Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

9/11 Independent Investigation?

103 replies to this topic
RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#1

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:21 AM

Should there be an independent investigation into 9/11?

a) Yes
b) No
c) I don't care

Watch this documentary if you have 85 minutes to spare



Has your opinion changed?

a) Yes, I watched the documentary and now I do want an independent investigation
b) No, I watched the documentary and I don't want an independent investigation
c) Too long did not watch, I don't care
d) I watched the documentary and I want an independent investigation even more than I did before


On a lighter note, here is a short comedy routine (3 mins 15 seconds) from George Carlin



Thoughts?

a) Carlin is a legend
b) Carlin is a dick
c) hoo dafuq iz George Carlings?


universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Ich liebe dich.

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States

#2

Posted 19 July 2013 - 03:25 AM

I remember George Carlin narrated one of my favorite shows when I was growing up.


EgyptianStar
  • EgyptianStar

    Rat

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Sep 2012

#3

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:00 AM

I would support it. I would invite any Independent organization to take up a Investigation.

Chargr
  • Chargr

    ★★★★★

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Feb 2007

#4

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:10 AM

I'm sure there's been many independent investigations, I seen one a few years back. They never get the attention they need.

Eris
  • Eris

    Grill

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#5

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:16 AM



Here's a pretty good Carlin skit.

018361
  • 018361

    Human

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Jul 2010
  • None

#6

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:52 AM

I am all for an indie investigation. I have never felt that it was looked into well enough in the first place.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#7

Posted 19 July 2013 - 06:42 AM

What are we asking for an independent investigation into? The circumstances of the run-up to the attacks? There's already been one into that. The attacks themselves? There have been several into them, mainly revolving around the conduct of the emergency services. You couldn't really hold an independent investigation into 9/11 as an event because it encompasses too many things, across too large a geographical area, and across too many distinct subjects and areas of expertise to be effective. Though I support the principle because every report which drives another nail into the coffin of the idiotic, deluded and completely implausible conspiracy theories around the even is all good in my book.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#8

Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:08 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 06:42)
What are we asking for an independent investigation into? The circumstances of the run-up to the attacks? There's already been one into that. The attacks themselves? There have been several into them, mainly revolving around the conduct of the emergency services. You couldn't really hold an independent investigation into 9/11 as an event because it encompasses too many things, across too large a geographical area, and across too many distinct subjects and areas of expertise to be effective. Though I support the principle because every report which drives another nail into the coffin of the idiotic, deluded and completely implausible conspiracy theories around the even is all good in my book.

I am not 100% sure who was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
I have been told through the official government version of events that Al-Qaeda and Bin Laden were responsible.
Simply being told something is not enough for me to blindly accept it as truth.
I consider the Bush Administration to be one of the prime suspects as to who was responsible.
Do you consider that to be a idiotic, deluded and completely implausible conspiracy theory?
If so, why?
The Bush Administration embarked on an illegal war in Iraq, US government had been involved in wars throughout all of its history, there has been plenty of corruption, scandals and downright lies, the CIA by its very nature is a covert agency responsible for very questionable actions eg Iran, Central America, Vietnam, this list is basically endless really, so why is not possible for them to be responsible for 9/11? I don't see the logic in that reasoning.
More people have died in Iraq than did on 9/11? So they don't exactly have a conscience or some ethics that would prevent them from being responsible.
There are other suspects too, I am not sure what happened and who was responsible.
All I am 100% certain about is I think there should be an independent investigation to find out the truth once and for all.
I just know that if one of the suspects is the Government, then a Government investigation into itself is ridiculous. They are not going to hold hands up and say oh yeah it was us, sorry about that, doh.
Do you not think it is ignorant to blindly dismiss a possible truth, just because you have been told a truth and must accept that as the only possible truth?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#9

Posted 19 July 2013 - 12:34 PM Edited by sivispacem, 19 July 2013 - 12:45 PM.

