Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

9/11 Independent Investigation?

103 replies to this topic
Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#31

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:33 AM

I believe it was aluminium from the plane, not molten steel.

And as the above poster points out, there's no way to objectively look at the WTC collapse and objectively see a controlled demolition. It's just been repeatedly hammered into you that it was a controlled demolition. Controlled demolitions are faster and you can see and hear the charges going off.

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    tREEEEEE!!!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#32

Posted 20 July 2013 - 03:03 AM

You can say that 1,500 architects and engineers think it was a controlled demolition, and I'll say that the vast majority of the mainstream scientific and engineering community agree with the official report that it was due to structural damage and the fires, and believe me that number is far far higher than the 1,500 who think it was a controlled demolition.

SagaciousKJB
  • SagaciousKJB

    Captain tl;dr

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 21 Jun 2003
  • None
  • Ban Roulette Winner 2016

#33

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:22 AM

I've wondered about Building 7... The official reasoning for the tower's collapsing the way they did is due to the way the buildings were designed. Each floor was basically build around a "core" and as the fire weakened the steel supports, each floor collapsed and pancaked onto the next, causing the building to collapse in a way that looked like a controlled demolition.

But what about Building 7? Did it have a similar design? Why would fire cause that kind of structural collapse in what seems like just any other ordinary building? I think that's what gives the conspiracy theorists any solid footing on contending that Building 7 was a controlled demolition. Then there's also questionable facts such as "Building 7 was the only in the area to take damage," which I've seen debunked. As well as, "These are the only two buildings in history to collapse from fire," which is a bit of a selective statement as it doesn't address buildings in other parts of the globe.

So not that I lend any credence to the idea that it was a controlled demolition, but why did it look like one versus the building just falling over? My guess is that the floors were designed similarly to those in the other two towers and so a similar situation unfolded. Seems like a simple enough explanation, but no one has come out and said "Okay this is why Building 7 collapsed the way it did," like they did with the towers. So obviously that leaves people to come up with their own explanations...

But really, what's more likely? That "World Trade Center" building 7 had similar construction to "World Trade Center" buildings 1 and 2? Or that it's part of some grand government conspiracy, but the whole idea jives with that anyway... If they're going to conspire to blow up buildings, come up with a perfect explanation for why it looked like a controlled demolition, why would they then not use that explanation for building 7? You think they want to cast suspicion on themselves? Or maybe the idea is they're so powerful and controlling, they don't even need to cover it up? Well, if that's the case, then why the explanation for why the two towers fell? Either way you cut this conspiracy stuff, it winds up not making any sense at worse, or being implausibly convoluted at best.

GunWrath
  • GunWrath

    Alcoholic Blues

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2012
  • United-States
  • Most Helpful [Expression] 2013

#34

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:51 AM

I have my opinions about 9/11, but at the same time it doesn't dismiss the innocent lives that were taken in the wake of whatever may have happened. Even if you go, 'oh sh*t, our own government killed those people' won't do any good, they'll find a clever way of covering up. But is it also so hard to believe that Al-Qaeda actually did the attack? Who knows? .. Anyways, instead of focusing on who did what and who caused who.. remember the lives that were lost.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#35

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:59 AM Edited by sivispacem, 20 July 2013 - 09:52 AM.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:55)
What? Only people with a government license have the right to have an opinion, or express a concern, or a suspicion.

No, but only people with a clear familiarity with the subject matter whose arguments are logical, sensible or reasonable should have any credence given to their views.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:55)
The U.S. Hawks want wars. Wars pay big money.

Except they don't. Not counterinsurgency wars, anyway. COIN conflicts are pretty much solely negative-sum-games for all participants.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:55)
Wars thin the population.

Factually untrue. Conflict tends to increase overall population in participants over the the medium-long term.

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:55)
I figure the C.I.A. and company were on the brink of going out of business (read lose funding). 

Any evidence for this hypothesis or are you just taking a wild stab in the dark?

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 21:55)
If you can't maintain civility, you have permission to not participate.

Permission? From whom? You? That's a bit rich given the quality of your contributions in this thread so far. I've been perfectly civil.

QUOTE (SagaciousKJB @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 23:30)
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.

In order for this to make sense as a theory, you'd have to believe that 9/11 directly contributed to the US intervention in Iraq. In all honesty I'm not sure it did. If we were talking about Afghanistan here it would be a reasonable point but there's a fair bit of evidence to suggest that the US had been planning a regime-toppling operation in Iraq since the culmination of Desert Fox. I honestly believe if they'd used a slightly different justification for intervention (rather than NBCs, addressing the issue of illegal missile technology proliferation) there wouldn't be as much doubt about the origins of the intervention. Even if this were true, though, the aftermath of the conflict in Iraq and the divvying up of oil contracts has left not just Haliburton but pretty much all of the US oil conglomerates out of pocket.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 00:15)
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*...

Yes, and the CIA researched remote viewing for 20 years. That doesn't actually mean you can make people telepathic. The most telling thing about Northwoods was the fact it was dismissed very rapidly. Another telling aspect of it is the fact that the vast majority of proposals were designed specifically to simulate, rather than risk direct harm, to US citizens. It doesn't really contribute anything to the argument as it hardly sets any kind of precedent for conducting false flag attacks on US soil- in fact, the only actual precedent it sets is that the US doesn't conduct false flag attacks on home soil. It doesn't work as a justification for belief that 9/11 was a false flag attack to anyone who doesn't already hold the pre-formed belief that 9/11 was a false flag attack. Therefore it is pretty much useless in the context of the discussion.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:32)
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.

