9/11 conspiracy poll

A forum for serious discussion only - i.e. politics, religion, ethics etc.

Moderators: Shadow Reaper, theblessedsheridan, Casious, Phantom16

your opinion on 9/11

no idea or no opinion
2
14%
no idea or no opinion
4
29%
no idea or no opinion
3
21%
no idea or no opinion
0
No votes
no idea or no opinion
3
21%
no idea or no opinion
2
14%
 
Total votes: 14

User avatar
Texas Ranger
Posts: 2006
Joined: Mon May 28, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: Johnstone, Renfrewshire Scotland
Contact:

Post by Texas Ranger » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:24 pm

this has been done to death there are so many conspiricy theories & conspiricy theories about the conspiricy theories we will never get to the bottem of this. if people wernt so pansey assed about thing The second Iraq war would not have happend as when sadam didnt comply the appropriate measures would have taken place. there would have been no need far a war after 12 years of non compliance. did the iraq war minister not say that if we invaded they would use WMD against the west ??? whether he was lying about there use or the people below him were lying to him about ther existance is anybodys guess.
Has bin liner not decared war on the west ??? why because he wants to expoit the oil and hold the west to ransonm

as to who done 911 without doubt bin liner how much help he got from high ranking us officials believing thew were doing it for the grater good of the country ??? thats a different argument

why dont we balme the tsunami on the US maybe the caused it but it didnt work the right way ???

if so many people are anti american why dont they move to the middle east / china

User avatar
big.g
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by big.g » Sun Sep 10, 2006 10:36 pm

Texas Ranger wrote:this has been done to death there are so many conspiricy theories & conspiricy theories about the conspiricy theories we will never get to the bottem of this. if people wernt so pansey assed about thing The second Iraq war would not have happend as when sadam didnt comply the appropriate measures would have taken place. there would have been no need far a war after 12 years of non compliance. did the iraq war minister not say that if we invaded they would use WMD against the west ??? whether he was lying about there use or the people below him were lying to him about ther existance is anybodys guess.
Has bin liner not decared war on the west ??? why because he wants to expoit the oil and hold the west to ransonm

as to who done 911 without doubt bin liner how much help he got from high ranking us officials believing thew were doing it for the grater good of the country ??? thats a different argument

why dont we balme the tsunami on the US maybe the caused it but it didnt work the right way ???

if so many people are anti american why dont they move to the middle east / china

firstly Tex - I ain't anti-american - 99.999999% of americans are normal people wanting to get on with a normal life. all I have done above was either state FACT or pose questions - none of which you have answered funnily enough. :D:D:D as for iraq's non compliance - who the hell sez that Iraq needs to answer to anybody???? who are we to tell them what to do????? oh aye, a US government pressured United Nations. the US threatened to pull out of the UN if they did not give ultimatums to the Iraqi govt.

2ndly - the US doctored the UN resolution because even the UN wouldnt pass the original resolution.

3rdly - as far as the iraqi govt saying they would use WMD's - would you not threaten to use them if you had the biggest militery state in the world saying they were going to invade your country????

4thly - as far as far as bin laden declaring war on the west, would you not declare war on the country that has occupied your country with military forces for over 10 years with and also occupied other countries with armed forces in the region for a longer time period without any justification??? i'm sure you would. i bloody well would.

5thly - IF bin laden wanted to hold the west to randsom over oil in the middle east - who the hell are we to tell him that he cant. it's certainly not OUR oil or OUR countries so wtf has it got to do with the US/UK in the first place when we all know that there are alternative fuels already developed that'd be cheaper and less pollutant than oil. funnily enough - the alternative fuels would also be CHEAPER to manufacture :eg:- methane gas which can be naturally manufactured and cause less pollution to the environment AND be more efficient to run. funnily enough, these scientists that have developed alternative fuels have been ridiculed, hassled, physically attacked at random and in some cases, sacked from their jobs (specifically when their science centre is funded or subsidised by the parent oil company). Funnily enough - The US govt has totally shunned the KYOTO agreement to reduce fuel emissions - why??? because of the money they make in oil. they simply cant make that kinda money if people start converting cars to run on methane etc - thus, the US is making no effor to reduce pollution atall.

