Gash, i hate conspiracy theorists, they rap themselves up in something they want to beleive, and use coincidences to fill in the blanks. The Illuminati, Catholic Church, Majestic 12, Masonic Lodge, US Government, Aliens, New World Order...none of these people are secretly pulling the strings, telling us all what to do and think, staging disasters and terrorist attacks to make us all beleive something. Two Planes hit two buildings, they both fell, end of. As to why we're in Afghanistan, we beleive Osama was behind 9/11 and want to capture him, we are also getting rid of the Taliban who want to keep Afhganistan an Islamic state, so they can tell people how to live their lives. As to why we're in Iraq, well, we started it we may as well finish it. We didnt go in for the right reasons, but its the same deal as Afghanistan, Islamic extremists want to force people to live their lives the way they say so, forcing people to be Muslim, you know there are thousands of people on the Iraqi border with Jordan, the majority of whom have turned their backs on Islam, wether to go to another faith, or to beleive in nothing; they are afraid to go back because in Islamic states not being a Muslim just isnt an option. And to anyone who thought the war would be over in '03, your a moron, you cant win a war in 6months, until recently there were still Soldiers in Northern Ireland, the first car bomb their was in 1972, suck it up, even extreme left Obama may not be able to pull the troops out without Iraq plunging into further tormoil, then what would the british and Americans be...'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys'
The fire cause by the explosion of those two planes would have been a 'Plane Fuel Fire' you know how long it took them to put out that fire at the Madrid airport recently? it takes hours because they have to use special chemicals to smother the flames. The heat would have been well into the thousands K (Kelvin). So im afraid i disagree, Al-Qaeda already tried to blow it up from the bottom in the late80s early 90s, didnt work.
Are any of us even remotely qualified to give logical assumptions on the mindset of whomever calculated and executed the tradgedy of September 11th? Frankly, mixing a 9/11 conspiracy thread, and "The new Indiana Jones movie-Should it have been made?" on the same page is both incredibly stupid and in ridiculously poor taste. Take a look. At the time I post this, the 'Samurai vs. Knight Poll' was the biggest hit for off-topic-discussion. Maybe that's where we should keep our direction, ladies & gents. Or instead of pissing gasoline on the fire of conspiracy-make a thread like, "September 11th-Loss of the Innocent-How can we as a society come together and protect ourselves?" Day after day, thousands of posts on the Escapist. At the risk of sounding like an optimist, if we as a society put even a fragment of our posting time towards jointly creating solutions and understanding the world couldn't help but become a better place...for ALL of us.
Because I don't know about you all, but finding ANY way to allow me to protect and lengthen my life is kinda' a priority. That way I'll have more time to post about Zombies and troll the fanboys :D
zombielifecoach: Are any of us even remotely qualified to give logical assumptions on the mindset of whomever calculated and executed the tradgedy of September 11th? Frankly, mixing a 9/11 conspiracy thread, and "The new Indiana Jones movie-Should it have been made?" on the same page is both incredibly stupid and in ridiculously poor taste.
This is the off-topic discussion board. That is a very broad category. Being offended by threads being in the appropriate area is both incredibly stupid and in poor taste.
zombielifecoach: Are any of us even remotely qualified to give logical assumptions on the mindset of whomever calculated and executed the tradgedy of September 11th? Frankly, mixing a 9/11 conspiracy thread, and "The new Indiana Jones movie-Should it have been made?" on the same page is both incredibly stupid and in ridiculously poor taste.
This is the off-topic discussion board. That is a very broad category. Being offended by threads being in the appropriate area is both incredibly stupid and in poor taste.
Listen here, Brittany. Offended I am not. My post wasn't that the Thread was in the wrong place 'position' wise, but that the subject matter seemed a bit askew with the general subject matter covered USUALLY in said Forum. If we are going to hit up the heavy stuff, that being things like War, death, atrocities, politics, global-warming, etc. etc.-let's get another forum topic choice, call it "Serious Talk". There isn't anything wrong with the discussion of deep subject matter, but to put it in the same place as the trivial seems a little inappropriate. No?
Shivari: I once watched Loose Change, it was a complete waste of two hours. Please if you ever consider watching it just read the definition of bullshit and then hit your head on the wall. You will get the same experience.