It isn't blind acceptance. There's no tangible reason the US would ever conduct such an attack against itself; the only theories require another conspiracy (namely NWO or Zionist masters) in order to make sense, and basing a hypothesis on an untested premise it completely nonsensical. Then there's the technical aspect. The web of such a conspiracy would be so vast as to include several hundred thousand people at a minimum, from all walks of life. With our tangible evidence of this kind of wide ranging involvement, then it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain the theory. Which is why most proponents of it resort to the secret one world government spiel to try and explain why the hundreds of thousands of people whose necessary involvement would be required have all somehow kept quiet. Then there's the question of suspicion and probability. Why do you distrust the official line on the events? The overwhelming majority of people who do so do as a direct result of deep-seated mistrust of the government, not vice versa. They grab onto these conspiracies because they believe the government is malevolent, which is logically flawed as a rational observer should make a judgement of probability based on circumstances rather than preexisting bias. Then there's capability- whom in the United States actually possesses the capability to orchestrate and instigate such an attack? It can't be the intelligence community because they've demonstrated decades of ineptitude at far simpler tasks. The military?

The points you make are largely moot. You can't logically use unrelated actions as evidence for a conspiracy they don't implicitly or explicitly relate to. Occam's Razor favours the rationalist who sees the entire event as a tactically brilliant but strategically suicidal terrorist attack. In your response you've not really given any insight into why you feel the government is likely to be responsible, aside from a suggestion that you don't trust them which really doesn't constitute a reasonable support for a theory. Anyone with a grounding in the political sciences would be capable of expanding on the very brief rebuttals I've outlined above. And, for the record, I do believe it is idiotic, deluded and completely implausible for someone to hold the view that the US government instigated the 9/11 attacks, because it is a theory with no evidential basis which only makes sense to people with a naive understanding of politics and international relations who already possess preconceived biased as to their belief in the malevolence of the government. People who do not meet these preconditions do not find the theories plausible; therefore it is safe to say an external observer with no intrinsic bias and enough understanding to make a reasoned judgement wouldn't either.

You've said yourself you don't have particularly broad or deep insights into or knowledge of the events, so why do you feel educated enough about them to make the assessment that it is likely to be the responsibility of the government when by your own admission you don't know enough to form a fully coherent view? That's not meant to sound demeaning, but at least you don't appear to be completely unshakable in your ignorance like so many conspiracy theorists are.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#10

Posted 19 July 2013 - 02:05 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 12:34)
It isn't blind acceptance. There's no tangible reason the US would ever conduct such an attack against itself; the only theories require another conspiracy (namely NWO or Zionist masters) in order to make sense, and basing a hypothesis on an untested premise it completely nonsensical. Then there's the technical aspect. The web of such a conspiracy would be so vast as to include several hundred thousand people at a minimum, from all walks of life. With our tangible evidence of this kind of wide ranging involvement, then it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain the theory. Which is why most proponents of it resort to the secret one world government spiel to try and explain why the hundreds of thousands of people whose necessary involvement would be required have all somehow kept quiet. Then there's the question of suspicion and probability. Why do you distrust the official line on the events? The overwhelming majority of people who do so do as a direct result of deep-seated mistrust of the government, not vice versa. They grab onto these conspiracies because they believe the government is malevolent, which is logically flawed as a rational observer should make a judgement of probability based on circumstances rather than preexisting bias. Then there's capability- whom in the United States actually possesses the capability to orchestrate and instigate such an attack? It can't be the intelligence community because they've demonstrated decades of ineptitude at far simpler tasks. The military?

The points you make are largely moot. You can't logically use unrelated actions as evidence for a conspiracy they don't implicitly or explicitly relate to. Occam's Razor favours the rationalist who sees the entire event as a tactically brilliant but strategically suicidal terrorist attack. In your response you've not really given any insight into why you feel the government is likely to be responsible, aside from a suggestion that you don't trust them which really doesn't constitute a reasonable support for a theory. Anyone with a grounding in the political sciences would be capable of expanding on the very brief rebuttals I've outlined above. And, for the record, I do believe it is idiotic, deluded and completely implausible for someone to hold the view that the US government instigated the 9/11 attacks, because it is a theory with no evidential basis which only makes sense to people with a naive understanding of politics and international relations who already possess preconceived biased as to their belief in the malevolence of the government. People who do not meet these preconditions do not find the theories plausible; therefore it is safe to say an external observer with no intrinsic bias and enough understanding to make a reasoned judgement wouldn't either.

