9/11 Conspiracies

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Christ taught us to love everyone.
Hatred is what's wrong.

[MikeNUFC]

I can see where this is heading toward.

[EminemBase]

Christ taught us to love everyone.
Hatred is what's wrong.

No Christ didn't exist. And loving everyone is the most idiotic thing imaginable.

Clearly defining your enemies from your loved ones is smart, it's how we've survived. Loving the people who mean harm to you is perverse and dangerous.

[SajN]

He did exist but whether he was Gods son or a normal person can be discussed.


Anyway, this is not a place to talk about that.

[EminemBase]

He did exist but whether he was Gods son or a normal person can be discussed.


Anyway, this is not a place to talk about that.

There is no evidence to suggest a real Jesus Christ existed. Saying he did is a blind assumption based on nothing.

In fact, under the normal rules of historians in terms of defining real figures of history of myths, Jesus comes up a myth.

One glaring fact is that no known author, philosopher or writer of the time or close mentioned him. Yet he was supposedly this hugely influential figure. There are also many other things which just make him much more likely to be totally fictional. A Pagan sun god by all means.

And you're right. Lets not go there. If it weren't for GGGG mentioning him we wouldn't even be on it. Religious people always have to lead with The Bible teaches us or Christ tells us, no matter what. I can resist from referencing Darwin at every turn, just keep it to yourself.

[Emadyville]

I believe the government did it, who exactly, that I don't know. Here are some facts that I will put down that make me believe it to be different than the actual account, that Al Queda did it.

1. Testimonies and video from that day, where so many people mentioned explosions on so many different floors.

2. Over 70 videos that would have captured the plane hitting the Pentagon were confiscated and never released, except one from a court order and the original from the Pentagon, neither showing a plane.

3. There was molten steel at ground zero for over 2 weeks, thermal pictures from space backed up those testimonies, and the steel would never have been molten had they been subject only to fire.

4. No steel framed buildings ever collapsed due to fire, which was the offical reason, and yet 3 buildings did on 9/11. Not only that, but all followed the same patterns as those that came down due to demolition. Also, the towers were subject to enough damage to fall in 56 and 63 minutes?

5. Building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet collapsed in the same pattern the towers did, mimicking a demolition.

6. Testimony by someone in the gov't who was in the same room as Cheney during the events of 9/11 spoke in front of the national committe for the 9/11 attacks, basically saying that Cheney had called for US planes flying to shoot down the planes were told to "stand down", here is the footage of his testimony that was on C-Span http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y
7. Since 9/11, we entered Iraq for reasons that were found out to be false, that is fact, and we never would have entered Iraq had we not been at war already.
8. If you want a reason why they would attack our own buildings, more specifically the Twin Towers, here's one: the towers, as you know were build with asbestes (spelling?), it would have cost 1 BILLION DOLLARS to remove them from each building, and ironically enough, the owner took out an insurance policy on each building specifically for acts of terrorism, only 6 months before the attacks. Not only that, he filed to receive payment for each building, saying that each plane was a seperate act of terrorism.

I could keep going, do some research, you will see that there are more people and more information out there giving reasons why this was not how we were told.

[EminemBase]

^ Yes. For once we agree.

I've already laid out what you said there like three times now. The people who keep posting saying when they see evidence etc. Quite clearly aren't reading any of it.

[DrunkenDeath]

As I said, god does not exist. you have to survive on your own. if i ever read it out of boredom or when i'm stoned, i hope it looks like some inspirational guy wrote it.

[Fa-Q]

I believe the government did it, who exactly, that I don't know. Here are some facts that I will put down that make me believe it to be different than the actual account, that Al Queda did it.

1. Testimonies and video from that day, where so many people mentioned explosions on so many different floors.

2. Over 70 videos that would have captured the plane hitting the Pentagon were confiscated and never released, except one from a court order and the original from the Pentagon, neither showing a plane.

3. There was molten steel at ground zero for over 2 weeks, thermal pictures from space backed up those testimonies, and the steel would never have been molten had they been subject only to fire.

4. No steel framed buildings ever collapsed due to fire, which was the offical reason, and yet 3 buildings did on 9/11. Not only that, but all followed the same patterns as those that came down due to demolition. Also, the towers were subject to enough damage to fall in 56 and 63 minutes?

