|
 ekomstop
 
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada 
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
 Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' 
#3169215 - 09/23/04 08:42 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn?t it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. The time has come to admit the sorry truth as a nation, so that we can move on - as a nation.
The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks. Let?s recount some facts of that dreadful day.
Any time an aircraft deviates from it?s course, the air traffic controller requests a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. This was the first time interceptors were not sent up in the history of this policy. The intercept pilots are trained to make a visual check of the cockpit? could this be the reason these interceptors were intercepted? Planes were sent to the New York area, after unprecedented delay, from Falmouth, Massachusetts rather than nearby Ft. Dix or Laguardia. Of course, they didn?t arrive in time - there was no visual scan of the cockpits.
Captain Kent Hill, retired from the Air Force, explained that the U.S. had flown unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, on preprogrammed flight paths from Edwards Air Force Base, California to Australia on several occasions. He believes the airliners used in the attacks had their on board computers knocked out and were subsequently choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System. Along side Captain Hill, an Air Force officer with more than 100 sorties in Vietnam stated, ?Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.? We know that the technology exists to fly hijacked commercial airliners by remote control - it?s called ?Globalhawk.? We also know that the military has had an unmanned drone aircraft known as the ?Predator,? since 1994. A saboteur would merely have to reprogram the controls to switch from manual to remote; those airliners practically fly themselves already with the autopilot. This would require electronic security codes? acquisition of electronic codes would also explain the lapse of interceptor response due to sabotage. Furthermore, it?s a fact that Air Force One codes were known and punched in by a rogue source on 9/11, proving the presence of an inside, subversive element.
As usual, it?s not a good conspiracy, if it doesn?t involve a Bush! Introducing Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it?s an electronic security company, which was ?coincidentally? involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ?handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.? How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers? Bush?s presidency was saved by these attacks - just something to think about.
Five of the twenty ?suicide hijackers? are alive and well according to the BBC and they want their names cleared. So who was flying those planes? We may never know exactly what happened with those jets; what we do know is that the official version crumbles under scrutiny. These planes were merely a diversion, as proven by the presence of bombs? that?s right, PROVEN!
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, ?many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they?re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ?higher-ups? forbid discussion of this fact.? Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department?s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. ?There were definitely bombs in those buildings,? he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ?pancaked? as it?s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel?s ?don?t trust a truss? explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, ?You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don?t just implode like that; this was a demolition.?
Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, ?We think there were bombs set in the building.? Notice he said ?we?. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn?t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.
The seismic record from Columbia University?s observatory in Palisades, NY (21 miles away) provides indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down those towers. At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph. At the precise moment the North Tower began collapsing, a 2.3 earthquake registered; however, as the buildings started to crumble these waves disappeared. The two ?spikes?on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves. If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes. Furthermore, a ?sharp spike of short duration? is how underground nuclear explosions register on seismographs. Underground explosions, where the steel columns meet Manhattans granite would account for both the demolition-style implosions and these ?spikes? on the seismograph. Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.
The American Free Press reported that in the basements of the collapsed towers, where 47 central support columns (per building) connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the attack. There is only one explanation for this: An explosion of unprecedented magnitude destroyed the bases of the columns, then the massive structures buried the impact points, trapping the intense heat below for all that time.
The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure? yet this tower collapsed first. Just before this collapse, the firefighters were up on the burning levels and were heard saying, ?Battalion seven? Ladder fifteen, we?ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.? How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode? Paul Isaac told me, ?Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.?
Why was no investigation permitted of the debris? Dr W. Gene Corley headed the FEMA sponsored engineering assessment of the World Trade Center collapse, which performed no tests on the steel for traces of explosives. When asked about this process known as ?twinning,? he responded, ?I am not a metallurgist.? Dr. Corley also ?investigated? the debris at Waco and Oklahoma City? and we all know how thoroughly those ?investigations? were performed.
No government agency performed forensic examinations of the rubble; no effort was made to validate their official story. The rubble was quickly loaded onto ships and delivered to China for smelting. These are the actions of criminals disposing of evidence! By these actions, FEMA proves itself to be a subversive element in our government!
Former Deputy Director of the FBI, John P. O?Neil stated, ?The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.? Can you think of anyone (Bush) linked to both wealthy Saudi Arabians and U.S. corporate oil? John O?Neil resigned from the FBI after 31 years of service after Barbara Bodine, currently part of the Iraqi transition team, barred him from following up his investigation of the attack on the U.S.S Cole. He took a job heading security at the World Trade Center? his first day of work - September 11, 2001. John O?Neil received the job from Jerome Howard, Former Director of the New York Office of Emergency Management, who happened to have the day off on 9/11. We may only speculate on the case of Mr. O?Neil, but he does seem to be a person which U.S. oil corporate interests would want out of the way? especially during these wars for oil and power in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The top FBI officials in Minneapolis called off investigations of Zacarais Moussaoui, causing bitter resentment among field agents. The man who made the decision not to investigate was promoted! Israeli intelligence agents lived next to the alleged hijackers in Hollywood, Florida. The ?hijackers? were trained at U.S. government flight schools. Insider training on United Airlines leads to the conclusion that there was foreknowledge of these attacks; it also establishes that those with this foreknowledge are, at least, relatively wealthy. Another suspicious finding is that the World Trade Center was sold to Vornado Realty Trust in February, seven months prior to the attacks for 3.25 billion dollars? this doesn?t prove anything, it?s merely suspicious.
Who gained the most from the attacks of September 11th? Who had the motive? An Israeli expert on terrorism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ehud Sprinzak said, ?From the perspective of Jews, it is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favor.? David Stern, an expert on Israeli intelligence operations stated, ?This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both Air Force One flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and aerial assault tactics on sensitive U.S. cities like Washington.? He elaborated that the attacks ?serve no Arab group or nation?s interest, but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel?? He goes on to claim ?A U.S. military intelligence report revealed details of an international intelligence memo linking Mossad to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The memo was in circulation three weeks before the attacks.?
Furthering the suspicion of Mossad involvement, five Israelis were seen atop a van smiling and celebrating, while taking videos of the disaster from across the Hudson River. These five were arrested by the FBI and detained for two months before being deported back to Israel. Two of these men were positively identified as Israeli intelligence agents. Eighty-one nations are represented among the World Trade Center?s dead - Israel is not one of these nations even though approximately 1200 of its citizens worked there. As if that wasn?t enough, an instant messaging firm in Israel, named Odigo, received warnings about the towers two hours before the attacks. Everyone who points out the wrongdoings of Israel is immediately labeled ?anti-Semitic?? well, the truth knows no race or religion - it?s just the truth. These aren?t Jews carrying out these plans; it?s merely sick animals who hide behind the Jews!
WorldTradeCenter.com describes David Rockefeller as the ?Visionary behind the World Trade Center.? He pushed the construction of these towers through major opposition with the aid of his brother, then governor, Nelson Rockefeller. David has been quoted as saying, ?We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.? Was this the ?right major crisis? to advance the aims of a global government?
There is overwhelming evidence to support the findings that these alleged Arab terrorists were merely scapegoats used to advance the World Government agend. During the attacks, ?President? George Jr. was reading a book with school children about goats! (Scapegoats?) Arab terrorists did not carry out these attacks which were detrimental to the Muslim world.
All evidence points to elements inside, high atop the governments of Israel and the United States. Those wishing to implement their world government through their control over finance, media and militaries are guilty of these most heinous crimes. This atrocity is proving to advance the domestic police state agendas and consolidate the Middle East?s oil reserves. The people who most benefited from these attacks are the wealthiest, most privileged and powerful men on earth who feel they will finally be able to hold dominion over the nations of the world through their New World Order. For some of these globalists, these attacks were merely a means to an end - a huge step toward ruling a world socialist system. But for others, likely the planners of such a vile crime, this was a mass sacrifice to themselves. This mass ritual sacrifice of the vulnerable and the heroes who tried to save them was perpetrated by power crazed freaks who are simply - satanic.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lavello_050503_bombs.html
|
 whiterasta
Day careobserver
Registered: 04/09/02
Posts: 1,780
Loc: Oregon
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
#3169314 - 09/23/04 09:31 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
--------------------
To old for this place
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
#3169365 - 09/23/04 09:57 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph.
If explosives had been used, we would have detected the 2.1 'earthquake' a few seconds before the south tower began to collapse, not at the precise moment that it started to collapse. The 'earthquake' detected was from the building falling, not from explosives... the seismographs that I have played with can detect a person walking or a car driving down a road.
The two ?spikes?on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves.
This could simply be the top half of the building slamming into the bottom half of the building with the split between halves being where the plane struck.
If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses.
Only true if the buildings were floating... the superstructure of the building would easily have transmitted the forces from the intial collapse into the foudation...
Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes.
No... in other words, most of the energy went into breaking things apart as they were falling rather than being transfered into the ground through the foundation. While the substructure was intact, at the beginning of the collapase, I would expect a large force to be transfered into the ground, but as the collapase proceeded, this structure needed to transfer the energy would have been destroyed. The break already landed would absorb a tremendous amount of energy as more rubble landed upon it.
This is the difference between hitting a bowl of hardened concrete and a bowl of sand. The sand, just like the rubble, absorbs a lot of energy and doesn't hurt much when you hit it. The concrete on the other hand, which is like the solid foundation at the start of the collapse, hurts a lot when you hit it.
Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.
Exactly...thank you for making my point for me... the building, which is coupled to the ground, would transfer energy from the initial collapse into the ground. As the coupling into the ground was destroyed, the energy transfer would taper off... which is what the data shows.
If a bomb were used, there would be a very small initial spike, followed by an increase as the building started down, followed by a decline as the rubble built up... this is not what was seen.
If a nuke was used we would have a large and easily detectable amount contamination which could not be cleaned away and could easily be detected for tens of years, if not hundreds of years.
hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the attack.
Steel holds heat very well. Ground is a good heat insulator which is why basements are always cool even in the summer. The mass of the molten steel was not mentioned, but would be a huge number. The energy released by the falling building was similiar to that of a small nuclear bomb... why is it surprising that molten steel was found more than a month later?
Paul Isaac told me, ?Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.?
So if I cut a hole in a tree and let termites eat out the center, the tree must fall in the direction of the hole that I cut? If the impact of the plane had brought the tower down, then there would be a point here... but the fire melting away the superstructure brought the building down, not the impact of the plane.
/me thinks these consipracy nuts should take a few more engineering classes before spouting out bad science as fact.  I could tear apart the rest of his "science", but it is a waste of my time...
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: Seuss]
#3169459 - 09/23/04 10:19 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
I'm gonna have to go with the fella's at Columbia University, but you gave it a good shot, thanks.
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
#3169465 - 09/23/04 10:20 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
If by bombs you mean two passanger planes flew into them then this is definatly worth looking into. 
...give me a break.
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
Edited by Innvertigo (09/23/04 10:54 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
#3169502 - 09/23/04 10:29 AM (19 years, 5 days ago) |
|
|
> I'm gonna have to go with the fella's at Columbia University, but you gave it a good shot, thanks.
I went with the fella's from Columbia University... read carefully... nowhere do they claim that a bomb was used to drop the building... the nut that wrote the article sneaks in his own fantasy around the quotes from experts making it sound as if he were an expert and that the experts are agreeing with him.
Quote:
Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.?
Is the only quote from anybody at Columbia University, and I agree 100% with what he says. The fact that only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion in no way implies that a bomb was responsible for the collapse.
Edit:
Actually, there is one more statement that isn't quoted by somebody frmo Columbia University:
Quote:
Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.
... which actually helps show that a bomb wasn't used... "Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes", yet no explosions were seen...
Taken with his previous words:
Quote:
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. ... "Building don?t just implode like that; this was a demolition.?
If it were a big explosion as claimed, then why did the fireman say the building imploded... I would expect an explosion from a big bomb, not an implosion. Firemen should stick to putting out fires and leave civil engineering to civil engineers.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03 
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God 
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
#3169634 - 09/23/04 11:15 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I used to get annoyed by all of these conspiricy theories. I mean, on 9-11 I knew it was only a matter of time... before the tin hats came out. But... the consparicy theories are getting fun... as well as easy to disprove.
The first theory I heard: THE JEWS WERE TIPPED OFF! And they didn't show up for work at the WTC on 9-11. I mean who in the world would rather see America go to war with Islamic extremist Terrorists? Israel of course! They had to set it up!
I also heard some bullshit that passenger jets weren't used in the attacks. Of course! There were four UNMARKED planes used that day. This is why all the videos of the attacks show passanger jets... and all the murdered passenger's belongings were found among the rubble.
But... THIS ARTICLE TODAY TAKES THE CAKE!
What a crock of shit.
Since I was THERE, in Downtown Manhattan on 9-11, why don't I tell you what I saw, heard and smelled:
The biggest explosions came when the planes (full of jet fuel) hit the towers.
The towers both collapsed from the point of impact. You could see the tops of both towers tilting and sliding off center before the towers collapsed. I could both feel, and hear their collapse.