What, you mean the organisation set up by Richard Gage because he heard and interview with conspiracy theorists David Ray Griffin who claimed it was all a conspiracy? The organisation roundly panned by the AIA and whose credibility in the use of the "architect" and "engineer" terms has been brought into question? Interesting article in Architect Magazine. As GTA_Stu has rightly pointed out, the vast wealth of academic and technical knowledge refutes the idea of controlled demolition. Why would one believe an organisation who claim to be made up of qualified architects and engineers yet won't publish their roster or qualifications of their members over the numerous academics and subject matter experts who've refuted their claims? Again, we're back to finding evidence to fit a hypothesis created from pre-formed biases.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:32)
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.

Popular Mecanics wrote a nearly 6,000-word piece dismantling all these conspiracy theory claims. Though I'll address several of them individually.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:32)
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?

Debunking 9/11 did a very large piece on molten steel. In actuality motel iron would have been created by the exothermic reaction between iron/steel and water at temperatures of over 400°C. This effectively strips the hydrogen from water and uses it to fuel fires (metal + water + heat = metal oxide + hydrogen). It's telling that reports of pooling melted steel only came in after water began being sprayed into the buildings- bizarrely, these fires were caused by the behaviour of fire-fighters. A lot can be said about the phrasing and placing of questions by the "truther" lobby. The statement "fires in the top of the building were not hot enough to melt steel" is not disproved by the presence of molten steel at the bottom of the building. Similarly, finding molten steel in the remains of a collapse is not a reliable indicator that temperatures in the building were hot enough to cause it before and during the collapse.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:32)
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.

Thermite is not used in conventional demolition. It has numerous military applications but anyone with a decent understanding of how thermite works can see that this hypothesis is extremely flawed. Allow me to explain:

1) Firstly, thermite is extremely hard to ignite. Conventional uses of thermite use burning Magnesium ribbon, which delivers the near-enough-3000°C temperatures required to start the reaction. You can start it using a blowtorch and some commitment, but I don't think that's exactly feasible in this situation. Military uses of thermite and thermate tend not to employ chemical or electrical detonators as neither can deliver the required concentrated extreme temperature to ignite it reliably. Basically, the chances of remotely detonating any device utilising thermite or thermate as a primary compound are basically nil even under the best conditions. Imagine trying to do that in a burning, soaking building that's been hit by an aircraft.

2) Secondly, thermite reactions aren't very efficient. I'm sure you've seen the various videos of people burning through I-beams with thermite to demonstrate that it is possible. These are all well and good, but look at the size and weight of the thermite required to get a burn efficient enough to actually cut the beam. Now place this in the context of WTC1 and 2, which were supported by 3-meter-wide, several-foot-thick solid steel I-beams. And remember there's numerous load-bearing beams that would need to be cut. We're talking hundreds of kilogrammes of thermite- perhaps over a tonne in a dozen individual locations on each building. And you're going to tell me someone snuck a tonne of prepared and primed thermite compound into each building without anyone noticing?

3) Thirdly, thermite emits a huge amount of ultraviolet light when it gets reacted. People who come into contact with it in a working environment- mostly railway workers- often develop arc eye even faster than welders do if they don't use the proper protective equipment. And we're talking a few ounces at a time there. A couple of tonnes of thermite would have emitted such bright visible and ultraviolet light that you'd probably have been able to see the flash from space. It certainly would have affected the eyesight of anyone staring directly at, or to be honest near, the buildings at the time of collapse. So, if this was the case, why has no-one reported sight problems as a result of a bright flash that no-one actually saw? The only valid hypothesis is that thermite wasn't there.

4) Finally, thermite reactions are rapid. Really, really rapid. The fact that fires continued to burn for weeks after the collapse is an indicator against the presence of thermite- as if the thermite reaction had taken place all efficiently usable compound would have been reacted in mere seconds. This goes back to my high-temperature-fire-involving-steel-stripping-hydrogen-from-water statement earlier- that's what kept the fires burning for so long and so hot. Thermite couldn't have because thermite doesn't behave that way.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 02:32)
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

No, you have to put your trust in subject matter experts, rather than cranks. It's not as if there haven't been innumerate scientific and academic studies into the mechanics of the collapse which have effectively ruled out the possibility of explosive or pyrotechnic demolition.

@SagaciousKJB- WTC7 was pretty much a conventional steel-framed high-rise building. Its collapse was similar to a number of other high-rise collapses caused by a combination of structural failure and fire:

QUOTE (Walls and Ceiling Architecture Online)
The McCormick Center in Chicago and the Sight and Sound Theater in Pennsylvania are examples of steel structures collapsing. The theater was fire protected using drywall and spray on material. A high rise in Philly didn't collapse after a long fire but firefighters evacuated the building when a pancake structural collapse was considered likely. Other steel-framed buildings partially collapsed due fires one after only 20 minutes.

The steel framed McCormick Center was at the time the World's largest exhibition center. It like the WTC used long steel trusses to create a large open space without columns. Those trusses were unprotected but of course much of the WTC lost it's fire protection due to the impacts.

"As an example of the damaging effect of fire on steel, in 1967, the original heavy steel-constructed McCormick Place exhibition hall in Chicago collapsed only 30 minutes after the start of a small electrical fire."