You've said yourself you don't have particularly broad or deep insights into or knowledge of the events, so why do you feel educated enough about them to make the assessment that it is likely to be the responsibility of the government when by your own admission you don't know enough to form a fully coherent view? That's not meant to sound demeaning, but at least you don't appear to be completely unshakable in your ignorance like so many conspiracy theorists are.

No tangible reason? There is a very simple reason - War on Terror. War for the sake of war, war based economy needs war. What was the reason for the Cold War? Capitalism vs Communism? West vs East? It was just war for the sake of war. America needs to be constantly fighting with someone, anyone, it doesn't even matter for what purpose, because the only purpose like everything, it all boils down to money and greed. There is no complicated reason for any of it, it is just money. The only complicated part is how to make the money, various elaborate schemes are concocted such as all the various wars, economic crises and depressions, climate change etc, but the motivation behind every single one is pure and simple greed, money. Simple as that.
The reason the motive for everything is basic money and greed is because that is the very nature of most people living on this planet today. We live in global capitalist society and the vast majority of people are capitalists, they care about themselves first and society is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all. Freedom and Liberty is what America is all about, each individual > society. So it is no surprise whatsoever that the majority of people in positions of power have that attitude of individual > society, because that is what most people are like.
When someone who considers individual more important than society they are far less inclined to stop and question whether what they are doing is right or wrong, is it moral or ethical? They don't care about society, they only care about their own personal objectives. All the cliches of dog eat dog and survival of the fittest apply. That is just how the world is.

At the end of your post you say I admit myself I don't have much knowledge on the 9/11 attacks, but that is incorrect and I don't I said that at any point. I said I am unsure of who is responsible, not because I don't have enough information, but because even with so much information in my head, I am not prepared to give a verdict.
I just think there needs to be an independent investigation, by truly independent source with no agenda and totally neutral.

You mention some argument I have heard a few times before, about how it can't be a conspiracy because it would need thousands of people to be involved and someone would blow the whistle etc
I will answer that as follows
a) There does not need to be thousands of people involved, there is no reason that thousands of people would all have to be aware that they are part of a "conspiracy". I really dislike the word conspiracy because lazy people immediately turn their brain off and stop thinking as soon as that word is associated with any form of debate or discussion.
b) With the nature of human beings being what it is, there is no reason that thousands of people ARE actually aware of the truth. The harsh reality is that most human beings on this planet are not "good guys" they are "don't give a sh*t guys", whether that takes the form of a corrupt politican, a brutal soldier going around hacking people to death in the jungles of Africa, or some thug on the street who has no respect for anything and will quite happily mug an old woman and then beat up a stranger just for the kicks and the list is extensive for "don't give a sh*t guys"
c) There are plenty of whistle blowers who debate 9/11. The only question you need to ask after listening to someone is whether what they say is truth or fiction.

You say the main reason I consider US government and Bush Administration as a possible suspect is because I have a deep-seated mistrust of the government. Yes, I do and with very good reason. Why should I blindly believe that whatever a politician tells me is the truth, when the very nature of politicians is lies and spin? Why would I trust a government who has been involved in a war, in some form or another, for its entire history and never known a period of peace? Why would I trust anything they tell me?
I have zero trust in them, but I still do not point the finger with 100% conviction because I need to be convinced beyond shadow of a doubt. That is why I want an investigation, independent investigation.
Sometimes I will hear something, example, death of Osama Bin Laden, my immediate reaction is "bullsh*t", but sometimes I sit and start to think to myself, am I supposed to just believe this, am I doing it wrong, should I stop asking questions? Even if something sounds like nonsense, should I just sit back and relax and say "maybe it is true, maybe its not bullsh*t". I try and do this but I have an alarm going off in the critical thinking part of my brain "buuuuullsh*t, buuuuuuullsh*t" like a siren. Is ignorance bliss? Do I need to stop thinking and just bury my head in the sand? Am I ostrich or human?

