Do you believe that the attacks on america were a planned event by our own government as an excuse to go to war and to take away our freedoms, ie, patriot act, national ID...etc.

you are a gay
you are a fag
bend over so i may humble you

of course it was an inside job. it's easy to figure out this was a plot between our parents and the reverse vampires to destroy the meal known as dinner.

we are through the looking glass here people...

The idea that the government would be able to fake a huge terrorist attack on our own soil amongst millions of our own citizens but wouldn't be able to fake a nuke or two in a fake Saddam bunker in the desert NOT amongst millions of our own citizens seems like a bit of a stretch.

Fucking brilliant! I hadn't heard or considered this yet. Let's ask Grace Ross. She knows what's up.

The 'no' option should just simply be a 'no it was not'. I think the moonbats who believe google-video and youtube conspiracy videos are just as crazy as they think people like myself are for accepting the gov's explanation. I don't believe it was an inside job, but unlike the the only option I had here I do think that they had plenty of warning signs to have been able to at least figure something was about to go down.

Hahahahahaha...an "inside" job? The real world isn't like the Bourne Supremacy you moron.

Retard.....of course not. I love how every hippy liberal fag thinks that they're Agatha fuckin' Christy....get a life you jobless douch holes. Leave the real world up to people with jobs and too little time on their hands to worry about whether or not 9/11 was a conspiracy......the media has you kids so fucked up.....Jesus Christ go read a book.....seriously.

I caused 9/11.

The Nazis planed it from there bases in anarticia and the north pole.

Hoser said:


Either that, or they have you caught in the trap. Too busy with your life to care about anything 9/11 related? Perfect. Another American that can give a shit less about their country with no questions asked. Keep watching fox and tell me if they've captured Bin Laden yet.

Hahahahahahaha....ok. You conspiracy retards have wayyyy too much time on your hands.

Name 1 other American conspiracy that you believe in...

By the way....I have a bridge to sell if you're interested.....I'm putting it on the market next week. IM me if you want the inside scoop before it hits the open maket.

back and to the left...

spelling errors aside, this is most plausible explanation i've seen haha.

by this... i mean OCR's post

Hoser said:

How about the conspiracy theories they have proved true.

world war one... Some dude who owns a company selling guns wants America to go to war so he can make money, he asks his friend in the government if America would go to war with Germany if they attacked our citizens...of course they would.

so this dude gets a ship and loads it with civilians, the Lusitania, and on top of that he puts weapons in the brig. He sends it into the waters of Ireland bound for England. Germany controlled those waters and the US knew that. Germany heard about this months in advance and for months it put adds in the New York times advising people not to board the Lusitania or they would be boarded and taken as prisoners. So the ship sets sail for england in enemy controlled water, with ammo and explosives stored on it. Germany sinks it and 128 americans die.

why would we do that? Because no one wanted to go to war in America except for the people who profited off of war. And the sinking of a civilian ship would surely be reason enough to make Americans go into war.

how about the gulf of Tonkin incident?
or how about the rise of the federal reserve bank?
or how about the deliberate use of Pearl harbor as a way for america to gain entry to world war two
or how about American companies that supplied Nazi Germany with weapons while we were at war with him?'

How about the Pentagon never having any jet debris left after the crash, or any of the other sites.

Or how about the free fall speed at which the buildings fell, due to fire? There were only three steel buildings to ever fall due to fire, and they all fell on that day?

This isn't no hippy, UFO, big foot conspiracy shit about Nazis living inside the earth attacking us.

Who ever trusts the government is a complete fool and knows nothing of history.

as some greek philosopher said
"All democratic nations become run by Dictators"

Did you just say that pearl harbor is a conspiracy?

narkybark said:

Do you how much money and how much of an economic boost it was to go into world war two.

and before you get all high and mighty, the conspiracy is that the president let it happen, not that it was set up.

We had the intelligence to stop the Japanese, or atleast warn the navy at Pearl Harbor, multiple messages were intercepted and even a few patrol boats spotted the Japanese Fleet but were told not to take notice, that the Japanese were allowed to pass.

I'm not saying it wasn't the Japanese who did it and of their own wanting, just that we could have warned them if we wanted, but we didn't...so we entered another war for more profit gains in the defense budget.

If you made millions of of selling something wouldn't you go to any lengths to increase the sales of your product, in this case weapons. Don't the companies who build ships, tanks, guns, and ammo make more money during war rather than peace?

Y_Ddraig_Goch said:

that's really the only thing you mentioned that concerns me...the rest seems just a TAD ludicrous.

9-11 was an inside job. If you can't see that by now, you're blind.
If you don't want to take the word of docs on Google & YouTube, ask the real questions yourself & look for answers.
Anyone who believes the official explaination of 9-11 needs to wake the fuck up, cause you live in a fantasy world. If you think it's possible for two 110 floor steel framed buildings, to collapse to the ground in 10 fucking seconds, as a result of 757's crashing into them.... You're fully brainwashed. I know this because I was too, just like everyone else.
The only steel framed buildings that have ever "collapsed" as a result of "Fire weakening steel", or even from planes hitting them, are WTC 1,2, & 7. And coincidently all on the same day. Why did building 7 fall?? Ask yourself that question. How is it possible for a "commercial airliner" to crash into the pentagon? The pentagon is the most heavily armed & protected building in the world. It has a self contained missile defense system designed to fire at any non millitary aircraft that gets too close. Why did they release 1 useless video from the pentagon? There are thousands of cameras at the pentagon & around the pentagon. It's a fuckin joke. Everyone should be fuckin outraged that the powers that be think we're so fuckin stupid & oblivious, that they can paint this picture. But instead we get outraged when anyone questions authority. Why? Cause we ARE that fuckin stupid & oblivious. It's fuckin pathetic! This is a touchy subject for me cause I have researched this extensively & I've come to my own conclusions about it. I've avoided discussing it here though, because I knew these arguments would happen. But at this point, fuck it. If you're here saying "9-11 was an inside job", I applaud you for doing so, knowing you'd be called a "conspiracy nut, retard, liberal fag, jobless" or that "you have too much time on your hands".
I do have a full time job, (40hrs a week plus on call 1 week a month), as well as 2 bands that practice 4 to 5 days a week & play 1 or 2 shows a month. I don't have enough time on my hands. The media DOES NOT have me so fucked up, because I don't watch the news. I have to search for the news because mainstream media is 100% corrupt & does nothing more than lie to the people everyday. I'm not a "liberal fag", because I've learned enough to know that both sides of the system are equally fucked. The system is corrupt & doesn't work. I don't think I'm "agatha fucking christy". I've researched the subject & many others, for the sake of my own personal understanding. Anyone who thinks they have too little time to worry about whether 9-11 was a conspiracy, deserves what their government does to them. But if you're gonna ridicule someone for their opinions, at least have some fact to back up your own. You can call me whatever you want, but I guarentee I'm more educated on the subject than anyone who'd ridicule me.