QUOTE (USFA report into the collapse of the Sight and Sound theatre; January 1997)
On the morning of January 28, 1997, in the Lancaster County, Pennsylvania township of Strasburg, a fire caused the collapse of the state-of-the-art, seven year old Sight and Sound Theater and resulted in structural damage to most of the connecting buildings.
The theater was a total loss, valued at over $15 million.
pg 6/74

The theater was built of steel rigid frame construction to allow for the large open space of the auditorium, unobstructed by columns... The interior finish in the auditorium was drywall.

The stage storage area, prop assembly building, and prop maintenance building were protected with a sprayed-on fire resistant coating on all structural steel. The plans called for the coating to meet a two-hour fire resistance assembly rating. The sprayed-on coating, which was susceptible to damage from the movement of theater equipment, was protected by attaching plywood coverings on the columns to a height of eight feet.

The walls of the storage area beneath the stage were layered drywall to provide a two-hour fire protection rating for the mezzanine offices [the WTC used drywall as fire protection in the central core] , and sprayed-on fire-resistant coatings on the structural steel columns and ceiling bar joists supporting the stage floor.
pg 15/74

The two theater employees told the State Police Fire Investigator that when they first discovered the fire they noticed that the sprayed-on fire proofing had been knocked off the underside of the stage floor bar joists and support steel. The fire proofing was hanging on the wire mesh used to hold the coating to the overhead. The investigation revealed that the construction company's removal of the stage floor covering down to the corrugated decking involved striking the floor hard enough to knock off the sprayed-on protection, exposing the structural steel and bar-joists in the storage area. [The theater's spray-on fireproofing was newer and more modern than at the WTC, The theater was only seven years old. If striking the floor during renovations was enough to dislodge it imagine the impact of a 767]
pg 16/74

Temperatures of 1000° F can cause buckling and temperatures of 1500° F can cause steel to lose strength and collapse. When the heat and hot gases reached the stage ceiling they extended horizontally into the auditorium, causing the roof to fail all the way to the lobby fire wall. The fire also extended horizontally from the stage to the elevated hallway, causing the structural steel to fail and buckle in the prop assembly and prop maintenance buildings
pg 17/74

Once the heat of the fire caused the structural steel to fail in the storage area (aided by the damage to the sprayed-on fire protection during renovation), interior firefighting became too hazardous to continue. The truck crews ventilating the roof noted metal discoloration and buckling steel.
pg. 21/74

The two hour fire resistance-rated assembly in the storage area beneath the stage was damaged during the stage floor renovation, leaving the structural members unprotected from the ensuing fire.
pg. 26/74

Buildings constructed of steel should, in effect, be considered unprotected and capable of collapse from fire in as few as ten minutes. Fire resistant coatings sprayed onto structural steel are susceptible to damage from construction work.

The impact of fire and heat on structural steel members warrant extreme caution by firefighters.
pg. 36/74

Unless the steel members are cooled with high-volume hose streams, the fire's heat can rapidly cause steel to lose its strength and contribute to building collapse.
pg. 37/74

LeVelocar
  • LeVelocar

    Punk-ass Bitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 06 Feb 2013
  • Vietnam

#36

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:56 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:55)
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.

Yeah, they always want a war.

But they didn't need to fly planes into buildings to do that.

Hell, after 9/11 they pissed around in the middle east again. They've never needed an excuse to do that.

Look who did do 9/11: those and those descended from those who were used as cold war pawns by america. It's no surprise they wanted a bit of revenge.

Brad
  • Brad

    Big Homie

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 15 Aug 2005

#37

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:01 PM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:55)
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.

What big money? Did you know that, in Iraq for example, during 2007-2008, it was costing the US $400m a DAY to be there?


Where is this "wars pay money" nonsense come from? Do they seriously take "Zeitgeist" series that seriously? You have to ask yourself what is more dangerous, a quasi-transnational cult movement designed array unnecessary suspicion of an unreal depostistic entity, fear and downright lies to further their publicity or a transparent, rational and non-partisan think-tanks who have dispelled the myth, exploring the strategic realities of post-9/11 and do so in a logical paradigm.

It is amazing how fickle the general population are.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#38

Posted 20 July 2013 - 04:31 PM

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 01:32)
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.

@sivispacem

I should clarify what I said in above quote, because there have been hundreds if not thousands of "buildings" that have collapsed due to fire. "Buildings" is much too vague because it includes houses, warehouses, factories etc etc etc

There have been only two other "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" that have collapsed as a result of fire, the other 2 "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" being the WTC towers that collapsed earlier in the day.

Despite me being so vague in my initial quote, I think you most likely knew I was referring to high-rise steel framed skyscrapers, and not buildings in general, as you have heard the argument many times correct?

So, I reply to your response and you mention 2 other buildings, the McCormick Centre and Sight and Sound Theatre. There have been many other buildings that have suffered partial of full collapse as well as these 2 buildings as well, these were just the two you used as examples.

However, these buildings are not high-rise, steel framed skyscrapers. Also McCormick not did not fully collapse. If you could show me another high rise, steel framed skyscraper that has collapsed in a similar manner to the 3 WTC towers then I will never again think about this piece of information when wondering about what happened on 9/11.

There have been other high-rise steel framed skyscrapers, that have been absolutely ravaged by fire, on almost every single floor of the building, yet they do not collapse.


Thermite. I will try and describe exactly my thought process regarding the issue of thermite.

Person A says "I found thermite in the rubble", or "only thermite could do this", "looks like thermite to me" etc etc
Person B says "No you didnt find thermite", no other stuff can do that", "no it doesn't" etc etc

I am 100% objective when listening two these 2 people have their mini thermite debate.