The WTC complex was the biggest building complex IN THE WORLD! When it fell, the fire burned FOR THREE MONTHS! I smelled it burn (nothing smells like a skyscraper). It is no surprise to me why molten metal was found a month after 9-11. The WTC was still on fire! It was the biggest building complex in the world, and it was turned into the biggest burning heap of rubble in the world. After the collapse, the fire burned below ground and could only be extinguished as the rubble was removed. Believe what you wish. I chose to believe my nose. After all... my nose (while not Columbia educated) was there.
Trust me, with all the cameras in the world trained on the WTC on 9-11. You would have been able to see the explosions that took 'em down. But you don't even need to look. It is a waste of time...
You see...
The proof, that the buildings fell because of airplanes can be found by looking at the terrorist's actions... and plans.
The first tower was hit near the top of the building. This is because the terrorists hoped to knock the building over, not down. They wanted the WTC to fall on its side (this would have caused MUCH more damage... if you can believe it).
When the second plane came around, the pilot saw that the first tower was on fire, but still standing... so... he did what any good terrorist hijacker would do... he hit the second tower LOWER than the first.
Why did he do this?
Well, about a half hour later, we got our answer. The second tower fell first!
It fell, because the plane hit it so low... the building couldn't support the weight of the 40 floors above the point of impact. The fire from the airplaine caused the support structure of the second WTC tower to melt, then collapse. The second tower to be hit, fell first.
The first tower fell about a half hour after the second. It fell the same way... and for the same reasons as the other tower... but it took much longer to IMPLODE... because there were only 20 floors above the point of impact.
I have many friends who also wittnessed the events with their own eyes, ears and noses. They aren't government Men in Black. They are New Yorkers... all were going about their business in Downtown Manhattan... when TWO PASSENGER PLANES flew overhead at a VERY LOW ALTITUDE and a VERY HIGH SPEED.
They know what they say, as do I. We have no reason to lie. We want to see the people responsible for these attacks punnished.
I guess the most important question is: If the buildings were going to be blown up, why the hell did people need to fly perfectly good airplanes into them? Your atricle really doesn't answer this question.
This isn't rocket science.
Stick with the "Elvis is alive!" conspiracies. At least they're plausable.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (09/23/04 11:27 AM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3169733 - 09/23/04 11:50 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I guess the most important question is: If the buildings were going to be blown up, why the hell did people need to fly perfectly good airplanes into them? Your atricle really doesn't answer this question.
To create a conspiracy and cover up the fact that the creepy-crawlies planted a low yield nuclear bomb in the boiler room...
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Loki
Ferret Farmer
Registered: 02/10/04
Posts: 18,292
Loc: Zone ate
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
#3169752 - 09/23/04 11:54 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
So there was no third spike from wtc6? but a huge crator?
It was arabs, plane and simply saudi arabs.
|
DigitalDuality
enthusiast
Registered: 04/29/04
Posts: 354
Last seen: 17 years, 4 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3169871 - 09/23/04 12:24 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I honestly can't believe people buy into this shit. If anything in the world can get Republicans, Libs, and Dems to agree.. it would be this.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
#3169948 - 09/23/04 12:41 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I'm on break at work so I don't have alot of time to reply, but I have a question. Can you explain how building 7 collapsed? It wasn't even hit by an aircraft. Also, there is video evidence of a huge poof of smoke arrising from the trade center buildings right before the first building collapsed..I will see what I can do about finding a clip, I know there is one in "9/11 in plane site" which seems VERY suspicious. This was shown on live television one time, and was never seen again.
Also here's an audio analasis of possible bombs on flight 175: http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/250804moreproof.htm
I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to me like an aircraft could take down a building like that..I'm going to look further into this after work. I am still far from convinced that 9/11 was soley perpetrated in the way in which it was declared in the media.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: Loki]
#3169959 - 09/23/04 12:43 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
It was arabs, plane and simply saudi arabs
yuk, yuk. I found it funny that you put "plane" instead of plain...was this intentional?
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3170141 - 09/23/04 01:35 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
WTC 7 fell because of the nuclear warhead planted in its foundation.
The airplanes were used as a decoy... their real target was WTC 7.
WTC 7 was such an inflentual building you know... and it was filled with... absolutely nobody... when it fell.
...yawn.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Innvertigo
Vote Libertarian!!
Registered: 02/08/01
Posts: 16,296
Loc: Crackerville, Michigan U...
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3170212 - 09/23/04 01:50 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
WTC 7 fell because of the nuclear warhead planted in its foundation.
that's the dumbest thing I have ever heard in my life.......it's obvious it was a MOAB. I mean it's sort or a coincedence that the military tested one not too long after 911. The government knew that this was going to happen!!!
--------------------
America....FUCK YEAH!!!
Words of Wisdom: Individual Rights BEFORE Collective Rights
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 6 months, 21 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Innvertigo]
#3170344 - 09/23/04 02:26 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
While even I have issues with some of that article, it does raise good points. Such as why the rubble was not examined thouroughly...and the reason why wtc7 fell is still a mystery to me.
There is a book coming out in mid october called "Crossing the Rubicon" and it's author claims to have irrefutable proof that Dick Cheney was at least partially responsible for 9-11. I'm looking forward to it's release...
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rono]
#3170415 - 09/23/04 02:42 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
> as why the rubble was not examined thouroughly...
Considering that they were looking for itty bitty tiny body parts in the rubble, I suspect it was examined much more thouroughly than we are led to believe by the conspiracy nuts.
There was a lot of rubble to examine. What is expected? Are we supposed to brush every I-beam for finger prints?
They shipped a lot of the rubble overseas as scrap metal... if this is such a huge conspiracy, why would the US ship the evidence that can proove it to a location that they do not control?
> and the reason why wtc7 fell is still a mystery to me
I have only studied the impact on the two towers, not the colateral damage their collapse caused to other buildings. Remember, the energy released during the collapse of the first two towers was similiar to that released by a small nuclear bomb. There was also a lot of structure below ground that we can not see from the cameras on the surface. I suspect that damage from the first two towers falling directly led to the falling of wtc7, but this is a guess on my part.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
#3170546 - 09/23/04 03:25 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Some stuff on building 7: click for images
Building 7
The Tip of the Iceberg
How Could Fire Make a Steel Building Implode?
Building 7 was the dark sleek building in front of the Twin Towers. It was 300 feet from the nearest tower.
Why should anyone care about Building 7, a 47-story steel skyscraper that imploded? Because, despite the appearance of demolition, we are told that the building collapsed because of fires. Fires have never caused steel frame buildings to collapse, let alone implode and fall neatly into their footprints, as did Building 7. It should have been a huge story. The fires in the building were comparatively small. That a robust steel skyscraper, built to withstand severe fires, hurricanes, and earthquakes, should suddenly collapse for no reason other than fire should have forced a re-evaluation of the safety of all existing skyscrapers and of highrise design in general.
Most people don't remember anything about Building 7's collapse on the day of horrors of September 11th, 2001. The collapse was afforded minimal coverage that afternoon, eclipsed by other 'coverage' like repeated playings of the South Tower impact, and mug shots of Osama bin Laden. After September 11th, it was difficult to find any trace of coverage about building 7 and its collapse. Apparently the most bizarre engineering failure in history warranted only shallow attention on the day of the attack, and virtually none thereafter. Perhaps it was the lack of a human interest angle, since nobody was thought to have died in the collapse.
The Vertical Collapse
Building 7 collapsed in a nearly perfectly vertical motion at near the rate of free-fall. The first sign of the collapse was the falling of the penthouse, immediately followed by the falling of the whole facade. It fell straight-down and its barely more than 6-second time of total collapse was almost as fast as free-fall. (An object would take 5.956 seconds to fall from the height of WTC 7's roof -- 571 feet -- in a vacuum.) The event was captured on several videos, viewable on the wtc7.net website.
Building 7 at 3 seconds into its 6-second collapse. The penthouse started to fall about a second before the entire facade, and the building's center sank faster than the perimeter. Streamers of smoke can be seen emerging from the facade. These are features of a controlled demolition.
Building 7's precise fall left a tidy pile of rubble. Damage to adjacent buildings was limited, the skyscraper having miraculously avoided damaging its closest neighbors, the Verizon building and U.S. Post Office building.
The (Non)Investigation
The total collapse of Building 7 due to fire would violate all kinds of assumptions about the engineering of skyscrapers. It was the largest and least understood engineering failure in World history, excepting the collapses of the towers earlier that day. The remains of the building should have been carefully examined and documented on-site, then removed to warehouses for further study. Yet the U.S. Government spent only $600,000 to investigate the collapse of all three skyscrapers. It entrusted the investigation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, even though it is a non-investigative agency. FEMA assembled a group of volunteer investigators, whose access to the disaster site was limited to a "guided tour."
In May of 2002 FEMA's team released its report. The report's authors seem to be certain that fire caused the collapse, but admit to being clueless about how fires did what they have never done before.
FEMA's report stated:
The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analysis are needed to resolve this issue.
By the time the report was published, nearly all of the steel had been removed from Building 7's site, most without examination, and was recycled, mostly in India and China. The steel would not be of much use to further research and investigation after it had been through a blast furnace. This evidence destruction operation was conducted over the objections fire safety officials, fire-fighters, and victims' families.
The Fires
The Interstate Bank Building fire consumed several floors but did not damage the steel superstructure.
There were diesel fuel storage tanks in the building, and rumors abound about fuel tank explosions. Diesel fuel does not burn easily, It would be very difficult to get a diesel fuel tank to explode. Even if the diesel fuel fed fires in Building 7, it would not have endangered the steel frame. No such fire, however long and well-fueled, has ever destroyed a multi-story steel-frame building. Building 7 showed only small areas of fire, on ts 7th and 12th floors, shortly before its collapse.
Fires have never been blamed for the collapse of a steel frame highrise before, and there are examples of skyscrapers being ravaged by severe fires. Recent examples of highrise fires include the 1991 One Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia, which raged for 18 hours and gutted 8 floors of the 38 floor building; and the 1988 First Interstate Bank Building fire in Los Angeles, which burned out of control for 3 1/2 hours and gutted 4 floors of the 64 floor tower. Both of these fires were far more severe than any fires seen in Building 7, but those buildings did not collapse. The Los Angeles fire was described as producing "no damage to the main structural members".
If It Looks and Quacks Like a Demolition ...
It is difficult to break up the steel structures of skyscrapers. Structural steel bends rather than shatters, unless subjected to very high blast pressures. Even if several stories of a skyscraper at ground level were obliterated, the whole skyscraper wouldn't shatter. Rather, it would topple, leaving large assemblies intact, if bent. Getting a tall steel building to fall straight down into its footprint is an engineering feat that only a few companies specialize in. Structural elements must be destroyed in a precise order. A second delay in destroying some of the columns on a story could cause such a tall building to topple into adjacent real-estate.
Building 7's straight down collapse, with the outer walls falling inward towards the tower's central axis, is exactly the kind of collapse typically engineered to take down a tall building: the core columns are shattered ahead of the perimeter columns, so the building's central mass sinks ahead of its perimeter, and thereby pulls the the perimeter mass inward.
Tenants
Building 7's tenants included the Secret Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and several financial institutions, including the Securities and Exchange Commission. The SEC lost numerous case files in the collapse -- files relating to investigations of corporations such as World Com.
Building 7 also housed Mayor Giuliani's Emergency Command Center, a bunker on the 23rd floor with blast-resistant windows and its own air and water supply. The mayor was operating out of temporary quarters at 75 Barkley Street when the towers collapsed. Supposedly, the command center was evacuated before the first tower collapsed, even though no-one -- certainly not the firemen -- had expected any of the buildings to collapse.
Conclusion
The official story blames fires for the total collapse of Building 7, but fires have never before or since leveled steel buildings. That, and the fact that the building's collapse has all of the appearances of a controlled demolition, constitutes prima facie evidence that a crime was committed -- a crime the alleged perpetrators of the September 11th attacks did not have the means to commit. Shouldn't this be the subject of an honest investigation? Shouldn't the entire September 11th attack be the subject of a genuine investigation?
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fact' [Re: ekomstop]
#3170674 - 09/23/04 03:59 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
If I can believe Muslims did it, why can't you?
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Zahid]
#3170796 - 09/23/04 04:24 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Because the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
I'm not saying they wern't involved - I think it's beginning to look like it was more of a team effort.
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 10 years, 4 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3170806 - 09/23/04 04:27 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Because the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.
I'm not saying they wern't involved, it's beginning to look like it was more of a team effort.
"evidence"  hearsay at best.
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: d33p]
#3170833 - 09/23/04 04:34 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Apparently you haven't run into the same information that I, and millions others have.
If you or anybody here could conjure up enough "evidence" taken from your beloved bush administration and CNN to convince me Al Quada was behind it all without any help whatsoever from insiders in the U.S. among possibly other governments, I will honorably pledge to be your bitch for life.
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3171062 - 09/23/04 05:29 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
the fact is that 7 wasn't struck and did not experience any
severe fire damage.
what is also fact is that the owner of the building and FEMA
have both provided contradictory stories as to why that
building came down.
I think the current story is that it was 'pulled', meaning
purposely imploded.
that being said, how does one go about executing a
controlled demolition of a building of that size in the midst
of the mayhem of september 11th in the heart of ground
zero?
there's only two explanations....
