1. Post #81
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    Significant? What's your definition of significant? Alex Jones is crazy.
    Can't deny that but he does represent a large number of them.

  2. Post #82
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    Significant? What's your definition of significant? Alex Jones is crazy.
    when I was down by the Occupy Wallstreet protests, I did see a lot of left wingers who were going on about 9/11. However, a LOT of truthers I see are right wing.

    Edited:

    Can't deny that but he does represent a large number of them.
    This too. He has a fan base, he may be one man, but he has a large group of people under him.

  3. Post #83
    yolahola's Avatar
    April 2012
    9 Posts
    I personally don't think it's the government, why would anyone allow terorists to crash into a building with thousands of people?

  4. Post #84
    Gold Member
    Snapster's Avatar
    November 2009
    1,165 Posts
    This is a subject that I'm both ways on, more of the government took part in somewhat of this day. There was many things that occured that day that seemed the government did take part in it. Lets start off by Silverstein files 2 insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, which would have a potential payout of $7.1billion dollars, even though the towers required a $200 million in renovations and improvements. Silverstein made a huge profit from the attacks on the towers by 'terrorism'.

    Now lets talk about how USAF had to stand down during the attacks. NORAD was conducting a week long exercise which one was a simulation of a high jacking of airliners. There was about 14 'hot' fighter jets ready at several different sites, thats a 3.5 ratio per hijacked plane. The government had enough time to locate and take down the planes but they just told the pilots of the jets to stay in formation over rhode island.

    On the same day of the attacks of the towers under world trade center 4 housed in a vault four floors beneath the tower that had around $650 million worth of gold and silver in it but after the attack only $200 million was recovered. It seemed at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. Comex reported to have atleast $950 million worth of gold stored in the vaults under the tower 4.

    WTC 7 Did fall from explosives, because the building was across the street from the towers and reported fell from fires. WTC 7 had mayor Giuliani's emergency command center, which had bullet/bomb resistant windows, and independent, secure air and water supply. The building was 100% steel frame building, no steel building have ever fell from a fire. On May 4, 1988 a fire erupted in a 62 story LA skyscraper which large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze, the fire gutted floors from 12-16. Even though the total burnout of 4 and 1/2 floors, there was no damage to the main structure of the building. There is no way that a fire could take down that building during 9/11 that the commission report reported.

    Secondary explosions inside the building coming from firefighters that were inside the main WTC centers at a staging area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0

    Pentagon; Where are the pieces of the jetliner that crashed into the building? There is no way that the impact could disintegrate into nothing (There was some Debris but not enough for a boeing 757) . After every plane crash around the world there was never had most to all the pieces disintegrate into thin air. There was about 8600 remaining gallons of fuel in the plane, and there was not/close to any smoke/fire damage to any part of the building, the plane also doesn't even fit in the hole that was created by what ever it was. The dive into the building that is also level with the ground is inpossible because it would have taken way more G's than a airplane can take. There was also NO bodies found at the crash site.

    I could go on and on with facts/information about that day. I personally think the government DID do it, but I surely don't want to believe that. I've been researching/watching documentaries about 9/11 for the past couple of years. All I ask is don't listen to what other people say or the government. (The government is shady). Take a day out of your life of watching Fox news and do your own research and look at the facts of what happened. It's never going to be proven one way or the other, unless the government comes out of what ACTUALLY happened from their side of that day. All this information I listed above could be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html and all over the web.

  5. Post #85
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    Now lets talk about how USAF had to stand down during the attacks. NORAD was conducting a week long exercise which one was a simulation of a high jacking of airliners. There was about 14 'hot' fighter jets ready at several different sites, thats a 3.5 ratio per hijacked plane. The government had enough time to locate and take down the planes but they just told the pilots of the jets to stay in formation over rhode island.
    As I already pointed out: in the decade before 9/11: one airplane was forced down, it took over 90 minutes, the hijacked planes were in the air less than 50 minutes.

    Pentagon; Where are the pieces of the jetliner that crashed into the building? There is no way that the impact could disintegrate into nothing (There was some Debris but not enough for a boeing 757) . After every plane crash around the world there was never had most to all the pieces disintegrate into thin air. There was about 8600 remaining gallons of fuel in the plane, and there was not/close to any smoke/fire damage to any part of the building, the plane also doesn't even fit in the hole that was created by what ever it was. The dive into the building that is also level with the ground is inpossible because it would have taken way more G's than a airplane can take. There was also NO bodies found at the crash site.
    I still find it funny at how conspiracy theorists still claim that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, they're just so completely stupid and ignorant that they overlook photos that clearly show the remnants of the airplane.





