9/11 : Ten Years?!

[Uncle Spielberg]

You nutjobs trying to ply this bullshit about a conspiracy want to f*** right off.
You ARE mentalists, and your axe to grind is pointless and disrespectful.
I am certainly no fan of the Bush regime, but cockamamie stories about them arranging to bring down the TTT's and Pentagon? Lay off the drugs you idiots.

Perfectly said NMH. It is hugely offensive to the memories of the victims of 9/11 imo. Its bad enough what the terrorists did to them but to peddle this crap about Bush and the US government doing it makes me sick and extremely angry.

 

[thejackal]

Perfectly said NMH. It is hugely offensive to the memories of the victims of 9/11 imo. Its bad enough what the terrorists did to them but to peddle this crap about Bush and the US government doing it makes me sick and extremely angry.

Well thanks for your contribution to the debate, Uncle S. Can I get you anything? A bucket or a punch-bag perhaps?

OK, so what about us? What about the people who don't believe that elements of the regime did it, but may have allowed it to happen? Maybe they didn't intend for the towers to come down? Maybe they didn't intend for so many people to die?

What is so disrespectful to you about asking questions? I know people who lost loved ones in the attacks, who want answers. What the f*** do I say to them? Shut up, it's disrespectful to ask? Do me a favour Uncle S and find something a little more worthy of your ire.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

On this occassion I believe you are well and truely deluded. Of course you are free to have that delusion, its a free country but I still find it all offensive. Thats my opinion.

 

[thejackal]

I can't say that you're deluded Uncle S because you haven't really offered up any substantive points, but you are, of course, equally entitled to your opinion, your sickness, and your anger.

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

I can't say that you're deluded Uncle S because you haven't really offered up any substantive points, but you are, of course, equally entitled to your opinion, your sickness, and your anger.

Thanks.

 

[thejackal]

Thanks.

no problem

 

[NMH]

If you were watching the news LIVE as it happened on the morning of that day, you might resist this reach for crazy theories.

Here's a substantive reason why the US government didn't 'allow' an attack;
The PENTAGON, ffs, is a hive of activity for the US security.
Oh, was that a red herring, they attacked their own defense centre just so people like 'thejackass' won't have a good case?

Again - THE US BUSH GOVERNMENT NEEDED NO WEIRD EXCUSE TO INVADE IRAQ! They had already attacked them before in 'Desert Storm', and despite indications that they had NO 'wmd's', the US and UK went in anyway. Like an excuse was even required! The US even pointed out that a certain OSAMA BIN LADEN was the main mastermind - HE isn't from Iraq! He's Saudi ffs, why not go after them?
Saddam Hussein? A bit of a tangent to say "we are angry about 9/11 so we're going after Saddam" isn't it? So, since they DIDN'T say that, what the eff are you ON (about)??

The taliban? Well - detonating deliberate charges to bring down the TTC's to invade a scrawny desert-like place that resembles Utah eh? Drugs again, steer clear of the brown acid at the back, kids.

You might have a close look at why Clinton was stopped from killing Osama b.L. before he did what he did - that bears scrutiny alright.
I believe the bin Laden family are large in number, and the US had a pact with them about oil and their agreements that went on in Desert Storm too. Riyadh was an outpost for the US Military during that 'war', so Saudi Arabia were allies remember?

Take a gander at the Bush family winning an illegal ill-ection vs Al Gore - that, to anyone with half a brain, was rigged as hell. GW wasn't president, he was a muppet for George Snr to have him and his men do what they wanted to do for another term. Disappointed at losing after one term, the head of CIA was very capable at putting himself back where he thought he belonged. Gore helped by distancing himself in disgust from the rather successful Clinton Government - shooting himself in the foot in the process for the sake of maintaining ultra-'Christian' disdain at Billy getting a blowie in the White House.

The repatriation of the Lockerbie bomber is dodgy alright, look into that because it has tangible oddities from our departments.

