say its just poltically motived conspiracy theory deserving to be discarded without a second thought? Apparently though thats all you base this comment on. In the film it doesnt imply either political side is better at all, in fact the only thing it says about it is how there was a strange lack of interest on either right or left.



No, because there was actual proper evidence supporting the claims made about Watergate.



> You still didnt prove it exploited victims, you just said the film did even though the victims were saying exactly same things they were. Once again, would you tell the victims they are exploiting themselves?



Part of the grieving process is feeling angry. By creating a video which claims that the US government could've prevented these attacks, while offering no evidence for this claim, it's playing on the victims' anger in order to get them on side. I'm talking about all the victims, not just these widows - who are unwittingly a part of this exploitation themselves.



> The fact that you can sit there and type they have no evidence "at all" to think the government screwed up with 911 shows me you cant be reasoned with.



Ok, I'll admit that they lied about "not knowing they'd use planes as weapons," and this is an example of a "questionable" act by the government. But I mean, isn't it obvious that terrorists might hi-jack planes and use them as weapons? I mean, who's the genius that figured that out? You've still offered no proof that the government had actionable intelligence that they could've acted on and prevented 911 from happening. This is a serious claim, and one which you continually fail to prove.



> ...it doesnt claim to know why they did that unlike other conspiracy videos. It does no ally itself with the 911 Truth movement at all. Not Loose Change, 911 Mysteries, Alex Jones or anything like that...



I don't care who it aligns itself with, its fundamental flaw is that it doesn't offer evidence for serious claims.



> Apparently to you anyone who disscents from the official story is a lying democrat and cant be trusted even though one was *ON *the 911 Commission appointed by Bush and congress, or we have senators like Ron Paul a *Republican *. Or how about Richard Clarke, who was Bush's former counterterrorism chief who testified to the 911 Commission: *"To the loved ones of the victims of 911... Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you, failed you. And I failed you." *



Again, you're being presumptuous. I merely pointed out that a statement you referred to, to add weight to your case, was made by a man of an opposing political party - this is clearly a conflict of interest, don't you agree?

Richard Clarke also has a conflict of interest. Aside from being a disgruntled former employee at the front of the Department of Homeland Security, he had a published book, slated for release not long after making those statements, which lashes out at the Bush administration in the same vein as his quote above.