1. the bombs were already in the building.
2. they were able to engineer and execute a controlled
demolition in a matter of hours.
the obvious choice is 2, but no one's been able to vouch
for it.
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: afoaf]
#3171766 - 09/23/04 07:49 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
There are loads of facts that many would rather disregard as crazy conspiracy 'theories', generalizing them all into one (barking moonbat) category while maintaing the notion that 'all of them' were supposedly 'proven' wrong years ago. This is what I would have to refer to as ignorance and/or flat out denial.
Though in regards to your comments, something tells me option one could be about as possible as option two..
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi
Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3171981 - 09/23/04 08:26 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
thanks for the knowledge. polls show 50% of NYC has woken up to the fact that 911 didnt happen the way the government and the media say. i think once those numbers grow a little and the people from the main point of attack relise its a lie, it will spread and eventually the majority of the country will see the truth. knowledge is power and the only way to not let those people die in vein is to show the media and government are lieing
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: AhronZombi]
#3172240 - 09/23/04 09:09 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
it'll never leave new york if manhattan happens to get chemtrailed!!!!
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi
Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: afoaf]
#3172262 - 09/23/04 09:11 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
the whole country gets chemtrailed. i dont think that stuff has much power over us i think its just a way of using big populations kidneys to dispose of waste
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3172676 - 09/23/04 10:16 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
This situation sort of reminds me of a low self-esteemed girl and her douchebag cheating boyfriend.
"He's changed! He's telling me the truth this time!"
Way too many glaring inconsistencies for the official story to be accurate, the fact that that is what is presented to us as truth, (with very little revision after the first week) should be the first red-flag. A little insight into world geopolitics, realpolitik, and history should be the second.
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3172809 - 09/23/04 10:38 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Eskimo... how does your WTC 7 theory fit into the mini-nuclear bomb theory.
Before I discuss and debunk the WTC 7 fiasco, explain... are you changing conpiracies mid thread, or are you just tossing conspiracies up until one sticks?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3172904 - 09/23/04 10:56 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I didn't write that article, nor did I say I believed every word it said. I am merly bringing information to the table that raises legitimate questions that just so happens to counter the official story.
Here is a short flash video that might make you go hmmm...that is, if you haven't seen it before. http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php
Of course some people here maintain the belief that everything proposed in it have already been 'proven' innacurate here ..you be the judge.
Also if you have highspeed I'd highly recommend you check out this documentary by Alex Jones, it is the follow up to one of his other documentaries "911 the road to tyranny" which I also have available if anybody wants it (among others)
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: afoaf]
#3172983 - 09/23/04 11:12 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
is there a plausible explanation for why 7 fell?
either on it's own or by intervention?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: afoaf]
#3173079 - 09/23/04 11:35 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
I believe the official report says it was due to a (probably nonexistant) fire..other than that so-called explanation it's a mystery to me..and I'd be willing to bet the mainstream media for one has been probably making an effort to avoid that issue completely (though I guess I could be wrong, I don't have a tv..)
If that is the case though, that should be a pretty good indication to people of just how reliable a source of information the mainstream media really is.
|
FrankieJustTrypt
and fell
Registered: 01/27/04
Posts: 537
Loc: MI
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: afoaf]
#3173140 - 09/23/04 11:50 PM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
World Trade Center Seven collapsed on September 11, 2001, at 5:20 p.m. There were no known casualties due to this collapse. The performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers. Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings.
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [mp3]
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [mp3]
There ya go.
Also I found these interesting:
The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [in the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. ..."Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]
Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]
Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. ..."All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]
--------------------
If you want a free lunch, you need to learn how to eat good advice.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: FrankieJustTrypt]
#3173209 - 09/24/04 12:10 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Holy shit. Thank you for posting this.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3173500 - 09/24/04 02:00 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Ok... so I guess you see no connection between the Teeny-tiny nukes and WTC 7. Does that mean you are just throwing conspiracy theories up against the wall?
OK, let's see if this one sticks.
Not very likely.
Yup, it is true, there were many offices in WTC 7. Secret servivce, New York City's crisis command center, Police, Verizon, perhaps even the FBI (I don't recall exactly)... among countless others. Obviously, since the spooks had offices in there, conspiracy must be near.
But before you get too excited about WTC 7 and all the offices it contained, please remember that the Pentagon was attacked on 9-11 too. The Pentagon is the HEADQUARTERS for all the (known) spooky U.S. govt. agencies. The Pentagon was attacked. For real. On 9-11. By terrorists. The passengers were all on the plane... their bodies and luggage were found in the rubble of the crash. so who gives a fuck about WTC 7?
WTC 7 was damaged in the collapse of the WTC towers. That is fact. How damaged was it? I have no clue. Was it on fire? Was it going to come down anyway? Hard for me to say. I was busy calling friends and family and telling them I was still alive.
All I know is my phone went out for several months the moment WTC 7 came down. My phone company had it's downtown office inside WTC 7. Spooky huh?
I assure you it was a hell of a lot spookier than this dumb conspiracy theory.
Most of the people at Ground Zero at the time of the attacks had no clue what the fuck was going on... especially the firemen (as evidence, I offer up the 100's of dead NYC firemen, who died in the confusion of that day...) communication problems were abundant at ground zero on 9-11. There were many people saying many different things on 9-11... because nobody knew what the fuck was going on. NYC hadn't been attacked since... like... the war of 1812. Americans were nuts on 9-11... especially New Yorkers. This too is a fact.
The building that was supposed to be the command center for New York disasters... was WTC 7. Fact.
At the time WTC 7 came down, nobody knew if the attacks were over. Fact.
Several critical buildings, aside from the The WTC Towers and WTC 7 were severely damaged... by the attack on the WTC. Fact.
WTC 7 came down. Fact.
So what?
Since WTC 7 came down in what appears to be a safe and controlled fassion, the only possible way it could have been brought down was if a bomb was pre-planted inside? Right?
Bullshit.
It was proven earlier THAT day, there are MANY ways to demolish a skyscraper (unless, of course, it was the Teeny-tiny nukes). So... why is every conspiracy theorist a building demolition engineer all of a sudden?
I don't know how WTC 7 came down. I simply haven't looked into it, and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Don't worry, I will thoroughly explain why. It will take a while, but I will. Thanks for getting me to type about something important.
First of all, let us put this into context. Four airplanes were hijacked and crashed on 9-11. One crashed in Pennsylvania... in a field. One hit the Pentagon. Two hit the WTC towers and caused both of them to fall. So... how exactly is WTC 7 even relavant?
Do you even know where WTC 7 stood in the WTC complex? It was right by the West Side Highway, and most rescuers would need to enter near WTC 7. The West Side Highway was the only road nearby that was wide enough to quickly handle all the equiptment required to conduct such a rescue operation. If WTC 7 was damaged, it needed to come down, and fast. If not, it would have been VERY DIFFICULT insert the big equiptment required to clean debris.
It makes a lot of sense to me that WTC 7 was quickly demolished for a good, logical reason. THE RESCUE OPERATION.
After the towers fell, nothing was more important than RESCUE.
Oh yeah, the spooks worked there too (well... they had to work somewhere in NYC). Oh and... a big building couldn't possibly be brought down quickly. It takes demolition experts weeks to bring down a building. Riiiiiiiiiight. You'd be AMAZED at what people can do when lives are on the line.
Ok, now that we have context... but...
Who cares?
If WTC 7 IS the big issue, as you and other "Tin hatters" seem to insist upon believing, you can rest assured the money hungry American, Canadian, English, French, Russian... MEDIA will be on this story like flies on shit.
Really.
Shouldn't Someone credible have said something about it by now? A story THAT big, "EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT... 9-11 WAS NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS!!!!" would sell a lot of papers.
Obviously the major media sources of all the countries in the world are aware of the WTC 7 theory. Why haven't they gone crazy over it? Are they all taking a hit in the pocketbook to protect America? I doubt it.
OK... now why and how did WTC 7 come down?
Well, let's look at the proposed theories.
1. WTC 7 was damaged so bad it was on fire. Since it was going to come down soon... it was quickly brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
2. WTC 7 could not be secured and it contained SECRET UNKNOWN ITEMS that would be better sacrificed than stolen by looters... or God forbid, terrorists... so it was quickly brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
3. WTC 7 was fine... but terrorists had snuck in and sabbotaged the basement. The 9-11 attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC towers were a smoke screen. The real purpose was brining down WTC 7 but the attack failed... WTC 7 still stood... so the terrorists moved to plan B and WTC 7 was brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
4. WTC 7 was damaged by the attacks... it was going to come down soon. Fortunately government spooks had planted high explosives in all the crucial structural support of WTC 7. The spooks then moved everybody out of the area and WTC 7 was brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
5. WTC 7 was damaged and could not be secured. To help with the RESCUE EFFORT, WTC 7 was quickly demolished in a safe, controlled manor. Fuck, they couldn't waste time. People, friends were dead and dying... and until WTC 7 came down, large ammounts of rescuers could not be safe enough to go into ground zero in large numbers.
Well, I could go on all night adding possible ways WTC 7 could have come down... but come on.
I don't know how WTC 7 really came down. To be honest, I haven't even looked. I don't need to. Your articles and information are faulty enough to debunk without research. All I had to do was think.
The building came down. Its collapse was planned well ahead of time. People were moved out of the area. Nobody was hurt.
The rescue operation continued.
That's all I care about.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3174099 - 09/24/04 08:30 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
Well done, Cervantes!
pinky
--------------------
|
afoaf
CEO DBK?
Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3174409 - 09/24/04 10:14 AM (19 years, 4 days ago) |
|
|
that's 'debunking'?
--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,259
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 6 months, 21 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3174819 - 09/24/04 12:00 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
If WTC 7 IS the big issue, as you and other "Tin hatters" seem to insist upon believing, you can rest assured the money hungry American, Canadian, English, French, Russian... MEDIA will be on this story like flies on shit.
Judging from that statement alone, I would say that you only get your news from American sources...I.E..CNN, FOX, MSNBC etc...The sad and simple fact is that many Americans don't WANT to know the truth...they are happy in their little bubbles. Can you imagine what would happen if it was proven without a doubt that the current adminstration not only allowed the attacks to happen, but helped orchestrate them? Absolute chaos would reign...Although I can't comment on Russian or French news since I speak nor read either, I can comment on Canadian news and there has been alot of speculation as to what really happened on 9-11. FAR more so, than what has been shown by American news. There was even a 1 hour special that was aired on TV here by CBC that did nothing but address the discrepancies of 9-11. I'll see if I can find a link for that one again.
Whether you believe in a conspiracy or not, there are alot of unanswered questions and discrepancies in 'official' stories that deserve to be looked into further...if the current administration has nothing to hide, then why should it be a problem?
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
Edited by Rono (09/24/04 12:07 PM)
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rono]
#3174853 - 09/24/04 12:15 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
> Absolute chaos would reign...
Worse than lying under oath about getting a blowjob in the oval office?
(lame attempt on my part to illustrate how backwards politics are in the US)
Edited by Seuss (09/24/04 12:16 PM)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rono]
#3174859 - 09/24/04 12:17 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Look, we are talking about WTC 7 here... please don't change the conspiracy on me again.
Do not confuse my debunking of these silly conspiracies as blind support for George Bush.
I didn't say foreign news sources were silent about 9-11. Far from it.
They have suspeced something foul since 9-12-01.
That is why I said, if something was fishy with WTC 7, you could rest assured the World Media would be covering the story like flies on shit... the only links I see presented in this thread are to conspiracy sights... not legit, world news sources.
And I certainly am not quoting the American news sources on this topic.
LIKE I SAID BEFORE. I AM QUOTING MY OWN BRAIN... PERSONAL EXPERIENCE... AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE AREA.
It'd be better in this case, if you didn't doubt my proximity to the WTC when it fell. I know... I'm American, but I am not lying.
While it stood, I spent a lot of spare time at the base of WTC Towers... watching concerts, hanging out... I used to trip and toke there regularly. Yes, I was discrete.
You can learn a lot with your own eyes. I was very firmiliar with the layout of the WTC complex.
While the world media has covered 9-11, I haven't seen any complelling evidence that WTC 7 was brought down for any reason, but to aid in the rescue operation.
Do I think America is perfect? No.
Do I think Bush is a hero? No.
Do I think WTC 7 is part of a big conspiracy? No.
Every WTC building that was not destroyed in the attacks, was torn down eventually.
All the buildings were on THE SAME FOUNDATION.
It was innevetable after the towers fell... WTC 7 was going to come down sooner or later.
The OWNER of WTC 7 says he gave the order to, "Pull it."
Where's the conspiracy?
Oh yeah, nobody knows if WTC 7 burned down or was demolished.
Who cares?
How is this connected to Halliburton, or the Bush clan's relation to Saudi Arabians connected to 9-11?
If you believe in ALL the conspiracies, you begin to look silly... because ALL the conspiracy theories DO NOT support each other.
Yes, America is a big greedy country... but it did not attack its own Pentagon.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (09/24/04 12:42 PM)
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3174993 - 09/24/04 01:01 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:Do not confuse my debunking of these silly conspiracies as blind support for George Bush.