cmon Tex - I know you. youre an intelligent guy. what reason do I have to lie to you??? what difference does it make to me what the US govt does???? don't beleive me tho - check out the facts for yourself. don't simply dismiss me without checking for yourself. check it out and keep an open mind. do you beleive that LHW shot kennedy????? I used to be totally Pro-iraq war. I used to be totally gung-ho with it and thought they totally deserved it. remember standing having a fag at Almada st and watching the big planes flying over when it was all about to kick off and I was totally like "fuck yeah!!!!! bomb the bas***ds!!!!!". I used to hate protestors and think they were all lazy bas***de who went on a march to avoid working. thought they were all students who wanted to skip class!!! something that ive seen must have changed my mind.do you honestly think I'm stupid enough to be part of all the conspiracy thing without having bloody good reason to back it up??? as I say - what reason do I have to lie to you. youre a good guy. I like you and would consider you a friend so why would I lie etc etc.

as I say, check it out for yourself and keep an open mind.



lastly - tsunami???? - lol :D:D:D:D
big.G
icq: 106370896
msn: big_g_uk@msn.com
yahoo: big_g_uk2001
skype: big_g_uk
homepage: <a href="http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth</a>

"Let's Phuqin Rock"!!!!!!!!!!

"AN INTERNATIONAL WAR ON TERRORISM THAT DOESNT TARGET GLOBAL POVERTY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" - think about it.!!!

User avatar
Shadow Reaper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Capital Wasteland

Post by Shadow Reaper » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:13 pm

What some people forget to take to account is both Bush and his government are some wierd form of idealistic realism (The_One will know what im goin on about here).

His invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan can be argued to be down to Bush's fixation on the spread of democracy as a way of preventing the expansion of Islamic extremism. Of course, economic and military considerations have to be taken into account. It puts the US military in positions not only around Iran, but Russia and at a distance, China.

Of course one can say oil is a factor, but has it got any cheaper? No, because quagmire in Iraq has prevented it from being so, and with other international problems (Iran, instability in Saudi Arabia) the levels of supply are probably going to make it more expensive. If oil is the reason for the invasion of Iraq, and the price of crude oil is getting higher because of it, why bother staying?

America's desire to spread its values and culture, its soft power, are quite possibly just as important to someone like Bush as it is to spread its hard military power, or to gain any economic ability, and then head back to isolation knowing American is safe in the world. Remember, America has been quite happy to withdrawn into isolation until something brings them back out again, whether it being the Japanese Empire, the Soviet Union or Islamic Fundamentalism.

Thats a bit of a mish-mash argument, it wouldn't get me far in an IR seminar but it is 23:15 and students normally drink at this hour. Ill try something more impressive later, or post one of my essays and let the_one destroy it, hehe.

User avatar
big.g
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by big.g » Sun Sep 10, 2006 11:35 pm

Shadow Reaper wrote:What some people forget to take to account is both Bush and his government are some wierd form of idealistic realism (The_One will know what im goin on about here).

His invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan can be argued to be down to Bush's fixation on the spread of democracy as a way of preventing the expansion of Islamic extremism. Of course, economic and military considerations have to be taken into account. It puts the US military in positions not only around Iran, but Russia and at a distance, China.




Of course one can say oil is a factor, but has it got any cheaper? No, because quagmire in Iraq has prevented it from being so, and with other international problems (Iran, instability in Saudi Arabia) the levels of supply are probably going to make it more expensive. If oil is the reason for the invasion of Iraq, and the price of crude oil is getting higher because of it, why bother staying?