I do not know if thermite was found, I do not know if there was thermite in the rubble or in the dust, all I know is that person A says there was and person B says there was not.

In this particular debate, I am straight down the middle and undecided.

When move on to the Building 7 debate, there is a similar debate happening

Person A says "it was controlled demolition", "it looks very similar to a controlled demolition", "fire does not cause a high-rise steel framed skyscraper to collapse"
Person B says "it was not controlled demolition", "it looks nothing like a controlled demolition", "fire caused other buildings to collapse, maybe not skyscrapers, but other buildings"

In this particular debate I am not down the middle, I lean towards the controlled demolition argument. Not 100% convinced, just as I am not 100% convinced on any aspect of 9/11, but maybe 90% convinced.

If I knew for a fact that Building 7 was brought down via controlled demolition, 100% certain and not 90%, then this would obviously affect who I sided with in other debates such as the thermite debate.

There are other aspects of 9/11 such as "did a plane hit the Pentagon?" Then we get the debate again "Yes it did", "No it didn't". In this debate I am 90% on the side of those who say a plane DID hit the Pentagon.

Raavi
  • Raavi

    Z

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • European-Union
  • Best Moderator 2015
    Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#39

Posted 20 July 2013 - 04:57 PM

Ignoring this whole 'Bush blew up the towers' conspiracy rhetoric - The thing that always interested me is the possibility of construction fraud, something that could've compromised the structural integrity of the WTC and lead to it collapsing.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#40

Posted 20 July 2013 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 08:59)

No, you have to put your trust in subject matter experts, rather than cranks. It's not as if there haven't been innumerate scientific and academic studies into the mechanics of the collapse which have effectively ruled out the possibility of explosive or pyrotechnic demolition.

When does an expert become a crank? Who decides whether an expert is a crank or indeed, an expert?

You have the opinion that the 1,500+ Architects and Engineers are cranks, they are not experts, why?

Does an expert become a crank when he has an opinion that it contrary to what a government expert says?

You refer to Popular Mechanics. Are those guys cranks or experts?

To me a crank would be someone who says the Earth is flat, or the Earth is 10,000 years old. That is what I consider a crank.

I don't consider a structural engineer with 30 years experience, giving his opinion that Building 7 collapsed through controlled demolition to be a crank.

Likewise I don't consider a structural engineer with 30 years experience, giving his opinion that Building 7 did not collapse through controlled demolition to be a crank.

I consider them both to be experts with different opinions on an issue.

What about the scientist with 30 years experience who says that climate change is not a result of human activity, going against the government scientist who says that climate change is a result of human activity. I suppose the non government scientist is a crank too right?





Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#41

Posted 20 July 2013 - 05:19 PM

I have a question.
If it ever emerged that the President orchestrated 9/11, that would make him a criminal, wouldn't it? If a President is judged to have committed a crime whilst in office, does that negate all his legislation as criminal also?
Could all the actions of a President be retroactively deemed illegal if he was guilty of treason whilst in office? And, if a President was judged a traitor, would he still be entitled to be called the President or would he effectively become a non-person whose tenure was wiped from the records?

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#42

Posted 20 July 2013 - 05:55 PM

I want to say few things about Libya and the "arab spring" in general. Not directly linked to 9/11 at all, but very much linked to US government policy.

Under Gaddafi, Libya had the highest human development in Africa, along with Seychelles and Equatorial Guinea.

That is just a stat, true.

But here are some other "stats"

US external debt = ~$16,700,000,000,000
UK external debt = ~$9,800,000,000,000
France external debt = ~$5,600,000,000,000
Germany external debt = ~$5,600,000,000,000
Libya external debt = $0

Electricity was free in Libya
Education was free in Libya
Health care was free in Libya
Price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per litre
Mother would receive $5,000 after giving birth to a child
Before Gaddafi, 25% of Libyans were literate, that rose to over 80% under Gaddafi



Now, talk a little about the 1953 Iranian coup d'etat.

The 1953 Iranian coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Iran, and its head of government Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom and the United States.

In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company now known as BP.

Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s: a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism.

Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically.

Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government.

With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor Truman administration had opposed a coup.

Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.

Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military junta that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the putsch plotters and signed by the Shah.

The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government

At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence

According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.

Between 300 and 800 people were killed because of the conflict.

Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life

Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.


What does all this have to do with 9/11? Nothing directly.

But when I hear US and UK government speak to me about how Gaddafi is brutal dictator, a madman, evil, the Libyan people want him out and that old chestnut of "he is killing his own people" etc etc etc, I don't believe them. I think they are liars. Just like when they invaded Iraq, an illegal war based on lies, lies and more lies.

When the US government tell me what happened on 9/11, I find it very difficult to believe them, I have zero trust in what they are telling me.

US and UK government are corrupt to the core and lie for a living. I believe nothing they tell me.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#43

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:13 PM

Operation Northwoods

Operation Northwoods was a series of false flag proposals that originated within the United States government in 1962, but were rejected by the Kennedy administration. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or other operatives, to commit perceived acts of terrorism in U.S. cities and elsewhere.

These acts of terrorism were to be blamed on Cuba in order to create public support for a war against that nation, which had recently become communist under Fidel Castro. One part of Operation Northwoods was to "develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington".

Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government. It stated:

The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere.

Several other proposals were included within Operation Northwoods, including real or simulated actions against various U.S. military and civilian targets.

The plan was drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, signed by Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer and sent to the Secretary of Defense.