Would you please point out the part where you effectively debunked anything?
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 15 days, 20 hours
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3174999 - 09/24/04 01:02 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
> Would you please point out the part where you debunked anything?
Quote:
Yup, it is true, there were many offices in WTC 7. Secret servivce, New York City's crisis command center, Police, Verizon, perhaps even the FBI (I don't recall exactly)... among countless others. Obviously, since the spooks had offices in there, conspiracy must be near.
But before you get too excited about WTC 7 and all the offices it contained, please remember that the Pentagon was attacked on 9-11 too. The Pentagon is the HEADQUARTERS for all the (known) spooky U.S. govt. agencies. The Pentagon was attacked. For real. On 9-11. By terrorists. The passengers were all on the plane... their bodies and luggage were found in the rubble of the crash. so who gives a fuck about WTC 7?
WTC 7 was damaged in the collapse of the WTC towers. That is fact. How damaged was it? I have no clue. Was it on fire? Was it going to come down anyway? Hard for me to say. I was busy calling friends and family and telling them I was still alive.
All I know is my phone went out for several months the moment WTC 7 came down. My phone company had it's downtown office inside WTC 7. Spooky huh?
I assure you it was a hell of a lot spookier than this dumb conspiracy theory.
Most of the people at Ground Zero at the time of the attacks had no clue what the fuck was going on... especially the firemen (as evidence, I offer up the 100's of dead NYC firemen, who died in the confusion of that day...) communication problems were abundant at ground zero on 9-11. There were many people saying many different things on 9-11... because nobody knew what the fuck was going on. NYC hadn't been attacked since... like... the war of 1812. Americans were nuts on 9-11... especially New Yorkers. This too is a fact.
The building that was supposed to be the command center for New York disasters... was WTC 7. Fact.
At the time WTC 7 came down, nobody knew if the attacks were over. Fact.
Several critical buildings, aside from the The WTC Towers and WTC 7 were severely damaged... by the attack on the WTC. Fact.
WTC 7 came down. Fact.
So what?
Since WTC 7 came down in what appears to be a safe and controlled fassion, the only possible way it could have been brought down was if a bomb was pre-planted inside? Right?
Bullshit.
It was proven earlier THAT day, there are MANY ways to demolish a skyscraper (unless, of course, it was the Teeny-tiny nukes). So... why is every conspiracy theorist a building demolition engineer all of a sudden?
I don't know how WTC 7 came down. I simply haven't looked into it, and I don't care. It doesn't matter. Don't worry, I will thoroughly explain why. It will take a while, but I will. Thanks for getting me to type about something important.
First of all, let us put this into context. Four airplanes were hijacked and crashed on 9-11. One crashed in Pennsylvania... in a field. One hit the Pentagon. Two hit the WTC towers and caused both of them to fall. So... how exactly is WTC 7 even relavant?
Do you even know where WTC 7 stood in the WTC complex? It was right by the West Side Highway, and most rescuers would need to enter near WTC 7. The West Side Highway was the only road nearby that was wide enough to quickly handle all the equiptment required to conduct such a rescue operation. If WTC 7 was damaged, it needed to come down, and fast. If not, it would have been VERY DIFFICULT insert the big equiptment required to clean debris.
It makes a lot of sense to me that WTC 7 was quickly demolished for a good, logical reason. THE RESCUE OPERATION.
After the towers fell, nothing was more important than RESCUE.
Oh yeah, the spooks worked there too (well... they had to work somewhere in NYC). Oh and... a big building couldn't possibly be brought down quickly. It takes demolition experts weeks to bring down a building. Riiiiiiiiiight. You'd be AMAZED at what people can do when lives are on the line.
Ok, now that we have context... but...
Who cares?
If WTC 7 IS the big issue, as you and other "Tin hatters" seem to insist upon believing, you can rest assured the money hungry American, Canadian, English, French, Russian... MEDIA will be on this story like flies on shit.
Really.
Shouldn't Someone credible have said something about it by now? A story THAT big, "EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT... 9-11 WAS NOT WHAT YOU THOUGHT IT WAS!!!!" would sell a lot of papers.
Obviously the major media sources of all the countries in the world are aware of the WTC 7 theory. Why haven't they gone crazy over it? Are they all taking a hit in the pocketbook to protect America? I doubt it.
OK... now why and how did WTC 7 come down?
Well, let's look at the proposed theories.
1. WTC 7 was damaged so bad it was on fire. Since it was going to come down soon... it was quickly brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
2. WTC 7 could not be secured and it contained SECRET UNKNOWN ITEMS that would be better sacrificed than stolen by looters... or God forbid, terrorists... so it was quickly brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
3. WTC 7 was fine... but terrorists had snuck in and sabbotaged the basement. The 9-11 attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC towers were a smoke screen. The real purpose was brining down WTC 7 but the attack failed... WTC 7 still stood... so the terrorists moved to plan B and WTC 7 was brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
4. WTC 7 was damaged by the attacks... it was going to come down soon. Fortunately government spooks had planted high explosives in all the crucial structural support of WTC 7. The spooks then moved everybody out of the area and WTC 7 was brought down in a safe, controlled manor.
5. WTC 7 was damaged and could not be secured. To help with the RESCUE EFFORT, WTC 7 was quickly demolished in a safe, controlled manor. Fuck, they couldn't waste time. People, friends were dead and dying... and until WTC 7 came down, large ammounts of rescuers could not be safe enough to go into ground zero in large numbers.
Well, I could go on all night adding possible ways WTC 7 could have come down... but come on.
I don't know how WTC 7 really came down. To be honest, I haven't even looked. I don't need to. Your articles and information are faulty enough to debunk without research. All I had to do was think.
The building came down. Its collapse was planned well ahead of time. People were moved out of the area. Nobody was hurt.
The rescue operation continued.
--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3175004 - 09/24/04 01:03 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Ekom, in light of what I have already said (since I seem to be typing more than you lately), please point out what I have failed to debunk.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175069 - 09/24/04 01:15 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I appreciate your attempts, but to tell you the truth alot of what I've read by you seem to be generally reflecting the claims that have been pushed by the mainstream media, mixed up with some of your own theories trying to explain what has not yet been explained. How can one assume that your guesses should be considered any more conclusive than anybody elses'?
No to mention your repeated statements "so what?" and "who cares?" suggests to me you probably arn't too interested in learning what the truth is anyway.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3175155 - 09/24/04 01:32 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Well, I have asked you many many times:
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
And...
I'm still waiting for THAT answer.
Remember, this thread's supposed to be about Teeny-tiny nukes.
As for my story and the American media's being similar, perhaps that is because the American and New York media was there, in downtown Manhattan with ME. Reporting the same things I SAW.
How do I lose credibility, when I tell you what I know? Oh yes, because it sounds a lot like the American media's reporting of the event. Since me and the media were there (Where were you?) I suspect our credibility is more sound than you suspect.
Why don't I believe in this conspiracy?
Simple.
I save $$$ on tin foil hats.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175229 - 09/24/04 01:45 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying you have to believe anything, nor is it any of my concern. For all I care, this thread can go in any direction it very well pleases. This is far from the only thread pointing out legitimate questions in regard to 9/11, and many of them have seemed to shift a little off track merly because the discussions lead to new ideas/questions. This is a good thing. I don't know what WTC 7 has to do with anything, that is why I brought it up. How do you suppose it shouldn't be worthy of discussion?
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175404 - 09/24/04 02:23 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Again:
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175424 - 09/24/04 02:27 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I am about to head out to work, but quickly..tell me you know what W199I is? (yes I am shifting the topic slightly for the sake of making a point)
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175486 - 09/24/04 02:40 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
let me try to answer that.
First of all it was a massive skyscraper that collapsed in the midst of the most chaotic terrorist attack in history. It's something you can just cassually ignore like it's nothing.
I just read this entire thread and until a few moments ago it seemed like nobody here was clear on why it had collapsed. That was resovled when someone dug up a article that explained it for what all the "consipracy nuts" claimed it was, which was an implosion.
However, nobody seemed to see "bombs exploding" in the building, which is what everyone seems to think you would see if a building was imploded. There is no footage of these exsplosions yet that is without a doubt what happened.
The fact that it collapsed in the exact same manner as towers 1 and 2 (straight down in a demolition style implosion) seems to backup the conspiracy theorists claims that similar charges were detonated in the towers. If you couldn't see the exsplosions in building 7, then why would you see them in the towers?
The towers fell neatly to the ground which is amazing if it just ramdomly occured from the steel supports melting. A more plausible explaination is that they were also imploded for whatever reason.
So in a sense building 7's collapse is very important.
--------------------
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell; spirituality is for those who have been there.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
#3175499 - 09/24/04 02:44 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3175531 - 09/24/04 02:51 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
This brings up another question I still need answered:
Why is every "Tin Hatter," suddenly a building demolitions expert?
GRAVITY is what causes buildings to fall DOWN.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Seuss]
#3175538 - 09/24/04 02:52 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I found a clip of that poof of smoke I was reffering to earlier, which happens to occur before the collapse:
click here
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/towerblast.html
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3175584 - 09/24/04 02:59 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
WTC 7 was damaged, on fire... and/or demolished.
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (09/24/04 03:08 PM)
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175669 - 09/24/04 03:22 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:
GRAVITY is what causes buildings to fall DOWN.
case closed! 
--------------------
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell; spirituality is for those who have been there.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
#3175726 - 09/24/04 03:40 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
See my last question.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3175845 - 09/24/04 04:11 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
i already responded to this question earlier.
and besides whats the point. even if i had all the answers, i doubt you'd listen to them. you don't really care what it had to do with anything. you seem uniterested in learning and instead totally focused on "discrediting" people. i won't bother wasting my time.
--------------------
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell; spirituality is for those who have been there.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: JonnyOnTheSpot]
#3175920 - 09/24/04 04:29 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
A lot of words you are putting in my mouth...
I assure you I can put words down myself.
I don't put words in your mouth.
I simply ask questions.
If you answered already, refresh my memory.
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
I promise I will respond.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3176591 - 09/24/04 07:39 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
What does George Bush signing a document two months before 9/11 ordering all FBI agents and defence intelligence officers that they would be arrested under national security violations if they stopped the al qaeda terror rings in Chigaco, Florida, New York and New Jersey have to do with anything?
:P
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi
Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3176720 - 09/24/04 08:30 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:Do not confuse my debunking of these silly conspiracies as blind support for George Bush.
Would you please point out the part where you effectively debunked anything?
cant debunk the truth
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3176732 - 09/24/04 08:35 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
What does George Bush signing a document two months before 9/11 ordering all FBI agents and defence intelligence officers that they would be arrested under national security violations if they stopped the al qaeda terror rings in Chigaco, Florida, New York and New Jersey have to do with anything?
:P
Stop changing conspiracies on me!
Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
And, for the last time, what does this have to do with WTC 7?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3176865 - 09/24/04 09:22 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Nobody is changing the conspiracy on you, but merly point out different aspects of the same conspiracy.
Incase you overlooked his post, JonnyOnTheSpot already answered your question, alot better than I probably could I might add. Can you answer my question? Why would bush sign W199I and claim it was an order under 'national security' threatening investigators with arrest if they failed to comply? Is he just an incredibly bigger dumbass than anyone had ever imagined, or might he have done this to ensure that terrorist attacks would happen in order help further his own (but not limited to 'his own') absolutely insane tyrannical agenda?
Just out of curiosity, has CNN or any of your other 'legitimate' sources of information informed you of this document?
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3176962 - 09/24/04 09:45 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
Hows Google? (Warning: By searching for such material you may be considered a terrorist)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3177453 - 09/24/04 11:32 PM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Nobody is changing the conspiracy on you, but merly point out different aspects of the same conspiracy.
Incase you overlooked his post, JonnyOnTheSpot already answered your question, alot better than I probably could I might add. Can you answer my question? Why would bush sign W199I and claim it was an order under 'national security' threatening investigators with arrest if they failed to comply? Is he just an incredibly bigger dumbass than anyone had ever imagined, or might he have done this to ensure that terrorist attacks would happen in order help further his own (but not limited to 'his own') absolutely insane tyrannical agenda?
Just out of curiosity, has CNN or any of your other 'legitimate' sources of information informed you of this document?
I'm still waiting for the link proving Bush said what you claim he said. They do log his speaches you know.
But IMHO, Bush is simply a bigger dumbass than you seem to think he is.
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
Hows Google? (Warning: By searching for such material you may be considered a terrorist)
This is PA&L.
Please... unless you want to look silly, provide YOUR OWN links... if you wish to prove YOUR argument.
Demanding me to do YOUR research is silly... I do MY research.
Besides... I doubt you'd like what I dig up.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3177551 - 09/25/04 12:04 AM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
If you click on the link I provided, you will see that I ran the search for you. Bush didn't do a speach on it, it was a secret document leaked by the former deputy FBI director John O'neil, who quit his job because of it; released these documents, and was dead on Sept 11. He was hired by the owners of the trade centers right after quitting his job, and died in the collapse on his first day on the job.