America's desire to spread its values and culture, its soft power, are quite possibly just as important to someone like Bush as it is to spread its hard military power, or to gain any economic ability, and then head back to isolation knowing American is safe in the world. Remember, America has been quite happy to withdrawn into isolation until something brings them back out again, whether it being the Japanese Empire, the Soviet Union or Islamic Fundamentalism.




Thats a bit of a mish-mash argument, it wouldn't get me far in an IR seminar but it is 23:15 and students normally drink at this hour. Ill try something more impressive later, or post one of my essays and let the_one destroy it, hehe.

sorry dood - i simply dont buy that atall - how can you spread "democracy" by sending youre troops in, and again, who are we to enforce democracy on others????

again - if the oils in Iraq, Iran, Saudi - who the hell are we to say "you better give it to us and you better give it to us at a reasonable price!!!"? also EVERY oil company in the west has posted RECORD profits in the last 24 months, some twice. also, as I say, there ARE viable alternatives that are available to use NOW at very little cost. you ask "why bother staying?" - exactly - so why are we staying then????

what right does america have to spread it's values and "culture"??? why does it want to. ahhhh - money!!!!!!! if america can get business into far afield countries then it simply makes more money. funnily enough, when you say "americas desire to spread it's values and culture" I can only think of Mcdonalds, KFC, GM, IBM, Microsoft, Burgerking, Ford, etc etc. they dont seem to be very good at going to foreign countries and setting up schools, orphanages, installing sewage/sanitation systems, crop cultivation etc etc - ONLY the stuff that the us govt can make money from. simple as that. If the US wanted to stay a withdrawn secure country that only reacts to being attacked then let me say that the japanese attacked them because the US was witholding Its oil from the japanese (sound familiar???) - what did the koreans do to the USA - what did Vietnam do to the USA. also - it's FACT that the US government through US banks funded the nazi party to start war in europe with the strategy of gaining control in russia for...........................................OIL!!!!!!!!! why do you think the USA wanted to stay out of what we call WWII (funnily enough - most of the rest of the world call it "The Great Russian War" - but weve managed to make it WWII) - money. their banks funded the Nazis (remembering that approx 20% of the USA population was of german descent in the 30's) and then sold western europe the arms to fight back. The US banks make a profit twice over.

lmao - enjoy yer drink - lucky sod.
big.G
icq: 106370896
msn: big_g_uk@msn.com
yahoo: big_g_uk2001
skype: big_g_uk
homepage: <a href="http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth</a>

"Let's Phuqin Rock"!!!!!!!!!!

"AN INTERNATIONAL WAR ON TERRORISM THAT DOESNT TARGET GLOBAL POVERTY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" - think about it.!!!

User avatar
Shadow Reaper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Capital Wasteland

Post by Shadow Reaper » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:13 am

big.g wrote:sorry dood - i simply dont buy that atall - how can you spread "democracy" by sending youre troops in, and again, who are we to enforce democracy on others????

Im not arguing as to whether its right or wrong. Im just saying you cant put everything down to oil. The International System, and how states, NGOs and other forces react to it, is far too complicated to be about one resource, it encompasses far too many different elements.
big.g wrote:again - if the oils in Iraq, Iran, Saudi - who the hell are we to say "you better give it to us and you better give it to us at a reasonable price!!!"? also EVERY oil company in the west has posted RECORD profits in the last 24 months, some twice. also, as I say, there ARE viable alternatives that are available to use NOW at very little cost. you ask "why bother staying?" - exactly - so why are we staying then????

Again, im not arguing that we (being a US led coalition, NATO or whatever) should be in there. That was never the point of my argument.
big.g wrote:what right does america have to spread it's values and "culture"??? why does it want to. ahhhh - money!!!!!!!

