40 replies to this topic

[Shawn333]

RON3002, on Sep 12 2008, 05:53 AM, said:

And Sadam Hussien was never a threat to the united states(he hated Bin Laden as much as we supposedly do)

That's relevant HOW? If anything it disproves your point. So let me get this straight, the United States blew up it's own towers and then blamed it on Osama Bin Laden so they could go after someone else. Saddam violated his own signed treaty consistently for 12 years. If he was so harmless why did Clinton drop bombs on him several times? How deep do you all think this conspiracy goes? Did Clinton and Bush both conspire together now? Did they also brainwash the hijackers to commit suicide or were they top secret androids built in a lab? Maybe the people on the planes didn't really die. They're probably all being kept in area 51. Some people sound like a broken record....it's explained how they fell but it's not good enough. Republicans want to blame Clinton and Democrats want to blame Bush, both had serious failures of policy and intelligence and decision making. But the people to blame are the people who did it. Al Quaeda takes credit for it, but some would rather blame their own country. Maybe you think Osama is an American actor in a Hollywood studio. And man never made it to the moon, Clinton had people whaked, Bush is an alien, blah, blah, blah. Iraq was the wrong battle field for the war on terror, no doubt, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.

[CaveRat2]

Shawn, you're wasting your time. The conspiracy people will always come up with some excuse. First ie was jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. The reports show the steel didn't actually melt, it didn't have to. All that had to happen was it had to expand. Beams under the floors were locked bewteen the supporting beams which could not move. The expansion had to go someplace so support rivets and bolts were sheared. Once these snap, what holds the floor up? In a word, nothing. The floors pancake together. It comes down, just like we saw.

Explosion in the basement? That was electrical in nature. With all the damage above one certainly would expect numerous short circuits and electrical malfunctions as the building burned. And every circuit in the building came up from ground level. Transformers which supplied power were located on the lower levels, and these are filled with oil as a cooling / insulator. Most such high power transformers are. Oil burns. All it takes is a short circuit or arc flash to compromise one of these transformers and the oil will burn.

Does anyone one doubt that there was also natural gas into these buildings? It too came in from below ground level. I'm sure in all this distruction none of the gas lines were in any way compromised. No possibility that a leak might develop... Gimme a break, use some common sense.

Plus there is strong evidence that one plane when it struck the tower dumped literally thousands of gallons of buning jet fuel down an elevator shaft when its fuel tanks were ruptured. Of course gravity wouldn't cause this to make its way to the lower level now, would it??? And all the reports of fires and explosions away from the impact areas... We all would expect every drop of fuel to stay neatly contained in a small area when a plane hits a building at 500 plus mph, wouldn't we????

[Cautious-Psychic13]

I admit right off to not reading most of the posts on this subject but as it is asking if I think 2 planes could have done all that to the twin towers my answer is definately yes. They were still full of fuel that was to take the planes 3000 miles. They WERE flying bombs and they did horrendous damage when they hit. How much more damage do you think it should take? I am more then at peace with the 2 plane only explanation of what happened. I pick up nothing else.

[Ike]

Okay, I know this thread has been dead for, awhile, BUT. I'm re-posting my two cents.

The twin towers were tall and theories are spread on and on. But, people are still suffering from its affects and the government doesn't do crap about it. Factfully, Bin Laden is dead, long gone. And 9/11 was acted through the minds of big business makers, IE our government, the effects are very very real, but the story of it is fake. Of course, its scary to think our own country thinks like that, but, its hard to deny. With everything as it is. The scars show and storms arise. No matter what, you can't deny whats been proven and what hasn't. My family may have been overseas in the middle east, but ohhh do we know about it. And through video clips and photos, the steel did melt. And the basement exploded with enough force to help bring down the building. :/

[Gosman]

The trouble is Ike you don't really have any hard evidence linking the attacks to anybody other than a bunch of two bit Islamic terrorists following the dictats of Al Qaida.

Every conspiracy theory that I have read about 911 can't provide concrete evidence linking any specific group or person in the US Government to that attacks. Essentially the arguments boil down to, well it must have been someone in Government because it can't have been the supposed perpetrators Al Qaida.

Following on from the logic used, for all we know it could have been Alien's or God that brought down the two towers on September the 11th. Is this likely, no but then again there is about as much evidence for these two as for a secret quasi-government organisation.