I watched the (History/Discovery?) rebuttal on "Loose Change." Taking direct quotes from the film and discrediting them using Aeronautic and Structural Engineers. Brilliant.
By the way, I will skip the bullshit and wall sandwich and not trust the average American to be able to scientifically explain the 9-11 incident.
Listen here, Brittany. Offended I am not. My post wasn't that the Thread was in the wrong place 'position' wise, but that the subject matter seemed a bit askew with the general subject matter covered USUALLY in said Forum. If we are going to hit up the heavy stuff, that being things like War, death, atrocities, politics, global-warming, etc. etc.-let's get another forum topic choice, call it "Serious Talk". There isn't anything wrong with the discussion of deep subject matter, but to put it in the same place as the trivial seems a little inappropriate. No?
Sorry mate, but its an off-topic discussion forum. Its not like were filling up the Gaming section with serious politics, its an Off-Topic section, and a thread like this is indeed, very off-topic. If this website was a pub, would you walk over to a group of people in the corner and berate them for discussing September 11 conspiracy theories because they are not qualified? Would you tell them that should go back to talking about Knights and Samurais because it is more appropriate?
Yes, I doubt any of us here are experts and I doubt any of us have the knowledge or experience to shed light on the situation, but that doesn't matter because our discussion and rebuttal won't actually change anything. If someone on this thread passionately but ignorantly argues that it was the US government it doesn't make it true.
So if it bothers you, avoid this section of the pub. Although I do recommend the peanuts, just the right amount of salt.
zombielifecoach: Listen here, Brittany. Offended I am not. My post wasn't that the Thread was in the wrong place 'position' wise, but that the subject matter seemed a bit askew with the general subject matter covered USUALLY in said Forum. If we are going to hit up the heavy stuff, that being things like War, death, atrocities, politics, global-warming, etc. etc.-let's get another forum topic choice, call it "Serious Talk". There isn't anything wrong with the discussion of deep subject matter, but to put it in the same place as the trivial seems a little inappropriate. No?
You have not been a member of these forums long, have you? This must be the fifth or sixth time we have hashed out this battle here, and I have only been here for 7 months...
Obviously it's complicated, but trust me it's not *that* complicated. Just look back on the correlation between a crisis in the Middle East and oil prices. And food growing, and our entire economy for that matter is based on oil. I don't see why people simply don't care about spending their money on heavily inflated goods, or their own economic well being.
You do know the Middle East isn't the major source of oil right? You do know Canada is US's biggest oil supplier right? So why would anything with the Middle East do such a huge amount when most of our oil isn't dependent on them?
My only question concerning all this is why WTC? Pentagon I understand. The desire to inflict fear through mass murder I also understand, explaining why a more symbolic target like the Statue of Liberty was not picked (though realistically we have no idea what the last plane would have targeted). But Why WTC? Any other office or appartment building would accomplish the same thing. Why not the White House(once again symbolic and light on casualties unless you were to 'get lucky' that day)? But yes, my only real question is trying to understand the motivation for the targets. Such understanding would have many benefits to security planning moving forward, as well as getting us to think like terrorists (how to prevent incursion from hackers, hire them to create your security - concept).
They thought they could bring down our economy by destroying our main trade center. I am just glad they didn't hit the WTC in Los Angeles. Even more luckily for the world, our trade systems are actually backed up in a facility far away from the Center for just such an incident. (Buildings taking damage, not crashing an Airplane into it...)
Shivari: I once watched Loose Change, it was a complete waste of two hours. Please if you ever consider watching it just read the definition of bullshit and then hit your head on the wall. You will get the same experience.
I watched the (History/Discovery?) rebuttal on "Loose Change." Taking direct quotes from the film and discrediting them using Aeronautic and Structural Engineers. Brilliant.
By the way, I will skip the bullshit and wall sandwich and not trust the average American to be able to scientifically explain the 9-11 incident.