[quote:cdbe76fòÿ²   dÍãÿ²   dÍäÿ²   dÍåÿ²   dÍæÿ²   dÍçÿ²   dÍèÿ²   dÍéÿ²   dÍêÿ²   dÍëÿ²   dÍìÿ²   dÍíÿ²   dÍîÿ²   dÍïÿ²   dÍðÿ²   dÍñÿ²   dÍòÿ²   dÍóÿ²   dÍôÿ²   dÍõÿ²   dÍöÿ²   dÍ÷ÿ²   dÍøÿ²   dÍùÿ²   dÍúÿ²   dÍûÿ²   dÍüÿ²   dÍýÿ²   dÍþÿ²   dÍÿÿ²   dÎ ÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎ	ÿ²   dÎ
ÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎ ÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎÿ²   dÎ ÿ²   dÎ!ÿ²   dÎ"ÿ²   dÎ#ÿ²   dÎ$ÿ²   dÎ%ÿ²   dÎ&ÿ²   dÎ'ÿ²   dÎ(ÿ²   dÎ)ÿ²   dÎ*ÿ²   dÎ+ÿ²   dÎ,ÿ²   dÎ-ÿ²   dÎ.ÿ²   dÎ/ÿ²   dÎ0ÿ³   dÎ1ÿ³   dÎ2ÿ³   dÎ3ÿ³   dÎ4ÿ³   dÎ5ÿ³   dÎ6ÿ³   dÎ7ÿ³   dÎ8ÿ³   dÎ9ÿ³   dÎ:ÿ³   dÎ;ÿ³   dÎ<ÿ³   dÎ=ÿ³   dÎ>ÿ³   dÎ?ÿ³   dÎ@ÿ³   dÎAÿ³   dÎBÿ´   dÎCÿ´   dÎDÿ´   dÎEÿ´   dÎFÿ´   dÎGÿ´   dÎHÿ´   dÎIÿ´   dÎJÿ´   dÎKÿ´   dÎLÿ´   dÎMÿ´   dÎNÿ´   dÎOÿ´   dÎPÿ´   dÎQÿ´   dÎR              òÿ´   dÎTÿ´   dÎUÿ´   dÎVÿ´   dÎWÿ´   dÎXÿ´   dÎYÿ´   dÎZÿ´   dÎ[ÿ´   dÎ\ÿ´   dÎ]ÿ´   dÎ^ÿ´   dÎ_ÿ´   dÎ`ÿ´   dÎaÿ´   dÎbÿ´   dÎcÿ´   dÎdÿ´   dÎeÿ´   dÎfÿ´   dÎgÿ´   dÎhÿ´   dÎiÿ´   dÎjÿ´   dÎkÿ´   dÎlÿ´   dÎmÿ´   dÎnÿ´   dÎoÿ´   dÎpÿ´   dÎqÿ´   dÎrÿ´   dÎsÿ´   dÎtÿ´   dÎuÿ´   dÎvÿ´   dÎwÿ´   dÎxÿ´   dÎyÿ´   dÎzÿ´   dÎ{ÿ´   dÎ|ÿ´   dÎ}ÿ´   dÎ~ÿ´   dÎÿ´   dÎ€ÿ´   dÎÿ´   dÎ‚ÿ´   dÎƒÿ´   dÎ„ÿ´   dÎ…ÿ´   dÎ†ÿ´   dÎ‡ÿ´   dÎˆÿ´   dÎ‰ÿ´   dÎŠÿµ   dÎ‹ÿµ   dÎŒÿµ   dÎÿµ   dÎŽÿµ   dÎÿµ   dÎÿµ   dÎ‘ÿµ   dÎ’ÿµ   dÎ“ÿµ   dÎ”ÿ¶   dÎ•ÿ¶   dÎ–ÿ¶   dÎ—ÿ¶   dÎ˜ÿ¶   dÎ™ÿ¶   dÎšÿ¶   dÎ›ÿ¶   dÎœÿ¶   dÎÿ¶   dÎžÿ¶   dÎŸÿ¶   dÎ ÿ¶   dÎ¡ÿ¶   dÎ¢ÿ¶   dÎ£ÿ¶   dÎ¤ÿ¶   dÎ¥ÿ¶   dÎ¦ÿ¶   dÎ§ÿ¶   dÎ¨ÿ¶   dÎ©ÿ¶   dÎªÿ·   dÎ«ÿ·   dÎ¬ÿ·   dÎ­ÿ·   dÎ®ÿ·   dÎ¯ÿ·   dÎ°ÿ·   dÎ±ÿ·   dÎ²ÿ·   dÎ³ÿ·   dÎ´ÿ·   dÎµÿ·   dÎ¶ÿ·   dÎ·ÿ·   dÎ¸ÿ·   dÎ¹ÿ·   dÎºÿ·   dÎ»ÿ·   dÎ¼ÿ·   dÎ½ÿ·   dÎ¾ÿ·   dÎ¿ÿ·   dÎÀÿ·   dÎÁÿ·   dÎÂÿ·   dÎÃ              òÿ·   dÎÅÿ·   dÎÆÿ·   dÎÇÿ·   dÎÈÿ·   dÎÉÿ·   dÎÊÿ·   dÎËÿ·   dÎÌÿ·   dÎÍÿ·   dÎÎÿ·   dÎÏÿ·   dÎÐÿ¸   dÎÑÿ¸   dÎÒÿ¸   dÎÓÿ¸   dÎÔÿ¸   dÎÕÿ¸   dÎÖÿ¸   dÎ×ÿ¸   dÎØÿ¸   dÎÙÿ¸   dÎÚÿ¸   dÎÛÿ¸   dÎÜÿ¸   dÎÝÿ¸   dÎÞÿ¹   dÎßÿ¹   dÎàÿ¹   dÎáÿ¹   dÎâÿ¹   dÎãÿ¹   dÎäÿ¹   dÎåÿ¹   dÎæÿ¹   dÎçÿ¹   dÎèÿ¹   dÎéÿ¹   dÎêÿ¹   dÎëÿ¹   dÎìÿ¹   dÎíÿ¹   dÎîÿ¹   dÎïÿ¹   dÎðÿ¹   dÎñÿ¹   dÎòÿ¹   dÎóÿ¹   dÎôÿ¹   dÎõÿ¹   dÎöÿ¹   dÎ÷ÿ¹   dÎøÿ¹   dÎùÿ¹   dÎúÿ¹   dÎûÿ¹   dÎüÿ¹   dÎýÿ¹   dÎþÿ¹   dÎÿÿ¹   dÏ ÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏ	ÿ¹   dÏ
ÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏ ÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏÿ¹   dÏ ÿ¹   dÏ!ÿ¹   dÏ"ÿ¹   dÏ#ÿ¹   dÏ$ÿ¹   dÏ%ÿ¹   dÏ&ÿ¹   dÏ'ÿ¹   dÏ(ÿ¹   dÏ)ÿ¹   dÏ*ÿ¹   dÏ+ÿ¹   dÏ,ÿ¹   dÏ-ÿ¹   dÏ.ÿ¹   dÏ/ÿ¹   dÏ0ÿ¹   dÏ1ÿ¹   dÏ2ÿ¹   dÏ3ÿ¹   dÏ4              òÿ¹   dÏ6ÿ¹   dÏ7ÿ¹   dÏ8ÿ¹   dÏ9ÿ¹   dÏ:ÿ¹   dÏ;ÿ¹   dÏ<ÿ¹   dÏ=ÿ¹   dÏ>ÿ¹   dÏ?ÿ¹   dÏ@ÿ¹   dÏAÿ¹   dÏBÿ¹   dÏCÿ¹   dÏDÿ¹   dÏEÿ¹   dÏFÿ¹   dÏGÿ¹   dÏHÿ¹   dÏIÿ¹   dÏJÿ¹   dÏKÿ¹   dÏLÿ¹   dÏMÿ¹   dÏNÿ¹   dÏOÿ¹   dÏPÿ¹   dÏQÿ¹   dÏRÿ¹   dÏSÿ¹   dÏTÿ¹   dÏUÿ¹   dÏVÿº   dÏWÿº   dÏXÿº   dÏYÿº   dÏZÿº   dÏ[ÿº   dÏ\ÿ»   dÏ]ÿ»   dÏ^ÿ»   dÏ_ÿ»   dÏ`ÿ»


----------



## Ed (Oct 19, 2007)

Sheesh, its like arguing with a Creationist. Be back when I have some time.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 19, 2007)

Ed @ Sat Oct 20 said:


> Sheesh, its like arguing with a Creationist. Be back when I have some time.



Actually, I'm an atheist that subscribes to science, reason and also a little thing called critical thinking - you might want to try it some time. I guess you could say your assessment of me arguing like a creationist is about as far off the mark as you could possibly get. Nice try though.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 19, 2007)

Ed @ October 19th 2007 said:


> Sheesh, its like arguing with a Creationist. Be back when I have some time.



Wow, thats rather insulting. Alex has been pretty straight forward with what he has written up there, and it makes sense. Just because he doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't mean he is arguing like a creationist. He isn't grasping for straws or linking to un-credible sources, either... which is something creationists do.