The video of the 9/11 attack shows clearly, as happened on the day, a real plane entering the building and disintegrating within it - not a cheapo animation of a pixalated video-game that looks worse than most of us could do using crap animation techniques.
Why did it happen? PROBABLY a vengeance against the US, especially a Bush-run US that had less regard for Arabs and too much regard for Israelis and manipulating the oil-rich states. Saddam was used by Bush to humiliate the Kuwaiti Amir, let a neighbour rough them up a bit. When he snubbed his nose at them afterward being told to leave - he was eminently dispensable, and was MADE to leave.

PUR-LEASE screw off and tell your story to some halle-bop comet moonie-type followers of anything except the facts.
You really take the bonkers biscuits, please see a shrink.

 

[beorhthelm]

Again - THE US BUSH GOVERNMENT NEEDED NO WEIRD EXCUSE TO INVADE IRAQ! They had already attacked them before in 'Desert Storm', and despite indications that they had NO 'wmd's', the US and UK went in anyway. Like an excuse was even required! The US even pointed out that a certain OSAMA BIN LADEN was the main mastermind - HE isn't from Iraq! He's Saudi ffs, why not go after them?
Saddam Hussein? A bit of a tangent to say "we are angry about 9/11 so we're going after Saddam" isn't it? So, since they DIDN'T say that, what the eff are you ON (about)??

The taliban? Well - detonating deliberate charges to bring down the TTC's to invade a scrawny desert-like place that resembles Utah eh? Drugs again, steer clear of the brown acid at the back, kids.

quite. its pretty obvious the US could and would (and did) find a good excuse to finish the job in Iraq. it would be easier to arrange a border skirmish between "iraqi" forces and Saudi/Kuwait or fake WMD development (...), rather than destroy two iconic buildings in centre of your own of the financial district*. invading Afganistan serves little purpose other than pissing off Iran (who would be a *much* better and justified target if you wanted to arrange a war) and estranging the islamic world, while distracting your forces from the main event in Iraq. some will point to oil pipline and minerals, but the US companies could have done deals with the Taliban government some of whom as is often pointed out had links to CIA from the Soviet conflict. i recall in recent awarding of mineral rights the Chinese came out with alot of the plum deals.

* if you wanted to enrage the nation, an attack on a prominant but less important target would suffice, shirley? say Brooklyn bridge, but anything on the mainland from a WTC to a farmstead in Ohio would have had the same effect if you showed the perpetrator was foreign.

 

[dingodan]

* if you wanted to enrage the nation, an attack on a prominant but less important target would suffice, shirley? say Brooklyn bridge, but anything on the mainland from a WTC to a farmstead in Ohio would have had the same effect if you showed the perpetrator was foreign.

How about the George Washington Bridge?

 

[beorhthelm]

How about the George Washington Bridge?

yeah, anything really. the car bomb has been done quite a bit so would have to be with airplanes, echos of pearl harbour.

 

[dingodan]

yeah, anything really. the car bomb has been done quite a bit so would have to be with airplanes, echos of pearl harbour.

Did you hear about the men arrested with a truck of explosives, on the George Washington Bridge, on 9/11?

 

[thejackal]

I understand that your message wasn't all directed at me, not least because I don't doubt that they were planes that hit the towers, but I will try to respond to some of these points anyway, in peace.

If you were watching the news LIVE as it happened on the morning of that day, you might resist this reach for crazy theories.

I watched it all live from my apartment in Orange County, CA. I got woken up by a mate driving to his construction job in LA, complaining that all of the radio stations were on some wind-up. Sat there with my jaw on the deck for hours. I had only moved back out to the US 3 weeks earlier. Culture shock or what!! Ummmm... this sort of crazy terrorist shit doesn't normally happen in Sussex, and then I remembered the Grand Hotel.