    I still have my PMs from CodeMonkey from last year about some images, and he told me searching "NIST, Zakaria Moussaoui or Moussaoui Trials" turns up with some interesting results.

    Here are some pages of 9/11 photos from individual photographers.

    Steve McCurry -- http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/x...eve%20McCurry/
    George Miller -- http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/x...orge%20Miller/
    Tim Tobiason (306 photos) -- http://s756.photobucket.com/albums/x...im%20Tobiason/
    That covers the debris, as for the bodies: do you know what happens to a human body when it's impacted at terminal velocity? Or when it's exposed to temperatures that high?

  6. Post #86
    itty-bitty pretty kitty
    Dennab
    September 2008
    9,837 Posts
    This is a subject that I'm both ways on, more of the government took part in somewhat of this day. There was many things that occured that day that seemed the government did take part in it. Lets start off by Silverstein files 2 insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, which would have a potential payout of $7.1billion dollars, even though the towers required a $200 million in renovations and improvements. Silverstein made a huge profit from the attacks on the towers by 'terrorism'.

    Now lets talk about how USAF had to stand down during the attacks. NORAD was conducting a week long exercise which one was a simulation of a high jacking of airliners. There was about 14 'hot' fighter jets ready at several different sites, thats a 3.5 ratio per hijacked plane. The government had enough time to locate and take down the planes but they just told the pilots of the jets to stay in formation over rhode island.

    On the same day of the attacks of the towers under world trade center 4 housed in a vault four floors beneath the tower that had around $650 million worth of gold and silver in it but after the attack only $200 million was recovered. It seemed at least the better part of a billion dollars worth of precious metals went missing. Comex reported to have atleast $950 million worth of gold stored in the vaults under the tower 4.

    WTC 7 Did fall from explosives, because the building was across the street from the towers and reported fell from fires. WTC 7 had mayor Giuliani's emergency command center, which had bullet/bomb resistant windows, and independent, secure air and water supply. The building was 100% steel frame building, no steel building have ever fell from a fire. On May 4, 1988 a fire erupted in a 62 story LA skyscraper which large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze, the fire gutted floors from 12-16. Even though the total burnout of 4 and 1/2 floors, there was no damage to the main structure of the building. There is no way that a fire could take down that building during 9/11 that the commission report reported.

    Secondary explosions inside the building coming from firefighters that were inside the main WTC centers at a staging area. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYlEVCpG_0

    Pentagon; Where are the pieces of the jetliner that crashed into the building? There is no way that the impact could disintegrate into nothing (There was some Debris but not enough for a boeing 757) . After every plane crash around the world there was never had most to all the pieces disintegrate into thin air. There was about 8600 remaining gallons of fuel in the plane, and there was not/close to any smoke/fire damage to any part of the building, the plane also doesn't even fit in the hole that was created by what ever it was. The dive into the building that is also level with the ground is inpossible because it would have taken way more G's than a airplane can take. There was also NO bodies found at the crash site.

    I could go on and on with facts/information about that day. I personally think the government DID do it, but I surely don't want to believe that. I've been researching/watching documentaries about 9/11 for the past couple of years. All I ask is don't listen to what other people say or the government. (The government is shady). Take a day out of your life of watching Fox news and do your own research and look at the facts of what happened. It's never going to be proven one way or the other, unless the government comes out of what ACTUALLY happened from their side of that day. All this information I listed above could be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html and all over the web.
    Oh god this is so stupid.

    Steel buildings can collapse from a fire. Fire weakens steel. Light a fire in the empire state building and watch it collapse (don't actually do that). There's debris from the crash. There's fragments of bodies. There's plenty of things that can be mistaken for bombs (jet fuel pouring down the elevator shaft and exploding). The plane didn't fit the hole because wings shear off and doesn't make a fucking wile e coyote hole in the building.

    "All this information I listed above could be found at http://911research.wtc7.net/index.html and all over the web."