You're really grasping for straws on a lot of stuff, you can't really expect us to just shoot down a plane just because it went missing for 30 mins. Thats ridiculous. You also can't expect us to shoot down a plane over a city. The debris from the plane would rain down on the innocent bystanders below, killing many people in the process. When a plane is lost, they don't send out Hornets to shoot them down in an hour. They try to find it. Now how exactly would that look to the citizens of NYC and the rest of the world if we shot down an aircraft above their city and killed a bunch of people from the falling debris? How exactly would it reflect on the government then? How exactly was the government supposed to know that the planes flying in the city were going to crash into a tower? Even if it went into low airspace around the city, just how are they to know that and shoot it down? You just don't, and like others have already posted, the government gets tons of threats from people every single day.

You're really being a bit ridiculous and to tell the truth, I think you've stepped over the line.


----------



## Ed (Oct 20, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Fri Oct 19 said:


> Ed @ October 19th 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh, its like arguing with a Creationist. Be back when I have some time.
> ...



Not my fault, its true. When I get the time I will respond to every point Alex makes, which isnt something he has bothered to do for me. I've argued with Creationists A LOT so I am familiar with their tactics, and Alex' post remind me a great deal of them. I can and will support my comment. 



> Alex has been pretty straight forward with what he has written up there, and it makes sense. Just because he doesn't see eye to eye with you doesn't mean he is arguing like a creationist. He isn't grasping for straws or linking to un-credible sources, either... which is something creationists do.



What sources has he provided? All he's done is ignore and deny everything he doesnt agree with. Creationists ask for evidence all the time for whatever argument it is they happen to be pushing, and if you give them that evidence they just deny it in pretty much exactly the same ways Alex has done here. If you link them to sources showing transitional fossils they wont bother to read it, even tell you they didnt bother and then still continue to claim you havent provided any evidence. Thats exactly what Alex did. 

And I like talking with guys like Chris and Nick even if they dont agree with me, I just havent been able to because Alex is the only one that seems to be replying. I dont care if someone disagrees with me its why and how they disagree that matters. So please dont pretend that Im only being like this with Alex because he doesnt agree with me.

Speaking of Chris: Ill reply to you when I get that time 



> You're really grasping for straws on a lot of stuff, you can't really expect us to just shoot down a plane just because it went missing for 30 mins. Thats ridiculous. You also can't expect us to shoot down a plane over a city. The debris from the plane would rain down on the innocent bystanders below, killing many people in the process.


No its not ridiculous. If you'd being paying attention, its firstly about the fact they *werent even in a position* to shoot down the planes. They didnt even get close to intercepting any of them despite having many other successfull and fast intercepts in the past. Secondly, the Norad chief said himself that they could have shot down the planes had information and communication not been so bad. 



> When a plane is lost, they don't send out Hornets to shoot them down in an hour.


Except thats a strawman, something Creationists love because it means they can try and avoid the real point. I never argued they could have or should have shot a lost or suspicious plane down in under an hour. But we know they usually respond very quickly to hijack threats or suspicious craft yet on 911 they failed 4 times in one day. So they werent even in a position to shoot it down and even if they did think it was the "usual" kind of hijacking at first there still wasnt any responce when the 3rd plane hit the Pentagon.



> How exactly was the government supposed to know that the planes flying in the city were going to crash into a tower?


Well aside from all the intelligence about imminent threats about Bin Laden terrorists using planes as weapons, with the Pentagon and WTC as targets, after two of the hijacked planes hit WTC 1 and 2 and you have a 3rd heading towards the Pentagon you might think someone would have figured out at some point during this that maybe this wasnt any ordinary hjiacking. But after the attacks the Bush administration claimed complete and _*total *_ignorence to any of it but we know that just doesnt fit with the evidence. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Oct 20, 2007)

Alex W @ Fri Oct 19 said:


> Ed @ Sat Oct 20 said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh, its like arguing with a Creationist. Be back when I have some time.
> ...



So you cant argue _like _a Creationist... because you're an atheist? And you cant possibly be unreasonable and illogical about a topic... becuase you're an atheist? I wonder how long you "critically" examinied this logic. :roll:


----------



## Ed (Oct 20, 2007)

Alex W @ Fri Oct 19 said:


> No, because there was actual proper evidence supporting the claims made about Watergate.



And theres actual evidence supporting claims of negligence and incomptence in regards to 911. The fact they have lied over and over again should be enough for any openminded person to distrust them, but I guess its easier to continue to have faith in what they say anyway.



> Part of the grieving process is feeling angry. By creating a video which claims that the US government could've prevented these attacks, while offering no evidence for this claim, it's playing on the victims' anger in order to get them on side. I'm talking about all the victims, not just these widows - who are unwittingly a part of this exploitation themselves.



You imply the film influenced the widows? The widows and the family members did their own research themselves. The film isnt saying anything the widows havent been saying for years. So again, you must be saying the victims are exploiting themselves. 



> Ok, I'll admit that they lied about "not knowing they'd use planes as weapons," and this is an example of a "questionable" act by the government.


 :| I wish you'd stop contradicting yourself. One moment you're saying theres not a shred of evidence at all for their claims, then you say they behaved questionably. You finially say here you admit they lied about knowing terrorists might use planes as weapons, and that this was an example of this questionable act. Yet you just got done telling me that the victims "offering no evidence for [their] claims". Well them lying over and over about their intelligence IS evidence. 



> But I mean, isn't it obvious that terrorists might hi-jack planes and use them as weapons?


It is, and yet they still lied so straight faced about it.



> You've still offered no proof that the government had actionable intelligence that they could've acted on and prevented 911 from happening. This is a serious claim, and one which you continually fail to prove.