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#11

Posted 19 July 2013 - 04:33 PM

My two cents, before sivispacem comes in and completely destroys your argument:

QUOTE
a) There does not need to be thousands of people involved, there is no reason that thousands of people would all have to be aware that they are part of a "conspiracy". I really dislike the word conspiracy because lazy people immediately turn their brain off and stop thinking as soon as that word is associated with any form of debate or discussion.

Yes it does. Or do you think the president will be able to give one order and then a highly trained and covert group of people will make sure everyone involved in the act will have no knowledge of it? Not even talking about the members of the government, think of the people flying the plane, the airline company, the people at the gate, the ground emergency crew etc. And that's for a single plane, of a single airline, in a single city. And it's irrelevant that you dislike the word conspiracy. It's connotations are deserved.

QUOTE

b) With the nature of human beings being what it is, there is no reason that thousands of people ARE actually aware of the truth. The harsh reality is that most human beings on this planet are not "good guys" they are "don't give a sh*t guys", whether that takes the form of a corrupt politican, a brutal soldier going around hacking people to death in the jungles of Africa, or some thug on the street who has no respect for anything and will quite happily mug an old woman and then beat up a stranger just for the kicks and the list is extensive for "don't give a sh*t guys"

Prove it. Show me your statistics that factually prove that the majority of human beings are "don't give a sh*t" guys.

QUOTE

c) There are plenty of whistle blowers who debate 9/11. The only question you need to ask after listening to someone is whether what they say is truth or fiction.

Noone is arguing that you shouldn't question some things. But faced with facts that prove said thing, proceeding with the questions is irrational. However, in most cases, you can tell whether something someone is saying is fact or fiction by looking at their argument, looking at their evidence, and even looking at their past history. Most "whistle blowers", specially those related to 9/11, are either linked to other conspiracy theories or have no solid facts to base their opinions on.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#12

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:01 PM Edited by sivispacem, 19 July 2013 - 08:03 PM.

Tchuck has already made a sizeable contribution, and I have no interest in "destroying" your argument- it's very hot and I'm very tired- but I'm going to pick up on a few things you've said.

Please allow me to apologise in advance for stripping a great deal of the content of your response out- I aimed to address only the fundamental points and not the winder diatribes that tended to surround them. No offence intended.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:05)
No tangible reason? There is a very simple reason - War on Terror. War for the sake of war, war based economy needs war.

That's not a reason, that's a hypothesis. There's an underlying issue with much of your post, and that is that it an argument non sequitur- that is, it doesn't follow. Even if we accept your hypothesis- that the US economy is based on conflict- and I'm going to rebut that in relation to the conflicts in question shortly, the argument doesn't logically make sense. You're making the claim that your hypothesis supports the idea that 9/11 was an inside job for the purposes of perpetuating conflict, but there's no tangible link between the first proposition and the second. Even if you add in the logical steps required for it to make sense, it still doesn't follow as a logical argument. The US economy relies on conflict to remain profitable. Therefore US requires an impetus to involve itself in conflicts. Therefore the US concocted a false flag attack to start definitely one, arguably two negative-sum-game conflicts, over a grand strategic objective that had existed and that the US had been working towards for the best part of 15 years beforehand? Sorry, it just doesn't follow any coherent or logical pattern of thought. You aren't really providing a reason (and you continue to not provide a reason with your interesting but very general and deeply technically questionable discussion of the nature of human greed in sociology and international politics, but I digress) and I'm fairly sure you're aware of this. So, do you care to disclose in a little more depth, and with somewhat clearer logical steps, why you believe that the nature of modern IR and geopolitics, specifically the apparently inherent greed of individuals in positions of political and strategic influence, directly related to a covert plan to engage in a false-flag attack for the purposes of propagating continuous warfare for personal profit?

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:05)
There is no complicated reason for any of it, it is just money. The only complicated part is how to make the money, various elaborate schemes are concocted such as all the various wars, economic crises and depressions, climate change etc, but the motivation behind every single one is pure and simple greed, money. Simple as that.