    OH MY GOD THAT MAKES IT FUCKING TRUSTWORTHY

    I can do it too, but mine is actually factual. http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842

  7. Post #87
    Gold Member
    sgman91's Avatar
    July 2006
    4,297 Posts
    Can't deny that but he does represent a large number of them.
    "... Democrats were especially likely to suspect federal involvement in 9/11." -http://www.newspolls.org/articles/19604

    Of course some Republicans are truthers, but the vast majority are Democrats. Also, there are prominent Democrat birthers as well.

  8. Post #88

    April 2012
    30 Posts
    I'd be very glad to read just such a thing. Without an explanation, your argument means nothing. You might just be making shit up.
    I'm thinking of a way to address this challenge. For now, I'll refer you to the words of US Marine General Smedley Butler in 1935: War is a racket.

    "War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside' group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

    UN Resolution 1441. Look it up.
    Some people think that was enough, and some don't. Whatever. The legal argument bores me to death.


    Regardless, why did an entirely new conspiracy about WMDs need to be constructed? Why stage 9/11?
    I have said nothing about 9/11 in this thread so far. I just pointed out that some folks had a lot to gain from going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

  9. Post #89
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    WTC 7 Did fall from explosives, because the building was across the street from the towers and reported fell from fires. WTC 7 had mayor Giuliani's emergency command center, which had bullet/bomb resistant windows, and independent, secure air and water supply. The building was 100% steel frame building, no steel building have ever fell from a fire. On May 4, 1988 a fire erupted in a 62 story LA skyscraper which large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze, the fire gutted floors from 12-16. Even though the total burnout of 4 and 1/2 floors, there was no damage to the main structure of the building. There is no way that a fire could take down that building during 9/11 that the commission report reported.
    Building 7 fell because it was severely damaged, its structural support was weakened and there was a fire raging in it for a day.

  10. Post #90
    Gold Member
    Sgt Doom's Avatar
    March 2005
    20,527 Posts
    Building 7 fell because it was severely damaged, its structural support was weakened and there was a fire raging in it for a day.
    I remember debating that exact point you made for over 20 pages on an old 9/11 thread, read the entirety of the NIST report for it as well. Waste of time. He's repeating verbatim bullshit that was debunked nearly a decade ago.

  11. Post #91
    Governor Goblin's Avatar
    December 2011
    2,782 Posts
    Kopimi wanted to know why WTC 7 went down a while back, I pretty much explained it in the most excruciating detail to him and he seemed to think it was a good answer. If Snapster responds, I'll do it again, but i'm not going to waste my time.

  12. Post #92
    Gold Member
    Matriax's Avatar
    November 2006
    726 Posts
    Looks like its coming in again.. yup, here it is!

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...y/news/1227842

    WHY would they demolish WTC 7? What these theories never come up with is a convincing reason as to why the government would bother to do this.

  13. Post #93
    OvB
    Facepunch resident scientist
    OvB's Avatar
    March 2007
    13,198 Posts
    Pentagon; Where are the pieces of the jetliner that crashed into the building? There is no way that the impact could disintegrate into nothing (There was some Debris but not enough for a boeing 757) . After every plane crash around the world there was never had most to all the pieces disintegrate into thin air. There was about 8600 remaining gallons of fuel in the plane, and there was not/close to any smoke/fire damage to any part of the building, the plane also doesn't even fit in the hole that was created by what ever it was. The dive into the building that is also level with the ground is inpossible because it would have taken way more G's than a airplane can take. There was also NO bodies found at the crash site.
    This explains it pretty well.

  14. Post #94
    Absolute tosser, manchild, and belligerent douche-nozzle.
    download's Avatar
    July 2006
    6,969 Posts
    In my opinion, in terms of likeliness:

    1) 9/11 was carried out by Muslim Terrorists
    2) 9/11 was carried out by Muslim Terrorists, the US government had knowledge of it and chose not to act
    3) Planes where crashed by the US government

    Total batshit insane bullshit that isn't even possible) Controlled demolition, missiles, giant space laser etc

    Number one is the most likely, number 2 and 3 are possible, but it is very very unlikely. Every other "theory" is complete bullshit. Rigging an entire tower to demolish in a controlled fashion take months of preparation and tonnes of explosives, you'd expect someone to see it. Missiles are bullshit, so is a giant space laser.