Here's a substantive reason why the US government didn't 'allow' an attack;
The PENTAGON, ffs, is a hive of activity for the US security.
Oh, was that a red herring, they attacked their own defense centre just so people like 'thejackass' won't have a good case?

Nice one! See what you did there!

American flight 77 hit the the west wing of the pentagon which was undergoing a complete refurb and had almost no military personnel, computers or sensitive documents inside. More workmen than military died. Coincidence, maybe, but true. Of the 125 killed on the ground (excluding the air passengers) only 55 were military.

Again - THE US BUSH GOVERNMENT NEEDED NO WEIRD EXCUSE TO INVADE IRAQ! They had already attacked them before in 'Desert Storm', and despite indications that they had NO 'wmd's', the US and UK went in anyway. Like an excuse was even required! The US even pointed out that a certain OSAMA BIN LADEN was the main mastermind - HE isn't from Iraq! He's Saudi ffs, why not go after them?
Saddam Hussein? A bit of a tangent to say "we are angry about 9/11 so we're going after Saddam" isn't it? So, since they DIDN'T say that, what the eff are you ON (about)??

Again, that's not exactly true. Bush was the most unpopluar president since Nixon, both on the street and in both houses, and would not have been able to just invade another country. The PNAC documents clearly laid out the path that White House took, some years before Shrub came to power, and they stated that they didn't think they would be able to carry out their plans without a "new Pearl Harbour". They may have been able to garner enough support for an attack on Afghanistan, due to the Taliban's demonisation in the west.

The taliban? Well - detonating deliberate charges to bring down the TTC's to invade a scrawny desert-like place that resembles Utah eh? Drugs again, steer clear of the brown acid at the back, kids.

Do you not know about the relationship betwen the Taliban and the Bush family, and the trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline? Bush hosted the leaders of the Taliban at his private ranch in Texas before he became President, where they agreed a pipelline deal, which the Taliban later reneged on. Don't scoff, this is all in the public domain. Just google it. Bush had the plans to invade Afghanistan made up before the seat in the Oval office was even warm, and may have tried to invade in any case.

You might have a close look at why Clinton was stopped from killing Osama b.L. before he did what he did - that bears scrutiny alright.
I believe the bin Laden family are large in number, and the US had a pact with them about oil and their agreements that went on in Desert Storm too. Riyadh was an outpost for the US Military during that 'war', so Saudi Arabia were allies remember?

Yep I agree with most of that.

Take a gander at the Bush family winning an illegal ill-ection vs Al Gore - that, to anyone with half a brain, was rigged as hell. GW wasn't president, he was a muppet for George Snr to have him and his men do what they wanted to do for another term. Disappointed at losing after one term, the head of CIA was very capable at putting himself back where he thought he belonged. Gore helped by distancing himself in disgust from the rather successful Clinton Government - shooting himself in the foot in the process for the sake of maintaining ultra-'Christian' disdain at Billy getting a blowie in the White House.

The repatriation of the Lockerbie bomber is dodgy alright, look into that because it has tangible oddities from our departments.

Yes, I agree with a lot of that. Stolen elections (Bush was actually SELECTED to office by the supreme court when they refused to allow the recounts) At that point it ceased to be an ELECTION, sadly.

Actually, Lockerbie is another mental story. Libya essentially had almost nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy, but that's another story.

The video of the 9/11 attack shows clearly, as happened on the day, a real plane entering the building and disintegrating within it - not a cheapo animation of a pixalated video-game that looks worse than most of us could do using crap animation techniques.
Why did it happen? PROBABLY a vengeance against the US, especially a Bush-run US that had less regard for Arabs and too much regard for Israelis and manipulating the oil-rich states. Saddam was used by Bush to humiliate the Kuwaiti Amir, let a neighbour rough them up a bit. When he snubbed his nose at them afterward being told to leave - he was eminently dispensable, and was MADE to leave.