Loose change was garbage. What made me sad though, was the 3rd part of the Zeitgeist series, which focused on that. The first 2 parts on religion and the fed were spot on brilliant.
merf1350: My only question concerning all this is why WTC? Pentagon I understand. The desire to inflict fear through mass murder I also understand, explaining why a more symbolic target like the Statue of Liberty was not picked (though realistically we have no idea what the last plane would have targeted). But Why WTC? Any other office or appartment building would accomplish the same thing. Why not the White House(once again symbolic and light on casualties unless you were to 'get lucky' that day)? But yes, my only real question is trying to understand the motivation for the targets. Such understanding would have many benefits to security planning moving forward, as well as getting us to think like terrorists (how to prevent incursion from hackers, hire them to create your security - concept).
I believe they wanted several targets of varying significance. A financial target, a military target, and a symbolic target. I don't think they would've done the Statue of Liberty because it's not as big as you think, and would therefore be very difficult to hit with a plane. I'm sure they had the same discussion. That disturbs me.
Ixus Illwrath: I believe they wanted several targets of varying significance. A financial target, a military target, and a symbolic target. I don't think they would've done the Statue of Liberty because it's not as big as you think, and would therefore be very difficult to hit with a plane. I'm sure they had the same discussion. That disturbs me.
I suppose I could certainly see that then. However, having haid said discussion I wonder what presumably was the symbolic target? I suppose the White House could have been it, but as I said before unless they got really lucky it may not have had half the effect it could. All the same I still think they could have hit the statue, and that at least clipping it with the plane would be easier than you would think, and would still have the desired effect. But then it hit a cornfield so we'll never really know. But I still argue for the statue as for some queer* reason that would have the same emotional demoralizing effect on people that getting their balls chopped off would.
*See Dictionary.com definition #1. Alternately #'s 2, 4, and even 8 would work. That was not a crack at homosexuality. Edit: Upon further review, I do believe #4 works best as it doesn't work as well from #1's perspective. Sidenote: How many of you actually went and read all those? :?
Ixus Illwrath: I believe they wanted several targets of varying significance. A financial target, a military target, and a symbolic target. I don't think they would've done the Statue of Liberty because it's not as big as you think, and would therefore be very difficult to hit with a plane. I'm sure they had the same discussion. That disturbs me.
I suppose I could certainly see that then. However, having haid said discussion I wonder what presumably was the symbolic target? I suppose the White House could have been it, but as I said before unless they got really lucky it may not have had half the effect it could. All the same I still think they could have hit the statue, and that at least clipping it with the plane would be easier than you would think, and would still have the desired effect. But then it hit a cornfield so we'll never really know. But I still argue for the statue as for some queer* reason that would have the same emotional demoralizing effect on people that getting their balls chopped off would.
*See Dictionary.com definition #1. Alternately #'s 2, 4, and even 8 would work. That was not a crack at homosexuality. Edit: Upon further review, I do believe #4 works best as it doesn't work as well from #1's perspective. Sidenote: How many of you actually went and read all those? :?
Presumably, and to the best of our knowledge, the White House was the target, if the president was in it... big bonus for them. But as far as we know if could have been any monument in that area, as there are plenty.
i believe it was a inside-job, but meh watever it doesnt really matter now. just follow that link and go about halfway through the movie.
yeah and that's where the bs starts, sorry if you think it was an inside job, you really haven't been paying attention to the bush administration, they can't cover up emails and other crap like that but they pull off a cover up like the world has never seen before and nothing about it has ever leaked? when you look at it that way it's kinda hard to think it's an inside job, the administration screws up and drops the ball on everything except for HUGE cover up
btw here's a CREDIBLE person saying how the towers looked when they fell because he actually watched them fall, not the "experts" that are part of the conspiracy theories
I've looked at the simulation of one of the flights hitting the tower, it's rather convincing. The airplane really strikes the main core beams. It's convincing, until you remember that the buildings were clearly built with massive airliner crash in mind. 707s to be more specific. You'd wonder why they'd do that. You'll see below.
Besides, it doesn't adress the other crash, where the plane hit the side of the tower and literally missed most of those core beams, damaging the "fluff" instead. Other interesting bits being that there have been modern building surviving much more violent raging fires, some of them which remained ablaze much longer (albeit not formerly stroke by airplanes, which makes a difference with one of the Twin Towers, which suffered a direct central impact).