Although part of the U.S. government's Cuban Project anti-communist initiative, Operation Northwoods was never officially accepted; it was authorized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.


Good job Kennedy was assassinated the year after and not the year before right? sigh.gif

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#44

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:22 PM

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
There have been only two other "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" that have collapsed as a result of fire, the other 2 "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" being the WTC towers that collapsed earlier in the day.

Well, that depends on your definition of both "high rise" and "steel framed". There are two examples of high rise structures with a similar internal composition to WTC partially collapsing solely because of structural failure due to fire damage- the Windsor Tower in Madrid and The Delf School of Architecture. Both had similar steel framed constructions to WTC7. Both suffered partial structural failures due to localised fires causing weakening of structural steel. But I must point out that WTC1 and 2 were of a different construction than WTC7. And the issue with this response is that it keeps introducing caveats that move the goal posts. Firstly it's "there's never been a high rise collapse due solely to fire". Then it's "there's never been a high rise steel-frame collapse due to fire". Then it's "there's never been high rise, steel-frame skyscraper collapse due to fire". As you introduce more caveats, the pool of possible buildings that could meet these conditions decreases, and therefore so does that chance of someone finding a suitably similar set of circumstances which to compare it to.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
However, these buildings are not high-rise, steel framed skyscrapers. Also McCormick not did not fully collapse. If you could show me another high rise, steel framed skyscraper that has collapsed in a similar manner to the 3 WTC towers then I will never again think about this piece of information when wondering about what happened on 9/11.

It's worth pointing out that no other steel-framed high-rise building has ever been subject to combined kinetic and thermal energy equivalent to a small tactical nuclear weapon either, as was the case in these examples. The combination of impact and fire greatly surpasses in all measurable ways anything that's been experienced before with this kind of structure.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
I do not know if thermite was found

Thermite is Iron Oxide and Aluminium. I don't see how the presence of Iron Oxide and Aluminium in the wreckage of a steel-framed building which was hit by an aluminium airliner could ever be suspicious. The only people who make the "it was thermite" arguments are people who tend to be scientifically ignorant. If you're happy to give equal credence to ignorant people attempting to fit evidence to a hypothesis they've already formed as you are to scientifically minded individuals who want to draw conclusions from evidence, then that's your choice.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
Person A says "it was controlled demolition"

Again, this is an example of a lack of scientific and technical knowledge. Numerous people have authored academic, peer-review papers that use computer modelling to demonstrate the most probable cause for the collapse of WTC7, but apparently these peer-review works aren't worth their salt compared to the spurious hypotheses of ignorant luddites using arguments I, as someone with a great deal of familiarity with the circumstances of the events though no great technical understanding, can decimate before my coffee gets cold.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
When does an expert become a crank?

When they insist things are true that go against empirical evidence, or when they tenaciously propose hypotheses which are logically flawed to the point of being untenable whilst failing to listen to reason. The same time anyone else becomes a crank.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
You have the opinion that the 1,500+ Architects and Engineers are cranks, they are not experts, why?

It's not my opinion, it's the opinion of the professional bodies that are meant to support architects. They question how many of that supposed 1,500 are actually qualified at all, and if they are why the organisation won't release their names and qualifications. They question the scientific basis for many of their claims; the lack of technical detail and applicability in many of their published works, and their complete failure to demonstrate through simulation modelling that the official story of the collapse is implausible. Though I assume the latter is because it's been demonstrated numerous times with a variety of structural modelling programmes that the official story is entirely plausible.

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:58)
I don't consider a structural engineer with 30 years experience, giving his opinion that Building 7 collapsed through controlled demolition to be a crank.

If that structural engineer presented their work in a peer-review paper, open for scientific scrutiny, fully referenced and with impeccable sourcing, then I wouldn't consider them a crank either. But that's not what we've got here. We've got claims from a centralised organisation that claims to represent 1,500 nameless "architects and engineers" who've not released anything that's open for proper scrutiny for all the reasons I've outlined above. If they started producing work of obvious merit, with proper empirical demonstrations and simulations, instead of basing their claims on hyperbole, hearsay and fuzzy still frames of video footage, I'd give them a lot more credence. Until then, thought, I treat them the same way I'd treat a medical profession who recommended homoeopathy as a cure for cancer- with a great deal of fully deserved scepticism. This is what separates an expert from a crank- the quality of their testimony.

For the record, the issue with this kind of conspiracy theory is it all comes apart at the seams if one aspect of it cannot be properly justified. We've got very much bogged down in the detail of particular claims and counter-claims but I posted numerous rebuttals related to non-technical aspects of the theory which have gone unanswered- mostly in reference to the nature of counter-insurgency conflict, the myth of war for profit and the numerous questions around the requirement for such and audacious plot.

Also, basing trust, or lack of it, in a hypothesis solely in relation to the trustworthiness of the government who happens to agree with that hypothesis seems really silly to me. The argument equivalent of a child claiming they don't like something just because someone else does. If you can create an argument that demonstrates why and how an implicit lack of trust based on historic events can be reasonably translated into support for hypotheses which lack scientific credibility, I'm all ears.