Fucking hippies.

it's true that the government no longer works for the people, but the people instead work for the government

i've looked into all the same stuff, and some of it does come across as outlandish coincidence, but a lot of the details don't add up to the government's story. maybe they're not behind the attacks, but i do think that there's more to it than what they say

sacreligion said:

Like what?

I agree Sacreligion. There's always more to it than we know, i've heard Israel's name brought up within the "inside job" theory, which only adds another level of complexity/confusion and a number of possibilities for the truth. The government's story doesn't add up, but the real answer might be different than even both sides expect

Arist said:

Four Israelis were caught across the bay in a van dancing and celebrating taking pictures of the towers. They were arrested and then released and the news story was only aired once.

well if you look at all the evidence that gets brought up in support of the "inside job" theory, it's very easy to paint a picture when your mind can help fill in the missing parts.

the real question to ask is "why would the government do this?" obviously people say it was a catalyst to gain a stronger presence in the middle east, whether it be for control purposes or solely for oil. people also claim that there was a MASSIVE insurance policy placed on the towers shortly before the attacks, and the fact that there was some odd amount of billions of dollars worth of gold and silver beneath the site. the only problem i have when reading into all this is the fact you have to start considering the influence of the ol' "new world order" clusterfuck. now the motives and the means seem plausible, but how exactly can the powers that be use events like 9/11 to work out as they want? obviously there are those who will question their motives, and the danger of losing all they had worked for hangs in the balance. what would they gain from pushing the will of the american people into a realm where the masses might start to distrust their government and want to make a change?

that's kind of a stretch, but i just have problems in believing that a small group can control a huge group even with the assistance of the media and "democratic" governments. the whole thing stinks like yesterdays diapers.

and yes, i do read into a LOT of conspiracy theories. enough to the point where it's nearly impossible to discern what's actually real and what's lies, and that inherently makes you question everything. so therefore i have a hard time believing anything, really.

wow, that was quite a rant there

here's the thing about Israel's connection

"The suggestion of an Israeli connection to the events surrounding 9/11 did not spring, full blown, like Athena from the head of Zeus. It had been hovering in the background, implied in odd accounts such as the one about the group of Israelis picked by the FBI after they were spotted in Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, laughing and giving each other high-fives as the World Trade Center burned on the other side of the river. In an astonishing story in the Bergen Record, we learn that 5 men described as "Israeli tourists," were picked up 8 hours after the WTC attack, "carrying maps linking them to the blasts." "...[S]ources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot. 'There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted,' the source said. 'It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park.'" According to this account, the 5 "tourists" had been picked up by local police after receiving the following alert from the FBI:

"Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration with 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center. Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals."

sacreligion said:

That is brilliant! That's how fucked up everything is.... You can't be sure what to believe.
I don't personally believe that the government as a whole was behind the event. I believe people in hi ranking parts of the government were involved, while serving another cause/group... New world order, illuminati, whatever you wanna call it. When you look further into that, you see an agenda for 1 world government.

There was plenty of debris at the crash site.

Fire alone did not cause the building to collapse. The WTC was not built to withstand those specific size jets at over 600 mph. The plane knocked out support and the fire caused the steel to lose integrity (aka NOT MELT but close enough).

I'm interested in what the pentagon has for a missile defense system. Please tell me about this.

Oh yeah, and the WTC was attacked before. It's only good business to take out an insurance plan for a terrorist attack because, you know, terrorists attacked it before!

I also found the pearl harbor reference to be completely laughable. A country's government attacks us, killing over 2,000 servicemen and women and civilians, and the fact that we defend ourselves by justifiably going to war means that it was a huge conspiracy to make money. Just because something makes money, doesn't make money the reason.

DEATH2ALL said:

haha thanks...i thought it seemed too all over the place to make sense. but yea, whatever you want to call it, there are people interested in unifying the world under one government to make things easier for those in power. if there were a global police state to control what you did, it would be much easier to create laws that pretty much prohibit any free thought, as your main interest would be to stay in their good graces. not to mention...you can make a lotta money when everything is tied in together.

i get sick when i think about this stuff too much, because it makes too much sense when all the different links come together. i suppose it is easier to just deny it and not worry about it. i'm just waiting for the day when the people get pushed too far, though. a small bunch of "nutjobs" can't change the world, but a small bunch of nutjobs might be able to help wake the rest of society the fuck up.

YOUR GOVERNMENT LIES TO YOU, BLATANTLY! YOUR TRUSTED NEWS SOURCES ARE SKEWED BY POLITICAL AGENDA! YOUR REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT IS AT THE MERCY OF LOBBYISTS BACKED BY BOTTOMLESS POCKETS! DAY AFTER DAY MORE PEOPLE ARE NUMBED BY THE POWER OF PHARMACEUTICALS AND GLOWBOXES! ANY WHO ASK QUESTIONS ARE LABELED UNPATRIOTIC! yet we still blindly obey.

WTC WAS DONE BY MADELEINE MCCANN'S PARENTS

PatMeebles said:

The WTC was designed to take a 707, fully loaded, at full speed & still stand. The planes that hit them were 757's. The weight difference between the 2, fully loaded.... 100lbs. And the 757's were not fully loaded. Those planes didn't even affect the inner core of those buildings. If the buildings fell the way they say they did, the core of the buildings, (47 steel box collumns-4"thick- 4.5ftx2.5ft) would still be standing today. There's no way jet fuel, (kerosene) burning for 1 - 2 hours weakened those collumns.