Yes I have provided evidence, you just keep hand waving it. 

Why dont you tell me what you think of the August 6th PDB and why that doesnt count as evidence for anything, and why Condi Rice needed to lie about it. It was in the film btw so you should know what Im talking about. 

Tell me why you think the government feels the need to "cover their asses" about something you claim they didnt even need to. You say they had no intelligence that could have made a difference and that theres no evidence for this claim, no evidence for any negligence or imcompetence at all. Yet you keep side stepping around the fact that they still lied over and over about what they knew. You dont need to cover up and misrepresent evidence when you have nothing to hide from it. 



> Again, you're being presumptuous. I merely pointed out that a statement you referred to, to add weight to your case, was made by a man of an opposing political party - this is clearly a conflict of interest, don't you agree?



Except when backed up by evidence, its not. Max Cleland tells us *why *he was upset with how the Commission was being conducted, but instead of responding to what he was actually talking about you simply say he cant be trusted because he as a conflict of interest through being a democrat. Its like Republicans are infallible to you, I suppose? No, it turns out, even republicans that speak out against Bush are not good enough not even Bush's former counterterrorism chief at the time. Whoever they are you'll still find some reason to hand wave everything they're saying. Attacking them personally instead of their arguments. 



> Richard Clarke also has a conflict of interest. Aside from being a disgruntled former employee at the front of the Department of Homeland Security, he had a published book, slated for release not long after making those statements, which lashes out at the Bush administration in the same vein as his quote above.



Perhaps that might give you pause if it wasnt for the fact that we can support his story. For example the August 6th PDB they clearly ignored and Condi Rice apparently felt it was so damaging to the questions asked of her about it that she was compelled to lie and misrepresented it. And if she didnt intentionally lie about it it means she couldnt remember, which backs up Clarkes story that they he tried to get them to listen to the reports but they didnt. I mean this is the US governments counterterrorism chief here telling them they need to take this stuff seriously, and they dont. 



> Max Cleland - another former democratic senator - another conflict of interest. That aside however, do you consider all these statements to be any kind of evidence? A spokesperson from NASA could make a statement claiming that NASA had found life on mars, would that make it true?



See above. Ad hominem rather than attacking his actual arguments. 



> How is asking someone to provide evidence to back up their claims "demonising" them?



Its demonising when you dont care who says the US government was incompetent and negligent and literally hand wave everything they're saying arguing that just because they wrote a book about it, or are a democrat means we should completely discount everything they're saying. 



> Calling them hijackers before the event is a bit of a misnomer, don't you think?


They knew the imminent Bin Laden massive terrroist attack was most likely going to take the form of a hijacking. The FBI was even monitoring flight schools for suspicious activity so someone was clearly concerned enough about it to order that particular investigation. 



> As I and others have pointed out, before the event they were likely a drop in the bucket of other possible terrorist threats. Do you have any proof that they priorly knew anything specific about what these guys were planning and when?


Ive given you lots of evidence and lots were presented in the film that Im still skeptical you've yet to actually bothered to watch. What evidence do you have that this inteligence and warnings they were getting were "drops in the bucket"? Is it because the same liars that said they had no intelligence at all to predict terrorists might use planes as weapons, said it was?



> I already covered Dick Clarke above.



And what about for Assistant Defence Secretary Richard Perle:

"I had been in favor of removing Saddam for a long time before 9/11, because it seemed to me he posed a danger to the U.S., and the sense of danger he posed was made far more acute by 9/11, because we discovered on 9/11 that we had waited too long to deal with a known threat -- with Osama bin Laden, with al Qaeda. We had been watching al Qaeda prepare for an attack on the U.S., *and we did nothing*."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/04/ ... index.html

It seems former CIA Director George Tenet wants to claim it was human error that contributed to the failure on 911. However he still says it _was _failiure.

"I still lie awake at night thinking about everything that could have been, that wasn’t done to stop 9/11. *To the 9/11 families, I said, you deserve better from your entire government. All of us*," Tenet says. 

If he lies awake, men like Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Midhar, two of the 9/11 hijackers, are among the reasons. Before 9/11, Tenet’s CIA headquarters knew that they were al Qaeda and in America. But the information was filed, not passed to the FBI. 

"*Two of the 19 hijackers, in your files, in Langley, Virginia, a year and a half before 9/11 … they don't get on a watch list. They don't get on a no-fly list. You know these are bad guys," *Pelley remarks. 

"*Scott, they don't*. And honest people doing honest work, for whatever you know, all of these people who are doing the best that they can, and understand this in great granularity, understand all of this and feel this pain, we all know this. I can't dress this up for you," Tenet replies." 
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/ ... 8375.shtml)

I suppose neither of these are good enough either.



> I'm still waiting for anything of any substance.



Except you dont listen. When we were talking about Iraq you didnt read two websites I gave you or the Downing Street Memo, only watching a short youtube video and then still have the cheek to say I havent given any evidence. 

I was waiting for you to reply to my responce about your accusation that the film was wrong about it being nearly 2 hours with no military responce, but that never came. I assume then that you accept that point.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 20, 2007)

Ed @ Sun Oct 21 said:


> Alex W @ Fri Oct 19 said:
> 
> 
> > Ed @ Sat Oct 20 said:
> ...



Hah! Speaking of strawman arguments!

I never said I _couldn't_ argue like a creationist, you just decided to jump to that conclusion yourself. I was disagreeing with you, by saying that I _don't_, and haven't done so in this argument thus far. You really need to stop reading things into things that aren't there - it doesn't help your case any.

Similarly, when a politician or other government official, ex or current, with an obvious conflict of interest says something to the effect of "there were multiple warnings prior to the attack," you need to stop concluding that "conspiracy theory" is the only possible explanation for 911 occurring.