5. Building 7 was never hit by a plane, yet collapsed in the same pattern the towers did, mimicking a demolition.

6. Testimony by someone in the gov't who was in the same room as Cheney during the events of 9/11 spoke in front of the national committe for the 9/11 attacks, basically saying that Cheney had called for US planes flying to shoot down the planes were told to "stand down", here is the footage of his testimony that was on C-Span http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO-9LQDFE2Y
7. Since 9/11, we entered Iraq for reasons that were found out to be false, that is fact, and we never would have entered Iraq had we not been at war already.
8. If you want a reason why they would attack our own buildings, more specifically the Twin Towers, here's one: the towers, as you know were build with asbestes (spelling?), it would have cost 1 BILLION DOLLARS to remove them from each building, and ironically enough, the owner took out an insurance policy on each building specifically for acts of terrorism, only 6 months before the attacks. Not only that, he filed to receive payment for each building, saying that each plane was a seperate act of terrorism.

I could keep going, do some research, you will see that there are more people and more information out there giving reasons why this was not how we were told.

1. On the video from the camera in the second tower, while the first was falling you hear something like explosions. Eventually I deduced that those were the floors falling into each other.

2. I'm sure there weren't 70 cameras, that weren't already controlled by the government that could have been conviscated without question, on the Pentagon.

3. People always use this. "Only three building have collapsed because of fire and they were all on September Eleventh." Well tell me, did 2/3 buildings have a loaded 747 plane crash into it. And was the other building immediate neighbors to the building that had jet-fueled fires going strong.

4. Same as number three

5.Can't explain this, but why would the government to that, explain that. Do just to do it?

6.Yea tell me what kind of uproar it would have been if they would of had false information and shot down the planes. 100's of people dead on "rumors."

7. Can't really get what you're trying to say there?

8. Why would he want to take them out?

[EminemBase]

@Fa-Q - All of the questions you just gave to Emadyville I answered a page back...

As for the sounds of explosions being floors falling on top of each other that's absurd. The buildings fell in free-fall acceleration. That is once again, totally impossible with equally heavy floors hitting onto each other. ANY resistance stops it being free-all.

Solution = floors were blown outwards. You also cannot ignore the fact the buildings fell symmetrically, smoothly, straight down. This does not happen by chance, three times in a row. That's insanity. It takes a team of professionals to achieve that.

Ok first off:

Why would Bush pick the second and third largest buildings in NY to do this.

First of all, I wouldn't dream of giving that southern drip so much credit. He barely spoke for the country let alone run it or anything close to an operation like this.

Why would they pick the three largest buildings in NY? - Very obviously to create a very noticeable national disaster. You would have a stronger argument if the buildings were three small, unprotected, obscure buildings.

These were three of the most highly protected buildings in New York. In fact, Dick Cheney even published a report pre-9/11 saying something to the effect of, to justify a new invasion they would need a national disaster on the scale of Pearl Harbour. In fact, the report I believe was even called The New Pearl Harbour.

It's public record, go look it up. Absolutely shocking. And that's exactly what was created. A Pearl Harbour for our times.

Why would Bush destroy both buildings...why not just one of them, that's enough of an excuse to go to war.

Again, take Bush out of it - The guy is a futile piece of the puzzle, he had no clue what he was doing. Forget Bush, think bigger. From now on I'll assume his name out of the equation.

Okay, you've made an error here - There were THREE buildings destroyed. Very interesting that you, like many think there was only two (the towers) destroyed. There were three. Buildings WTC 1 + 2 = The Twin Towers AND WTC 7.

WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane and fell in 7 seconds - Free-fall speed. Again, in the exact same fashion - Smooth, symmetrical, straight down to the ground. Absolutely blindingly obvious controlled demolition.

That's why you're not aware of it. Because after day 1, they stopped showing footage of WTC 7 collapsing, because every single news reporter was commenting on how much it looked like it was purposely brought down, how it wasn't hit by a plane. It's the smoking gun.

Now, why would he destroy all THREE? - Firstly, the towers - Because they wanted to create a very memorable national disaster. These two picturesque buildings were staples in American business doings. Absolute modern visions of New York and new-America. Standing right next to each other, towering above all - Taking these two down together would be the perfect disaster to stain in the World's consciousness.