I've removed the rest of this section as it isn't really relevant; just a bit of a rambling diatribe, to be blunt. But your argument doesn't make sense in relation to the conflicts in question. Your analysis so far has been that the US economy is dependent on conflict to remain effective, therefore they conducted 9/11 as a launching point for conflicts that could keep the economy running. Now, firstly, this hypothesis rests on a number of unsubstantiated and questionable tenets. Firstly, I question whether the US economy is so centred around defence and security as to be solely dependent on it. Secondly, I question whether the defence lobby- as powerful as it may be- is capable of influencing strategic policy to the point at which the US government does something as incomprehensibly dangerous as conducting a false flag attack against its own population. Thirdly, and most importantly, I question whether anyone savy with defence and security issues would provoke such an absurdly counter-intuitive conflict from a profit perspective. Now, the other contentions are things you'd need to provide evidence for to substantiate your hypothesis, but this one I'll go into some more depth on. Basically, anyone vaguely competent at strategic studies- which includes most people in senior positions in defence contractors- would have foreseen both Iraq and Afghanistan becoming counterinsurgency conflicts. Now, COIN is a problem if you are a proponent of the whole military-industrial-complex-based hypothesis because it kind of contradicts that entire theory. The first thing you have to do is acknowledge that the great majority of writing on COIN strategy is sh*t- purely because it was written by the losers. COIN isn't won by technology- Vietnam demonstrated that. Nor is it won by brutality or shock and awe- Vietnam, again, and Malaya. COIN is about presenting a better alternative to the status quo. That doesn't happen with $400k-a-pop GPS guidance kits for 2,000lb bombs. Counter-insurgency strategy directly contradicts the idea of the military-industrial complex because it contradicts the doctrine of victory through technology. Which, in turn, brings into question the whole basic thesis behind the continuous warfare theory. The only people to profit from continuous warfare under any hypothetical situation are the defence contractors. But no-one profits if it is a COIN conflict, given that for all over vested parties military conflicts are, in measurable terms, zero or worse sum games. If you've got actual evidence to support this hypothesis go ahead and provide it, but given it seems to contradict accepted strategic reality I don't think it is worth entertaining these views further without it.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:05)
At the end of your post you say I admit myself I don't have much knowledge on the 9/11 attacks, but that is incorrect and I don't I said that at any point. I said I am unsure of who is responsible, not because I don't have enough information, but because even with so much information in my head, I am not prepared to give a verdict.

Well, by accepting the probability of a malevolent US cause for 9/11, you bely if not an overt lack of knowledge around the central issue, at least an overt lack of knowledge in strategic policy.Which kind of proves my point. You've said that you are willing to court the idea that the whole thing was the doing of the US; now that's either an intrinsic bias talking or you really don't have enough of a technical understanding of the subject matter at hand to realise that this hypothesis is fundamentally flawed to the point of being untenable.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:05)
You say the main reason I consider US government and Bush Administration as a possible suspect is because I have a deep-seated mistrust of the government. Yes, I do and with very good reason.

What's that good reason? Your argument is an unsubstantiated and questionable allegation. It rests on the untested premise that politicians are empirically more disingenuous than other members of society. And as a general rule, I don't think that's tenable. Certainly without and kind of empirical evidence. This is what I mentioned earlier in reference to preconceived biases- the more we explore your motivation behind your statements the clearer it becomes that they are driven by bias rather than empiricism. I'm not going to pry into these views as they're effectively irrelevant to the discussion- you're entirely free to believe whatever you want- but making spurious claims based on a personal bias isn't really valid in a proper discussion of the issue. Unless of course you accept your own bias and acknowledge it in your arguments? In which case you bring many of your unsubstantiated points into disrepute and make much of your argument untenable because you've acknowledge it's a creation of intrinsic bias rather than empirical or rational analysis.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:05)
I have zero trust in them, but I still do not point the finger with 100% conviction because I need to be convinced beyond shadow of a doubt. That is why I want an investigation, independent investigation.