The pentagon has a missile defense system designed to shoot down any aircraft w/o a millitary transponder, within range. This is no secret. Why question that? We should hope that the heart of the American millitary would have such defense systems.

yes it's good business to insure property already attacked by terrorists, But Larry Silversteins policy was paid out twice & he collected more than double the amount he spent on the WTC, roughly 4 Billion dollars. He invested 1.6billion when purchasing the WTC. 6 months later he more than doubled his money.

As far as Pearl Harbor... It is de-classified info that FDR knew the attack was coming. He did nothing and the horror of it allowed for the US to enter the war. The people demanded it actually. What would they have demanded if they knew that FDR had knowledge & allowed it to happen?

i wrote a big long winded thing about integrity of building quality steal but no one else will listen/care so why push my beliefs on someone else

Yeah no one here will care to know that it is quite rare, in fact only happened on one day, that a steel building has ever fell from fire.

People rather keep going working like slaves without chains to the Government, taking the pills they are given, watching the news and cheering.

Anyone find it strange that fox news is filled with ex military?

trying to get people to believe in that sort of thing is like trying to get people like us to not believe it

Or trying to get the peanut butter out of the chocolate in a delicious Reese's peanut butter cup.

DestroyYouAlot said:

They sell the peanut butter at grocery stores

now that's the last straw...you really are a nutjob!

Uhhhh, one that I can debunk right now that you got ass backwards is your WWI theory.
The reason we went to war was the Zimmerman Telegram, which was sent from Germany to Mexico TWO YEARS after the Lusitania was sunk.

I fully agree with Peebles, I also looked up some of Draig's supposed "factual" theories....all of which turned out to be laughable pieces of paranoid schizophrenia. I'm not trying to be inflammatory here but they are bullshit created by bullshit artists without jobs. I'm not preaching that believing what any totalitarian government says is good, I'm just running a fine toothed comb through all of this and every theory that you posted came out 1st as the biggest pieces of shit in the sand.

I'll tell you where government injustice truly lies....Waco and Ruby Ridge. Not conspiracies but blatant disregard for American rights.

Like I said....not trying to be inflammatory as I typically am.....but those turds that you posted stink to high Heaven.

Within secret circles of the highest security, there's a known fact of a group only known as S.P.E.C.T.R.E (SPecial Executive for Counter-intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge and Extortion). Their diabolical methods can only be descibed as "ruthless".

The few remaining witnesses can only describe their leader as "some dude-guy with a white suit and an eye patch... and a fuckin' cat".

[IMG src

notice the aluminum confetti on the ground?

wtc building 7! what's sketchier than that?!

Also, when the planes hit the WTC, do you really think the liquid fuel just stayed in one place? The fuel went down vents and utility shafts, setting everything around in on fire, therefore making more fire and a higher temperature.

Also, technically the WTC did take the impact of the plane. It did stand for a while before finally collapsing due to a loss in structural integrity. The titanic was designed to withstand an iceberg. Designers make mistakes, too (or are unable to deal with all the factors, like an UNcontained fire).

PatMeebles said:

Where's the engines? Why was there an engine found at the site that doesn't belong to the plane that supposedly hit it?

Why did that plane avoid it's direct path to the pentagon & re-position itself, to hit the 1 side of the pentagon that had just been renovated & re-designed to take an impact like that? They lined all the walls with Kevlar & other impact resistant materials, installed 2" thick blast proof glass in the windows.

Why won't they release the tapes from the black boxes?

Why is there light poles knocked over, showing a flight path that is different than the path recorded by the flight data recorder?

It's funny that you got that pic from Popular Mechanics.

PatMeebles said:

So why didn't buildings 5 and 6 fall down? You can't even see them in that chaos. They were closer than building 7 & suffered way more damage. Yet they stood there till 3 or 4 months later, when they were demolished by engineers in the clean up.

hahahahahahaha

I can't believe how many fucking moon-bat fuck job's frequent here?




Drink some more of the
kool aid.....you fucking faggots...

pussies...
go suck a fatty dick, homo fags:

PatMeebles said:

Nobody said the fuel stayed in 1 place. But actually had it stayed in 1 place it would support your theory 100%. The "collapses" started at the point of impact. You're going against the facts you're trying to support.

To compare the Titanic to the WTC is like comparing a TV to a microwave.

If you take 2 mins outta your life to watch this, you might think differently....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=54...Along+is%3Afree+genre%3ADOCUMENTARY

....Move the timer up to 23:32 minutes. Watch that video for 2 minutes as it shows you demolition charges in great detail. If you still don't buy it, I have nothing more to say here.

hahahaha

To hook up a 100+ floor infrastructure with the appropriate explosives to drop it "intentionally" would take hundreds of fucking engineers and dozens of fucking weeks of tearing down drywall, studs, and frame work to go as planned. Drink up, cock suckers...keep hating on America when you honestly should be focussing your hate on people who would cut your throt faster than Daniel Pearl. Go ahead, stick up for the enemy some more....reach-arourd-ass-fuckers.

huntableed said:

Nobody disagrees with what it would take to bring those buildings down. Nobody's "hating on America". Actually as an American, it's my right to question my government. If you got a problem with that, move to another country.
You make it sound impossible to have wired those buildings. What do you do for work? Have you ever worked in a skyscraper? I have. I've seen how possible it is to accomplish that job. "Stick up for the enemy"...... You're the enemy

So you're saying that every time I use one of these...



... I'm actually using a detonation charge? Sweet!

PatMeebles said:

Did you watch the video? I'm not talking about poofs of smoke.

9/11 was a terrorist attack that our government exploited to fuck us in the ass. End of story.

DEATH2ALL said:

Actually, what you said is completely asinine, because burning fuel moving doesn't make a collapse less likely. It spreads the fire. You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched? In case you hadn't noticed, office buildings tend to have a lot of wood, paper, and other combustibles. And considering the planes each had more than enough fuel for 6 hours of flying, there was plenty of fuel to go around.

And while the comparison was somewhat silly, you should still know that I have a point when I say that scientists can't always account for every scenario when designing something.

oh my fucking God. D2All's last video post is quite possibly the most absurd 9/11 hoax video I've seen to date. If that is supposed to be the "I have nothing more to say" segment of those of that opinion, then you honestly must be a fucking retard to believe that shit. WTF?...honestly, what the mother-fucking-michael jackson-child-molesting-fuck....