Also, I've already discussed Northwoods, and double posting is against the forum rules. As is going off on unrelated tangents.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#45

Posted 20 July 2013 - 06:29 PM

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 16:58)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 08:59)

No, you have to put your trust in subject matter experts, rather than cranks. It's not as if there haven't been innumerate scientific and academic studies into the mechanics of the collapse which have effectively ruled out the possibility of explosive or pyrotechnic demolition.
When does an expert become a crank? Who decides whether an expert is a crank or indeed, an expert?
An expert is a crank when (s)he dares to differ with sivispacem’s views, or 'approved source'.
QUOTE (Brad @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:01)
QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Jul 19 2013, 20:55)
Wars pay big money..
What big money? Did you know that, in Iraq for example, during 2007-2008, it was costing the US $400m a DAY to be there?
Where is this "wars pay money" nonsense come from?
It is amazing how fickle the general population are.
Who do you think PROFITed (or otherwise took their cut) from that expense? The Tax Payer ‘rebates’?
And then there is this:
QUOTE
Iraq War misappropriations:  Allegations that billions of dollars have not been properly accounted for or misappropriated during the Iraq War from funds released by the United States Congress for programmes, including the re-construction and re-building of Iraq, after the war. Gag orders from the United States Department of Justice/White House are preventing further inquiry into the allegations.
Which was also part of the alleged reasons that Building 7 was destroyed (with contents) to hide (eliminate) files that were too large to dispose of in ‘normal’ fashions.
I don’t think we need an illuminatus conspiracy to blame it all on, just normal corrupt Government employees and leaders (Political & Hired Hands) doing their jobs (the way they see it). And of course “Protecting the People”.

I believe if there really is skullduggery it won’t come to light until 50 years from now, if ever (somebody must have learned something from Nixon). Since the Government controls the data (regardless of out-side thinking) it is much like a Police Internal Affairs investigation, or a bought and paid for scientific report. The results will be what the people in control want.

RockStarNiko
  • RockStarNiko

    Foot Soldier

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jan 2012

#46

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 18:22)
QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:31)
There have been only two other "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" that have collapsed as a result of fire, the other 2 "high-rise, steel framed, skyscrapers" being the WTC towers that collapsed earlier in the day.

Well, that depends on your definition of both "high rise" and "steel framed". There are two examples of high rise structures with a similar internal composition to WTC partially collapsing solely because of structural failure due to fire damage- the Windsor Tower in Madrid and The Delf School of Architecture. Both had similar steel framed constructions to WTC7. Both suffered partial structural failures due to localised fires causing weakening of structural steel.



Windsor Tower was a literal towering inferno, fire everywhere, parts of the building falling off and was totally gutted by fire.

Did it collapse? NO. After all it went through it was still standing.

Building 7 suffered nowhere near as much as Windsor Tower yet it fell like a bitch.

The other WTC towers that surrounded the two main towers also suffered much more damage than Building 7. Did any of them collapse? NO

Tell me why Windsor Tower did not collapse and tell me why the other WTC towers did not collapse and tell me why Building 7 DID collapse

How can you completely rule out the possibility of a controlled demolition? How can you refuse to accept that it is possible?

You don't have to believe it was, but how can you not even accept the possibility?

I DO accept the possibility that it was NOT a controlled demolition, but lean towards the belief that it was.

You, though, refuse to accept the POSSIBILITY of it being a controlled demolition. I don't understand this attitude of total refusal.


Let me ask you this theoretical question.

If you saw the footage of Building 7 collapsing and you knew nothing whatsoever about 9/11, what would you think was the cause?

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    tREEEEEE!!!

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Unfunniest Member 2013
    Unfunniest Member 2012

#47

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE (RockStarNiko @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 17:55)
I want to say few things about Libya and the "arab spring" in general. Not directly linked to 9/11 at all, but very much linked to US government policy.

Under Gaddafi, Libya had the highest human development in Africa, along with Seychelles and Equatorial Guinea.

That is just a stat, true.

But here are some other "stats"

US external debt = ~$16,700,000,000,000
UK external debt = ~$9,800,000,000,000
France external debt = ~$5,600,000,000,000
Germany external debt = ~$5,600,000,000,000
Libya external debt = $0

Electricity was free in Libya
Education was free in Libya
Health care was free in Libya
Price of petrol in Libya was $0.14 per litre
Mother would receive $5,000 after giving birth to a child
Before Gaddafi, 25% of Libyans were literate, that rose to over 80% under Gaddafi

But when I hear US and UK government speak to me about how Gaddafi is brutal dictator, a madman, evil, the Libyan people want him out and that old chestnut of "he is killing his own people" etc etc etc, I don't believe them. I think they are liars. Just like when they invaded Iraq, an illegal war based on lies, lies and more lies.



Lots things were free in Libya under Gaddafi, but the people were certainly not. Yes the country did develop a lot under him, but that's not hard to achieve with such a vast amount of resources and such a comparatively small population. It basically allowed him to write blank cheques and appease the people by improving their lives, yet still having such a large amount of control over them, and reducing their freedom for his own private gain. He and his family had a stranglehold on politics, media, and the Libyan people's liberty. He was a demagogue who used propoganda, and the crushing of any dissent whatsoever to stay in power. And yes although there was a high level of human development, Libya still pretty much amounted to a kleptarchy, with Gaddafi taking what he wanted and living with his family in extravagant wealth. There was a great deal of corruption in Libya, and at the time of the civil war unemployment was at very high levels. Ultimately the people grew tired of their overbearing master.

Yes the U.S. and U.K. capitalised on this, and it would be naive to say that their number one concern was the liberty of the Libyan people. But Gaddafi was still a dictator. He did improve living standards, but with such wealth it would be hard not to. The U.S. might have been involved in questionable conflicts, but I think it's another stretch altogether to murder 3,000 of your own people (and in such a way) just to get a justification for going to war. Especially when there are far better and easier ways of attaining or fabricating such a justification.