Agree with most of that too. Definitely planes hitting the building, not illusions, military aircraft or flying bananas. A very well respected former US diplomat called Chalmers Johnson wrote a book years before 9/11 called 'Blowback' in which he predicted exactly this reaction from our actions overseas. Funny that Blair stated the opposite, again, only today. What a scumbag, but that's yet another story...

PUR-LEASE screw off and tell your story to some halle-bop comet moonie-type followers of anything except the facts.
You really take the bonkers biscuits, please see a shrink.

Takes one to know one, as we used to say in school.

 

[colinz]

Is this a load of garbage or what. They pick one camera angle and ignore all the other angles from other locations. They criticize the eye witness merely by panning a camera around but they don't actually go to Chelsea and identify the view she had! Then, if I'm not mistaken, they say how two networks had the same fade to black when I think they had already said that CNN were using the fox footage!

Can you please provide links to the camera angles from the other locations.

Since when do competing networks all share the same feeds for a live event.

The "fade to black" occured after the mistake regarding the 'nose out' was made. It's ludricous that the nose cone of an airplane can penetrate through 2 walls with reinforced steel columns, and reappear the other side. unscathed.
It has since been removed from the Fox archives.

Watch the video again, then watch these 2 videos which compares archived footage to the original footage.

 

[Stoo82]

At the end of the day. Thousands died on that day, regardless who did it.

No body will never know who did it because there was no meaningful investigation directly after it.

 

[thejackal]

At the end of the day. Thousands died on that day, regardless who did it.

No body will never know who did it because there was no meaningful investigation directly after it.

Is pretty much the size of it, sadly.

 

[beorhthelm]

It's ludricous that the nose cone of an airplane can penetrate through 2 walls with reinforced steel columns, and reappear the other side. unscathed.

yes, almost as ludicrous as saying that the editting team behind this fakery missed somthing as obvious as this this before releasing to the "live feed". all the time thousands of people watching (on different continents, myself included) see the plane hit. or are you tell us they are either having a group hallucination, or (may favorite crackpipe theory) there was a missle disguised as a plane by holograms.

 

[colinz]

yes, almost as ludicrous as saying that the editting team behind this fakery missed somthing as obvious as this this before releasing to the "live feed". all the time thousands of people watching (on different continents, myself included) see the plane hit. or are you tell us they are either having a group hallucination, or (may favorite crackpipe theory) there was a missle disguised as a plane by holograms.

Your letting your logistical analysis dictake the science, it should be the other way round.
There could be quite a few reasons why the 'nose out' was screened before it's obvious covering up.

Also FYI, I've since learn't that the 'nose out' footage has re-appeared in the Fox archives. After the release of the Foxed Out videos.

 

[NMH]

I understand that your message wasn't all directed at me, not least because I don't doubt that they were planes that hit the towers, but I will try to respond to some of these points anyway, in peace.



I watched it all live from my apartment in Orange County, CA. I got woken up by a mate driving to his construction job in LA, complaining that all of the radio stations were on some wind-up. Sat there with my jaw on the deck for hours. I had only moved back out to the US 3 weeks earlier. Culture shock or what!! Ummmm... this sort of crazy terrorist shit doesn't normally happen in Sussex, and then I remembered the Grand Hotel.



Nice one! See what you did there!

American flight 77 hit the the west wing of the pentagon which was undergoing a complete refurb and had almost no military personnel, computers or sensitive documents inside. More workmen than military died. Coincidence, maybe, but true. Of the 125 killed on the ground (excluding the air passengers) only 55 were military.



Again, that's not exactly true. Bush was the most unpopluar president since Nixon, both on the street and in both houses, and would not have been able to just invade another country. The PNAC documents clearly laid out the path that White House took, some years before Shrub came to power, and they stated that they didn't think they would be able to carry out their plans without a "new Pearl Harbour". They may have been able to garner enough support for an attack on Afghanistan, due to the Taliban's demonisation in the west.