Money doesnt equal oil. I pointed out economics as an important part. Infact, I didnt put across how vital the economy is to the 'soft power' and cultural spread of the US. McDonalds, Micro$oft, Hollywood, the music industry and all the others spread not only America's economy but its cultural values. I should've stated that more clearly.
big.g wrote:if america can get business into far afield countries then it simply makes more money. funnily enough, when you say "americas desire to spread it's values and culture" I can only think of Mcdonalds, KFC, GM, IBM, Microsoft, Burgerking, Ford, etc etc. they dont seem to be very good at going to foreign countries and setting up schools, orphanages, installing sewage/sanitation systems, crop cultivation etc etc - ONLY the stuff that the us govt can make money from.

I never said the US was doing it right ;)
big.g wrote:If the US wanted to stay a withdrawn secure country that only reacts to being attacked then let me say that the japanese attacked them because the US was witholding Its oil from the japanese (sound familiar???)

Thats a terribly simplistic version of the reason for the Japanese attack on the United States in December 1941. It ignores Window of Oppurtunity, the need for other resources that was not provided by the US and Japan saw from Indonesia, belief amongst Japanese leaders the US could be defeated, and many more facts. And you must remember why America placed an oil embargo on Japan. Not for its desire for more (it had enough as it was, and did all the way through without needing to dominate anyone elses oil, even if it did by major parts of Anglo oil companies (this is basic economics, take over other peoples businesses if you have enough money)) but to dissuade Japanese aggression in China and South East Asia.
big.g wrote:also - it's FACT that the US government through US banks funded the nazi party to start war in europe with the strategy of gaining control in russia for...........................................OIL!!!!!!!!!

If you can provide me with facts of this, ill be happy to look them through. You must remember, many people in many countries had dealings with the Nazis. That was a dark time in everyones history, but why fund a war just for oil when its easily obtainable
big.g wrote:why do you think the USA wanted to stay out of what we call WWII (funnily enough - most of the rest of the world call it "The Great Russian War" - but weve managed to make it WWII) - money.

Yet America made more money out of winning the war than not taking part. Remember the Marshall Plan? Once again, spreading America's economy through peaceful means. If you recall, the Soviet Union and its Eastern European allies were offered assistance by the Marshall Plan. This would have been a mighty coup, though of course no one would have expected it to be accepted by the Soviet bloc. Not sure how thats important, im too tired.

Plus I can give you a load of reasons as to why it shouldn't be called the "Great Russian War", but thats my personal opinion. Call it what you will, but we'll forgo the theories on the naming of what is commonly known as 'The Second World War' or 'WW2' and settle with either of those. If we dont, we'll only end up arguing whether it started in 1941, 1939, 1936, 1919, 1914 or 1871, or even before that, and what its called.

Anyway, last bit for me tonight. laters.

User avatar
big.g
Posts: 486
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2001 12:00 am
Location: Glasgow
Contact:

Post by big.g » Mon Sep 11, 2006 12:39 am

lol - l8rs shadowreaper. thanx for having a decent "arguement". makes a nice change.
big.G
icq: 106370896
msn: big_g_uk@msn.com
yahoo: big_g_uk2001
skype: big_g_uk
homepage: <a href="http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth" target="_blank">http://www.myspace.com/poorexcuseforthetruth</a>

"Let's Phuqin Rock"!!!!!!!!!!

"AN INTERNATIONAL WAR ON TERRORISM THAT DOESNT TARGET GLOBAL POVERTY IS DOOMED TO FAILURE" - think about it.!!!

User avatar
Shadow Reaper
Posts: 5212
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2000 1:00 pm
Location: Capital Wasteland

Post by Shadow Reaper » Mon Sep 11, 2006 9:40 am

Yup, its better than slagging off people anyway! Of course, your entitled to your opinion, i fully appreciate that. Its just I dont fully agree ;)

Sgt.Preacher
Junior Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:46 pm

Post by Sgt.Preacher » Mon Sep 11, 2006 3:56 pm

I have to say im honestly convinced it was some goonie US organisation like the CIA or something similar.

