911 Conspiracy discusion

however the evidence for an intimate knowledge of 9/11 by the US Govt. priro to the event is undeniable.

My incomplete knowledge about such evidence is that it shows that it was known that Al Qaeda was planning to crash airplanes into buildings, not that it was known which airplanes, which buildings, or on what dates the attacks would occur.  Yes, the administration is at fault for not taking action.  No, being at fault for not taking action does not imply being at fault for helping the attacks along.  No, knowing that Al Qaeda was planning these attacks does not imply that Al Qaeda did not perform them.  Actually, having just thought that particular thought for the first time, conspiracy theorists look pretty stupid, simultaneously claiming that the administration had evidence that Al Qaeda wanted to crash the planes into the buildings and that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack....

and i will go as far as to say that anyone who has seen articles like those on infowars, that still believes the official story as a dissilusioned idiot.

Um, I'm pretty sure you just admitted that the video you linked was dumb.  If the stuff on infowars is no better, then I couldn't blame people for ignoring it.

and Eserasmus,

who?

surely if you believe teh Govt. is capable of hiding the fact that the earth is flat, what is so hard to believe about a 9/11 coverup when the evidence is incredible.

/me looks around at what forum we're on.

I don't think the government is capable of hiding the fact that the Earth is flat.

Quote from: "Hamaz"

however the evidence for an intimate knowledge of 9/11 by the US Govt. priro to the event is undeniable.

My incomplete knowledge about such evidence is that it shows that it was known that Al Qaeda was planning to crash airplanes into buildings, not that it was known which airplanes, which buildings, or on what dates the attacks would occur.  Yes, the administration is at fault for not taking action.  No, being at fault for not taking action does not imply being at fault for helping the attacks along.  No, knowing that Al Qaeda was planning these attacks does not imply that Al Qaeda did not perform them.  Actually, having just thought that particular thought for the first time, conspiracy theorists look pretty stupid, simultaneously claiming that the administration had evidence that Al Qaeda wanted to crash the planes into the buildings and that Al Qaeda was not involved in the attack....

Quote

and i will go as far as to say that anyone who has seen articles like those on infowars, that still believes the official story as a dissilusioned idiot.

Um, I'm pretty sure you just admitted that the video you linked was dumb.  If the stuff on infowars is no better, then I couldn't blame people for ignoring it.

Quote

and Eserasmus,

who?

Quote

surely if you believe teh Govt. is capable of hiding the fact that the earth is flat, what is so hard to believe about a 9/11 coverup when the evidence is incredible.

/me looks around at what forum we're on.

I don't think the government is capable of hiding the fact that the Earth is flat.

well they have done a pretty good job considering most of the world thinks FE'ers are morons.

good point in your first paragraph

well, i personally think that the CIA and Al-CIAda are one and the same, so when i say they had knoledge of Al-Qaeda, im pretty much mean that they planned it and carried it out.

however people new to the conspiracy may accept that the Govt. had knowledge but cant quite get there head around the fact that Al-CIAda is controlled by the US.

that is maybe why some just use the example of prior knowledge.

well, i personally think that the CIA and Al-CIAda are one and the same,

Okay that's a little weird.  Do you think that because the U.S. has backed Osama bin Laden in the past, or for some other reason?

9/11 didm not go how any of you are saying!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush had an agreement with iraqi leaders to bomb the towers creating a terrorist war so he'd be a war hero getting him voted in for another term.Everbody knows that.

well i think the Al-Quaeda are a wing of the CIA because the Al-CIAda could have not carried out 9/11 without teh intimate knolwdge that only the US Govt. has, such as the fact that the CIA were running drills on the morning of 9/11 that involved flying jets into the WTC and Pentagon, thus causing NORAD to stand down and do nothing.

otherwise the jets would have never reached new york.

also consider it was orignally the CIA who trained Osama-Bin Laden and met with him in a millitary hospital a few months prior to 9/11 in a Us millitary hospital in Somalia (i believe).

and on the morning the 9/11 the CIA founded  Pakastani intelligence head was meeting with the US intelligence heads in the US, this is the same guy who wired 100,000 USD to the supposed lead hijacker Mohammed Atta.

the presence of an enemy such as AL-CIAda scares the American people into backing wars for hidden government agendas and scares them into giving up their Rights in the name of security, thus making it easier for the Govt. to control the population.

www.infowars.com does go over many more facts and in greater detail than i do, please give it a visit and search the 9/11 archives, its not all BS i can assure you.

teh intimate knolwdge that only the US Govt. has, such as the fact that the CIA were running drills on the morning of 9/11 that involved flying jets into the WTC and Pentagon, thus causing NORAD to stand down and do nothing.

The CIA were running such drills?  I think not.  Also, NORAD is not responsible for monitoring the activities of every commercial airliner in the skies, to my knowledge.

You might want to have a look at this list of wargames scheduled for Sept 11, 2001.

also consider it was orignally the CIA who trained Osama-Bin Laden

Yeah, we helped out Saddam once too.  Are you saying that the Iraqi government was really a CIA wing as well?

... and met with him in a millitary hospital a few months prior to 9/11 in a Us millitary hospital in Somalia (i believe).

Says who?  You're saying the government can cover up the lengthy and highly visible process required to line the Twin Towers with explosives, but the CIA couldn't manage to keep under wraps a secret meeting with one of the most elusive criminals somewhere in Africa?

and on the morning the 9/11 the CIA founded  Pakastani intelligence head was meeting with the US intelligence heads in the US, this is the same guy who wired 100,000 USD to the supposed lead hijacker Mohammed Atta.