  15. Post #95

    December 2011
    33 Posts
    Look up "Operation Northwoods"

    I am not saying 9 / 11 was an inside job, I am somewhat on the fence about it. Operation Northwoods will show you however that the American Government are capable of plotting such acts.

  16. Post #96
    Gold Member
    fenwick's Avatar
    August 2005
    3,914 Posts
    I realized today that if the Pearl Harbor attacks had happened in this day and age, there would be all sorts of people claiming conspiracy.

  17. Post #97
    Look up "Operation Northwoods"

    I am not saying 9 / 11 was an inside job, I am somewhat on the fence about it. Operation Northwoods will show you however that the American Government are capable of plotting such acts.
    The government of fucking India could do the same to their own building. I could go and kill my neighbor, does that mean I probably did it if my neighbor is found dead?

    Edited:

    I realized today that if the Pearl Harbor attacks had happened in this day and age, there would be all sorts of people claiming conspiracy.
    People still say Pearl Harbor was caused by the government to this day.

  18. Post #98
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    I realized today that if the Pearl Harbor attacks had happened in this day and age, there would be all sorts of people claiming conspiracy.
    People are claiming it retroactively.

  19. Post #99
    This is a subject that I'm both ways on, more of the government took part in somewhat of this day. There was many things that occured that day that seemed the government did take part in it. Lets start off by Silverstein files 2 insurance claims for the maximum amount of the policy, which would have a potential payout of $7.1billion dollars, even though the towers required a $200 million in renovations and improvements. Silverstein made a huge profit from the attacks on the towers by 'terrorism'.
    Funny because they had the insurance since 1993 which is shown by the fact insurers shelled out 510 million dollars afterwards. The insurance is fucking cheap as well since before 911 almost all terrorist attacks ended with a low loss of life, terrorism coverage was almost forgotten about and always done.

    WTC 7 Did fall from explosives, because the building was across the street from the towers and reported fell from fires. WTC 7 had mayor Giuliani's emergency command center, which had bullet/bomb resistant windows, and independent, secure air and water supply. The building was 100% steel frame building, no steel building have ever fell from a fire. On May 4, 1988 a fire erupted in a 62 story LA skyscraper which large flames jutted out of the building during the blaze, the fire gutted floors from 12-16. Even though the total burnout of 4 and 1/2 floors, there was no damage to the main structure of the building. There is no way that a fire could take down that building during 9/11 that the commission report reported.
    This is the first time a steel building falls from fire, this is also the first time a steel building has had a god fucking damn passenger plane fly into it. This is the first time the steel building had its lateral supports clipped off by said plane. This is the first time a building was left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. This is the first time a building had a FORTY story load pressing down on the damaged supports which left a TWENTY story gash.

    Jesus Christ.

  20. Post #100
    jman6495's Avatar
    April 2011
    14 Posts
    I think this was perpetrated by Muslim Extremists, But as in Pearl Harbour.
    The government decided to do nothing about it.

    Why ? Because of the Destablised state of the middle East : Lets face it, The US's Principle mission
    in the middle east is to protect Oil : The People of the US wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan without 9/11, It may seem insane to claim a government would kill there own people, but i don't think it can be dismissed as a posibility, as that would be to easy.

  21. Post #101
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    This is the first time a steel building falls from fire, this is also the first time a steel building has had a god fucking damn passenger plane fly into it. This is the first time the steel building had its lateral supports clipped off by said plane. This is the first time a building was left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse. This is the first time a building had a FORTY story load pressing down on the damaged supports which left a TWENTY story gash.

    Jesus Christ.
    Not to defend him but WTC 7 was the one that got destroyed by fires and falling debris from the Twin Towers. It didn't get hit by a plane.

  22. Post #102

    December 2011
    33 Posts
    The government of fucking India could do the same to their own building. I could go and kill my neighbor, does that mean I probably did it if my neighbor is found dead?[

    Edited:
    I am not saying Operation Northwoods proves the Government did 9/11. All I was saying is that they have planned similar events in the past. Same with their excuse to go to Vietnam, that eventually came out and the reason was a fabricated one.

    The Government are just humans same as the rest of us. Humans can be evil, especially when there is potential financial gain.

  23. Post #103
    Gold Member
    Jookia's Avatar
    July 2007
    6,768 Posts
    All the evidence points towards the US government having their guard down. It's not that hard to believe. There's no conspiracy here, the US government are just morons.