John O'neil - The Counter-Terrorist
A bunch of W199I links/references/info from Prisonplanet.com - Most comprehensive source of real 9/11 info I know of
FBI 'was told to back off bin Laden family'
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours - Thread on this article from a few days ago
BBC Repot Video on W199I-WF-213589 among other things - Everyone should watch this
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3177635 - 09/25/04 12:23 AM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I will read these links but I need to sleep tonight.
In the interum, let me simply ask, what does this have to do with WTC 7? Oh one more: What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
I'll look into answering YOUR questions tomorrow.
Good night.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3177767 - 09/25/04 01:08 AM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
I really don't understand how you could assume that the building 7 collapse should just be ignored..but to each his own I guess. May I ask what exactly you believe the demolition of building 7 may have had to do with aiding in the 'rescue operation' as you suggested? Something tells me it was likely brought down for other reasons which are probably, of course, secret.
After all of this, I don't think we should be forgetting what went down at the Murrah Building in Oaklahoma City, yet another supposed 'terrorist attack' with a ton of smoking guns suggesting government involvement and a massive (yet blatantly obvious) cover up. Not to mention the first WTC attack in 1993, which was admitedly ordered to take place by an F.B.I. Supervisor.
Government sponsored terrorism is nothing new..so why is it so hard to even grapple with the idea that this could quite possibly be the case yet again with 9/11? The truth hurts sometimes. But no matter how difficult it may be to deal with, I believe we, as fucking human beings, should feel down right motivated to fight for it if need be. I mean, do people like being lied to or what? I hate to see all this bullshit happening, the masses passively accepting what they see in the mainstream media at face value, call me crazy, but alot of it seems to be nothing more than different parts of a big pile of horse shit to me. A big fucking mind game. Fuck! 
Let us remember Emperor Nero, who burned Rome and blamed it on the Christians. Hitler burned the Reichstag and blamed it on his politcal enemy, the communists.. Pearl Harbor was allowed to happen with admitted pre-knowledge as a pretext for war. Is nobody noticing a wee bit of a trend here? Is it really that far fetched to consider that something like this could be happening yet again in these times, IN YOUR OWN FUCKING HI-JACKED COUNTRY?
I'm going to bed too..night all.
Edited by ekomstop (09/25/04 02:44 AM)
|
AhronZombi
AhronZombi
Registered: 04/06/04
Posts: 1,265
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3177797 - 09/25/04 01:18 AM (19 years, 3 days ago) |
|
|
Did you know mayor juliani had a secrete fire proof war room in building seven on one of the top floors witch also housed the FBI CIA and USS. i think this is probabley where the mayor and the government gave supervision of this false terrorist attack. they destroyed it to cover evidance
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3178760 - 09/25/04 11:43 AM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
******I really don't understand how you could assume that the building 7 collapse should just be ignored..but to each his own I guess. May I ask what exactly you believe the demolition of building 7 may have had to do with aiding in the 'rescue operation' as you suggested? Something tells me it was likely brought down for other reasons which are probably, of course, secret.*******
I told you already, WTC 7 was DAMAGED. This is a FACT. And it was the closest, severely damagaded building to the West Side Highway, where the rescue operation was to be conducted. Also a fact (Look at a map). Before the big equiptment could move in, WTC 7 was brought down. This is a Fact.
The owner of WTC 7 (well, he owned the WHOLE WTC) says he gave the order to, "Pull it." This is a Fact.
I also said already, WTC 7 was on the same foundation as the WTC towers... all the WTC buildings were. All those buildings were either destroyed, or brought down. This is a Fact.
Where's the conspiracy surrounding WTC buildings 3-6? They came down too you know. This is a Fact.
I have also said, many buildings were damaged and/or destroyed on that day. Not just the towers and WTC 7. This is a Fact.
THE MILITARY WAS NOT IN CONTROL OF GROUND ZERO ON SEPT 11. The NYPD and NYFD were. They were only concerned in SAVING their dead/injured comrades. Ask around. This is a Fact.
The American press is money hungry. They are not affraid to oppose the American president. The American media is run by MONEY not the American government. Don't believe me? Then look up any story about CBS released in the last week. Until proven wrong, I will choose to say this too is a Fact.
Why is WTC 7's collapse soooo TOP SECRET? EVERYBODY KNEW IT WAS COMING DOWN. They knew when it would collapse. Emergency rescuers and press were cleared out of the area when it did come down. This is a Fact.
And finally to Ahron Zombie... who seems convinced that since government officials worked in WTC 7... it must be a conspiracy...
Ahron, how many Govt agencies were in the Twin towers? I bet more were in the towers than in WTC 7. I'm just guessing... but I'd take that bet.
But it doesn't matter...
Let me say again... THE PENTAGON WAS ATTACKED on 9-11. It is the HEADQUARTERS for the CIA, FBI and USSS. This is a Fact.
What you are suggesting Ahron, is the 9-11 attacks were planned from WTC 7. Where is your proof? NO FACTS HERE.
It makes no sense. Why would people plan attacks from a building so close to the WTC that the towers actually fell on it?
That would be bad planning.
WHY couldn't it just be Al Quaeda?
They ADMIT they planned the attacks. There is VIDEO of Ossama Bin Laden describing what happened on 9-11. Al Quaeda operatives FLEW the planes. MUSLIMS WERE DANCING IN THE STREETS. This is a FACT.
I am about done with this thread. There is no reason to continue.
First, the "Tin Hatters" won't believe anything the US press said on that day... even though they can offer no proof that the US press is conspiring to help the US Govt. attack its own people.
You can really tell a thread is about a conspiracy theory when legitimate (money hungry) news sources are not allowed to be used as evidence.
Second, my LOGIC is being ignored.
Third, this is a silly thread about silly conspiracies. Teeny-tiny nukes? WTC 7 was the most important building in the US Govt.? WTF?
Fourth, I am constantly asked to repeat myself... while eskom refuses to tell me:
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
Fifth, the, "Tin Hatter's" seem to believe only bombs can cause buildings to fall DOWN.
Issac Newton would disagree.
Meh...
I'll save my time for threads where my posts will actually be READ by the people who refute them.
Go ahead, ignore my opinions, but please, do not ignore the facts. It pisses me off. I don't talk about the WTC collapse to recall, "Good times". I do it to tell people who WEREN'T THERE what REALLY happened.
When I say I saw something on 9-11, I did. I saw it. I heard it. I smelled it. I am not the media. I am a New Yorker who lived in the shaddow of the WTC. 3,000 people died in that shaddow.
When my story matches the US media's, I am accused of quoting media sources. As if to discredit me. Perhaps, the media covered the same events that I saw with my own eyes. Ever think of that?
Anyway, obviously, the WTC is still a touchy subject for me.
If I write about it... it pisses me off when facts are repeatedly ignored.
Oh well... at least the US government is paying me soooo well to keep their dirty little secret. Obviously I know what they were up to on that day. I just won't tell.
For my loyalty, the Govt's going to send me a Teeny-tiny nuke.
I'm beginning to wonder why we didn't just attack Canada on 9-11. Perhaps when the Govt. comes through with my Teeny-tiny nuke, I will ammend that.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3178943 - 09/25/04 01:08 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying the media flat out lies, though they definitely seem to like putting a spin on things (ie. the war on terror) probably so that the viewer will percieve certain information in a certain way. And when they DO cover an important story, especially in the case that it might make elements in the government look bad, alot of the time it seems they draw attention to it maybe once or twice, and then brush it off to the side as if it is insignificant and is never heard of again. Yet with all this war on terror bullshit they keep throwing it in your face over and over and over..
If you looked at the links I provided, you would have seen that most if not all of the articles in the 9/11 Archives are reports directly from mainstream news. Yet the mainstream news doesn't seem to be throwing these FACTS in back in your face over and over and over, do they?
You can go ahead and debunk the building 7 mystery all you want, although doing just that doesn't even come close to explaining the loads of other unanswered questions in regards to this entire event.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3178960 - 09/25/04 01:14 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Now THAT we can agree on... sort of.
There are LOTS of unanswered questions about 9-11.
Bush did little to nothing to prepare for an attack... and there is plenty of evidence that supports this argument.
"Farenheit 9-11" was a movie made to look into what Bush was doing before, during and after 9-11. The film does not make GWB look good.
I just don't see what it has to do with the Teeny-tiny nukes and WTC 7.
You're getting your conspiracies crossed... and I am a little perplexed.
The American media never got higher ratings than on 9-11... well, perhaps when OJ Simpson drove his Bronco... real slow.
You can bet your bottom dollar, the Media'd love to break a new story saying, "Bush was responsible for 9-11." It'd sure explain why Bin Laden hasn't been caught.
The media would do anything to get ratings like they had on 9-11-01. If there is a REAL conspiracy, you can bet the media will cover it.
The American media is not nearly as Bush loving as you think.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3178996 - 09/25/04 01:27 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Thing is..many mainstream news organizations HAVE published reports about the Bush Administraion being involved at some level in the attacks. Hell, they are in a big lawsuit over it!! Have you heard much about that story in the mainstream news?
I haven't seen farenheit 9/11..Micheal Moore is kind of a twit. At any rate, there are tons of other documentaries on the subject which irrefutably prove a conspiracy. Do you want to see them? Got soulseek?
|
retread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179013 - 09/25/04 01:32 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
I appreciate your attempts, but to tell you the truth alot of what I've read by you seem to be generally reflecting the claims that have been pushed by the mainstream media, mixed up with some of your own theories trying to explain what has not yet been explained. How can one assume that your guesses should be considered any more conclusive than anybody elses'?
Translation: Everyone that was there says one thing, you agree with it, and the mainstream media reports it. Ergo, it must be wrong.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179017 - 09/25/04 01:33 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Let me explain this to you one more time.
I AGREE, THERE IS MUCH ABOUT 9-11 THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
but...
What does your last post have to do with the Teeny-tiny nukes or WTC 7?
What does WTC 7 have to do with Bush's idiocy?
What does WTC 7 have to do with anything?
I don't see the connection between Bush's bad leadership and the WTC 7 conspiracy... and I have asked you for an answer to this question... like... ten times.
You see, I am not trying to be a dick. I just don't see the connection. I am confused. You keep pointing to Bush, and your links... like they answer my simple question. They don't.
Please, connect the dots, or link me to someone who does.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: retread]
#3179031 - 09/25/04 01:36 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
retread said:
Quote:
ekomstop said:
I appreciate your attempts, but to tell you the truth alot of what I've read by you seem to be generally reflecting the claims that have been pushed by the mainstream media, mixed up with some of your own theories trying to explain what has not yet been explained. How can one assume that your guesses should be considered any more conclusive than anybody elses'?
Translation: Everyone that was there says one thing, you agree with it, and the mainstream media reports it. Ergo, it must be wrong.
Hence, pushed by the mainstream media. As in, they don't seem to want to shut up about one side or one perspective of the story in regards to this whole event.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179057 - 09/25/04 01:43 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I don't know the answer to your question, among a pile of other questions, although I'm sure I (and millions of other people) would love some answers about as much as you do.
You live in New York? Maybe you would find this article interesting.
|
retread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179061 - 09/25/04 01:44 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
Hows Google? (Warning: By searching for such material you may be considered a terrorist)
Four pages of links to conspiracy sites that offer no proof said document existed. You've convinced... noone.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: retread]
#3179074 - 09/25/04 01:50 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
If you click on the link I provided, you will see that I ran the search for you. Bush didn't do a speach on it, it was a secret document leaked by the former deputy FBI director John O'neil, who quit his job because of it; released these documents, and was dead on Sept 11. He was hired by the owners of the trade centers right after quitting his job, and died in the collapse on his first day on the job.
John O'neil - The Counter-Terrorist
A bunch of W199I links/references/info from Prisonplanet.com - Most comprehensive source of real 9/11 info I know of
FBI 'was told to back off bin Laden family'
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours - Thread on this article from a few days ago
BBC Repot Video on W199I-WF-213589 among other things - Everyone should watch this
|
retread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179100 - 09/25/04 02:02 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Yea, I see that. Links from "prison planet" just don't do it for me. The 'fact' that a lot of people might believe the conspiracy don't do anything. Maybe if the ENTIRE TEXT of Order W199I-WF-213589 was available, i'd read it.
|
JonnyOnTheSpot
Sober Surfer
Registered: 01/27/02
Posts: 11,527
Loc: North Carolina
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: retread]
#3179110 - 09/25/04 02:08 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
well if you don't read any of the links because the source "doesn't do it for you" then of course you won't be convinced...cuz you didn't read anything.
this isn't rocket science.
--------------------
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell; spirituality is for those who have been there.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179114 - 09/25/04 02:09 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
I don't know the answer to your question, among a pile of other questions, although I'm sure I (and millions of other people) would love some answers about as much as you do.
If you don't know how WTC 7 is connected to the rest of your conspiracy, why even suggest that WTC 7 is part of your conspiracy at all?
One more question:
On average, how much American media coverage do you watch each week? You seem to know so much about it....
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: retread]
#3179126 - 09/25/04 02:14 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179149 - 09/25/04 02:24 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
What does THAT have to do with THIS thread?
You started this thread saying the WTC fell because of Teeny-tiny nukes.
Then you said WTC 7 was the REAL conspiracy.