That might be interesting if the meeting were on the date that he wired the money, as opposed to the date of the attacks.  Or are you suggesting that the money was wired to a dead man?

Also, isn't it conceivable that high-profile personages might meet for reasons other than the reasons you'd like to think they met for?  High-profile personages do that all the time, you know.

Basically it sounds like you've conflated facts, used unrealiable sources, and drawn totally invalid conclusions to support this theory.

And there is NO way burning jet fuel could have vaporized the steel supports in the towers.Only thermite charges could have tottally vaporized the supports issued in constrution demolitions!i doubt the theese supossed "terrorists" could have planted the thermite charges to completely vaporize the supports to level the towers

it was on some MSM channels that CIA were running drills, thats why good honest people at NORAD enquired about why they were doing nothing, they were just told it was a drill, and the commercial jets were of course quite away, where as if on Sept 10th you went  of course in a light aircraft you would have had f16's on your ass befire you could say bobs your uncle.

and again i have missed many important details about the stuff i have mentioned visti infowars and do some research there.

ant i believe the money was wired to him a couple of days before 9/11, which to me suggests they knew he was going to get the blame for this.

i agree alot of things in 'loose change' are Bullshit, some are not.

the loose change video does more to harm the cause of trying to find the truth about 9/11 than to aid it.

some GOOD films to watch are 'Terrorstorm', '9/11: The Road to Tyranny'

'9/11 Martial Law the rise of the police state'.

do some REAL research.

these two video clips should bury any debate about WTC Building 7, since it shows the buildings owner admiting the used controled demolitions to bring the building down. (watch the first one, as it is most important).



http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/controlled_demolition_expert_and_wtc_7.htm

I think this article sums up my opinions on the matter.

I nominate this page for the Awesome Rant of the Month award.

As for

hese two video clips should bury any debate about WTC Building 7

I'll look into it when I get back to a computer with speakers.  I just hope it's not more of the tired old "what did he really mean when he said 'pull'?" crap.

nope, ask any Demolitions expert what the term means in the same context and he will tell you. it means to bring down using controlled demolitions.

There is absoloutley no argument here Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolitions.

nope, ask any Demolitions expert what the term means in the same context and he will tell you. it means to bring down using controlled demolitions.

Ask any firefighter what the term means in the same context, and they'll tell you something totally different.

what is that?

Who said the supports were vapourised? They would only need to be significantly weakened to fail, something burning jet fuel would easily do

Who said the supports were vapourised? They would only need to be significantly weakened to fail, something burning jet fuel would easily do

yes it could, but however the likely hood that they would weaken all the supports neccesary to make it collapse like they did on BOTH towers is unthinkable.

what is that?

That "pull" means get all the firefighters away from the burning building to safety, I think.

Quote from: "Hamaz"

what is that?

That "pull" means get all the firefighters away from the burning building to safety, I think.

If you watch the video of larry silverstein it is clear that if that had been what he had meant it would sound wierd.

'We made the decision to pull it[building 7]'

'We made the decision to pull it[building 7]'

or

"We made the decision to pull it[the firefighting operation]."

I guess it all depends on what you put in the square brackets.

According to demolition teams, the term "to pull" a building means to bring it down unnaturally. The easiest way to do that was to plant explosives in a building and detonate them.

The given reason for "pulling" building 7 was so that it was a contained demolition that wouldn't structurally damage the buildings around it.

Yeah anyway i could argue with you forever, but there are many people that articulate the evidence alot better than i do, so look into it further if you wish.

I hope you realise that there are many factors about 9/11 where the Govt. is not telling the truth. and considering you think they are lying about the shape of the earth, shouldnt be so hard

Yeah anyway i could argue with you forever, but there are many people that articulate the evidence alot better than i do, so look into it further if you wish.

I am looking into it, actually, and have been on and off recently, and will continue to do so until I am satisfied one way or another.

I hope you realise that there are many factors about 9/11 where the Govt. is not telling the truth.

Undoubtedly.

... and considering you think they are lying about the shape of the earth, shouldnt be so hard ;)

There's a reason we have an "everything else" forum.  Also, I don't appreciate the presumptuous nature of your comments about my beliefs.

sorry, that was not meant to be disrespectful to your beliefs, as i am looking into these flat earth theories myself at the moment with interest, although i am not convinced by them atm they raise some good points and i am not here to ridicule them in anyway.

sorry, that was not meant to be disrespectful to your beliefs,

I didn't take it as disrespect, I took it as uninformed.

ok i am sorry i presumed that because you were a site admin that you agree with the FE theory, i could be wrong, am i?

ok i am sorry i presumed that because you were a site admin that you agree with the FE theory, i could be wrong, am i?

I'm not really sure why I'm an administrator.  It happened while I was away.  I think it had something to do with the fact that we seem to regularly get attacks that need to be harshly and swiftly dealt with, in order to keep the forum usable.  Before that I was a moderator, and I figured it was because I'm reasonably moderate, and reasonable, and the admins figured I'd be good at moderating everybody else.  They never said, "Btw you have to agree with us to hold a position of authority on this site."  I respected that.

ok

Quote from: "Hamaz"

ok i am sorry i presumed that because you were a site admin that you agree with the FE theory, i could be wrong, am i?

I'm not really sure why I'm an administrator.  It happened while I was away.  I think it had something to do with the fact that we seem to regularly get attacks that need to be harshly and swiftly dealt with, in order to keep the forum usable.  Before that I was a moderator, and I figured it was because I'm reasonably moderate, and reasonable, and the admins figured I'd be good at moderating everybody else.  They never said, "Btw you have to agree with us to hold a position of authority on this site."  I respected that.

I suppose this means you're no longer moderate.

Well, I tried.