 |
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next > Jump to:  Bottom  Last Post
 An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 20 Posts
|
Wednesday, September 16, 2009 2:44:59 AM
I guess you're right, the government expected no casualties in Iraq. (They used 9/11 as one of their pretexts to go to war, a pretext that was found to be false.) I'd have to agree that the US government wouldn't deliberately put its citizens in harm's way: I stand to be corrected here, but "details that the American government are keeping from the public" may have cost very many lives: US, Australian, Iraqi, and otherwise, in the name of the "war" started by 9/11. And so, Charlie Sheen must be some kind of wacko for bringing this to the public's attention at the expense of his lucrative career. At least I can say the preceding sentence without total sarcasm. |
|
 teiso
Female, 18-29, Australia
856 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 9:59:21 PM
There's a difference between saying that maybe there are details that the American government are keeping from the public, and saying that they intentionally caused the death of so many of their citizens. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 9:49:45 PM
I've already laid this out very clearly. I am not proposing theories, I am suggesting that we are not being told the complete truth and that people deserve to know the complete truth. Lots of people died on 9/11, more people died because of 9/11.Here's a shocker: Politicians occasionally don't tell the complete truth. Sometimes they use events to serve their purposes. They have even been known to create or allow events to further their goals. It is naive in the extreme to believe the 'official' version of this story when, as I have said, there are many inconsistencies. Nobody has contradicted that. So, I will not be supplying you with any theories. I am telling you, once again, that what we have been told is likely not the truth; that 9/11 has been used, cynically, by politicians to start a war and to erode civil liberties; and that blindly believing something and calling people names because they disagree with you is, perhaps, not the best way to proceed. |
|
 Lionhart2
Male, 40-49, Australia
5383 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 8:53:40 PM
 |
|
 FecesinVCR
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
211 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 7:28:20 AM
The conspirators have managed to turn this crap into a kind of religion. They remain defiant in the face facts. I find it vulgar and repulsive that any American could look at the horrific scenes of death, and their first impulse is to believe it was a government plot. I find it telling that almost all of the "truthers" haven't lifted a finger to do any kind of hard research or experimentation. They sit on their lazy, smug arses while other people do all the leg work, and then try to debunk real science without ever actually doing any real research them selves. They take many disparate facts and combine them with a form of paranoia, and come up with these incredibly complex and convoluted explanations. We have to accept that sometimes something simple, small, and cruel, and evil -- can destroy something big and beautiful. You must apply Occam's razor.
|
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 12:09:38 AM
"Demolition experts take days and skill, terrorists with a plane manage a really professional result at random, 3 times.Explain that?" Construction method of the buildings. But you couldn't rely on a controlled demolition that way, not even if you knew that such an attack would bring the whole building down (which it seems no-one did). Demolition experts do take a considerable amount of time and care laying the charges. Personally, I doubt if they do so because they're being paid by the hour and they've all conspired to pretend it's a much more complex job than it really is. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Monday, September 14, 2009 12:03:31 AM
"And I am not alonehttp://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/134... I'll add 53 and 28 if you want." 53 and 28 what? That's a poll which shows that people like you are succeeding in convincing people. That doesn't mean you're right. I'll ask you bluntly, mainly to see if you will answer: What do you think the authorities are covering up about the attack? Note that I'm not asking you how they managed to get so many people involved in this cover-up without anyone blowing the whistle, or anything else like that. Just what you think they're covering up. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 11:56:44 PM
An-egg:With all your "suspicions" and your references to "other circumstances" that sounds suspiciously like demolitions...what is your position? You're obviously promoting the idea that it was an attack by some group internal to the USA, but who? |
|
 Evilcupcake
Male, 30-39, Western US
52 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 10:07:19 PM
for anyone that thinks our government planned 9-11, here is a link to Popular Mechanics and a article they printed a few years back debunking the top 10 9-11 conspiracy's http://www.popularmechanics.com/technolo... |
|
Lou-Saydus
Male, 13-17, Western US
136 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:43:53 PM
Why do people still act like the US government did it? The only thing that is missing from it being 100% confirmed is the US government admitting to it, which we all know is never going to happen. |
|
 03Z33
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
1 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:31:22 PM
Not that I know either way what actually happened that sad day, But what i do know is '93s bombs failed... so it wouldn't make sense to try that again. That could be why they decided to try plains next. and succeeded. But then again that's my 2 sense. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 9:10:21 PM
And I am not alonehttp://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/134... I'll add 53 and 28 if you want. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:59:38 PM
An argument I never made. You have spouted many HYPOTHESES involving explosives, conspiracies, controlled demolition, the nearest I have come to it was to say that I thought the official version deserved closer scrutiny and to suggest that the way the buildings fell, at near free-fall speeds (after burning for a few hours to allow some luckier people to get out) was at the least suspicious. I further mentioned that the fact that there was no military intervention was a bit suspicious. Finally I mentioned that the government has used the whole thing to remove civil liberties in the name of 9/11 and I'll add to go to war with Iraq, whatever its merits, in a completely unjustifiable way. Your arguments seem based around branding me as some kind of nutjob, putting words into my mouth repeatedly and not actually arguing with the ideas.Demolition experts take days and skill, terrorists with a plane manage a really professional result at random, 3 times. Explain that? |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:25:35 PM
"Don't try and blemish my comments with your absurd hypotheses."That would be like gilding the lily, only the opposite. The absurd hypothesis (singular, not plural) that you refer to isn't mine. I was using a reductio ad absurdum argument against the hypothesis that the WTC was brought down by some group within the authorities in the USA, using explosives. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:21:06 PM