Back to the point I was evoquing earlier on, the other funny thing is the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber around 1945. It was an accident at that time, the city was lost in fog. The impact was violent. http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm The B-25 was nowhere near the mass of an airliner, and the ESB was possibly built with tougher external walls. Still, it was a bomber, a big one, and some of its components literally came out on the other side of the building. There were fires. Most interesting point, however, was that they were extinguished 40 minutes later, and that's for a building which was not designed to be subject to plane impacts.
On that same card, I cannot comprehend how the three towers all failed to fight the flames and help fight the flames. FEMA reports pointed out shortages in water conduction, but I'm rather puzzled by this element. How the hell could there be shortages of water flow in Manhattan? This has nothing to do with the surrounding sea, but the fact that it's a top class economical center, important to the United States, and yet it's said nothing could be done.
One building. Ok. Two buildings, it really starts to get embarassing. But three? If anything, such failures should have been even more reasons to warrant a close study of the fallen structures of all three towers, simply because they all failed to what was advertised on paper. It was theorical to a large degree, but then we're speaking of a massive design flaw, which trumps the massive contracts signed by the city to build those towers, and therefore, once again, deep studies should have been processed. ... safe that the metal was quickly moved away and sold to India and China.
There's no real theory. We just have the North American government being incapable of dealing with the hijackings in time, and that alone is extremely suspicious, when jets can scramble onto their targets in such cases within 10 minutes. Again, one plane, that's already hard to stomach. Two planes, just what the fuck happened? But that not a single plane on four was properly intercepted is imposible. Flight 77 (supposedly having hit the Pentagon) moved back and forth between one waypoint and the Pentagon. Basically, it flew away from the city, to turn back and crash. And still no proper interception? That and the fact that the FBI still deems necessary to confiscate and hold 80 videos, released two which they didn't seem good enough to analyze (but the infamous gas station video isn't very convincing at all if there was supposedly a massive airliner flying above the lawn), and that the alleged pilot sucked ass at flying a plane, based on testimonies from former instructors, while the official theory has the pilot pulling a tight turn which only a good pilot could pull. The other crash in Pennsylvania was a joke, there were no traces of a plane crash at all, it was just a fucking whole gouged, possibly with explosives, and tiny bits of scrap metal placed here and there. Each plane also had two black boxes, which are meant to resist to impacts which easily accomodate for those of 9/11, and yet none were recovered. That is bullshit as well. Just as the official theories pretending the planes contained enough energy via their fuel loads to vapourize themselves. That to explain the lack of metal at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Nevermind the Pennsylvania pit doesn't even show the magnitude of destruction seen with other plane crashes were they don't get vapourized (none do safe in 9/11, what's that? ah, yes, car exploding in American series and movies, I suppose you guys really got used to that). But if that wasn't enough, if the planes got vapourized, the extent of destruction and area damaged should have been even greater than anything seen in situ. Not to say the lies brought forth by the FBI, pretending that airplanes were vapourized, but yet a passport could fall to the floor of New York, and that DNA analysis and fingerprints could be ran on the hijackers. Yes, that's rather impressive. Of course the FBI's list of hijackers has been a running joke ever since.
People should really dare to ask question, and not be afraid of being mocked. People are just too lazy, and want to coil back into their homes and be left alone.
So it's once again hard to know what exactly happened. There's clearly a lot of bullshit flying around, and you know that when such things happen, when there are mysteries, when elements don't add up properly, someone is trying to build a version which doesn't hold water. I cannot help but notice that nothing is that easy determined, contrary to the claims of some who'd like to quickly close the cases and look elsewhere.
Listen here, Brittany. Offended I am not. My post wasn't that the Thread was in the wrong place 'position' wise, but that the subject matter seemed a bit askew with the general subject matter covered USUALLY in said Forum. If we are going to hit up the heavy stuff, that being things like War, death, atrocities, politics, global-warming, etc. etc.-let's get another forum topic choice, call it "Serious Talk". There isn't anything wrong with the discussion of deep subject matter, but to put it in the same place as the trivial seems a little inappropriate. No?
Sorry mate, but its an off-topic discussion forum. Its not like were filling up the Gaming section with serious politics, its an Off-Topic section, and a thread like this is indeed, very off-topic. If this website was a pub, would you walk over to a group of people in the corner and berate them for discussing September 11 conspiracy theories because they are not qualified? Would you tell them that should go back to talking about Knights and Samurais because it is more appropriate?