DO NOT SWALLOW, DO NOT INHALE, AND MOST OF ALL DO NOT PUT ON THE FUCKING NIKES:

DEATH2ALL said:

I'm actually waiting for it to load. My internet is really slow tonight. However, I've seen tons of videos shows actually explosions in different parts of the building. Well, guess what? Buildings tend to have gas tanks in them, and they tend to be kinda-sorta flammable if an inferno of jet fuel is thrown on them. Send that fire down a gas line and you've got a recipe for multiple explosions.

Why is it so hard to accept that bad shit happens, bad shit that our government could prevent or at least prepare for if they gave a shit or GASP read shit once in a while...and when that bad shit happens the government uses it to stomp all over the constitution and keep the people terrified? [THE COLOR CODE HAS RISEN, VOTE FOR BUSH OR WE'LL GET HIT AGAIN!!] I mean really. Knock it off. Welcome to Washington, full of self-serving, power-hungry dickheads. USA! USA!

Where's that "there's no 9/11 conspiracy you idiots" page? That shit was funny.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

pam said:

Thank you Pam, we actually agree on something that doesn't involve music...

how could a building that big be set up for demolision in ONE FUCKING DAY!! do you really think the people involved with a project that massive could keep it secret? do you know how much wire that would take? where would they put it without it being noticed....fucking retards

my cat thinks you suck also

Either way everything was orchestrated to benefit the 10 percent of the population that controls 90 percent of the wealth. I don't care if Pakis, Jews, Indian, blacks, or our government did it. It still happened and because of it we have had our rights revoked.

I find it funny how no one is questioning NORAD,, and how we couldn't scramble fighters to take down the four planes. They were reported fast enough so that a jet could deploy and either escort them or take them down.

and did anyone ever mention how during the train bombings in London there was a police exercise scheduled the exact scenario, day, time, and place of the event.

and how about the fact that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to either weaken or melt steal?


We could go on and on battling about what facts are phoney and real, the bottom line is that we all got fucked over on that day and we need to keep our eyes open.

look out for National ID act, coming to a state near you in may next year, besides glorious NH.

and that's tha bottom lahhhhn, cause Big bird said so!

lol, one day?

hungtableed said:

I might be a queer-loving, pro-choice, feminist, liberal, fan of the French...but I'm not a fucking moron.

I love how 27 believe it was an inside job & 15 believe the official story. And only 4 or 5 of the 27 are being vocal about it.

And only 2 of the 28 are vocal. Whatever that means.

And Jet fuel does burn hot enough to weaken steel.

And I just saw your response to my debris at the pentagon post. Check out Screw Loose Change. They do a good number on the Loose Change video. I don't remember if it was the pentagon specifically, but SLC was able to prove that on one occasion the LC guys called the wrong warehouse, and then said the company as a whole didn't make a specific plane part. Pretty fucking stupid fact checking.

PatMeebles said:

The only thing you just said that makes any sense at all, is that office buildings tend to have a lot of paper & other combustibles. Most office buildings and in this case skyscrapers, don't have any wood. They're built with steel & concrete as the structural components. Any inner walls are built with drywall & alluminum studs & serve no structural support purpose.
Do you agree that the collapse started at the point of impact? If so, the more fuel burning in that area, the greater the chance of a collapse due to fire weakening steel. More heat = weaker steel. It aint brain surgury, it's simple physics. Who cares if the fire spread, it doesn't back up the "pancake theory", it goes against it. In the NIST Report, the tests done by NIST & UL to recreate the same scenario, (fire weakening steel- using the same materials), showed that sufficient heat was not possible. So then they have to say that the structural steel used in the buildings was "flawed", even though it was approved by UL. This is a joke.
As far as this.... "You think that when burning fuel moves, the fire stays with it while leaving the building completely untouched?" Um.... No. When did I say that? What does that have to do with anything, if the collapse began @ the point of impact?

huntableed said:

It seems like you just refuse to hear anything other than the official story. There are thousands of 9-11 victims family members & survivors who are asking all of these questions & the government ignores them. The 3 official investigations of 9-11 are, The 9-11 commision report, The NIST report, And The FEMA BPAT report. They're inconclusive, contradict each other, and actually raised some of these questions to begin with.
There are so many unexplained questions about 9-11. To believe the official story you must have all the answers to these questions, or you simply don't care. You must care since you've taken the effort to tell me how retarded I am for believing what I believe. So maybe you can answer some of these questions, instead of just insulting me. Give me reasons why I should believe the official story, I've said a lot of facts here, give me some facts that might make me see it your way. I'm just trying to get people to ask themselves these questions, maybe they can answer them. Nobody in this thread, who believes the official story, has said anything to answer any of these questions, or to make me 2nd guess what I believe.
You watched that video & call it a hoax & call me a retard. So I have nothing more to say. I won't post or read anymore of this thread. If I didn't respond to any posts & you want me to, or if anyone wants to have a serious discussion/debate about it, PM me.

I think it takes an unpatriotic faggot to ever ask....REALLY? Don't ever think to ask questions. It's better to just assume that because Bush was elected...ahem...he must be the best man for the job. I mean why else would we be at War with Iraq. We all know Saddam knocked down those towers. So, let's get those freedom haters. Let's also not send the wrong message to the troops or the terrorists by pulling out. We have nothing to be sorry about. We're liberators. Mission accomplished.

I'm trying to figure out why you think moving fire causes less damage overall. And I said lots of things that make sense. Just because you have trouble getting your head around it doesn't mean it doesn't make sense.

1) The planes had a LOT of fuel
2) They knocked out fire proofing and bent steel already
3) More Jet Fuel doesn't need to be around: Combustibles like rugs, shades, couches, and various other WOOD furniture like desks and maybe a hardwood floor hear and there would be sufficient.

When I said that the WTC did take the impact, I'm talking about what conspiracy theorists are claiming: that the building was supposed to be able to handle it. Well, it did for a while. If the building wasn't designed to take the impact, it probably would've fell over a lot faster, maybe even instantly (I'm just saying).