Do you not know about the relationship betwen the Taliban and the Bush family, and the trans-Afghanistan oil pipeline? Bush hosted the leaders of the Taliban at his private ranch in Texas before he became President, where they agreed a pipelline deal, which the Taliban later reneged on. Don't scoff, this is all in the public domain. Just google it. Bush had the plans to invade Afghanistan made up before the seat in the Oval office was even warm, and may have tried to invade in any case.



Yep I agree with most of that.



Yes, I agree with a lot of that. Stolen elections (Bush was actually SELECTED to office by the supreme court when they refused to allow the recounts) At that point it ceased to be an ELECTION, sadly.

Actually, Lockerbie is another mental story. Libya essentially had almost nothing to do with the Lockerbie tragedy, but that's another story.



Agree with most of that too. Definitely planes hitting the building, not illusions, military aircraft or flying bananas. A very well respected former US diplomat called Chalmers Johnson wrote a book years before 9/11 called 'Blowback' in which he predicted exactly this reaction from our actions overseas. Funny that Blair stated the opposite, again, only today. What a scumbag, but that's yet another story...




Takes one to know one, as we used to say in school.

Oh well then, I now completely concur that it must have been a conspiracy in order to go off and invade Iraq (because Saddam was arranging to be an oil nation basing his economy on the EURO, which *might* explain why Germany and France didn't exactly enthuse over the US invasions).

But no, the Bush regime really didn't need to bring down the TTTs and attack the Pentagon to excuse any operations.

Now I believe your nurse is waiting for you to step away from the computer so she can make out her reports for the day.

 

[tedebear]

I'm But from a purely semantic point of view the official story is simply another conspiracy theory - the official conspiracy theory: the theory that Bin Laden and a bunch of fanatical Saudis conspired to plan and execute the most successful and audacious attack on the most heavily protected airspace in the word. There is no proof, no trial, no evidence, no admissions of guilt. Just theory. And as a theory, if you care to start scrutinising it, it just doesn't hold an awful lot of water.

This is why there are so many doubters of the official line. We're not all bonkers - we just want some honest answers to some very simple questions.

I dislike the American conspiracy theory love-in. For each and everything "event" in life you will find an American who is hell bent on creating a theory which is usually illogical, ill conceived and bonkers. There are people around the world who buy into these, but the Americans own the rights. Conspiracy theories are simply bourne out of an information gap, and by people jumping to conclusions, nothing more or less. People with too much time on their hands.

These were Americans, on American jets, on regular every day of the week flights. Security at airports for domestic flights was so poor Elmo could have flown on George W's passport and no one would have cared. Planes circle and cross through the tri-state area in a great rate of knots. Once the first two hit the WTC I'm sure any other planes were probably brought down and the WTC7 could have been destroyed as George W probably panicked and thought it was Armageddon, but the fact of the matter is that nearly 3000 people died, and yes the government of the good old US of A has done little to dispell the theories, I'd say its becuase they are still smarting that they educated these extremists themselves, allowed them entry and exist from their country and in effect enabled these extremists to act out their dreams.

In 30 years time or whenever it gets released I'd be interested in hearing the transcripts of the flight recorders from those flights. I'd like to hear how quickly the air force were scrambled, and I'd like to understand the mindset of Jihad. How can a mentally stable person contemplate the mass murdering of thousands and think that it is ok.

Whilst conspiracy theorists may think it is clever and right to dig and investigate, personally I find it odd that people cannot simply accept things as they are in some cases.

 

[Fur Cough]

The more i read on this thread the more I believe that this issue will never be resolved.

There are those who believe that the U.S colluded with terrorists for their own gains.
There are those who believe the U.S was subject to a terror attack and were found to be lacking in all areas, caught with their pants down if you will.
There are even some who believe the U.S actually carried out the attacks themselves.

I'll tell you what i believe, I believe that today, of all days, a bit of respect should be shown to the innocents who perished, wether by terrorists or Government collusion.

RIP.