"Correct me if I am wrong here, but there are no other examples of buildings "compromised by fire" collapsing into their own footprint at near freefall speeds. There are examples of similar buildings burning for very long periods of time and not collapsing. There are many examples of buildings falling in just this way but under very different circumstances."What circumstances were you refering to there, An-egg? I think you were referring to controlled demolitions using explosives. I've no need to put words into your mouth. I just have to read your posts. You repeatedly imply that the authorities were involved in the attack and you explicitly state that the investigation was a cover-up...a cover-up for what? For their involvement, obviously - what else would they be covering up? Incidentally, the towers did not collapse in the way you describe. If they had, then no-one would have been able to get out in time. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 7:03:43 PM
Here again you are trying to put words into my mouth. My only reference to a controlled demolition was to quote someone (you, I think), and I have never mentioned that I believe some evil agency carried it out. I will state that I don't think the public has been told the entire truth about this and that the official version does not entirely add up. I do believe that those people involved in this tragedy and their relatives deserve a thorough and exhaustive explanation of every tiny inconsistency so that they can feel assured that their friends and families didn't die just so that the country's civil rights could be removed in the name of counter terrorism. Because whoever is responsible, that is what is happening. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:47:42 PM
Don't try and blemish my comments with your absurd hypotheses. My argument is that while you suggest, and I don't know anything about how qualified you are to suggest it, that explosives would need to have been carefully placed over a period of time, a quantity of aviation fuel, similar to kerosene, randomly inserted into the building managed to complete the job in a thoroughly professional manner. Do you see, the comparison of what would need to be done to bring down the buildings, carefully placed explosives installed by skilled engineers and a random act of terrorism that couldn't possibly have known where the planes were going to hit.As for people not noticing, did you ever wonder why none of the US military defenses did anything about the the hijacked planes, even after one had been flown into a building. Hard to believe nobody noticed that. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:44:15 PM
An-egg: You referred to the WTC being a controlled demolition done in the same way as many other controlled demolitions. Which means explosives. If not explosives, how do you think the conspiracists within the USA, whoever you think they are, demolished the WTC? Who do you think they are, out of interest? Illuminati? Secret group within the military? Civil servants? COBRA? |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:36:35 PM
Previous post cut off before 1000 characters...are they ever going to fix that? If the max is actually ~980, why is it stated to be 1000?Anyway...by arguing that "a bit of jet fuel" destroyed the towers OVER AT LEAST A DAY and WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING, you were arguing that the planes hit at least the day before and no-one noticed. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:32:22 PM
"No. I don't believe I said that. Nice try though. "So you don't know what you were arguing. I'll explain it step by step. I argued that no known explosive could have been used to make a controlled demolition of the towers *without anyone noticing*. Note the emphasis. It wouldn't be possible to place the explosives overnight - it would take too long. It wouldn't be possible to hide them all in the basement - you can't do it that way. There were trained dogs and handlers in the buildings - they would have detected the very large quantities of explosives needed. So it could not be done with any explosives known to humanity. The destruction could be, but the placement and concealment could not have been. That's why I emphasised the bit about it being done WITHOUT ANYONE NOTICING. Explosives would have to have been put in starting at least the previous day. So when you said that a bit of jet fuel did that, you were saying that the planes hit the day before and no |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:23:50 PM
It's also worth noting that the planes didn't hit at the top of the towers. So the floors above the impact point would have dropped onto the floor below it, once the fire weakened what remained of the floors damaged by the impact. It's not surprising that such a massive weight dropping onto the rest of a tower that was on fire would collapse it. |
|
 Fartacus
Female, 50-59, Eastern US
448 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:12:01 PM
Well it wasn't "a bit" of jet fuel. It was thousands and thousands of gallons. I worked in the south tower and the buildings were constructed to be "flimsy" so they could bend in the wind. A central core with a flexible skin. They were not built like the Empire State building, which has an internal frame and external masonry. Oh, and the Bush administration had intelligence on this, as did the Clinton administration. They just refused to believe or act on it. The FBI and the CIA were too busy protecting their own bureaucratic territory to work together and prevent it. |
|
An-egg
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
20 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 6:10:57 PM
"Are you aware that you have just argued that the planes hit the WTC at least a day earlier and no-one noticed?"No. I don't believe I said that. Nice try though. I said that jet-fuel brought down the WTC where no explosives known to mankind could. You concluded that it was sarcasm and you concluded many other things as well, due to the blatant lunacy of the statement. Nor yet did I mention any use of explosives, you did that too. I do, however think that it is a good idea to keep an open mind and not blindly believe what we are told by the government and corporate owned media, Popular Mechanics being a good example, and that we should believe what we see. If it looks like a cover-up and walks like a cover-up, you can keep quacking all you want: I'm not going to believe it is a duck. |
|
 ghostofme
Male, 18-29, Western US
488 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 4:57:22 PM
If I hear one more 13-year-old boy screaming "IT WAS THERMITE!!!!1111111" one more time...I'm going to lose my mind. |
|
Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
1451 Posts
|
Sunday, September 13, 2009 3:35:14 PM
"Correct me if I am wrong here, but there are no other examples of buildings "compromised by fire" collapsing into their own footprint at near freefall speeds."Which the WTC didn't do, so you are again wrong. "There are examples of similar buildings burning for very long periods of time and not collapsing." Do you have any example of a building constructed in the same way as the WTC buildings burning as a result of being hit by a large plane full of aviation fuel? The temperature of the fire is important. Are you seriously suggesting that the WTC was brought down by explosive demolition? i) Where were the explosives? ii) When were they placed? iii) Why did the dogs not smell this supposedly huge quantity of explosives? Learn something about explosive demolition. It could not have been done with the buildings in use, not without alien technology. iv) Where the planes and all the video fake? How could that happen? |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next >
|
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