Now, you are pointing to articles about GWB calling the Feds off of AL Quaeda's case.
True or not, these three different events have nothing to do with one another.
You should start a new thread every time you wish to change the subject.
You refuse to answer questions. Instead, you point to another conspiracy.
For example, when I refuted your WTC 7 theory, you then pointed me to Bush, calling off the hunt for Al Quaeda... BEFORE 9-11... WHEN THE USA WAS NOT AT WAR.
That has nothing to do with WTC 7.
Before you find a new conspiracy to point to, start a new thread.
This thread's getting too muddled... it refuses to stay on one topic.
Either connect the dots, or start a new conspiracy thread with a new topic.
Your links to Bush have NOTHING... let me repeat that... NOTHING to do with bombs in the WTC.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179155 - 09/25/04 02:25 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I brought up building 7 because I think it should be very worthy of speculation, especially knowing that just about everything that was proposed as the 'truth' on 9/11 reaked of stenchy shadyness.
I get alot of my news from www.prisonplanet.com and www.rense.com but am not limited to those sites at all.. I don't have a tv so the net is pretty much my main source of information.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179163 - 09/25/04 02:27 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Cervantes said:connect the dots
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179184 - 09/25/04 02:37 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
I brought up building 7 because I think it should be very worthy of speculation, especially knowing that just about everything that was proposed as the 'truth' on 9/11 reaked of stenchy shadyness.
I get alot of my news from www.prisonplanet.com and www.rense.com but am not limited to those sites at all.. I don't have a tv so the net is pretty much my main source of information.
Ok... that is info you should have presented MUCH earlier in your argument. Like one of the other 10 times I asked.
You basically said you think WTC 7 is a conspiracy because NOBODODY is telling the truth about 9-11.
Give me a break... Facts are facts.
I told you the truth, and you just brushed it off. Convinced the American media or the Feds had gotten to me already.
You ignore truth and cling to conspiracy.
I would've just thrown out everything you said about the American media... if I had KNOWN you NEVER watch American news.
I would have known that you got your information from conspiracy websites... instead of legitimate news sources.
I would have known why you brought up WTC 7.
What amazes me most, is how blindly you believe in these silly conspiracy websites of yours. It is NOT THEIR JOB to be objective.
Legitimate news sources, on the other hand, must strive to remain objective. They get in trouble if they don't. Again, let me point you to the trouble CBS ( A legitimate, news source) got in a few weeks ago for failing to remain objective.
Your websites are not scrutinized the same way the legitimate media is. Your websites can post whatever the fuck they want. The legitimate media can not.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179197 - 09/25/04 02:44 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179205 - 09/25/04 02:48 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
prisonplanet.com and rense.com -- the two most deranged barking moonbat whackjob websites on the web today. I mean... rense.com. rense.com fa cryin' out loud!
And after wading through at least a dozen of those tedious links, I have yet to find the text of Executive Order w1991 at any of them. Just "this guys says it says thus-and-such" and "some dude told me it says this-and-that".
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3179214 - 09/25/04 02:51 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
well if it doesn't exist, why hasn't Bush himself ever denied signing it?
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention http://www.guerrillanews.com and http://slashdot.org/
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179231 - 09/25/04 02:54 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
What, is Bush supposed to give a press conference some day and say, "Before you guys get started, let me say I never signed Executive Orders which don't exist. I never signed w1991 or x2343 or y6552 or z3318."
Give me a transcript of a press conference where a reporter asked him about this executive order, please.
pinky
--------------------
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3179248 - 09/25/04 02:59 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
He also needs to answer to the CBS forgeries. And right now, too, dammit.
--------------------
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179254 - 09/25/04 03:00 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Perhaps George Bush is too busy playing president to waste his time debunking prisonplanet.com and rense.com .
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3179282 - 09/25/04 03:12 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
If I had one, I would be happy to pass it along. I'd also be interested in seeing an article or two debunking the claim if you can manage to track any down. Why don't you take a look at the copy of the original document that I posted, read the articles, and watch the BBC news report about it? You Bush heads keep wanting more and more 'legitimate' news sources, and when they are given, they seem to always end up flying right over your heads. What more do you need?
Quote:
He also needs to answer to the CBS forgeries. And right now, too, dammit.
Would you please point out where I mentioned anything about this, and/or why I (or anyone) should give a flying fuck about bush's past?
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179306 - 09/25/04 03:21 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
He was making a joke. A joke not worth explaining to you... I fear you wouldn't get it.
Ah... hell... OK... I'll explain.
CBS published forged documents.
Why should Bush rebute those documents? They were proven to be fake.
See?
Funny.
OK... not too funny but it WAS a joke.
Unfortunately, I have no links to back up this claim.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole
Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 3 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179311 - 09/25/04 03:24 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
well if it doesn't exist, why hasn't Bush himself ever denied signing it?
I haven't denied signing it either. Nor have I denied that I was once, in another life, a monkey that flew out of Abraham Lincoln's ass and infected all of Antarctica with Teutonic plague. Get it yet.
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3179312 - 09/25/04 03:25 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
*calms down*
in that case i appologize..i guess all the ignorance was getting me frustrated
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: zappaisgod]
#3179328 - 09/25/04 03:33 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:I haven't denied signing it either. Nor have I denied that I was once, in another life, a monkey that flew out of Abraham Lincoln's ass and infected all of Antarctica with Teutonic plague. Get it yet.
yeah, yeah..my bad. I'm just getting sick of 'arguing' over all this shit still..I think I might be about done here
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3179360 - 09/25/04 03:46 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I think I might be about done here
I think many will agree...... excellent.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3179856 - 09/25/04 06:00 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
I think we tuckered him out.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
frogger25
Stranger
Registered: 06/10/03
Posts: 151
Loc: east coast
Last seen: 17 years, 2 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3180144 - 09/25/04 07:08 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
"WHY couldn't it just be Al Quaeda?
They ADMIT they planned the attacks. There is VIDEO of Ossama Bin Laden describing what happened on 9-11. Al Quaeda operatives FLEW the planes. MUSLIMS WERE DANCING IN THE STREETS. This is a FACT. "
i dont think so
http://theunjustmedia.com/Al-Qaeda/American%20government%20lie's%20about%20osama%20bin%20laden.htm
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: frogger25]
#3180405 - 09/25/04 08:07 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
This thread is hilarious.
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3180967 - 09/25/04 10:32 PM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
Hows Google? (Warning: By searching for such material you may be considered a terrorist)
I looked for some info on W199I-WF-213589 and I failed to find any evidence that the document even exists. Can you provide any?
--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: z@z.com]
#3181775 - 09/26/04 02:02 AM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
z@z.com said:
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Quote:
Cervantes said:Link (From a credible source please... hell... Al Jazeera will do!)?
Hows Google? (Warning: By searching for such material you may be considered a terrorist)
I looked for some info on W199I-WF-213589 and I failed to find any evidence that the document even exists. Can you provide any?
Everybody knows... all of Bush's missing-super-secret documents begin with "W".
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3182151 - 09/26/04 10:16 AM (19 years, 2 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I looked for some info on W199I-WF-213589 and I failed to find any evidence that the document even exists. Can you provide any?
yeah, go back a page or two
Quote:
Cervantes said:Everybody knows... all of Bush's missing-super-secret documents begin with "W".
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3182457 - 09/26/04 12:42 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Welcome back!
ZAZ is looking for a copy of W199I-WF-213589, from a legitimate news source. The entire text, from beginning to end.
I've seen what you have presented in this thread. You have not presented W199I-WF-213589 and nobody else is able to find it.
There is no evidence that this bill "Really" exists.
Remember, in PA&L you should provide links.
Don't get upset at ZAZ just because he can't find W199I-WF-213589.
Link him to it.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Great_Satan
prophet of God
Registered: 09/05/04
Posts: 953
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3182514 - 09/26/04 12:57 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
WTC 7 collapsed because of damage from WTC 1 and 2 collapsing.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3182515 - 09/26/04 12:57 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I posted the only photo I know of of the original document, and I highly doubt you are going to find george bush announcing this ingenious decision that was made in the name of 'national security' in any of his speaches. The fact that this order was made in the name of 'national security' should really make you wonder what his version of the term 'national security' (which he seems to use quite often) is actually supposed to mean. Again, this document was secret, and was leaked by former deputy FBI director John O'neil who died on Sept 11 on his first day on the job inside the WTC.
So can we assume this was just a co-incidence or what? You can call me a crazy conspiracy theorist all you want, but this is a fact. I posted a segment from a BBC NEWS report about W199I, among links to piles of articles referencing back to it..what more are you looking for? I have done enough digging around for information to satisfy your abstaining asses, if you are so sure it doesn't exist, then to be fair, I suggest you put a little effort into your argument and find a source suggesting otherwise.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3182597 - 09/26/04 01:23 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Yes, but I said, you should link ZAZ to the full text of the document, from a LEGITIMATE, objective, news source. Just 'cause you linked to the BBC doesn't mean your prescious BBC Link had the FULL TEXT... or any text for that matter. The link with the text was a conspiracy link. And if memory serves me... it was not the full text.
Hell, even a passing refrence to the document would do.
Have you tried Al Jazeera yet?
The problem with conspiracy sights is right in the title.
They are Conspiracy THEORIES. The people who run these sights wouldn't have Conspiracy THEORIES if they had PROOF. People at conspiracy sights rely on little to no evidence. This way, they can create THEORIES. THEORIES are not PROOF. Hell, some theories are pretty sound... the Theory of Relativity, the Patheagirean Theory... but often enough, Conspiracy = NO REAL EVIDENCE OR PROOF.
the?o?ry
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3182640 - 09/26/04 01:36 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
In reguards to your BBC video link,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/cta/progs/newsnight/attack22.ram
Why is there no BBC trademark on your BBC video link?
There are no credits.
There are no BRITS.
Show me where you found that link. It doesn't come up when you search the BBC website.
Why does nobody in the video or narration speak with an English accent?
This is NOT a BBC production.
BOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3182758 - 09/26/04 02:06 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Alot of people have been conditioned to associate the word 'theory' with conspiracy, even when the official story is as good as swiss cheese in terms of probablillity.
When you take a look at a site such as this which has gathered all kinds of news articles from your beloved mainstream media which are clearly suggesting a conspiracy, how can you honestly still deny the mere possibility of one? You said yourself you agreed that there are many unanswered questions in regard to the event. Unanswered questions can in many cases point toward a possible conspiracy, can they not? The best genuine conspiracy theory I am aware of is probably the bush admins and mainstream medias explination of 9/11.
After an overwhelming ammount of warnings of a potential threat, hijackers who some of which were believed to have trained at US air bases (some of which are subsequently still alive today) were said to have took over multiple airliners in a relatively short timeframe using boxcutters as weapons; flying them into buildings right over a no-fly zone with NORAD standing down, not doing shit about it and then the media offering an 'explination' of everything on the same day suggesting it was all Bin Ladens fault..Of course, Bin Laden must have orchestrated everything, with no help what so ever from government insiders from his cave in Afghanistan. Afterwards reports claiming that American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis/Taliban members were flown to safety post 9/11, in a series of nighttime airlifts that was approved by the Bush Administration. And then the Anthrax attacks which were shoved in your face repeatedly via the media, building up more hype for this rediculous war on terror, where then we find out that individuals in white house including the bush administration started taking Cipro weeks before the anthrax attacks..
Think any of this is not true? LOOK IT UP. I'm getting tired of trying to prove my point to people who are either not able to conceive of the possibility that a terrorist attack could have been orchestrated by elements in the government, or will simply just do anything to steer away from the facts to avoid conflict with the information they have already digested.
How about giving what they are counting on you not doing a chance, and take a minute and think about it? How 'probable' is all of this? Conspiracy? Theorys? Co-incidence? What?
Edited by ekomstop (09/26/04 04:12 PM)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3182921 - 09/26/04 03:00 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
You're changing conspiracies again.
As for the "W" document,
I can't "Look up" what doesn't exist.
So I take it that wasn't an actual BBC production?
You are sooo good at ignoring the flow of your own thread.
When you write a post as long as your last one, in response to me, I'd like to think at least some of your time would be spent answering the questions I asked you.
1. Why is there no BBC trademark on your BBC video link?
2. Why does nobody in the video or narration speak with an English accent?
3. (not a question... but still) Show me where you found that link. It doesn't come up when you search the BBC website.
The video begins after the opening credits and ends before the closing credits... no BBC symbol is on the screen... what is the video even CALLED?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (09/26/04 03:13 PM)
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3182971 - 09/26/04 03:20 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I originally found the video here: http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/desantisArticles/2003_800/desantis820/truth.html
Link to transcript on BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1645527.stm
Remember, this was leaked information and the man who leaked it to BBC was killed. This is very volatile information, and I don't think BBC is about to announce it all over the news and their website as to cause all kinds of controversey in the minds of the public. I would still be happy to see something suggesting this information is innacurate, I'm sure BBC would aswell, as is said in their disclaimer towards the top of that page. So if you can find something, I'm sure quite alot of people would be thankful for that.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3182991 - 09/26/04 03:26 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
So it isn't a BBC production?