And it is not nonsensical to say that scientists (or engineers in this case) can't always account for every scenario when planning buildings, or experiments, etc.

One last thing. This whole fraud was done to get us into the middle east and get rid of our freedoms, etc. right? Well, why would our government not keep that good will given by the American people and fake a nuke or two in a fake saddam bunker? They got away with 9/11, right? Why wouldn't they have done this, and in effect waste all their good will? If Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rice/Powell were so diabolically evil and clever, why would they be sooooo stupid at the same time? It would've been so EASY to do after 9/11; it'd comparably be a cakewalk. WHY HAVEN'T THEY FAKED A NUKE IN IRAQ?!!?

I know what you'll say. It'll either be a simple "I don't know" or a "I'm just here debating what already occured." Well, guess what sherlock! WHAT HAPPENS IN THE MIDDLE EAST IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN, BECAUSE WITHOUT EXPLAINING AWAY THE WMD PROBLEM, YOU'VE LOST THE WHOLE ARGUMENT, AND ALL YOU'RE LEFT WITH IS A FEW SCIENTIFIC ANOMALIES, IF THEY'RE EVEN TRUE IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

You know, I never knew caps abuse could be such a therapeutic experience.

PatMeebles said:

so all of the steel support beams lost integrity at the same time when both buildings fell? the places of impact would've been weakened first, and the fires would have started there as well. the buildings should have toppled over to the weakest side(the side of impact and initial fire), not fall perfectly with gravity as if there weren't 70 stories of reinforced building beneath.

it's funny how everyone's arguments against this are "you have too much time on your hands" or "that's not what the official report says"

is it really that hard to believe that the people in charge are an elite group of power-hungry scumbags? i mean, george w. bush as president is a FUCKING JOKE! that man was given the status of governor of texas after being a C student, AWOL, alcoholic, AND addicted to coke. *EDIT* not to mention that his father gave him money to run several companies that quickly fell straight into the ground. *EDIT* but still somehow the republican party says "hey, this guy is MORE than qualified to be our number one candidate for president!" and daddy's little boy is now head of a nation(well, let's be honest, he's the mannequin that gives blank statements and provides a front for those truly in charge to do their bidding behind the scenes without anyone noticing).

but hey, if the press isn't reporting it, it musn't be happening. i mean, why would an ongoing stalemate in iraq need to be discussed when paris hilton is going to jail for three days?

not too familiar with the bildeberg group are you?

PatMeebles said:

yeah, that one piece that might actually equal 1 3000th of an entire airplane? FOR CHRIST SAKE THERE ARE NO WINGS TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE! DO YOU REALIZE HOW FUCKING HUGE WINGS ARE?!

So what are you saying hit the Pentagon??? And what purpose would it serve??

Except for all the other debris all over the field, you nitwit. And you think the wings would just fall off and bounce off the building?

So what are you saying hit the Pentagon??? And what purpose would it serve??

mmm a missile perhaps? perhaps is used liberally here

I vote missile as well. Things like large chunks of wings should still be in tact. Along with the engine that was actually from the plane, you know.

As for the purpose this would serve. It breaches our national security and allows the government to freely take more "security" measures...Like taking away rights for the "safety of the American people". Along with allowing for pre-emptive strikes on other nations... Since these acts were done by those pesky evil terrorists, much of the population got all patriotic and would approve of whatever the government wanted. Obviously because God speaks through our government.

GOOD TIMES!

Haha, people here are not smart. Anyone who believes the Government set this up has the IQ of a hockey puck.

DEATH2ALL said:

This part is absurd, I can just picture them trying to talk about it.."Well jet fuel burns hot enough to make building around it collapse...and they weren't built correctly anyway..."
I'm sure there was something else supposed to hit it but they screwed up and took it down any way...they figured there was a small fire on the 78th floor, thats good enough. It really bothers me that no one talks about this building and as ridiculous as the explanations are for the other towers, the ones for these are almost non existent

Oh yeah, I guess this is a government agent pretending to be a Bin Laden crony too, right? Retards.

http://www.capecodonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll...ticle?AID=/20070911/NEWS11/70911005

you all keep drinking your kool-aid death2all and skinsandwich.
1) the US government has done plenty of fucked up shit that would make this completely plausible.
2) conspiracy theorists are all wackadoodles.

you are all on yet another FBI list just for posting in this thread.

SkinSandwich said:

why not... War = $. why not set up attacks to initiate the public's interest to allow us to go to war? it means more money for those in the positions to gain from it. i have been looking up shit about this crap for like 3 weeks straight. im no expert but there are a lot of things pointing to believe that this shit was straight up garbage. on the news at the time of the second building getting "hit", a guy on the phone with the station stated not seeing a plane. people in the station during the "live feed" were like "OH GOD ANOTHER PLANE JUST HIT" and the guy on the phone goes "what? i didnt see a plane, it just exploded...".. im pretty sure a guy on the scene would notice a low flying 737, you also would have HEARD it in that guy's phone. not to mention if you look at the different videos, the planes that hit the building are all different and most have different flight paths. the videos were all shitty computer edits for the most part. also notice that the day was sunny in NY and all the high quality news cameras could pick up looked like a shitty overcast, foggy-like day. and what was up with the different hue colors on the different videos? again... these are supposed to be high quality cameras for BIG TIME news stations. there was also a 17 second delay in the live feed. too much bullshit, not enough clear facts.

the_reverend said:



It is more like a waiting list. Pass the Kool-aid mang.

I'm going to sit here, sip my kool-aid and wait for spaldino to go all babykiller on shit.

thegreatspaldino said:


My girlfriend's brother worked at goldman sachs in newyork on 9-11. He saw the second plane hit the tower from the window of his office. All the hard questions that you can find or read about regarding 9-11 can be pretty scary... but usually it's bullshit.

huntableed said:
huntableed said:
huntableed said:

Well-reasoned arguments to be sure; I now renounce any doubts I may have previously harbored concerning our benevolent masters. Americaland Über Alles!

'Cause, y'know, I don't want to be a homo.

I can't say that all of the conspiracies are correct, no one can. But the fact that it is possible, is enough to make me think that everything they tell us isn't the truth. It should do the same to everyone, It is a very naive thing to listen and believe everything that is told to you..whether it is from the main stream media or a conspiracy video.

we're through the looking glass people.