It's ironic you make the creationist comparison actually, because really, that's the way you're behaving. By making the claim that there was a conspiracy to purposefully not prevent 911, and then not supplying sufficient evidence to support this claim, it's you who's making the same leap of faith that a creationist does to arrive at your conclusion.

The onus is on you.


----------



## Ed (Oct 20, 2007)

Alex W @ Sat Oct 20 said:


> Hah! Speaking of strawman arguments!
> 
> I never said I _couldn't_ argue like a creationist, you just decided to jump to that conclusion yourself. I was disagreeing with you, by saying that I _don't_, and haven't done so in this argument thus far. You really need to stop reading things into things that aren't there - it doesn't help your case any.



If that wasnt your argument theres no reason to bring up the point that you're an atheist as its totally irrelevant. What does being an atheist have to do with being logical about eveything? And then after saying that you have critical thinking skills because you're an atheist imply that because of that you dont argue like a Creationist. If that wasnt your argument, then fine I dont really care, but then your post trying to respond to my criticism of the content of your posts was pretty pointless. 



> Similarly, when a politician or other government official, ex or current, with an obvious conflict of interest says something to the effect of "there were multiple warnings prior to the attack," *you need to stop concluding that "conspiracy theory" is the only possible explanation for 911 occurring*.



There are many "possible" explanations, but not all of them are probable. There most certianly was a coverup, because they lied about their intelligence. You said there was a cover up too, but said they lied to "cover their asses", but this is just semantics, its the same thing. And you dont need to cover your ass when its clean. 



> It's ironic you make the creationist comparison actually, because really, that's the way you're behaving. By making the claim that there was a conspiracy* to purposefully not prevent 911*, and then not supplying sufficient evidence to support this claim, it's you who's making the same leap of faith that a creationist does to arrive at your conclusion.



Why keep misrepresenting me? The government purposefully not preventing 911 is a possibility and one which I have posed on this thread. But even if that wasnt true that doesnt mean they werent negligent or incompetent and Ive said if thats true they deserve to have to take responsibility for it. I have clarified this over and over again and so for you to continue to say Im arguing something Im not I can only assume you must be doing it deliberately in the hopes that no one will notice.


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 20, 2007)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thq6248lYVs


----------



## Alex W (Oct 20, 2007)

Ed @ Sun Oct 21 said:


> ...The government purposefully not preventing 911 is a possibility and one which I have posed on this thread...



This is getting complicated.

I'd like to stop arguing about this now.
If you think there is evidence to suggest that a 9/11 conspiracy is plausible, that's fine but the evidence has not persuaded me.

It's not that I want to believe anything either way, it's just that I find the evidence to be weak.

The difference between me and a creationist is that creationists actually want to believe something, so there is a bias in their argument. Where there is none in mine.


----------



## Alex W (Oct 20, 2007)

choc0thrax @ Sun Oct 21 said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Thq6248lYVs



:shock: the end bit to that film is rate creepi...


----------



## Ed (Oct 20, 2007)

Alex W @ Sat Oct 20 said:


> Ed @ Sun Oct 21 said:
> 
> 
> > ...The government purposefully not preventing 911 is a possibility and one which I have posed on this thread...
> ...



Why? Apparently you've only just now figured out what Im talking about. It really wasnt too difficult to understand, you know.



> If you think there is evidence to suggest that a 9/11 conspiracy is plausible, that's fine but the evidence has not persuaded me.



Except you havent been listening to any of it. When we were talking about Iraq you kept claiming I had provided no evidence to support my position even though you refused to read any documents or websites I provided to support it. How can I take you seriously when you act like that?

And you first said Press for Truth was exploiting the victims but when you didnt want to admit this wasnt true, you started to argue the victims families were actually exploiting themselves. You literally didnt argue against any of the actual arguments members of the 911 Commission were making against the government and how the Commission was being run, or the counterterrorism chief or other government officials that have spoken out. You ignored them completely, and your reasons for doing so were just personal attacks. You wont respond to why Coni Rice lied about the August 6th PDB, and you wont explain why the government needed to cover their asses when according to you it was clean in the first place. 

None of this you have addressed at all. 



> The difference between me and a creationist is that creationists actually want to believe something, so there is a bias in their argument. Where there is none in mine.



Well I dont presume to know what reason you have for your bizzare apologetic attitude toward their official story, but I know how you've been acting in this thread.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 22, 2007)

Funny... I always feel like debating 9/11 conspiracy beleives IS like debating creationists... You can't appeal to common sense and reason. It's what makes it so frustrating...

Anyway check this out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgGOFXuYPw

Alex Jones new film... End Game. That man, and anyone who buys what he says should be commited :D. Conspiracy theorists always say we use the tactic of riduling them - I think they do a good job of that themselves. 

Seriously... *sigh*

Secondly check out this video. It's funny how we on each side of the discussion can watch the same video, though still come out with two entirely different opinions. To me this video is preying on ignorance and is the apex of idiocy - to others it's a beackon of truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3 ... ed&search=


----------



## Dave Connor (Oct 22, 2007)

The US government tried to kill or capture Bin Ladin on several occasions so allowing 911 would have been a major policy reversal. Also you would have to account for the Cole attack and the Embassy attacks as either conspiratorial or not as well (and the first WTC bombing.)

These people feel that they have a mandate from God to kill Americans. What could make a murderer more happy than that kind of endorsement? Certainly there is no conspiracy on their end. They've been announcing this stuff to the world forever. 

I don't think the US was involved in 911 just asleep at the wheel.


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> Funny... I always feel like debating 9/11 conspiracy beleives IS like debating creationists... You can't appeal to common sense and reason. It's what makes it so frustrating...