I would argue if you are at all convinced by alternative hypotheses you lack both the knowledge and conviction for your views on the issue to hold any real weight. But that's just the rational sceptic in me talking.

Baseball
  • Baseball

    Godzilla flyin on a Pegasaurus

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2012

#13

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:15 PM

I'm really interested in conspiracy theories lately and I've looked into this one.
There are so many signs in movies and cartoons of those towers going down before it happened. They've been giving you warnings for years.

Now if you take all this into consideration and know a little bit about the illuminati you'll have a hard time believing this was simply a terrorist attack.

If you would take the time to watch this video, skip past all the illuminati symbolisms to 1:58.

Eris
  • Eris

    Grill

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 04 Mar 2013
  • None

#14

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:19 PM

A question I've always asked myself is why would the Illuminati warn of their actions before they happen? And if so, why can't any of these crackpots who spend all their free time studying this sh*t pick up on this and warn others?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#15

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:31 PM

QUOTE (Baseball @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:15)
There are so many signs in movies and cartoons of those towers going down before it happened. They've been giving you warnings for years.

Logically speaking, why the f*ck would a secret society bent on world domination want to advertise their conquests?

QUOTE (Baseball @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:15)
Now if you take all this into consideration and know a little bit about the illuminati you'll have a hard time believing this was simply a terrorist attack.

And anyone with even a basic grasp of politics, international relations, strategic theory, history, structural engineering reality or for that matter blessed with common sense can see that these conspiracy theories are completely untenable. For a whole array of reasons I and others have already covered in varying lengths so far in this thread.

Sorry to be blunt, but if you believe Illuminati conspiracy theories you must be an utter imbecile. No-one blessed with the gift of reasonable cognitive ability is moronic or deluded enough to buy into this utter sputum. Hence the complete absence of anyone with any academic or technical credibility supporting the conspiracy theories.

Sorry, but if there was an all-encompassing secret society pulling the strings of the world, they wouldn't be so sh*t as to give themselves away to any half-wit nutbag capable of tonguing Alex Jones cornhole.



Yes, perhaps harsher than completely necessary but what can I say? I f*cking hate stupidity, particularly when it's disguised as some kind of enlightened knowledge. Here we are again, the Dunning-Kruger effect in motion.

Quackerz Gamerz
  • Quackerz Gamerz

    Radio Ga Ga!

  • Members
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2012

#16

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:32 PM

QUOTE (Baseball @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:15)
I'm really interested in conspiracy theories lately and I've looked into this one.
There are so many signs in movies and cartoons of those towers going down before it happened. They've been giving you warnings for years.

Now if you take all this into consideration and know a little bit about the illuminati you'll have a hard time believing this was simply a terrorist attack.

If you would take the time to watch this video, skip past all the illuminati symbolisms to 1:58.

Although some of the Illuminati symbols in that video are most likely directly referencing it, others such as the Lara Croft and National Treasure are just stupid, as those films plots are based around the Illuminati, obviously meaning there will be the symbol in it.

Some people look way into things sometimes...

I'm not denying that the Illuminati exists, it's just that some people put so much crazy "evidence" on it, it seems so stupid and fake.

OP: I'm not that interested in politics, and tbh it just confuses me, but I think there should be a new investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

ryan_J
  • ryan_J

    GTA FOR LIFE !

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2011
  • None

#17

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:37 PM

This is the problem with 9/11 people can never get to the truth because they get all caught up in this Illuminati, world domineering, reptilian space ranger sh*t. I'm not even saying none of those things exist but why does everyone overlook the simple political reasons behind 9/11 and jump straight into the crazy stuff?

I actually do believe 9/11 was an inside job but there are more logical reasons for it than the Illuminati. I think people overuse the Illuminati when really they know little about the subject.

Baseball
  • Baseball

    Godzilla flyin on a Pegasaurus

  • Members
  • Joined: 24 Apr 2012

#18

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:39 PM

Sivispacem, that's plain rude. I really don't appreciate you calling me an imbecile.
This whole "put it right in front of everyone's eyes" thing seems shady to me too, but the signs are there. The Illuminati certainly SEEM to exist and be in the industry. Why have so many artists admitted to having sold their soul to the devil?