9/11 was a massive conspiracy amongst American flag manufacturers to boost slacking sales.

Yeti said:

BINGO!

on a serious note about the reason for war in Iraq, the wmds? Come on are you that fucking stupid, of course he had them, Reagan sold him that shit to go to war with Iran.

and why would you think a nuke would make us go to war if the government faked it? It would fuck things up. We had a reason to go to war with him by thinking he still had the wmds, he most likely sold them or dumped them because they guy knew he was going to get framed.

If we faked a nuke it would have made the whole middleeast a war zone, so bad we wouldn't be able to fight or control it. We are slowly invading the middle east one country at a time rather than fuck it up with a nuke.

If a nuke went off in Europe every nation would be in riot and all the armies would be ready to pounce at the drop of the hat. same thing would have happened in the middle east.

Afganistan, Iraq, next is Iran or syria or Saudi Arabia.

Iraq was not a threat to us, there was and is no reason we should be in there. Iran is a much bigger threat to us that Iraq ever was.

To all the people calling names and saying anyone who denies the commission report, refute all of these points with hard evidence.

And by the way, since when does questioning the government make a person an ant-american fag? Last time I checked we were Americans because we have the power and freedom to protest government to regress our grievances!!!

to add more fuel to the fire, the government has issued a warning to all psychiatrists to report any people who talk about the constitution alot, it is now considered a new mental illness to be overly-zealous in defending the constitution.





1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).

2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).

3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).

4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).

5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).

6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).

7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).

8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).

9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).

10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).

11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).

12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).

13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).

14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).

15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).

16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).

17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).

18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).

19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).

20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).

21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).

22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).

23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).

24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).

25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).

26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).

27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).

28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).

29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).

30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).

31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).

32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).

33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).

34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).

35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).

36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).

37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).

38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).

39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).

40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).

41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).

42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).

43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds—-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).

44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).

45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).

46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).

47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).

48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).

49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).

50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).

51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).

52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).

53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).

54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).

55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks—-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).

56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).

57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).

58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).

59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).

60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).

61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).

62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).

63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).

64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).

65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).

66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).

67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).

68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).

69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).

70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).

71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).

72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).

73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).

74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).

75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).

76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).

77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).

78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).

79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).

80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).

81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).

82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).

83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).

84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).

85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).

86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).

87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).

88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).

89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).

90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).

91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).

92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).

93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).

94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).

95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).

96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).

97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).

98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).

99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).

106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).

107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).

108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).

109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).

110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).

111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).

112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).

113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).

114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).

115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).

cheers

jesus christ

the pentagon was a bad move on their part.

but of course I'm a moonbat or a twinkydoodle for ever thinking that any of those things isn't a hippy fag emo loving flag burning lie to undermine hamburgers and hot dogs!

by the way, watch msnbc and you can see all the footage that is never talked about. like the bomb in the high school, or the four jews arrested for celebrating across the river in NJ, or the george washington bridge incident.

I guess none of this will matter when the US is a dictatorship next year.

http://911myths.com/ <-- analyzes various theories
loose change VS popular mechanics <-- ugly douchebags debate old nerds
penn & teller on 911 <-- love this show.

IN THIS COUNTRY WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISAGREE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Aura_At_Dusk said:


He has nothing to do with this. Leave him out of it.

That penn and teller one is pure bullshit, no pun on their show names.

The pick the silliest fucks, if not actors, to play the role of conspiracy nuts.

research operation Norwood. The government had a plan to crash planes into some building in the 60's in order to blame it on Cubans and invade Cuba.

but you know... anyone who disagrees with government is automatically in Al-qaida!

does anyone else hate when the posts start to be longer than one paragraph. I'm definitly to lazy to read after that point. oh an di think the vietnamese did this.Stay Aware!!!!

There's been an omission of evidence for unicorns, but I know they're there. SOMEONE'S MAKING MONEY OFF THE HORN DUST

About the only sure thing in this life is, someone's making money, and it's not me.

we will never know the truth. ever.

y_ddraig_goch said:

Bill O'Reilly would argue otherwise.

*zing*

the_reverend said:

Hey, whadda ya want, I'm late for lunch. They can't all be winners.

y_ddraig_goch said:

No, a general thought up an idea that was never used.

And no one wants to address the issue of why the government hasn't faked a couple nukes in Iraq. Without this, you've nothing but alleged anomalies which CAN occur. Everything can't always be fully explained, and a lack of proper explanation doesn't automatically lead to proof of an opposite, whether it's 9/11, Creationism, or Holocaust denial.

I kept figuring we would arm a nuke from russia, get it into iran/q and then blow it up blaming terrorists.

oh, though you can't really import radioactive oil.

Yea you can, you just gotta call it something else.

I suggest everyone re-watch Canadian Bacon...thats a good movie

niccolai said:

"Freedom juice?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm


9/11 demolition theory challenged
South tower of New York's World Trade Center collapses after attacks on 11 September 2001. Image: AP
The study analysed how the twin towers collapsed
An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The new data shows this is not needed to explain the way the towers fell.

Over 2,800 people were killed in the devastating attacks on New York.

After reviewing television footage of the Trade Center's destruction, engineers had proposed the idea of "progressive collapse" to explain the way the twin towers disintegrated on 11 September 2001.

This mode of structural failure describes the way the building fell straight down rather than toppling, with each successive floor crushing the one beneath (an effect called "pancaking").

Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

Man stands amid rubble of the World Trade Center, AFP/Getty
Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total"
In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

'Fair assumption'

The University of Cambridge engineer said his results therefore suggested progressive collapse was "a fair assumption in terms of how the building fell".

"One thing that confounded engineers was how falling parts of the structure ploughed through undamaged building beneath and brought the towers down so quickly," said Dr Seffen.

The south tower of the World Trade Center collapses, AP
Conspiracy theorists see evidence of a "controlled detonation"
He added that his calculations showed this was a "very ordinary thing to happen" and that no other intervention, such as explosive charges laid inside the building, was needed to explain the behaviour of the buildings.

The controlled detonation idea, espoused on several internet websites, asserts that the manner of collapse is consistent with synchronised rows of explosives going off inside the World Trade Center.