Can you provide any legitimate links to the "W" document?
This is wasting my time.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183018 - 09/26/04 03:35 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183027 - 09/26/04 03:38 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
L E G I T I M A T E
O B J E C T I V E
Can you not read? I've seen those links, and the ABC link has nothing to do with anything.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3183039 - 09/26/04 03:42 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Theres nothing left to debate here. Maybe if you re-read this thread you might get an idea of why I even bothered putting an effort into this discussion.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183052 - 09/26/04 03:48 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
This is my third time posting this in this thread..take it or leave it.
Quote:
yeah, yeah..my bad. I'm just getting sick of 'arguing' over all this shit still..I think I might be about done here
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: luvdemshrooms]
#3183061 - 09/26/04 03:50 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183078 - 09/26/04 03:54 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3183104 - 09/26/04 03:59 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183112 - 09/26/04 04:01 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Changing conspiracies again?
p.s. lol
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3183117 - 09/26/04 04:02 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
You're too funny 
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183249 - 09/26/04 04:50 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
None of your links -- not one of them -- mention any executive order signed by George Bush or even any presidential executive order at all. Most of them don't even mention the 199 document at all. One does mention it, but doesn't even quote from it, nor does it identify the memo as an Executive Order.
Finally, the photo from the BBC link shows about a paragraph of something written in 1996. No indication it is a Presidential Executive Order or anything other than an FBI memo. And of course, George Bush was not president in 1996.
Did the FBI do a bad job of tracking Islamic terrorists? Certainly. Was there a conspiracy originating from the White House to give the Jihadists free reign? Nope.
Your "evidence" is laughable. If you're going to provide links to try to prove a point, please at least provide links that actually refer to the evidence you are introducing. I wasted too much of my time combing through that crap looking for information to this mysterious "executive order", and not a single one of those freaking links even mentioned an executive order.
You want to know why we don't take you seriously? It's because of stunts like this. If I'm asked to back up my point, I provide links that have something to do with my freaking point! I suggest you do the same.
pinky
--------------------
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183254 - 09/26/04 04:52 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
So basically there is one known photo of the document, it was leaked by a man who is now dead, the full text is not available, no evidence exists at all showing that it is legitimate, and I am supposed to believe that it exists and is an order from the president?
--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3183258 - 09/26/04 04:53 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Did you lose your glasses? I'm not even going to bother.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: z@z.com]
#3183266 - 09/26/04 04:57 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I'm not saying you have to believe anything. Though I will say that I have seen no documents suggesting the document doesn't exist, and if you know of any, I'm sure BBC would love to hear from you
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183269 - 09/26/04 04:58 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
No, I didn't lose my glasses. I read each of those links top to bottom. Nowhere does any of them mention a Presidential Executive Order titled w1991- whatever.
Feel free to prove me wrong. Should be easy -- provide the link, cut and paste a quote from the link and tell us where in the link it can be found -- i.e. "halfway down the page" or "seventh paragraph" or whatever.
Or if you wish, cut and paste the entire contents of the link and highlight the relevant section.
Those links were a complete waste of time because six of them don't even refer to Executive order w1991- whatever! Why are you having such difficulty grasping this?
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183288 - 09/26/04 05:06 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I have seen no documents suggesting the document doesn't exist
Since when does it need to be shown something doesn't exist?
That's not how it works.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3183311 - 09/26/04 05:13 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_inganamort_010703_conspiracy.html
Another widely overlooked conspiracy theory about the events of September 11th is the reasoning for George W. Bush, shortly after becoming president, according to a widely available BBC News video, to issue Executive Order W199I-WF-213589, demanding that Federal investigators "back off" of the bin Ladens and the group ABL, because of it's relationship with WAMY,(World Assembly of Muslim Youth). According to a report prepared for the UN, Saudi Arabia has transferred $500 million to Al Qaeda over the past decade, yet like the bin Ladens themselves who were flown out of the US by the CIA after the attacks, they are above suspicion because of business dealings they have with the Bush Administration(s). Senator Bob Graham publicly admitted, based on information he has received, that at least one foreign country assisted the 9-11 terrorists, and we won't find out who that is for the next 20 or 30 years.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/tyranny/
W199I - restricting the investigation
A couple months before 9/11 George W. Bush signed W199I threatening FBI investigators with arrest if they try to arrest members of the Al Queda. George Bush signed the papers, he is a traitor to humanity. He is business partners wit Osama Bin Laden and deserves to be thrown in jail.
Within days of 9/11, the Bush Administration provided safe passage out of the US for 14 members of the Bin Laden family, without interrogation.
In 1996 the Clinton Administration discouraged the FBI from investigating links between Osama Bin Laden's brothers Abdulla and Omar and the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), a known terrorist front organization.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4293682,00.html
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
=========
BBC is of course the main source for "W199I" specifically, as that is where O'neil was said to have originally leaked the information to. Although as you can see in that guardian report, it was stated by FBI officials and defence intel that there was something getting in the way of their investigations..makes me wonder what might that have been?
Personally, I think the fact that he was hired and died on his first day on the job in the WTC sounds VERY suspicious. Again, if anybody has anything suggesting the document never existed, I'd love to see it, as would BBC and probably everybody else who has come into contact with this information.
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183343 - 09/26/04 05:24 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ekomstop said:
Again, if anybody has anything suggesting the document never existed, I'd love to see it, as would BBC aswell as probably everyone else who has come across this information.
I hold in my hand a document proving that there was no link between GWB and 9-11. It also proves beyond a doubt that Kerry is behind the attacks. I will not show you the text of this document, but I will tell you that I got it from an alien who burst into flames after leaking it to me. If you don't like it feel free to provide evidence that this document does not exist.
--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: z@z.com]
#3183361 - 09/26/04 05:32 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Bush..Kerry..whats the difference?
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183374 - 09/26/04 05:36 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Here's the full article from the guardian since the link is cut off by that comma..
FBI claims Bin Laden inquiry was frustrated
Officials told to 'back off' on Saudis before September 11
Greg Palast and David Pallister
Guardian
Wednesday November 7, 2001
FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11.
US intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied.
FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked.
The FBI file, marked Secret and coded 199, which means a case involving national security, records that Abdullah bin Laden, who lived in Washington, had originally had a file opened on him "because of his relationship with the World Assembly of Muslim Youth - a suspected terrorist organisation".
WAMY members deny they have been involved with terrorist activities, and WAMY has not been placed on the latest list of terrorist organisations whose assets are being frozen.
Abdullah, who lived with his brother Omar at the time in Falls Church, a town just outside Washington, was the US director of WAMY, whose offices were in a basement nearby.
But the FBI files were closed in 1996 apparently before any conclusions could be reached on either the Bin Laden brothers or the organisation itself. High-placed intelligence sources in Washington told the Guardian this week: "There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis".
They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations involving other members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi royals, and possible Saudi links to the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Pakistan.
"There were particular investigations that were effectively killed."
Only after the September 11 attacks was the stance of political and commercial closeness reversed towards the other members of the large Bin Laden clan, who have classed Osama bin Laden as their "black sheep".
Yesterday, the head of the Saudi-based WAMY's London office, Nouredine Miladi, said the charity was totally against Bin Laden's violent methods. "We seek social change through education and cooperation, not force."
He said Abdullah bin Laden had ceased to run WAMY's US operation a year ago.
Neither Abdullah nor Omar bin Laden could be contacted in Saudi Arabia for comment.
WAMY was founded in 1972 in a Saudi effort to prevent the "corrupting" ideas of the west ern world influencing young Muslims. With official backing it grew to embrace 450 youth and student organisations with 34 offices worldwide.
Its aim was to encourage "concerned Muslims to take up the challenge by arming the youth with sound understanding of Islam, guarding them against destructive ideologies, and instilling in them level-headed wisdom".
In Britain it has 20 associated organisations, many highly respectable.
But as long as 10 years ago it was named as a discreet channel for public and private Saudi donations to hardline Islamic organisations. One of the recipients of its largesse has been the militant Students Islamic Movement of India, which has lent support to Pakistani-backed terrorists in Kashmir and seeks to set up an Islamic state in India.
Since September 11 WAMY has been investigated in the US along with a number of other Muslim charities. There have been several grand jury investigations but no findings have been made against any of them.
Current FBI interest in WAMY is shown in their agents' interrogation of a radiologist from San Antonio, Texas, Dr Al Badr al-Hazmi, who was arrested on September 12 and released without charge two weeks later. He had the same surname as two of the plane hijackers.
He was also questioned about his contacts with Abdullah bin Laden at the US WAMY office.
Mr Al-Hazmi said that he had made phone calls to Abdullah bin Laden in 1999 trying to obtain books and videotapes about Islamic teachings for the Islamic Centre of San Antonio.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183607 - 09/26/04 07:22 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
ekomstop's quote from a prisonplanet screed:
Quote:
Another widely overlooked conspiracy theory about the events of September 11th is the reasoning for George W. Bush, shortly after becoming president, according to a widely available BBC News video, to issue Executive Order W199I-WF-213589, demanding that Federal investigators "back off" of the bin Ladens and the group ABL, because of it's relationship with WAMY,(World Assembly of Muslim Youth).
Sigh. The only content we have seen of this "widely available" Executive Order W199I-WF-213589 is roughly a paragraph of something purported to be an FBI memo (which does not say it is an Executive Order signed by any president, and doesn't display the numbers W1991-WF-213589) from 1996 -- long before Bush was president.
Someone else earlier in the thread pointed out doubts that the video is even a BBC video.
This is all hogwash.
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3183659 - 09/26/04 07:39 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
The guardian isn't 'legitimate' enough a source for you either?
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183661 - 09/26/04 07:40 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
GREAT!
So, if BBC has all this information, I'm sure you can provide us with some BBC articles, FROM THE BBC... about the BBC "W" document.
Christ! My first post today asked you to provide the same link.
If BBC is the source, link me to where BBC says anything about it.
How can this discussion go on when the person who started won't provide his own research.
If it weren't so damn funny, this'd be a total waste of time.
In my first post today I said,
Quote:
"ZAZ is looking for a copy of W199I-WF-213589, from a legitimate news source. The entire text, from beginning to end. "
Then, another post,
Quote:
"Yes, but I said, you should link ZAZ to the full text of the document, from a LEGITIMATE, objective, news source. Just 'cause you linked to the BBC doesn't mean your prescious BBC Link had the FULL TEXT... or any text for that matter. The link with the text was a conspiracy link. And if memory serves me... it was not the full text. "
In reguards to the BBC link,
Quote:
"I have already said, Show me where you found that link. It doesn't come up when you search the BBC website. "
Later I asked three questions:
Quote:
" 1. Why is there no BBC trademark on your BBC video link?
2. Why does nobody in the video or narration speak with an English accent?
3. (not a question... but still) Show me where you found that link. It doesn't come up when you search the BBC website."
Patiently, I tried again in yet another post,
Quote:
"Can you provide any legitimate links to the "W" document?"
That's when Pinky and Zaz chimed in asking you for the same information.
Thanks for ignoring everybody, while calling us names.
Are you a paranoid schizophrenic? Are you insane? Do you like the attention? Or are you just fucking with us?
Where are the answers we want? It is OK to admit it if you can't find any.
This is entertaining, but really, your antics are better suited for OTD.
Hurry and answer, or stop wasting our time.
Oh, and don't change damn the subject again.
Otherwise, you're just abusing this forum and its members. You know better.
Oh, and I am still waiting to find out what any of this has to do with Teeny-tiny nukes and WTC 7.
What a crock.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3183731 - 09/26/04 07:59 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
The best article I have found is the one by the guardian up above, the only reference I could find to BBC was the video which they aired on Nightline. The guardian references back the BBC, while also stating that they aquired the documents from them. I am not trying to play games, but merly try and open some people up to the fact that your government consists of a bunch of corrupt liars. If it seems like I am intentionally changing the subject on you, I appologize for the confusion, but this is all pertinent information IMO, and as you said earlier, one should give connecting the dots a try.
so tell me, is the guardian a legitimate enough source for you?
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183760 - 09/26/04 08:05 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Unfortunately, no. As far as I can tell, the guardian is not considered an Objective news source.
Just because a websight is not an objective news source doesn't mean they are completely bullshit (The Shroomery, for example, is not an objective news source... but it still has its moments)... still, your guardian link is far from the smoking gun you need to prove this point.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183765 - 09/26/04 08:06 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
No. The Guardian is a leftist rag.
Besides, in this case they are referencing something mentioned in a televised news segment. The Guardian has never seen the document in question, has no way of verifying its authenticity, and is basically just recapping what they saw on TV. "This guy said thus and so" doesn't authenticate anything.
If the BBC is truly in possession of a copy of a real Presidential Executive Order from 1996, it stands to reason they would do more with it than mention it once on a single news segment.
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3183809 - 09/26/04 08:18 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
I don't know, man..
"FBI documents shown on BBC Newsnight last night and obtained by the Guardian show that they had earlier sought to investigate two of Osama bin Laden's relatives in Washington and a Muslim organisation, the World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY), with which they were linked."