The U.S. did not need 9/11 for another war in Iraq, so it would make no sense for them to construct and carry out such an elaborate and complicated plan.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#48

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:13 PM Edited by sivispacem, 20 July 2013 - 08:31 PM.

I wouldn't form an opinion on it because I wouldn't have enough information to do so. Forming any theory based solely on the images unless one wad a qualified demolitions expert or structural engineer would bring simply foolish.

You're asking lots of questions but still missing the point. You've asked for several proofs that don't really addressed the main point I'm making. Even if we do assume you were right about WTC7 being a controlled demolition, it's the rest of the theory that needs substantiating.

An example if you will. If we accept the hypothesis that WTC7 was a controlled demolition- and it's worth pointing out that to do so would contradict a wealth of evidence, why assume that the people involved were the US government? The only justifications you've given for this are a very vague and really rather inaccurate diatribe about how the US economy thrives on war, and the fact you're suspicious of the government because of things they did or discussed doing at various levels several decades ago that in no way relate directly or indirectly to the topic at hand. Currently, there are innumerate hypotheses that make more logical sense and cast other people as responsible for a hypothetical controlled demolition of WTC7.


Oh, and weasel, no one cares about your theories because you have zero credibility..

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#49

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:08 PM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 20 July 2013 - 11:22 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:13)
The only justifications you've given for this are a very vague and really rather inaccurate diatribe about how the US economy thrives on war, and the fact you're suspicious of the government because of things they did or discussed doing at various levels several decades ago that in no way relate directly or indirectly to the topic at hand.

What about the fact that the U.S. Dept. of Defense has already previously proposed a plan to attack American soil to blame it on another country to gain support for a war?


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:13)
Yes, and the CIA researched remote viewing for 20 years. That doesn't actually mean you can make people telepathic.


What?


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:13)
The most telling thing about Northwoods was the fact it was dismissed very rapidly.


By a man who was later assassinated after giving a speech about how corrupt the government is..


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:13)
Another telling aspect of it is the fact that the vast majority of proposals were designed specifically to simulate, rather than risk direct harm, to US citizens


"Operation Northwoods proposals included hijackings and bombings followed by the introduction of phony evidence that would implicate the Cuban government."


QUOTE (sivispacem @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 12:13)
It doesn't really contribute anything to the argument as it hardly sets any kind of precedent for conducting false flag attacks on US soil- in fact, the only actual precedent it sets is that the US doesn't conduct false flag attacks on home soil. It doesn't work as a justification for belief that 9/11 was a false flag attack to anyone who doesn't already hold the pre-formed belief that 9/11 was a false flag attack. Therefore it is pretty much useless in the context of the discussion.


Proof that the U.S. Dept. of Defense wanted to attack their own country to gain support for a war is in no way a 'red flag' to people who are suspected the 9/11 attacks to have been false flag attacks? How do you come to these conclusions?





@RoadRunner71- Yes


RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#50

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:17 PM

Hey conspiracy nuts, I've got a question, was the 1993 WTC bombing an inside job?

Finn 7 five 11
  • Finn 7 five 11

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#51

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE
I wouldn't form an opinion on it because I wouldn't have enough information to do so. Forming any theory based solely on the images unless one wad a qualified demolitions expert or structural engineer would bring simply foolish.

Pretty much this, Rockstar Niko, we can make vague comparisons here between different incidences that have similarities, but we can't really debate it properly because I don't think there is a single -as sivis said- Demolitions expert or structural engineer here on the forum to add credibility.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#52

Posted 21 July 2013 - 12:41 AM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 23:17)
Hey conspiracy nuts, I've got a question, was the 1993 WTC bombing an inside job?

Well... it didn't explode on the street so it would have to been inside the building smile.gif

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#53

Posted 21 July 2013 - 12:53 AM

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 00:41)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 23:17)
Hey conspiracy nuts, I've got a question, was the 1993 WTC bombing an inside job?

Well... it didn't explode on the street so it would have to been inside the building smile.gif

tounge2.gif icon14.gif

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#54

Posted 21 July 2013 - 01:00 AM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 16:53)
QUOTE (lil weasel @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 00:41)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 23:17)
Hey conspiracy nuts, I've got a question, was the 1993 WTC bombing an inside job?

Well... it didn't explode on the street so it would have to been inside the building smile.gif

tounge2.gif icon14.gif

I'm curious if you missed the news report I posted showing that the FBI had previous knowledge of the '93 WTC attacks?

Or you were just trying to make fun of people not knowing that we actually have evidence that the 93 attacks indeed were set up by our own government..?

Melchior
  • Melchior

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Vietnam

#55

Posted 21 July 2013 - 07:10 AM

QUOTE (Brad @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 22:01)
Where is this "wars pay money" nonsense come from?

It's oversimplified rhetoric, but even if someone genuinely thinks the conflict works like this: "go into Iraq, take over, make off with oil" they're still ten times more informed than anyone who thinks the war was fought for security.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#56

Posted 21 July 2013 - 08:11 AM

QUOTE (Melchior @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 07:10)
QUOTE (Brad @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 22:01)
Where is this "wars pay money" nonsense come from?

It's oversimplified rhetoric, but even if someone genuinely thinks the conflict works like this: "go into Iraq, take over, make off with oil" they're still ten times more informed than anyone who thinks the war was fought for security.