  24. Post #104

    April 2012
    30 Posts
    People are claiming it retroactively.
    Retroactively? All claims about historic events are necessarily made after they occurred.

  25. Post #105
    "We should allow child labor overseas ...the sweatshop is what is saving the 9 year old worker"
    Pepin's Avatar
    April 2007
    6,864 Posts
    Your post is illegible. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
    The US government knowingly provoked the attack. The motives made by the terrorists were made clear well before the 9/11 attacks, and the credibility of terrorist groups in carrying out their threats had been well established. It can be well assumed that if you hit a bee hive with a baseball bat, you want to get stung. It can well be assumed that if you start getting involved in an area as unstable and violent as the Middle East, that it is only a matter of time before a few attempt revenge.

  26. Post #106
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    I am not saying Operation Northwoods proves the Government did 9/11. All I was saying is that they have planned similar events in the past. Same with their excuse to go to Vietnam, that eventually came out and the reason was a fabricated one.

    The Government are just humans same as the rest of us. Humans can be evil, especially when there is potential financial gain.
    Technically the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a case of bad radar and panic rather than a staged attack. And as has been pointed out several times: there was much more, and more certain, loss than gain from those attacks.

    Edited:

    Retroactively? All claims about historic events are necessarily made after they occurred.
    What I mean is, he said that if Pearl Harbor happened nowadays people would claim it was staged, I'm saying that people now are.

  27. Post #107
    I think this was perpetrated by Muslim Extremists, But as in Pearl Harbour.
    The government decided to do nothing about it.

    Why ? Because of the Destablised state of the middle East : Lets face it, The US's Principle mission
    in the middle east is to protect Oil : The People of the US wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan without 9/11, It may seem insane to claim a government would kill there own people, but i don't think it can be dismissed as a posibility, as that would be to easy.
    If it was over oil than why have the oil exports from the middle east only dropped since the war began.

    Also, there were plenty of things to declare war over, like the tons of attacks before 9/11. Flying plane into a building with thousands of people is stupidly over doing it.

  28. Post #108
    I ROLL THE NICKELS
    CodeMonkey3's Avatar
    October 2008
    18,073 Posts
    Why do people act like WTC 7 is such a huge mystery?



    Large sections of the North Tower facade scooped out a huge part of the building and caused fires which were further fueled by diesel generators that were on several of those floors. One section of WTC 7 collapsed and not long after the rest of it collapsed as well. It wasn't a sudden detonation and it didn't cause 'freefall speed' or whatever deluded thing people believe.

    Ironically enough those Generators were there for the Emergency Command Center.

    Edited:

    That covers the debris, as for the bodies: do you know what happens to a human body when it's impacted at terminal velocity? Or when it's exposed to temperatures that high?
    I have pictures of the bodies from the Pentagon crash if he wants to see them. But I'm sure he doesn't care people really died.


    I also have hundreds of rare images from 9-11. Some really graphic shit. I know people who were there. Port Authority and regular guys, and some people who didn't make it out. So far none of them have been convinced it's anything dark or sinister like a conspiracy people want to believe. Nothing that happened that day is a 'smoking gun' for a complex and ridiculous conspiracy. This entire thing is only made worse by the fact my friends are harassed and tormented by Truthers and the like. They all have serious emotional trauma, Truthers are insensitive to the fact that people died that day and other people witnessed them die in horrific ways.

  29. Post #109
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    I don't see where you are getting at. That the bodies of from the Pentagon are staged or fake or something or not consistent with that kind of crash or that they don't exist or something or what?

    Because if that's the case you don't even want to play that game with me. Because I can provide over six dozen examples of charred and horribly disfigured bodies from airplane accidents.

    I also have hundreds of rare images from 9-11. Some really graphic shit. I know people who were there. Port Authority and regular guys, and some people who didn't make it out. So far none of them have been convinced it's anything dark or sinister like a conspiracy people want to believe. Nothing that happened that day is a 'smoking gun' for a complex and ridiculous conspiracy. This entire thing is only made worse by the fact my friends are harassed and tormented by Truthers and the like. They all have serious emotional trauma, Truthers are insensitive to the fact that people died that day and other people witnessed them die in horrific ways.
    Not where I was going with it at all. I'm not a truther. I was just pointing out plenty of the bodies would be damaged and disfigured beyond belief. My sincerest sympathies to you and your friends.