This would have generated a demolition wave that explained the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.

Conspiracy theorists assert that these explosive "squibs" can actually be seen going off in photos and video footage of the collapse. These appear as ejections of gas and debris from the sides of the building, well below the descending rubble.

Other observers say this could be explained by debris falling down lift shafts and impacting on lower floors during the collapse.

Dr Seffen's research could help inform future building design.

Quite a lot of this can be boiled down to, "I can cite many credible references that this did happen, and you can cite many credible references stating that it didn't." Unfortunately, by the nature of media coverage in the US, sources stating things that agree with the administration's party line are going to be lent credibility, while sources disagreeing are going to be - by default - presented as easily dismissable. What's more, the same thing is happening in this thread - if one person copypastes a lengthy diatribe from one place, stating that some shady shit happened, another is going to label them a kooky Kool-Aid drinker, and copypaste an equally credible (and opposing) diatribe to prove their point.

None of you knows whether it did or didn't happen, no matter how much you'd like to have one up on your opposite number - the fact still remains that just about any well-constructed conspiracy theory regarding this issue could have happened, and - whether the Fox viewers around here like it or not - most of them are at least as plausible as anything we've heard from Washington. The government's story is not, by the nature of the source alone, any more believable than any other viewpoint; past experience has shown that, if anything, it's actually less so.

I read that article earlier today... I have never read an article with less solid information. The whole article is just filled with calculations and suggestions on how this guy thinks the towers fell. Very uninformative. This is just one an article on this guys opinion. By all rights this shouldn't have been written there is no need, all i have from reading this is i know now what this guy thinks it is...I didn't care to know that.

Aura_At_Dusk said:

Oh yes, equations and calculations by a professor at Cambridge university are sooooooo pointless.

And his opinions are soooo inadmissible because they were reached with those calculations.

Seriously, I could just change who you're talking about and this could easily have been written about alex jones, and you'd be equally appalled by the stupidity of the statement.

DestroyYouAlot said:

You've just stated that both viewpoints are equally credible, and then went ahead and said the official story is less credible. Where the hell are you?

And to reiterate...



Yeah, that's exactly how the media addresses viewpoints against Bush... except for tax policy, abortion, energy, global warming, Iraq, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame, Gonzales Firing attorney's, Bush v. Gore, Keith Olbermann... am I done? ... oh wait... Supreme Court nominees, Terri Schaivo, abstinence only education, embryonic stem cell research, Darfur, John Bolton, the UN corruption in general, government spending...

I don't care who wrote the article, It just isn't very persuasive. He says it himself by calling it a "Fair Assumption." And they start off statements by saying "His calculations suggest..." Key words here being assumption and suggest, any one can assume and suggest and he doesnt have a PhD in the field of falling towers.I'm sure if you asked him is this the reasons the towers fell? He would say this is how i think they fell.

So a professor of mathematics who is getting this particular work published in The Journal of Engineering Mechanics is somehow not as up to par as a college dropout and a paranoid lunatic who thinks galileo's major contribution was telling people the earth was round?

PatMeebles said:

Exactly - either viewpoint is, on its own merits, equally valid; it's just that we happen to have a government which reflexively lies to us.



Errr, yeah, pretty much. The sitting administration is pretty far-out and wacky on a lot of things (not least some of the stuff you mentioned); the mainstream media pretty much gives them free passes on most of it. If it comes out as slightly critical of some things, that's generally because the official position in question is simply off the fucking map. The liberal media is a laughable fallacy; it only exists on conservative talk radio.

Edit: Now, the entertainment industry - which, admittedly, the news media resembles more and more every day - is unabashedly Democratic (if not strictly liberal). They're full of shit in their own way, but it's a bit of a stretch to paint the media with the same brush.

the earth is round? a witch! burn him! heretic!

I didn't say he wasn't up to par this has nothing to do with golf. Just saying i don't believe his opinion. I wish i could believe everything that was written down it would be so much easier....and like you brought up at one point it was believed that the world was flat, im sure that was a huge shock to them because it was written down it had to be true, so what makes this so impossible? Professors and scientists are wrong all the time but they correct themselves when they get new information. So im sure his theory he wouldn't set in stone

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society

Just because the media is not far ENOUGH to the left for you doesn't mean it isn't left at all.

PatMeebles said:

Actually, Destroy equalled the references and "diatribes" used, not the actual viewpoints, ie. government conspiracy or terrorist attack.

Personally, none of this matters to me, because whether it was terrorists, or the government (which I really can't seem to agree with), a lot of people died, and a lot more are going to die due to severe cultural issues. There really is no way to cede peace from this situation, because Iraq War/Afghan campaign, or no Iraq War/Afghan campaign, there will still be people, and in some cases militant people, who will try to break this country. Lessons of history: every major empire (and if you don't think we're virtual world empire, you're a fucking moron) will have its allies, enemies, and eventually, it's end. As long as there is religion, we're all fucked. Because without something semi-concrete to stand on, billons of people trying to play a guessing game of how to live will only create more tension, and the hopeful dream of oneday becoming "global citizens" is just that, a figment for fools.

PatMeebles said:

You're barking up the wrong tree; I don't want it to be "far to the left" at all. Sorry, no liberal here to scapegoat, just someone who pays attention.

Be that as it may, the media is - if anything - unabashedly conservative, such as it as, to the same extent as the sitting administration is. Any criticism is toothless and timid. Just like they were "liberal" to the same tune that the sitting administration was ten years ago. Of course, one could argue (correctly) that neither administration stood for the classic conservative (or liberal) principles anyway, but that's a whole other discussion.

Edited for clunky sentence structure.

Aura_At_Dusk said:

ha... ha...



You haven't even read the equations. You have nothing to try to falsify in the first place. You're just reflexively denying what he's saying because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notions.

And you're right. Professors are wrong all the time. So it's entirely plausible that they couldn't account for every scenario when designing the WTC in the early 1960's (when computer models didn't exist that were accurate enough). But I don't think the issue is my inability to accept that scientists can be wrong. It's your inability to accept that rebuttals from conspiracy theorists can and will be wrong, too.