Yes, I doubt any of us here are experts and I doubt any of us have the knowledge or experience to shed light on the situation, but that doesn't matter because our discussion and rebuttal won't actually change anything. If someone on this thread passionately but ignorantly argues that it was the US government it doesn't make it true.
So if it bothers you, avoid this section of the pub. Although I do recommend the peanuts, just the right amount of salt.
zombielifecoach: Listen here, Brittany. Offended I am not. My post wasn't that the Thread was in the wrong place 'position' wise, but that the subject matter seemed a bit askew with the general subject matter covered USUALLY in said Forum. If we are going to hit up the heavy stuff, that being things like War, death, atrocities, politics, global-warming, etc. etc.-let's get another forum topic choice, call it "Serious Talk". There isn't anything wrong with the discussion of deep subject matter, but to put it in the same place as the trivial seems a little inappropriate. No?
You have not been a member of these forums long, have you? This must be the fifth or sixth time we have hashed out this battle here, and I have only been here for 7 months...
I joined a few days before you. I said I was sorry.
*walks away into the sunsent, with pockets full of peanuts...*
maueltheplebbian: The fire cause by the explosion of those two planes would have been a 'Plane Fuel Fire' you know how long it took them to put out that fire at the Madrid airport recently? it takes hours because they have to use special chemicals to smother the flames. The heat would have been well into the thousands K (Kelvin). So im afraid i disagree, Al-Qaeda already tried to blow it up from the bottom in the late80s early 90s, didnt work.
It took around two hours to extinguish the fires on and around the wreckage. Helicopters used water extensively, notably to prevent the fires from extending further.
Also, consider that our government can't cover up a hotel bugging, a president getting a blowjob, and the fact that our current president almost died to snack food. think they could honestly cover this up?
Case closed
No, but i do feel somewhat more confident in my conviction now ive seen the sort of people that oppose me ("heres what I think, now case closed"). Now if the government successfully covered something up, we wouldnt know, because it would be a cover up. So by the obviously-not-so-observable laws of observation, we only get to see the cock ups. They could pull off some massive stuff every other day and we wouldn't know because the CIA and FBI have a habit of being quite good at keeping secrets. It's why theyre paid 100,000 per annum. Also, anyone linking to Maddox in a serious debate is a moron. And, thats some grade A Fox News standard propaganda you pulled out about the conspiracy theories being an affront to the dead families. (You honestly think the CIA tried to cover up Clintons affair? Not feeling very smart today are we?)
My position is this: Loose Change and all of those conspiracy videos have fairly sizable refutations behind them know. And all though I may have believed them in the past, I can now see that many experts on the various subjects (Engineering, Telecommunications etc) disagree with the conspiracy theories. And when in doubt, I side with the experts. But there are some generally unheard of theories that do not deal with the melting steel or the plane at the pentagon. They mostly deal with the flight experience of the supposed terrorists, and the appearance of some of the supposed terrorists, alive, after 9/11. Video in question; http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623.
I am not going to take one side or the other. I remain skeptical. This will be just like the Kennedy assassination and many other supposed conspiracies. And unless someone decides to blow a whistle on their deathbed, we will never know for sure. There are some question which I would like answered, and i accept that there could be perfectly good answers for them. But i can't be sure, and i know they wont be answered. This will probably still be debated 50 years from now.
And one last thing... The US is responsible for the deaths of over 1.000.000 of Iraqis (mostly children) in the last decade alone, and has had a hand in genocides in South America. The CIA has toppled many democratic governments, and replaced them with dictatorships, and the FBI have even been caught dealing crack. So in the long run, i couldn't care less about a few thousand people dying in New York. Even if it was the government, they've done an awful lot worse.