  30. Post #110
    I ROLL THE NICKELS
    CodeMonkey3's Avatar
    October 2008
    18,073 Posts
    Yeah, woah. Sorry. I was confused. Because I didn't see exactly how you composed those quotes. I see now you were referring to the lack of bodies from the Pentagon because the Truther (Snapster) was questioning why there were none.

    I revised my post and I really do apologize without reservation, I didn't read it properly. Also the part after where I start with "I also have hundreds etc." wasn't directed at you. It was just a general statement and I put a space in my revised post so hopefully you weren't too offended, I didn't mean to direct any sort of hostilities.

    But to bring it back to topic, bodies from the Pentagon exist. I have pictures.

    They aren't even that hard to find.

    Graphic Content: Bodies from the Pentagon.
    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../P200045_1.jpg
    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../P200047_1.jpg
    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../P200048_1.jpg
    http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon.../P200042_1.jpg

    The funniest thing is he quoted this exact website as evidence for his claims, including his claim there were no bodies at the Pentagon and right there on the site they have the pictures.

    I still like to believe most Truthers are just misguided or don't entirely understand. For example, they always say that people said there were sounds of explosions outside and in the lobby. But what they don't know is that when Jumpers land they sound like explosions and they literally shake/vibrate through the ground. It's hard to explain but my friend was there and the entire experience with the Jumpers has fucked him up.

    Edited:

    Here is a video, there is quite a bit of WTC 7 footage and dialog between Firefighters, Command and the News. WTC 7 was engulfed in fire over almost every floor of the 44 story complex. They had no water to put it out and it was decided that because the building was creaking and sagging in certain areas that they didn't need to kill more Firefighters that day and pulled the out.

    This is where the famous "Pull it" comment came from. The building was already evacuated so it was the right decision to make, they didn't have water or pressure from the hydrants after the North and South Tower collapse to fight it anyway. They eventually had to run lines all the way to the river to fight the fires that were left over.


    10:57 and even more at 13:18 to the end of the video. It was obvious to most people that the fires in WTC 7 were out of control and were not going to be put out, especially after the massive loss of life and equipment and the logistics of trying to put it out in an atmosphere of thick smoke, dust and destruction. When it collapsed it was not a surprise. The building had been burning for eight hours.

  31. Post #111
    crackberry's Avatar
    July 2009
    2,424 Posts
    I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I think I saw something where the government had people following the people that were going to hijack the planes until just minutes before they got on the 4 flights that were hijacked. They could have prevented it, but chose not to. I don't think they planned this, but I don't think they were totally caught off guard with it.

  32. Post #112

    November 2010
    375 Posts
    The whole 9/11 shit is ridiculous, I mean, The US nuked Japan, yet they keep bringing up 9/11. Which one was worse? I'm pretty sure Japan endured a lot more shit.

  33. Post #113
    Not that bad of a seed
    asteroidrules's Avatar
    January 2011
    11,427 Posts
    The whole 9/11 shit is ridiculous, I mean, The US nuked Japan, yet they keep bringing up 9/11. Which one was worse? I'm pretty sure Japan endured a lot more shit.
    Eh, what? What does that have to do with anything?

  34. Post #114

    November 2010
    375 Posts
    Eh, what? What does that have to do with anything?
    The US makes such a big deal over 911, yet they killed more innocent people than the terrorists of 9/11, and no i didn't read any of the other posts in this thread.

  35. Post #115
    President of the Westboro Baptist Church Fan Club
    Dennab
    February 2012
    2,084 Posts
    I think this was perpetrated by Muslim Extremists, But as in Pearl Harbour.
    The government decided to do nothing about it.

    Why ? Because of the Destablised state of the middle East : Lets face it, The US's Principle mission
    in the middle east is to protect Oil : The People of the US wouldn't have supported the invasion of Iraq or Afganistan without 9/11, It may seem insane to claim a government would kill there own people, but i don't think it can be dismissed as a posibility, as that would be to easy.
    1. You have zero proof that the government knew anything about this.
    2. How did 9/11 accelerate or assist in allowing the U.S. to invade Iraq? The invasion of Afghanistan was caused by 9/11 because the Taliban was sheltering Bin Laden, but Afghanistan has no resources besides lithium, and all lithium mining contracts have gone to Japan.
    3. It might be insane to claim that there's in invisible purple elephant in the sky right now, but it can't be dismissed as a possibility!