I never said I knew for certain they exist, or that I believe in it. All I said is that right now I'm struggling to understand what this all is.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#19

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:41 PM

QUOTE (ryan_J @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:37)
I actually do believe 9/11 was an inside job but there are more logical reasons for it than the Illuminati.

Care to disclose them? I'm genuinely interested as I, no anyone with real qualification to speak on the subject, cannot fathom a single rational hypothesis as to why 9/11 would have been conducted by the US.

ryan_J
  • ryan_J

    GTA FOR LIFE !

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2011
  • None

#20

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:43 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (ryan_J @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:37)
I actually do believe 9/11 was an inside job but there are more logical reasons for it than the Illuminati.

Care to disclose them? I'm genuinely interested as I, no anyone with real qualification to speak on the subject, cannot fathom a single rational hypothesis as to why 9/11 would have been conducted by the US.

Okay wait we can do this on PM dude, I'm not really into all this political discussion in an open thread...

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Faceless, Nameless, Endless War

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2013, 2012, 2011

#21

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:47 PM

QUOTE (ryan_J @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:43)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (ryan_J @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:37)
I actually do believe 9/11 was an inside job but there are more logical reasons for it than the Illuminati.

Care to disclose them? I'm genuinely interested as I, no anyone with real qualification to speak on the subject, cannot fathom a single rational hypothesis as to why 9/11 would have been conducted by the US.

Okay wait we can do this on PM dude, I'm not really into all this political discussion in an open thread...

That's kind of the purpose of a forum, but feel free to PM me if you don't want to discuss it openly.

QUOTE (Baseball @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:39)
Sivispacem, that's plain rude. I really don't appreciate you calling me an imbecile

I didn't call you an imbecile. You insinuated that yourself by suggesting that I did, affirming that you held views that are untenable.

But to be slightly less blunt, the whole and sole reason the Illuminati seems to exists is because the modern incarnation of it has been created by people associating events to it and claiming they're evidence of its existence. It isn't self-evident and they don't provide any evidence for these suppositions which don't rely on other pre-existing conspiracy theories, but unfortunately the vast majority of people are incapable of distinguishing disingenuous but reasonably well-crafted sh*te from reality. Which is sad, as you'd expect at least a modicum of rationality from anyone brave enough to go on the record as holding a particular view and face scrutiny for doing so, but hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that the more tenacious your belief, the stupider you're actually likely to be.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • Members
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • None
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#22

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:55 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:41)
Care to disclose them? I'm genuinely interested as I, no anyone with real qualification to speak on the subject, cannot fathom a single rational hypothesis as to why 9/11 would have been conducted by the US.

What? Only people with a government license have the right to have an opinion, or express a concern, or a suspicion.
The U.S. Hawks want wars. Wars pay big money. You can't have a War if you don't manufacture an enemy. Wars thin the population.
I figure the C.I.A. and company were on the brink of going out of business (read lose funding). So it isn't that far fetched to believe they nudged the people they trained into the act.

If you can't maintain civility, you have permission to not participate.



JOSEPH X
  • JOSEPH X

    Boss

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Dec 2008

#23

Posted 19 July 2013 - 09:01 PM

This topic is proving a point that I've made in several other conspiracy topics.


SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003

#24

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:30 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 13:47)
but hey, the Dunning-Kruger effect suggests that the more tenacious your belief, the stupider you're actually likely to be.

Holy crap, there's a WORD for that? At the risk of ignoring my own guilty moments, I see this a lot on this forum.

Also, sivi,

How about the idea that Bush/Cheney let it happen so that they could win all the rebuilding contracts through Haliburton and line their pocket? I've always thought that one was delightfully plausible. Kind of like the whole, "We let Pearl Harbor happen so we could go to war," idea.

But then again, I think that's a pretty drastically different thing than contending it was a grandly conspired inside-job.


theNGclan
  • theNGclan

    ey b0ss, got skippy?