Thats true for a lot of conspiracy theorists, sure. But that doesnt mean there isnt one,

Even Alex said there was a coverup, but he doesnt like to use those words, he calls it "covering their asses". He has to pretend this is different, because he said 911 Press for Truth is a conspiracy theory because it posed a coverup. He seems like an extreme apologist for the official story that cant be reasoned with much in the same way as you have extreme conspiracy theorists that wont change their minds or look at any evidence. Just because Alex is the way he is though doesnt mean I think all conspiracy or coverup deniers are like that though. 

Speaking of Creationists, some Creationists can be reasoned with although this just means they dont stay Creationist for very long. 



> Anyway check this out
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkgGOFXuYPw
> 
> ...



What you are watching Chris is the extreme conspiracy theory people. Check out the interview with the director and producer for 911: Press for Truth. Someone once told me that extremes of any view is usually wrong, that truth is usually somewhere in the middle. 

Ray Nowosielwski Interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-ZvjAsI1VQ

By the way, I cringe when I watch that Endgame trailer. I have watched TerrorStorm, Martial Law and both Bohemian Grove docs. Personally I think he has a lot of worth to journalism its just a shame he can be so extreme and annoyingly sensationalist much like the tabloid press. He has shown me a lot that I didnt know about such as the Bohemium Grove, which no one had been able to infiltrate and find out what was going on before or after him. His opinions on it are are another matter, of course. Then there is Martial Law, again I found this a very interesting documentary. I forgot they put a bunch of protesters in a condemned building without charge for hours and hours and many of them started getting sick. I also watched what he said about the Patriot Act and have verified a lot of what he said about it was true, of which I wouldnt have known about it had I not seen his stuff. But you have to take everything he says with a pinch of salt as it were. If he were a more serious journalist, he would be really awesome but unfortunately due to his extreme nature his films are of limited worth, but like I said you can still glean some interesting information and insights from them if you go and verify everything he poses with other sources. 

Anyway, like I said dont judge everyone based on the extreme people like Alex Jones or "No plane theory" September Clues, In Plane Site or Loose Change guys. There are websites like OilEmpire which argue against these people as does various other 911 Truth websites. And there are people further away from that still, like the Jersey Girls and the "911 Press for Truth" Documentary. And then theres the 911 conspiracy debunking sites like debunking911.com website which also says theres a conspiracy, just not that the US government blew up the WTC. Then we have people that deny theres any coverup whatsoever. 

I encourage everyone to watch 911 Press for Truth instead of ignoring it lumping it in with the Alex Jones' and the Loose Change guys. Watch it then read mine and Alex' argument about it and see who seems more reasonable. If you end up siding with Alex' opinion, I'd very much like to know why. 

The link again: 911 Press for Truth:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=3865048042993700360&q=press+for+truth&total=820&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... &amp;plindex=0) 

PS: Theres also another side to the coverup which is to do with the health aspect pertaining to rescue workers sent into the clearup the WTC site in the weeks and months afterwards. Basically they were told that the air was safe, but it wasnt and now many emergency workers are dying because of someones negligence. But it is also suggested that it was done on purpose because it would have cost a lot more money to have it cleaned up another way. This is a story you hardly ever hear about. 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2007)

Christian Marcussen @ Fri Oct 19 said:


> on a related note. I just re-watched some clips of the planes flying into WTC and the towers crashing. When you see the force, the size of the explosion as well as how the towers clearly start collapsing at and above the crash point... All talk of bombs, and"fire not melting steel" seems so silly Just check out how massive those explosions are. They expand larger than a city block!



I'd like to say first that I dont believe there were bombs in the buildings and that they probably did collapse how the NIST says they did. But I'd like to say something in regards to how "silly" it is to suggest these things. The people who made the towers said it was designed to take multiple hits of jet liners, and that a jet liner hitting the tower was much like a pencil going through some netting. In that it really doesnt do anything. Theres other people that have talked about how the towers were made to take that kind of force in various different ways. But regardless if they were wrong (I mean they were wrong about the Titanic after all), its not quite so silly to ask questions once you know they said that. And the fire melting "steel" buisness was originally said by one of the official civil engineer not conspiracy theorists, another official civil enginner denied there was any reports of molten metal at all. And when you have some reports of people in the building hearing explosions before the planes even hit it makes you think. 

Still, I think while all this is interesting they still most probably came down the way the official story says but that doesnt mean being skeptical of it is _quite _as silly as some make out. And dont forget the 911 Commission was only started a year after 911 only really because those families like the Jersey Girls campaigned to have it looked into and only allocated at the beginning 3 million dollars!



> But I would like to state my opinion. To me its just pretty obvious that the most straight forward answer is that the intelligence they had was no more credible or actionable than the myriad of other reports they get. They were not ready with fighter jets to take down planes because they did not beleive it enough.



You really should watch the film  and then check out the information for yourself if you're skeptical about any of it. 

They couldnt shoot the planes down because of such poor communication. The NORAD chief said they could have had it not been so bad. Also, the Generals power to issue shoot down orders were only a little while prior to 911 transferred to only the top people like Bush and Cheney so this meant the generals couldnt order it themselves. Also, the idea that they didnt believe the planes were going to be used to fly into buildings stretches credulity considering what we know the government knew at the time. But even if they didnt know half the stuff they did, after WTC 1 and 2 were hit and a third heading toward the Pentagon they still didnt have any planes in the air and to suggest they still didnt believe it might be used to crash into another building *is *pretty silly. 



> Just my opinion. I'll try watch the film when I get the time... is it that "Press for Truth" one?