Have a look at the impact hole in 1 of the pentagon inner rings. Who smells a missile? Bunker buster missiles apparently work in the same way, explosion on first impact then punching through the concrete followed by another explosion. The pic is at the bottom of post!!

Then we have this analysis which I think is worth the watch, believer or non believe, some of you have prolly saw it before.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Preloader

I also read somewhere of the other plane that went down where the passengers attacked the hiijackers which brought the plane down earlier, but some parts of wreckage where over 5km from the ground impact point which many people believe is almost impossible for a planes wheel to do that unless it exploded in mid air - abit later on from that the write up describes how 'eye witnesses' say they saw what looked like a USAF fighter jet fly past before the plane went down. (After reading another document, I think the supposed pilot was elseware in the country at the time - something about the only military planes in the sky close enough - I've forgotten what the outcome was trying to disprove the fighter shotdown the passenger jet)

As for the twin towers, millions of people saw jets hit them, no doubt, but many believe explosives where planted inside the structural points etc etc
Before you go off on how the planes fuel burns so hot to seriously weaken steel etc etc I saw that documentary aswell.

One question I've never been able to find an answer to and I have'nt heard anyone else ask yet. Would the planes fuel not have been burned up pretty quickly because of the combustion temperature and ferocity, much more combustible than normal petrol because of the higher Oxygen mix, so I don't personally see how it those floors burned for 15-20mins at 5000 degC or causing the weakening of the support beams, surely all that would have been burning minutes after the collision would have just been the office equipement which burns nowhere near 500degC
** Like I say, I'm no scientist so there is prolly a good explination but ah well, I live in my bubble.

Preach
Attachments
pent1.jpg

Shadow of Light
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Puff where to start lets first get a few things straight.

Post by Shadow of Light » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:15 pm

Osama’s bombing campaign against the U.S.A begun 4 years before 9/11 , The facts are there which no one denies , It begun when Osama tried to get backing from the States to start a Taliban style offensive in Chechnya, which he thought his CIA buddies would be happy to fund so without checking he got the ball rolling telling many affiliated groups from Pakistan through to Palestine about the new jihad that was about to take place in Chechnya only when he went to the C.I.A to get his usually shipment of anti tank weapons and stinger missiles was he told the sweetie shop was CLOSED as the cold war was over and the ruskies where the good guys now.

Osama chucked a mental as he had been boasting about his connections, Osama is rich and these groups don’t need funding they get tons from all over the world ….what they need is top rate modern military hardware and uncle sam is the man when it comes to that, but you have not only to be his friend but suit his purposes where as we in Europe don’t give a toss and will sell to anyone no questions asked pity our weapons like the blow pipe and dart don’t actually work , so Osama was up shit creek looking like a right tit setting up a war with no hardware.

For several months he did his threats and counter threats and tried to get the CIA round the table they said “we are out to lunch” Osama got a bit scared and grovelled a bit this did not work either, then he snapped so he bombed a U.S Naval vessel in Oman then a few U.S Embassies in central Africa thinking this would force the Americans into having a wee chat with him, well it did but not in the way he thought he wanted to speak to C.I.A agent’s but instead they sent a couple of large 1000lb type agents this pissed Osama off no end as his Cliff Richard collection got toasted .


The C.I.A is good at spying on big nation’s and extremely poor when it comes to the local chavs or neds like Osama, they wanted Osama underground and I don’t mean in a cave, twice they cancelled raids which would have almost certainly killed Osama but it would have wiped out the odd village to so they eventually lost him in Afghanistan, they knew he was up to no good , And Osama was up to no good his first plan was to blow up 44 planes on the runways in 6 different countries all American Airlines planes , this plot the British and French secret services thwarted.

Bush was a disaster for Osama, he could not spell Iraq never mind invade it. The bush administration withdrew from most if not all foreign policy that the democrats had built, the American public did not pay much attention to the outside world and the bush administration was all about withdrawal from the international scene and focus on insular policies and use the money gained from it’s negative world role at home, plain and simple right wing economics.