maueltheplebbian: Gash, i hate conspiracy theorists, they rap themselves up in something they want to beleive, and use coincidences to fill in the blanks. The Illuminati, Catholic Church, Majestic 12, Masonic Lodge, US Government, Aliens, New World Order...none of these people are secretly pulling the strings, telling us all what to do and think, staging disasters and terrorist attacks to make us all beleive something. Two Planes hit two buildings, they both fell, end of. As to why we're in Afghanistan, we beleive Osama was behind 9/11 and want to capture him, we are also getting rid of the Taliban who want to keep Afhganistan an Islamic state, so they can tell people how to live their lives. As to why we're in Iraq, well, we started it we may as well finish it. We didnt go in for the right reasons, but its the same deal as Afghanistan, Islamic extremists want to force people to live their lives the way they say so, forcing people to be Muslim, you know there are thousands of people on the Iraqi border with Jordan, the majority of whom have turned their backs on Islam, wether to go to another faith, or to beleive in nothing; they are afraid to go back because in Islamic states not being a Muslim just isnt an option. And to anyone who thought the war would be over in '03, your a moron, you cant win a war in 6months, until recently there were still Soldiers in Northern Ireland, the first car bomb their was in 1972, suck it up, even extreme left Obama may not be able to pull the troops out without Iraq plunging into further tormoil, then what would the british and Americans be...'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys'
You think Obama is extreme left? You have no idea what an extreme leftist is. Go look at the communists and socialists. Someone obviously watches too much Fox News.
I've looked at the simulation of one of the flights hitting the tower, it's rather convincing. The airplane really strikes the main core beams. It's convincing, until you remember that the buildings were clearly built with massive airliner crash in mind. 707s to be more specific. You'd wonder why they'd do that. You'll see below.
no they didn't and no building AREN'T built with that in mind, how many ppl do you know who do building management and threat assessment?
i personally know a few, they happen to manage high security financial buildings, much like the WTC, they all say "no they aren't designed with plane strikes in mind"
Besides, it doesn't adress the other crash, where the plane hit the side of the tower and literally missed most of those core beams, damaging the "fluff" instead. Other interesting bits being that there have been modern building surviving much more violent raging fires, some of them which remained ablaze much longer (albeit not formerly stroke by airplanes, which makes a difference with one of the Twin Towers, which suffered a direct central impact).
right and there was more than a fire to bring it down, several large explosions as well happen to do damage to the structure and also the planes impacts themselves
Back to the point I was evoquing earlier on, the other funny thing is the Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber around 1945. It was an accident at that time, the city was lost in fog. The impact was violent. http://www.evesmag.com/empirestatecrash.htm http://history1900s.about.com/od/1940s/a/empirecrash.htm The B-25 was nowhere near the mass of an airliner, and the ESB was possibly built with tougher external walls. Still, it was a bomber, a big one, and some of its components literally came out on the other side of the building. There were fires. Most interesting point, however, was that they were extinguished 40 minutes later, and that's for a building which was not designed to be subject to plane impacts.
right and b-52 bomber is a PROPELLER PLANE and the 747 is a JET PLANE and they take totally different types of fuel, that are chemically different and burn at very different temperatures, chemistry 101 would tell you that
On that same card, I cannot comprehend how the three towers all failed to fight the flames and help fight the flames. FEMA reports pointed out shortages in water conduction, but I'm rather puzzled by this element. How the hell could there be shortages of water flow in Manhattan? This has nothing to do with the surro
Gash, i hate conspiracy theorists, they rap themselves up in something they want to beleive, and use coincidences to fill in the blanks. The Illuminati, Catholic Church, Majestic 12, Masonic Lodge, US Government, Aliens, New World Order...none of these people are secretly pulling the strings, telling us all what to do and think, staging disasters and terrorist attacks to make us all beleive something. Two Planes hit two buildings, they both fell, end of. As to why we're in Afghanistan, we beleive Osama was behind 9/11 and want to capture him, we are also getting rid of the Taliban who want to keep Afhganistan an Islamic state, so they can tell people how to live their lives. As to why we're in Iraq, well, we started it we may as well finish it. We didnt go in for the right reasons, but its the same deal as Afghanistan, Islamic extremists want to force people to live their lives the way they say so, forcing people to be Muslim, you know there are thousands of people on the Iraqi border with Jordan, the majority of whom have turned their backs on Islam, wether to go to another faith, or to beleive in nothing; they are afraid to go back because in Islamic states not being a Muslim just isnt an option. And to anyone who thought the war would be over in '03, your a moron, you cant win a war in 6months, until recently there were still Soldiers in Northern Ireland, the first car bomb their was in 1972, suck it up, even extreme left Obama may not be able to pull the troops out without Iraq plunging into further tormoil, then what would the british and Americans be...'Cheese-eating surrender monkeys'