By the way, math is of a level of importance in determining everyday and scientific situations that denying an equation's ability to analyze events shows just how small a grasp you have on the world.

Why, the earth is round? But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations! What? You say we're orbiting the sun and not vice versa. But you can't SEE that! All you have is mathematical equations based on star positions! Math is useless! haha

DestroyYouAlot said:

Do you even watch the news? Oh wait, you must just watch cherry picked clips from prison planet.

And you're self description of "just paying attention" is a laughable defense of any political position. Any prolifer could say I'm not conservative... I just pay attention. Low taxes? Not libertarian, I just pay attention. I'm not against corporations making money because I'm liberal. I'm just paying attention. Completely laughable.

but you also can't say that said cambridge know-it-all wasn't paid to say "hey i made these calculations and since i work at cambridge it must be true"

they don't even really explain his logic, they just say he thinks that's how it happened

and besides...donald rumsfeld REALLY DID SAY "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" ...doesn't that mean anything to you? at all? REALLY!?

PatMeebles said:

Yes, and no. Once again, you're shooting off in the woods, here; you don't know me. And I'm pretty fucking careful to take any news items with a grain of salt, especially when they come from blogs-masquerading-as-news-sites. (As long as we're profiling, read New Republic, lately?)



So what does it make me when I'm both? (For low taxes, against corporate bloat?) Sorry, I'm not on the map you're using.


Edit: For what it's worth, you're at least partially correct - anyone can just say they're "not [X], [they] just pay attention" - I just happen to be right. (I may not be a liberal, but I what I am is an arrogant, know-it-all asshole - and proud of it.)

PatMeebles said:

I don't know what we are arguing anymore. I have nothing against math except I didn't like it in school.

I bet math took down the world trade center towers

you are wrong pat, the earth was found round my observations not calculations (pythagoras before jebus)

9/11 was a conspiracy meant to rehash people's love for the game Rampage.

Doesn't matter what you label yourself. I'll change up what I said a little bit.

Just because the news isn't biased enough in YOUR direction doesn't make biased in the other direction.

You might go ahead and say "but why do conservatives always complain about coverage in certain topics?" Well, because actual troops in Iraq, etc. directly contradict what "objective" reports are saying.

Speaking of which, why do only liberal papers like the new republic have there Beauchamp's or their Jesse Macbeth's?

because people are different and see things differently. if this truly was an inside job it wouldn't matter, because too many people would be too unsure or maybe even afraid to accept the fact that their government might be fucking them over more than they already know

Don't tell me this crap. I knew someone who died on flight 93 so unless they're being kept safe underground I don't want to hear all this nonsense

But Pythagoras was only a, gasp!, MATHETMATICIAN!!! WE CAN'T TRUST HIM!!

allen said:

another crazy theory is that flight 93 was shot down by a fighter jet. apparently some eyewitnesses said they saw one but they could be lying.

fuck it. everyone's lying. i don't care anymore. i'm going about my business and if anyone fucks with me i'll fuckin kill em.

but pythagoras figured out the world was round through observations. it wasn't till 200 years later that someone figured out the earth was round through mathmatics. I forget who that was.

anyone who believes that the government didn't lie to us about 9/11 isn't thinking... look, they lied to use about the moon landing and who shot JFK. and did they do anything when JR from dallas was shot? no, not a thing.
I rest my case.

pythagoras invented the right triangle, and we all know that's a lie

They didn't actually land on the moon?

nope...it was an orbiting globe of swiss cheese

sacreligion said:

It was a commercial/transport plane that was asked by flight controllers to confirm the crash site, which it did. Hence people seeing a small white plane right after the crash.

PatMeebles said:

This guy analyzed all of the Pentagon photos to show that more than 90% of the ones you see including this one were photoshopped
http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm


Flight 93 debris, this looks exactly how a plane crash normally does..
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JZekosYOmXc

pam said:


Cheers Pam....exactly my point.

Maddox also deserves a cheer here because this comic is hilariously true.

You, me, Peebles =1

The rest of the paranoid dope-smoking idiots on RTTP =0

We win turds...jam your gay conspiracy theories up your wide, gay loving assholes.

And if your ass queefs from the dick pounding, it's actually detonation charges planted by the cia. You're not actually that loose... riiiiiiiiight...

Hoser said:

Uh, no.

People defending the conspiracy = 0
People defending the government = 0
People coming into this thread and posting pictures making fun of 9/11 = 1

hoser, that just proves that you're somehow involved with the conspiracy.

Ya it was your mom, Lamp....you better keep that whore in check.

Me = 1

Lamp = 0

I don't trust the government, questioning your government IS patriotic because the government is supposed to be FOR the people BY the people, but you're not fucking convincing me that the Bush administration killed all those people just to go to war with Saddam Hussein. That's the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

Cmon...

Lamp said:

I was just coming in here to post that.

I just made this:

That Will smith thing gets me all the time.

and no one here ever said nine 11 was an excuse for war with Iraq...

how about an excuse to get oil for a bargain price, weapons sales, a defense budget of world conquest proportions, how about taking away freedoms in order to better instill facsism.

or there is another camp that believes the Jews are behind it, some say they heard the group of arrested jews saying "now America will know how we feel" not to mention the information on all the jews detained who were working for Mossad is top secret.

gotta love that 9/11 omission, i mean report

hahaha...omission accomplished

lkolololollolololololollolo 9/11, waaaay too easy

This thread is now about chargin yur lazers

P.S. I cant believe noone posted this


Noooow back to tha lazers

PatMeebles said:

I know you are, but what am I?

DestroyYouAlot said:


I know you are, but what am I, TIMES INFINITY, no backsies!

It's funny how everyone thinks they're architectural engineers and investigators just because they saw a few photos and videos on the internet.

Hoser said:

PatMeebles said:

SRSLY, I love how declaring yourself a winner and talking about gay sex = a valid point. But, since it means so much to you:

"nine..."
"huh!?!"
"... elven"
[YOUTUBE3rSsv-Ncfa0]

DestroyYouAlot said:

i was just about to come in here and post that very picture, hahaha

wow that rampage pic brings the lols.

Rampage was an awesome game.

oh yeah the morning 911 happened I was having a blast in building 7. No pun oh and wait no plane, fuck you...