Yup thats the one. Check the link in my previous post


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 22, 2007)

Ed @ October 22nd 2007 said:


> The people who made the towers said it was designed to take multiple hits of jet liners, and that a jet liner hitting the tower was much like a pencil going through some netting. In that it really doesnt do anything. Theres other people that have talked about how the towers were made to take that kind of force in various different ways. But regardless if they were wrong (I mean they were wrong about the Titanic after all), its not quite so silly to ask questions once you know they said that. And the fire melting "steel" buisness was originally said by one of the official civil engineer not conspiracy theorists, another official civil enginner denied there was any reports of *molten metal* at all. And when you have some reports of people in the building hearing explosions before the planes even hit it makes you think.



First of all, computer models and physics aren't always correct since they don't have all the variables of a real situation. If you think about it, the tower did withstand the planes ramming them pretty well... until the fires started to heat the steel. Perhaps the simulations didn't take those into consideration?

The second problem with this, is they weren't going to find molten steel. The steel beams were hot enough to weaken and bend plus they had the weight of the tower above the crash bearing down on them. Thats all it took. The crash totally destroyed any stability the tower had. They didn't need to melt, just weaken.

I don't see why you want to keep arguing about this stuff and bring up these little things. What is the point, since your main argument is the government was incompetent during 9/11? I don't see what you're arguing that for, either. They've stated they get thousands of terrorists threats all the time and already admitted they couldn't have known. What more do you want? All Condi was doing was PR spin, but if you'd have paid attention, they've already stated there was no way they could have known and the hits were too fast. You like to keep bringing up how Alex "avoids" your questions, but you still haven't answered anything I've brought up.

How were they supposed to know? And when the planes were over NYC, how were they supposed to know they were going to crash into the WTC? Also, please answer, even if they did find out, were they supposed to shoot the planes down over the city causing a lot of death and destruction?

What would you have done, since you obviously feel you're far superior to the government and far more capable. You say they should have done something, but what, exactly, should they have done? You obviously feel you have an answer.

This is a really tiresome thread, its like you killed the horse, beat it, ate it, and then pursued to beat the bones with felt mallets.


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> First of all, computer models and physics aren't always correct since they don't have all the variables of a real situation. If you think about it, the tower did withstand the planes ramming them pretty well... until the fires started to heat the steel. Perhaps the simulations didn't take those into consideration?



Thanks for that, but I dont know why you are talking points back to me I've already agreed with. :roll: 

"..._But regardless if they were wrong (I mean they were wrong about the Titanic after all),_ ..."



> The second problem with this, is they weren't going to find molten steel. The steel beams were hot enough to weaken and bend plus they had the weight of the tower above the crash bearing down on them. Thats all it took. The crash totally destroyed any stability the tower had.
> 
> They didn't need to melt, just weaken.


Oh for goodness sakes. Would you and Alex please stop arguing against things Im very clearly not saying. I even said at the start of the post of the very section you quoted what Im talking about but you apparently decided to ignore it,

Right... so on to molten steel... :roll:. Moon, stop quoting conspiracy debunking sites and listen to what Im actually saying. I know very well they only needed to weaken it, and I didnt even say there was molten steel, my point was that it was one of the first reports from an official enginner that talked about steel melting and I saw another civil enginner who not only denied there was any molten metal but denied there was any reports about molten metal. And what was my point in bring all this up? See below.



> I don't see why you want to keep arguing about this stuff and bring up these little things.
> 
> What is the point, since your main argument is the government was incompetent during 9/11?



Well why didnt you just read what it was you were replying to? 

"I'd like to say first that *I dont believe there were bombs in the buildings *and that *they probably did collapse how the NIST says they did*. But I'd like to say something in regards to how "silly" it is to suggest these things...

... I think while all this is interesting *they still most probably came down the way the official story says **but that doesnt mean being skeptical of it is quite as silly as some make out.* "

IOW. I was just saying that I dont believe being skeptical about the building collapses is _quite as silly _as some people say it is. 'Kay? :roll: 



> You like to keep bringing up how Alex "avoids" your questions, but you still haven't answered anything I've brought up.



Yes I did, scroll back and see my reply. Dont just tell me its not good enough, go reply to it and show me why. 

Alex btw ignored everything Ive shown him, and instead of addressing their arguments used personel attacks against the 911 Commissioners that spoke out against the government and 911 and the way the commission was being run, Bush's counter terrorism chief and others. Why no responce about the August 6th PDB and why that doesnt count for anything? Why no responce about what the difference is between "covering your ass" and a "cover up". Why does Alex say the victims are exploiting themselves? I could go on, but apparently you havent actually been reading our discussion properly.



> How were they supposed to know? And when the planes were over NYC, how were they supposed to know they were going to crash into the WTC? Also, please answer, even if they did find out, were they supposed to shoot the planes down over the city causing a lot of death and destruction?



Im sorry, but Im not going to have two different discussions with you in two different post when you havent even replied to my last one and in this one you werent even polite enough to read what it was you were replying to. Feel free to work these questions into your responce to my previous reply to you, otherwise Im apparently just wasting my time. 



> This is a really tiresome thread, its like you killed the horse, beat it, ate it, and then pursued to beat the bones with felt mallets.



Well I feel a lot like that too, I do have to continually repeat myself for people that dont read my posts proplery. Anyone would think Im writing in code or something. Im really not that hard to understand, just stop letting your preconceptions of what you think Im saying stop you from understanding what Im actually saying. We'd all get along much better if you (and Alex) did that. o-[][]-o 

Ed


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 22, 2007)

_Whatever. You convolute almost all your arguments with stupid stuff that has nothing to do with it. You claim you agree with the explanation for the towers coming down, but then you say its not so silly to think it might not have happened that way. Sorry, but it is totally silly to think otherwise. Why even bring it up at all? It does not help your argument and has nothing to do with government incompetency, yet you keep addressing it.