    Edited:

    I am not saying Operation Northwoods proves the Government did 9/11. All I was saying is that they have planned similar events in the past. Same with their excuse to go to Vietnam, that eventually came out and the reason was a fabricated one.

    The Government are just humans same as the rest of us. Humans can be evil, especially when there is potential financial gain.
    You're absolutely right, and I do think that the government had the potential to pull of such an attack if they really wanted to, and they would have done it without so many obvious and stupid errors and holes in their plan. But the thing is, why the fuck would they do it? Why? You mention financial gain, yet nothing but financial loss has resulted from 9/11 or the unrelated Iraq war.

    There's no conspiracy here, the US government are just morons.
    Can't disagree here.

    The US government knowingly provoked the attack. The motives made by the terrorists were made clear well before the 9/11 attacks, and the credibility of terrorist groups in carrying out their threats had been well established. It can be well assumed that if you hit a bee hive with a baseball bat, you want to get stung. It can well be assumed that if you start getting involved in an area as unstable and violent as the Middle East, that it is only a matter of time before a few attempt revenge.
    The attack may have been provoked, but that in no way justifies such an attack. I'm not suggesting that you were saying that.

    I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but I think I saw something where the government had people following the people that were going to hijack the planes until just minutes before they got on the 4 flights that were hijacked. They could have prevented it, but chose not to. I don't think they planned this, but I don't think they were totally caught off guard with it.
    What's the motive. What's that? No motive? Oh, OK. Maybe next time you'll think before you make a claim.

    The US makes such a big deal over 911, yet they killed more innocent people than the terrorists of 9/11, and no i didn't read any of the other posts in this thread.
    You're a fucking lunatic and you must have the mind of an infant to make such a post.

  36. Post #116

    December 2011
    33 Posts

    You're absolutely right, and I do think that the government had the potential to pull of such an attack if they really wanted to, and they would have done it without so many obvious and stupid errors and holes in their plan. But the thing is, why the fuck would they do it? Why? You mention financial gain, yet nothing but financial loss has resulted from 9/11 or the unrelated Iraq war.
    It may cost the tax payer billions when there is a war but some people profit from it. The companies who manufacture and supply the military equipment for example. When you research world leaders you will find they have their fingers in all sort's of pies including such companies.

    Making the public think we are in danger from terrorism is an excellent way to get public support for a war. The public still have the power but we have forgot that we do. The government still know the potential power of the public so they have to be pretty convincing when they want to do certain things.

  37. Post #117
    Ruzza's Avatar
    December 2011
    1,137 Posts
    Explain this


  38. Post #118

    December 2011
    33 Posts
    The reasons I am not entirely convinced on the official story are :-

    1) The way the three buildings "collapse". They do so exactly the same as a controlled demolition. No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire damage in history. It is hard to believe 3 would do so and on the same day. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 sustained much more damage than building 7 and they did not collapse.

    2) There was eye witness testimony and video footage of explosions. People died in the lobby and basement of the twin towers long before they came down. There were many reports from many people of secondary explosions. NIST do not even mention this in their report.

    3) NIST violated laws on how to conduct an investigation. The steel was almost imediately sent away to be recycled without being examined. Molten iron found at the site for up to a month after. They never even tested for accelerants which violated laws. A proper unbiased investigation was never done.

  39. Post #119
    Ruzza's Avatar
    December 2011
    1,137 Posts
    The reasons I am not entirely convinced on the official story are :-

    1) The way the three buildings "collapse". They do so exactly the same as a controlled demolition. No steel frame buildings have ever collapsed from fire damage in history. It is hard to believe 3 would do so and on the same day. Buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6 sustained much more damage than building 7 and they did not collapse.

    2) There was eye witness testimony and video footage of explosions. People died in the lobby and basement of the twin towers long before they came down. There were many reports from many people of secondary explosions. NIST do not even mention this in their report.

    3) NIST violated laws on how to conduct an investigation. The steel was almost imediately sent away to be recycled without being examined. Molten iron found at the site for up to a month after. They never even tested for accelerants which violated laws. A proper unbiased investigation was never done.
    Have you seen the picture of the steel cut diagonally so each level slides off?


  40. Post #120

    December 2011
    33 Posts
    Yes mate I have seen it before.