As for WTC 7 - Well, there was actually nobody in this building. But what was in this building was dozens of law suits incriminating many of the Bush Administration and others in numerous Wall Street scandals. So you can bet your bottom dollar they weren't sad to see every particle of that structure and everything inside turn into dust. It irradicated a lot of criminality in seconds.

Then of course - Even more obviously is the money they made from these buildings collapsing. I can't recall he guy's name exactly, but a new leaser of the towers signed a lease just months before 9/11 happened, protecting himself, insurance wise for BILLIONS against terrorist attacks.

Again, this is not my opinion, it's not guesswork - This is public record, a fact, you can go check it out yourself. He became the richest man (literally) in the World, overtaking Gates, when those buildings hit ground zero. They were insured for absolute billions on these structures.

So the only people that profited from these buildings coming down were people inside the Government. Those are just a few reasons, it's really not very hard to find many more, it's glazingly obvious that everybody involved or affected had many separate corrupt agendas.

Why would Bush put the economy in the toilet in his first year of office. For oil? No one wants oil that bad.

You're trying to downput the capture of a GIGANTIC oil supply as a little thing.

2001 was the beginning of the true economic downturn. Nobody felt the true effect of it until years after but his advisors and economists within the Government and Wall Street would of had a very good idea that shit was about to rain strong.

With that said, creating an absolutely crucial, national tragedy, big enough to automatically justify an illegal invasion and blind people with panic in order to take out Sadam and capture a fucking gigantic supply of oil is by no means something small.

It makes absolute sense, it means continued power and domination for America, for many years to come. With resources ever scarce, it matters very much who's in control over the next 20 years and as per usual, America will be absolutely ruthless in their metholodgy of taking control.

Whilst still pretending to be the good guys.

Why is there more evidence pointing towards it not being Bush then evidence towards him.

There isn't. Quite clearly you haven't looked at any of the evidence else you'd realize what an absolutely ridiculous statement that is.

You're leading with conclusions based on nothing other than your own assumptions and emotionally-driven, blind trust in Government, totally oblivious to objective facts.

Evidence for controlled demolition is absolutely overwhelming and irrefutable. If you don't think so then you haven't looked at any of it and / or understood it. That's just the Science, just the absolute physics and chemistry which proves beyond reasonable doubt that all three towers were blown up.

As for evidence of the Government being involved - Besides the obvious implication of... Well, these buildings were three of the most highly protected buildings in New York so... The idea that Al-Queda would have access or even have the ability to plant nano-thermite through all three structures is INSANITY. It could of only been the Government.

Again, you're ignoring facts. Fuck what you think they may have done, nano-thermite - That was in all three buildings. You can't just pretend that's not there or sweep it away. That's a fact. It's an explosive used by the military.

Then there is plenty of circumstantial evidence which could easily explain when and how they fitted these structures.

For example... IN order to bring down the Towers or any high-riser built in this manner - You'd have to put explosive chargers on all of the outer steel collum structures okay.

Now, just eight months before 9/11 - A construction company headed by... I believe George Bush's cousin or one of his relatives - Did an unorthodox, random 'elevator rennovation' on the buildings. This went on for months and it was apparently updating of the elevators.

Now, the elevators are all on the outer collum structures. These workspaces were sectioned off and strangely had armed guards covering them, they were unviewable to the public or workers inside. If you were going to do this, these spots are the EXACT places you would need to put the thermite.

Your foolish to think Bush did it. He has to deal with 3-7 more years of a terrible economy after. If he did it in his last year in office on either term then I could see maybe. People just like to hate on Bush but look what the first black president is doing to our once great country. Ironically the first black president wants to enslave the rest of us.

No, you're absolutely foolish to be coming to your conclusion with obviously, no real investigation on your part.

Blind trust in your Government, absolutely unforgivable stupidity.

Taking down those towers allowed for the following
- A national disaster, big enough to be branded The New Pearl Harbour, which Cheney himself bizarrely said is what America would need, before 9/11, to go to war.