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Apr 2011
  • United-States

#25

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:02 PM

What would really even be the benefit of ANOTHER investigation? I know there are a lot of nut jobs out there, thinking the twin towers were destroyed by aliens, or it was some sort of inside job by the Government or the Illuminati. Does it really matter? The terror that struck everyone from that disaster has came and went, and there is nothing we'll ever find out about it that we don't already know.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#26

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:15 PM

QUOTE (theNGclan @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 15:02)
Does it really matter? The terror that struck everyone from that disaster has came and went.

That is not true at all. Our world has changed so drastically since 9/11 it's scary to think what could lay ahead in the future for us..



And as many know, the U.S. Dept of Defense proposed Operation Northwoods which would've had a government agency stage a terrorist attack within U.S. borders and blame it on Cuba to gain public support. Thankfully the Kennedy Administration denied it.. Now just imagine if someone approved of something like that *cough* Bush *cough*...


And don't even give me any BS about how the U.S. has changed so much since then they'd never do anything like that now, if anything they've only changed for the worse.. Spying on their own citizens, jailing kids for telling jokes, arresting peaceful protesters and so on.

As an American citizen you're 8-9 times more likely to be killed by an officer of the law than by a terrorist.. the war on terror's a joke. The real terrorists are the one's who spread this fear mongering of terrorism to the masses..

Chunkyman
  • Chunkyman

    Foot Soldier

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2012

#27

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:31 PM

Blue pilled, all of you are blue pilled.

The truth of the matter is that the World Trade Center never even existed. ph34r.gif

I<3GTAV
  • I<3GTAV

    I LOVE GARY PAYTON NO ONE UNDERSTANDS

  • Members
  • Joined: 13 Nov 2012
  • United-States

#28

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:34 PM

QUOTE (Chunkyman @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 18:31)
Blue pilled, all of you are blue pilled.

The truth of the matter is that the World Trade Center never even existedph34r.gif

user posted image

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#29

Posted 20 July 2013 - 01:32 AM

What are people's thoughts on the collapse of Building 7 and the 1,500+ Architects and Engineers who believe the collapse of Building 7 was through controlled demolition.

In order for me to accept the official government version of events of what happened on 9/11, I have to convince myself that Building 7 collapsed because of fire and structural damage.

This is very difficult for me to do, when there are 1,500+ Architects and Engineers, experts, saying it is controlled demolition, with my own two eyes I see a controlled demolition and the fact that there have been only two other buildings in history that have collapsed as a result of fire, the 2 other buildings being the WTC towers that collapsed earlier in the day.

I also have to ignore the fact that molten steel was found in the rubble.

On one side you have the people saying that the temperatures could not have been hot enough to melt the steel support structures, but then the other side counter ths by saying that the support structures did not need to be melted only weakened. Okay fair enough that is something I actually can accept.

But, they found molten steel. So if the temperatures were only high enough to weaken the support structures, where did the molten steel come from?

One side goes on to say that thermite produces the kind of temperatures needed to produce molten steel and this thermite also produces those pyroclastic clouds

Also I saw with my own eyes, firefighters say that there were fires burning under the rubble WEEKS after 9/11. Not hours or even days but WEEKS and this was because of the thermite.

Going back to Building 7 and 1,500 experts saying it was a controlled demolition, combine this with the molten steel, the thermite, the pyroclastic clouds, the fires burning for weeks after 9/11.

This is why it is so difficult for me to accept the official government version of events on 9/11. Am I not entitled to be skeptical and ask questions?

I have to somehow ignore all this information and just accept what the government says, I have to ignore all this information and put my trust in people who lie for a living

And this is not even the whole story either, just one small part of a massive jigsaw puzzle with pieces that don't fit together, unless the government tells you how they fit together.

Luna Fortuna
  • Luna Fortuna

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Jun 2011

#30

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:03 AM Edited by Personguy, 20 July 2013 - 02:14 AM.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 01:32)
with my own two eyes I see a controlled demolition

Well you either have sh*t eyesight or don't know what a controlled demolition looks like.. It looks nothing like a controlled demolition.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users