Osama was also fading as a star in the jihad movement his refusal to directly target Israel though a smart move if one likes to remain breathing , was starting to effect his standing, he had to find a new enemy bigger than Israel and one the would not slit his throat while he slept in his bed , so he planned his next big thing this time he had a new idea why not instead of just hijacking and blowing things up he could send his own missiles the C.I.A way, he knew if it was successful there would be hell to pay in the upper halls of the C.I.A and they would get as much blame as he would just for not stopping it as well as giving him boasting rights at the next Jihad convention .

That’s why sept 11th happened it was all about EGO’S and politics, little boys in the playground, the links the bin ladens have to the bushes can be made for a million less than savoury chaps who have links to a million different politicians ….so what is new the world has always been like that and always will, it is the human condition.

The nonsense about the actual event is just like the JFK nonsense, pure imagination we would rather have the conspiracy line than face the reality that we are at war and are targets just like the soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, it comforts us to think that 4 groups of men could not quietly boards 4 planes and turn them into flying weapons causing death and chaos and create events which would spiral out of control and lead to a place bin laden or the bush administration ever thought or wanted to be.

The Invasion of Afghanistan was about revenge but it was to easy and ended to soon without any real closure this in part drove Iraq policy , The Invasion of Iraq was not about oil or money or common sense it was about the rattling of sabres and a Statement that America will except causalities on both sides and that it will not stop just because it is in battle elsewhere and it will if necessary go it alone , and to an extent it has worked Egypt ,Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait and others have held pretty much silent even when prodded politically by The bush Administration they rarely comment with any significance even during the darkest times over the last 5 years .

And one last note on Osama don’t swallow the media’s horse shit about Osama’s popularity among the jihad movement or foreign government fronted groups he may be on the t shirts of youths in the Gaza strip but in the places where power dwells within the jihad movement he is a pariah and a problem they cant kill him because the people love him but they cant live with the problems that his continued existence brings.

Shadow of Light
Posts: 1798
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2000 12:00 pm
Location: glasgow
Contact:

Now here is how the towers collapsed

Post by Shadow of Light » Mon Sep 11, 2006 7:59 pm

1.The first plane hits the first tower at that moment the tower is doomed , the designers of the Towers had tested the building against and impact of a 747 hitting the building at low level speeds , what they had not accounted for was full fuel tanks or the full speed impacts , when the plane hit like all of the planes that day the resulting impact and explosion from the fuel created massive blast waves that destroyed most of the planes and a small point about explosion blast waves they travel faster than the flames do this means even objects like paper and human flesh can be blown clear even in the most spectacular bangs, this also in the tower impacts removed the fire coating on floor support trusses in about 6 floors in each building couple that with the fact that the floor trusses also take most of their support from the outside skin of the building which in turn takes it strength from the floors .

2.It didn’t take a raging inferno most of the fuel went in the initial impact but it only takes 1 floor to collapse in each building and they are doomed, and this is what happened in both cases first one floor goes BANG then slowly the next BANG then the next a bit quicker BANG then at a steady rhythm BANG , BANG ,BANG all the while the outside shell still stands but at about 7th or 8th floor collapse the outside shell now falls slightly in and straight down into the whole left by the floors.

3.The whole in the pentagon is the exact match for the fuselage size of a 757 , 210 eye witnesses have given accounts to local law enforcement and the FBI all stating they saw a large commercial aircraft hit the pentagon, and hitting a nuclear resilient designed building at full speed with a belly full of fuel in it,it is no surprise that the plane was turned into a shower half vaporised junk travelling at an angry 600mph plus .

4.The plane that never made it tripe and any crap about plane switches is pure vileness at best, people died on that plane and on the other 3 planes each had families ,Each will unfortunately have not only have to endure the war on terror legacy but lunatic fringe that wont let their loved ones rest.

Locked

Return to “Serious Discussion”