- Blind justification to make unfounded links between Sadam / Al-Queda and 9/11. Nobody questioned it, just a few images of turbaned bad guys on TV and a few papers and the story is sold. Upto 70% of Americans thought Saddam was behind 9/11 immediately after. Not because there was a single scrap of evidence, just because it's easier to believe. Blind belief in media.

- An illegal invasion allowing assassination of a political rival but still, a very very evil man who absolutely should of been taken out in 91.

- Capture of a huge oil supply at the very beginning of what would be assumed to be a huge economic downturn, putting America at the forefront of an essential resource. Control, power, for many years to come at a crucial point in political times.

Also - Before 9/11, Bush had the lowest approval rates in history. He was without doubt one the least respected, most hated presidents thus far and without a disaster like this, of which people would assume he (because of his family links and war history), would be equipped to handle, there's no doubt he would not have survived another term.

9/11 allowed Bush to survive the re-election in 2004 and flush America further down the tube, for another 4 years with his oafish idiocy.

It also made many of his unseen, corrupt buddies very very rich, allowed his family further luxury and continued power and allowed half of the Bill of Rights to be torn up. With the new justifcation of "anti-terrorism", a shit load of human rights were taken away from Americans. Illegal searches, random stops, you fucking name it.

Make no mistake, America profited like a mother fucker from 9/11 and they were absolutely, 100% behind it. Try looking into things before coming to silly conclusions based on nothing.

[MikeNUFC]

Some American Air Force agency thing whose job it is to intercept planes that are hijacked etc. had, in 2000, a 100% success rate, over 41 (i think?) missions.

On 9/11 it failed 4 times, in one day to intercept the hijacked planes.

[Emadyville]

Fa-Q dude, at least do some research

Yes, agreed.

Your responses did nothing and showed you don't know what you're talking about.

@eminembase, I didn't wanna read through the whole topic before I posted, I'm sure you can understand why. But I'm glad that I gave similar/same facts, because that just shows that we have both researched the subject, and I'm assuming for you, like myself, have researched it extensively.

[AbramIsaac]

The evidence points to government involvement (of some kind or another) in 9/11. Anyone arguing otherwise will have to rely on very flimsy arguments. That's just how it is.

I'm not a conspiracy theory nut. Anyone who follows my posts knows this. However, this isn't "Your favorite celebrity is involved with the Illuminati--here's why", followed by images of pyramids and dollar bill symbolism.

This is something that with basic deduction, and all of the information, any logical person can conclude.

As far as *exactly* who did it, and why? I can deduce these things, but that is more deduction than I care to indulge in.

Fa-Q, you're counter-arguments are weak. I have no problem with anyone thinking what they want, but you'll really have to step your game up in order to present your side properly. Granted, you don't have to do anything at all--but perhaps you may want to try to justify your beliefs, simply for peace of mind.

[EminemBase]

Fa-Q dude, at least do some research

Yes, agreed.

Your responses did nothing and showed you don't know what you're talking about.

@eminembase, I didn't wanna read through the whole topic before I posted, I'm sure you can understand why. But I'm glad that I gave similar/same facts, because that just shows that we have both researched the subject, and I'm assuming for you, like myself, have researched it extensively.

Yes I have.

9/11 is NOTHING like any other event in history and regardless, every new incident should have an independent investigation, you can't assume anything.

Which is why it pisses me off when people lead with emotion first. They lead with the conclusion that "the Government 'wouldn't' do that" and dismiss from there on. That's complete ignorance.

I go into each new thing with a totally objective mind frame, as I did 9/11 and I came out KNOWING that all three buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.

People lump in all 'conspiracy theories' and that's why they don't look at things each time for themselves. Just follow the crowd like sheep. But the Al-Queda theory, IS a conspiracy theory. Any theory in which somebody or a group of people are said to of conspired to of done something is.

And out of the two theories, the Al-Queda theory has absolutely zero evidence and the controlled demolition theory has stacks upon stacks of evidence. Yet people think they're smarter blindly going with the Al-Queda one just because it's easier and the 'official' view lmao.

[Emadyville]

^^ yeah exactly, it's funny cause the evidence is what makes the "theory" more truth, and makes the official story become the "conspiracy theory". kinda funny how that happened lol, but I'm currently readfing "The mysterious collapse of world trade center 7" by David Ray Griffin, great read, you'd def enjoy this.