Edited by Gosman, 02 December 2008 - 07:56 PM.

[Cautious-Psychic13]

I remember where I was the day Kennedy was shot. I was home sick from school and saw the news on TV. When the towers blew up I was in Yellowstone with no TV or radio available and heard the news while watching a gyser erupt. All these years later no matter how much proof there is to just one lone gunman shooting both the Govenor and Kennedy with just one shot people find every way they can to yell conspiracy were there is none. The same is true with 9/11. I can believe in spirits, past lives and other things considered paeanormal but it is very hard for me to believe our goverment could carry out an attack on its own people and keep it secret. Besides it is time to heal and move on.

[Mark London]

Yes some say it is time to heal and move on, but there are loads who cant, and live each day as its 9/11 everyday.

Im not saying to live in the past all the time, but it seems everyone not directly affected 'have' moved on

Mark

[Nor'Easter]

It's funny. I was surprised to see a 9/11 conspiracy thread on this board, but I probably shouldn't have been. If anyone is really interested in a great resource for both sides, this link will take you to thousands of posts (2424 posts as of today) that really dust this subject up nicely.

http://www.discussan...ead.php?t=95753

Don't worry, both sides of the debate are fiercely represented.

I've studied this mass murder case for the last 5 years, and have become very comfortable in my own notions concerning motive, method and means - the 3 M's of any investigation. That said, I've also become very convinced that no one enters one of these online 9/11 debates with an open mind, and I've collected nearly 100 such forum debates (just copied and pasted them into Word docs), so I might be considered an expert on the debate itself, if not on the case that has inspired this debate.

There is one thing that is important to note. This is the world's first global Internet conspiracy debate, and as such, the actual properties of this debate have their own unique characteristics. If anyone actually believes that it will linger in a permanent limbo as an intellectual parlor game, as did the JFK assassination debate, then they are either being optimistic, pessimistic, or just not paying much attention. The real debate on the what happened and who did it side of this issue ended about a year and a half ago, and what you see online now is just the residual energy of that debate - the result of cached servers and old websites, and the impact of that information on the minds of people stumbling over it all for the first time. Kind of like the ghosts that you folks discuss, but more like the non-intelligent version of same, as they "loop" through years and are seen by people who happen upon them from year to year.

The real debate has moved to what will be done to the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, and how it will be accomplished. Now that the Justice Department has begun to be properly fumigated, and the criminals have lost that level of their protection, it's only a matter of time before the hits start coming. The 9/11 attackers have targets on their heads and they know it. It's a small world. Not even hundreds of billions of dollars can keep you safe in a world this small. Some crimes are punished in prisons, and others are handled out of court. Even so, justice is rarely denied.

[Dio]

Anyone else find it interesting that most of these major wars we've been in since WW1 the USA has been attacked on first which angers the public which in then causes support for a declaration of war?

[Caniswalensis]

Dio, on Oct 15 2009, 06:16 PM, said:

Anyone else find it interesting that most of these major wars we've been in since WW1 the USA has been attacked on first which angers the public which in then causes support for a declaration of war?

I do not find this interesting, because I must respectfully disagree with it.

Our difference may be in the way we define a major war, but basically, most of our conflicts since .

We got involved in world war two due to a surprise military atack on Pearl harbor. We have not seen a conflict of this magnitude since. By every concievable measure, this was the way more 'major' than anything since.

The Korean War was a very serious conflict that we interviened in for political and humanitarian reasons. There was no attack on American either by miltary or irregular forces. In terms of American lives lost, it was much more significant, or 'major' than the current 'War on Terror.'

The same can be said for the Viet Nam conflict.

The first Gulf War against iraq, I would put on a similar level with the second gulf war. It started with no attack on America.

Afganistan and the second Gulf War both grew out of 911, of course.

I do not think that it is fair to say that Most of our conflicts are causeed by attacks like 911 or Pearl Harbor.

regards, Canis

[Axman]

Dio, on Oct 15 2009, 04:16 PM, said:

Anyone else find it interesting that most of these major wars we've been in since WW1 the USA has been attacked on first which angers the public which in then causes support for a declaration of war?

I would just point out one thing, only congress can declare war. The last time congress declared war was WWII, and before that WWI.