The second problem is you're so busy replying to people with extremely long posts you lose sight of the main point of your and their arguments. For example, my post. You didn't even bother replying to my questions for you after I established the fact that your main argument is government incompetence. Yet there you go writing me and Alex aren't replying to your stuff. I had already made clear what I was replying to after I addressed your nothing-to-do-with-my-argument argument. I made clear what your main argument was. You won't even reply to that - which confounds me since I thought you'd be more interested in that rather than the little things that have naught to do with your argument._

*So here we go again. What the hell was the government to do, oh mighty one? Since your hind sight is far more than 20/20, please let us all know what they were supposed to do? They didn't know, many experts said they didn't know, Condi said they didn't know with a PR spin as is expected... so what do you want exactly? 

Its so easy, isn't it, to claim they could have done so much more years after the fact, correct?*

Everything in bold is addressing your main argument directly, this time I would suggest not dodging the address like you did last time. Everything in italics is addressing the minor points you keep expanding on that have nothing to do with your argument.

With that, I'm sick of this thread as it disgusts me, so I'm done here.


----------



## Ed (Oct 22, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Mon Oct 22 said:


> _Whatever. You convolute almost all your arguments with stupid stuff that has nothing to do with it._


Like what?

Once again if you dont know why I was making that point to Chris then why dont you read what he said? 

"_I just re-watched some clips of the planes flying into WTC and the towers crashing. When you see the force, the size of the explosion as well as how the towers clearly start collapsing at and above the crash point... *All talk of bombs, and"fire not melting steel" seems so silly*. Just check out how massive those explosions are. They expand larger than a city block!_ " - Chris

Im willing to clairfy anything Ive written if it doesnt seem to be relevant, but you evidently didnt read my post properly. 



> You claim you agree with the explanation for the towers coming down, but then you say its not so silly to think it might not have happened that way.



I can see why people might have questions about it. I dont see how thats contradicting at all. :| 



> _Sorry, but it is totally silly to think otherwise. Why even bring it up at all?
> It does not help your argument and has nothing to do with government incompetency, yet you keep addressing it._



Because I was replying to the comment by Chris where he said he thought it was "so silly" to suggest the fires and planes might not have been the only thing that brought the towers down. 

I just wanted to quickly say that while I dont agree with that,_ I can see why people might be skeptical about it_ or have questions about it. And that I dont think its quite as silly to suggest as some people have made out. But like I said before, I sill think theres more reasons to think that NIST was right. 

I dont know why you think this is such a irrelevant or ridiculous digression. :| 



> _The second problem is you're so busy replying to people with extremely long posts you lose sight of the main point of your and their arguments_.



I know exactly what points Im making. And the reason for the long posts is I want to reply to all points people make and not skip anything. 



> _For example, my post. You didn't even bother replying to my questions for you after I established the fact that your main argument is government incompetence._



Are you joking? :shock: 

Please scroll up. I wish I could link you to my reply but apparently I cant as the forum doesnt let me.  *SCROLL UP AND FIND IT *  my reply is there. 



> _Yet there you go writing me and Alex aren't replying to your stuff.I had already made clear what I was replying to after I addressed your nothing-to-do-with-my-argument argument. I made clear what your main argument was. You won't even reply to that - which confounds me since I thought you'd be more interested in that rather than the little things that have naught to do with your argument._



I wont reply to that part of your post because you havent replied to my other responce yet. If you want to work them into a reply be my guest but I dont see why I should have to type it all out again for you. :roll: 



> *So here we go again. What the hell was the government to do, oh mighty one? Since your hind sight is far more than 20/20, please let us all know what they were supposed to do? They didn't know, many experts said they didn't know, Condi said they didn't know with a PR spin as is expected... so what do you want exactly? *


See above. I already addressed this. And btw "PR spin", is that like Alex's "cover their asses? Because if it is its the same as cover up, only you guys just keep using different words. Bottom line you dont need to misrepresent evidence or lie to cover your ass if your ass is clean. 



> *Its so easy, isn't it, to claim they could have done so much more years after the fact, correct?*



If you think Im being picky or unfair we can talk about the evidence, I'd very much like to talk about it but you guys just act like Im crazy and argue against positions and arguments I never had or made. 



> Everything in bold is addressing your main argument directly, this time I would suggest not dodging the address like you did last time. Everything in italics is addressing the minor points you keep expanding on that have nothing to do with your argument.
> 
> With that, I'm sick of this thread as it disgusts me, so I'm done here.



I never dodge anything and if I ever missed anything I expect people to let me know where. I always try to reply to all critical points people make, as I think its only fair. 

Please do yourself a favour and look though the thread and see the responce I gave you. I wont hold it against you if you just admit you found it. I sometimes miss posts as well. Just apologise for that and we can move on. (o)

*EDIT: Its literally the next post after the one you made. *


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 23, 2007)

I beleive in being sceptical and asking questions. I too understand people wanting a thorough investegation and placing blame where blame needs to be placed. 

What I dont get, and what I think is silly, is to keep droning on about these elaborate consipracies after perfectly sound scientific evidence is provided. So I think asking questions is fair enough, especially if your truely are looking for answers. 

But when someone claims (I'm not saying you do) that the towers were brought down by a demolition, then that to me that's beyond reasonable skepticism. 

It's completely fair to ask what the governments involvement is, and I can almost respect someone of the opinion that the government is behind it. But anything beyond that is waaayy silly. 

But I like that you distance yourself from Jones and Loose Change - but even so many, many people are eating up what they say and they are unfortunatley the "authoroties" on the subject.


----------



## Ed (Oct 23, 2007)

Thank you Chris for talking properly with me  let me know if you get the time to watch the film.


----------



## Christian Marcussen (Oct 23, 2007)

I'll get back to you early next year :D


----------