I was leaning more toward the 'profiteering' from selling overpriced weapons, and run-on expenses during development, myself. Golden-Parachutes, excessive wages for the people on top, type of thing.
Keeping the Oil Flowing was sort of a side thingy, for Oil Man Bush & Family... moto_whistle.gif

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#57

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:23 AM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 01:00)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 16:53)
QUOTE (lil weasel @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 00:41)
QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Saturday, Jul 20 2013, 23:17)
Hey conspiracy nuts, I've got a question, was the 1993 WTC bombing an inside job?

Well... it didn't explode on the street so it would have to been inside the building smile.gif

tounge2.gif icon14.gif

I'm curious if you missed the news report I posted showing that the FBI had previous knowledge of the '93 WTC attacks?

Or you were just trying to make fun of people not knowing that we actually have evidence that the 93 attacks indeed were set up by our own government..?

Nah, I haven't read the whole thread because I'm sick of the nonsense conspiracy theories.

It's true that the war gives some people a lot of money, but you don't need to blow one of the symbols of America, making the nation look weak and killing more than 2000 innocent people. You can just blow an embassy or warship killing 200.

lil weasel
  • lil weasel

    Shoot Looters, Hang Pirates!

  • GTA Series Staff
  • Joined: 25 Dec 2006
  • United-States
  • Contribution Award [San Andreas]

#58

Posted 21 July 2013 - 10:29 AM

QUOTE (RoadRunner71 @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 10:23)
It's true that the war gives some people a lot of money, but you don't need to blow one of the symbols of America, making the nation look weak and killing more than 2000 innocent people. You can just blow an embassy or warship killing 200.

The biggest loss was to New York Channel Eleven, they lost their logo.

The loss of 2,000 people was a strike back for the 20,000 women and children who died from starvation and lack of medical supplies due to the American & Friends Embargo that deprived refugee camps of needed material. Or so the spokesman said in a never to be seen again Ted Coppell news broadcast.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    I shall revoke the throne, atop the stellar tree

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#59

Posted 21 July 2013 - 03:33 PM

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 02:00)
I'm curious if you missed the news report I posted showing that the FBI had previous knowledge of the '93 WTC attacks?

Or you were just trying to make fun of people not knowing that we actually have evidence that the 93 attacks indeed were set up by our own government..?

Actually your video doesn't claim foreknowledge, it merely states that Ramzi Yousef was a known threat. Of which there are thousands at any given time. Since when was institutional incompetence evidence of a conspiracy? Related NYT article. You expect us to believe that the security community are competent enough to conduct a false flag attacks and yet so incompetent as to leave the apparent evidence that is so clearly and obvious to truthers yet completely unfathomable to anyone else? Anyway, I digress slightly. You're fitting evidence to a preconceived conclusion as usual and failing to consider the additional implications of your claims. For instance if both 1993 and 2001 are false flag attempts, what about the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Saalem in 1998? The 7/7 bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the Karachi consulate bombings, the Bali attacks, Jeddah and Sana'a. All of these are inexorably linked to 9/11and to the earlier bombing in 1993, as were the Beirut bombings of 1983 and 1984. Surely if one is a conspiracy they must all be as they're highly interconnected?

Also, Northwoods is as much a proof of 9/11 being a false flag attack as 20 years spent researching remote viewing is of telepathy. That's the point I'm making-you've taken poor correlation and tried to imply causality from it.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#60

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:58 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 22 July 2013 - 01:01 AM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Sunday, Jul 21 2013, 07:33)
Actually your video doesn't claim foreknowledge, it merely states that Ramzi Yousef was a known threat. Of which there are thousands at any given time. Since when was institutional incompetence evidence of a conspiracy? Related NYT article. You expect us to believe that the security community are competent enough to conduct a false flag attacks and yet so incompetent as to leave the apparent evidence that is so clearly and obvious to truthers yet completely unfathomable to anyone else? Anyway, I digress slightly. You're fitting evidence to a preconceived conclusion as usual and failing to consider the additional implications of your claims. For instance if both 1993 and 2001 are false flag attempts, what about the bombing of the US embassies in Nairobi and Dar Es Saalem in 1998? The 7/7 bombings, the USS Cole bombing, the Karachi consulate bombings,  the Bali attacks, Jeddah and Sana'a. All of these are inexorably linked to 9/11and to the earlier bombing in 1993, as were the Beirut bombings of 1983 and 1984. Surely if one is a conspiracy they must all be as they're highly interconnected?

Also, Northwoods is as much a proof of 9/11 being a false flag attack as 20 years spent researching remote viewing is of telepathy. That's the point I'm making-you've taken poor correlation and tried to imply causality from it.

Wait what? Did you watch the video? An FBI agent gave actual materials to make the explosives to the patsy and there are even transcripts showing how the agent pressured them into committing the act.. The FBI made the bombs, made the plans, then found a patsy to carry out the job.. It's all documented.

One side you say "Our government isn't talented enough to pull off a false flag attack" then when there's evidence of them covering their tracks you go "You really think our government would be careless enough to leave evidence of a false flag attack?" You don't see the flaw in this way of thinking?

And of course Operation Northwoods isn't proof that 9/11 was a false flag attack, it simply shows our Dept. of Defense doesn't give two sh*ts about us and would even consider attacking and kill their own people in order to gain support for a war. I'm not sure what they've ever done for you for you to gain such strong faith and support in them.. need I remind you these are the people who've allowed MK-ULTRA to happen or performed the Tuskegee syphilis experiment for over 40 years..?




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users