Quote:
If the BBC is truly in possession of a copy of a real Presidential Executive Order from 1996, it stands to reason they would do more with it than mention it once on a single news segment.
I don't know where your getting 1996 from, the document has 2001 written on it, aswell as the news report itself. Also, I'm not sure they would be too crazy with the idea in bringing this stuff into the mainstream..I mean, look what happened to O'neil, Kennedy, Tesla, ect, ect, ect..
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183908 - 09/26/04 08:43 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Good God, man! Don't you freaking read this shit before you post it?????
The quote you supplied says nothing about the Guardian receiving Presidential Executive Orders! It talks about FBI documents. Can you not grasp the difference between "Presidential Executive Order" and "FBI document"????
I don't know where your getting 1996 from, the document has 2001 written on it...
What document? If you go to your own freaking link and actually look at it for more than a second and a half you'll see there are two documents in the image. One is laid crosswise over the other, obscuring almost all of the bottom document. The one on the bottom is dated September 13, 2001 true, but it's certainly no Executive Order. It is clearly (presuming it's not a fake like Dan Rather's famous forgeries) an FBI communication. The one on top is quite obviously an FBI communication of one sort or the other from 1996. And the infamous "1991-WF-213589" is not the number of a Presidential Executive Order, it is the FBI's case number for the subject in question. It says so right on the document itself, fa cryin' out loud!
"Case ID : 1991-WF-213589"
Even the format of the numbers is wrong. Here is a link to real executive orders signed by Bush. Note their format -- "12543", "12333", etc. A simple 5 digit number. No dashes, no letters, no prefixes. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/orders/
Also note the formal and legalistic language of the orders. Not even close to the style of writing in the information memos the FBI uses when discussing ongoing cases.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3183922 - 09/26/04 08:47 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
ekomstop writes:
Also, I'm not sure they would be too crazy with the idea in bringing this stuff into the mainstream..I mean, look what happened to O'neil, Kennedy, Tesla, ect, ect, ect..
Oh, right. They have no problem televising the accusation on BBC -- do you not believe BBC is mainstream?
"Nope, they won't assassinate us for televising stuff. But we sure as hell better not ever make the same accusations in print with actual proof, or we might end up like Kennedy or Tesla."
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3183990 - 09/26/04 09:08 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out, upon looking into this it seems that the reference to 1996 is actualy said to be something different, I am going to have to look into it further. Are you looking at this: http://www.propagandamatrix.com/W199I.gif ? The paper is referencing to 1996, not claiming the order was written in 1996. To clarify, can you point out which link you are reading that states it was documented in 1996?
I believe this is what they are referencing to:
http://gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=103&row=1
But the FBI files were closed in 1996 apparently before any conclusions could be reached on either the Bin Laden brothers or the organisation itself. High-placed intelligence sources in Washington told the Guardian this week: "There were always constraints on investigating the Saudis".
Looks like this may have been going on longer than I had originaly anticipated..
Also, the format of the numbers in secret documents differ from those which are made public.
in addition, to quote from the guardian article: "The FBI file, marked Secret and coded 199, which means a case involving national security,"
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184017 - 09/26/04 09:17 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
And again, we are not referring to Executive Orders here, but FBI files.
Reread everything you put up. Clearly when they are talking about a case being closed and then put up a piece of paper referring to that case and showing the date when the file was closed, the odds are that the document they are quoting from is a 1996 document.
But of course, we have no way of knowing that, because they show just a tiny fragment of the document. That's my whole point, dude. Your whackjob conspiracy doofuses see nothing wrong in throwing up pictures of fragments and obscured documents, waving a magic wand over the whole mess, then claiming that it is proof of some mythical "secret" Executive Order.
If you want to cling to the idea that some Executive Orders are never released to the public, and that these executive orders have a different numbering system so that the press officers know which ones to release and which ones not to, that is of course your prerogative. But you have no proof that this is so -- just speculation.
But don't expect a rational person to believe the same. Rational people like to have some evidence.
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3184039 - 09/26/04 09:23 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Whatever man, your obviously pretty biased in your approach to this; ie claiming the guardian is a 'leftist rag' and therefore not a legitimate source for news..is BBC also a 'leftist rag' in your opinion? if this is all bullshit then why doesn't anybody give BBC or the Guardian shit for publishing disinformation? I mean, they seemed pretty quick to jump on that apparent CBS fallacy..
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184105 - 09/26/04 09:36 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
For the Last Time, THE GUARDIAN IS NOT HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANYTHING IT PRINTS so anything it prints is not valid to anybody without a tin hat, and you have yet to provide another link from anywhere else that pertains to the "W" document at all. Not even the BBC... who allegedly aired it.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184141 - 09/26/04 09:42 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
ekomstop writes:
Whatever man, your obviously pretty biased in your approach to this;
Wanting evidence is biased? You seem willing to accept anything that anyone says, with no critical judgment, as long as it makes the US look bad. You yourself have seen exactly zero evidence that such an order exists.
...claiming the guardian is a 'leftist rag' ...
But The Guardian is a leftist rag. It's as biased as AP, al-Reuters, the LA Times and the New York Times.
is BBC also a 'leftist rag' in your opinion?
There's no question that the BBC is a left-leaning news source. Read their stuff and see for yourself.
But that's beside the point. What is the point is that left-leaning or right-leaning, they haven't provided the document in question for inspection -- by anyone, biased or not. There's a voice-over of some newsreader claiming that O'Neil provided them with this secret Executive Order. Fine. Let's see the damn thing, then. What did they do with it after the broadcast? Burn it? Why does a Google search for it yield nothing but that one newscast or articles referring to that one newscast? Where is that document today?
I'll tell you where it is -- it doesn't freaking exist. If it did, you can be 100% sure that Michael Moore or the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground or moveon.org would have it prominently featured in all its glory on their websites, and if you believe otherwise you're delusional.
if this is all bullshit then why doesn't anybody give BBC or the Guardian shit for publishing disinformation?
Because they're English, duh.
I mean, they seemed pretty quick to jump on that apparent CBS fallacy.
Sure... for two reasons.
1) It was broadcast on a highly respected American investigative journalism show
2) CBS (to their eternal regret) made photos of the documents available. The BBC didn't.
pinky
--------------------
|
Zahid
Stranger
Registered: 01/21/02
Posts: 4,779
Last seen: 18 years, 11 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3184154 - 09/26/04 09:44 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
pinky, there is no such thing as unbiased media.
--------------------
|
Gijith
Daisy Chain Eater
Registered: 12/04/03
Posts: 2,400
Loc: New York
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Zahid]
#3184181 - 09/26/04 09:51 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Zahid said:
pinky, there is no such thing as unbiased media.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3184209 - 09/26/04 09:58 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
So would it then be safe to assume that FOX, CNN, and Clear Channel are taking the position of the 'rightists' and should therefore be accepted as the worlds most ultimate portrayors of truth?
For the sake of speculation, lets go with the idea that W199I doesn't exist, and has never existed. Why is it then, that the bush administration clearly ignored all forewarnings of a potential terrorist threat? And then why did they blatantly LIE to you after it happened saying they have never 'heard' of such a thing as 'outrageous' as terrorists hi-jacking planes for the purpose of crashing them into buildings?
Click to see all articles
U.S. intelligence received warnings of terrorist attacks from Randy Glass
Center for Cooperative Research - 01/30/04
A fascinating video relating to an important unheeded warning of the 9/11 attacks was shown on WPTV, an NBC TV station in Florida on October 7, 2002. This video has been overlooked and forgotten until now.
German trial hears how Iranian agent warned US of impending al-Qaida attack
London Guardian - 01/24/04
The United States was warned of impending September 11 terrorist attacks by an Iranian spy, but ignored him, German secret service agents testified yesterday in the trial of an alleged al-Qaida terrorist.
Sept 11 terror suspect 'publicly announced attacks in 1999': A witness at the trial of a September 11 terror suspect has been pressed by a judge about her memory that one of the hijackers predicted an attack on the US.
MI6 warned US of Al-Qaeda attacks: MI6 warned the American intelligence services about a plot to hijack aircraft and crash them into buildings two years before the September 11 attacks.
September 11 attacks called avoidable: The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said yesterday that the September 11 "hijackers could have been stopped" had U.S. officials acted on intelligence information available before the terrorist attacks.
America warned two years ago over "September 11": report: Britain's foreign intelligence service MI6 warned the United States about terrorist plans to use civilian planes in "unconventional ways" two years before the September 11 strikes, according to a newspaper report.
SENATE BIG REVEALS MORE 9/11 WARNINGS: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee said yesterday he's uncovered new pre-9/11 warnings from a "variety of agencies."
New York Times pulled Al-Qaeda warning: Burns, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winner, wrote an article that appeared on the Times's Web site Sept. 8. But Burns's prescient piece about Osama bin Laden never appeared in the newspaper, and the Times quickly expunged it from the electronic archives.
U.S. had agents inside al-Qaeda: U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group.
Wiretaps May Have Foretold Terror Attacks: Suspected Al Qaeda operatives wiretapped by Italian police in the 13 months preceding Sept. 11 made apparent references to plans for major attacks involving airports, airplanes and the United States, according to transcripts obtained by The Times on Tuesday.
U.S. Ignored Warnings From French: A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11.
FBI Was Warned of Sept. 11 Hijacker (Knew phone number, address, car of Hanjour): A paid FBI informant told ABCNEWS that three years before Sept. 11, he began providing the FBI with information about a young Saudi who later flew a hijacked passenger plane into the Pentagon.
Britain warned US to expect September 11 al-Qaeda hijackings: Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism.
US AUTHORITIES WERE WARNED ABOUT THE TERRORIST ACTS. EVEN BY ARABS: In the case of 11 September, some details are appearing. According to reports of world mass media, one conclusion could be made: US authorities and special services were much better informed about the terrorist acts being prepared, than they try now to present it.
Bulletins warned airports in '98: The Federal Aviation Administration warned the nation's airports and airlines in late 1998 about a possible terrorist hijacking ''at a metropolitan airport in the Eastern United States'' and urged a ''high degree of vigilance'' against threats to US civil aviation from Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
FAA Warned of bin Laden in 1998: The Federal Aviation Administration told airlines more than three years ago to be on a "high degree of alertness" against possible hijackings by followers of Osama bin Laden, a government source said Sunday.
FAA SAT ON PRE-9/11 WARNING: The Federal Aviation Administration admitted yesterday it had decided not to order a security alert at the nation's airports despite being warned a week before Sept. 11 that the man now accused as the "20th hijacker" was in custody.
Bush was given hijack warning by British intelligence: President Bush's CIA briefing last August about possible attacks on US targets by al-Qa'ida ? the focus of the current "what did he know and when did he know it" furore ? was based on British intelligence reports, officials on both sides of the Atlantic said.
What Went Wrong: The inside story of the missed signals and intelligence failures that raise a chilling question: did September 11 have to happen?
Washington was 'warned of hijack risk': THE American government was warned eight years ago that the Pentagon and White House were vulnerable to attack from hijacked jets.
Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit: U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July that Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations, officials said Wednesday.
1999 Report Warned of Suicide Hijack: Exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal report warned the executive branch that Osama bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.
For years, signs suggested 'that something was up': U.S. intelligence agencies had indications for months and even years before September 11 that terrorists were planning attacks with aircraft.
Bush Told of Possible Hijack Plot Before Sept. 11: U.S. intelligence agents told President Bush before Sept. 11 that Usama bin Laden's terror network might hijack American planes, though the president had no specific information of the plot and no way of knowing the planes would be used in suicide attacks.
Bush Was Told of Hijacking Dangers: President Bush and his top advisers were informed by the CIA early last August that terrorists associated with Osama bin Laden had discussed the possibility of hijacking airplanes, according to reliable sources.
Congress Eyes Reaction to Pre-Sept. 11 Warnings: Members of Congress raised questions on Thursday as to whether the Bush administration should have reacted better to warnings in August that Osama bin Laden's followers might hijack U.S. passenger planes.
Echelon Gave Authorities Warning Of Attacks: U.S. and Israeli intelligence agencies received warning signals at least three months ago that Middle Eastern terrorists were planning to hijack commercial aircraft to use as weapons to attack important symbols of American and Israeli culture, according to a story in Germany's daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
Alex Jones interview with respected lawyer David Schippers - Government had prior knowledge: The FBI has been, and still is, prohibiting their agents or local police from taking known terrorists into custody.
David Schippers tells Metcalf feds 'ignored' warnings of WTC attacks: According to Schippers, investigative reporter Jayna Davis has compelling evidence indicating the government knew in February 1995 about Middle Eastern terrorists operating in Oklahoma City, planning the bombing in that city, the demise of TWA Flight 800 and the World Trade Center attacks.
US Ignored Pending Terror Attack Warnings Says Former FBI Official: Despite more than a dozen terrorist attacks around the world since 1992, the United States failed to recognize impending disaster because its federal law enforcement is a "dysfunctional montage," a retired FBI official said Tuesday.
Bin Laden tipped his hand: Law enforcement officials knew that in 1995, two associates of suspected terrorist Osama bin Laden had talked about crashing a plane into CIA headquarters outside Washington. Egypt and Italy had warned the CIA that bin Laden was plotting to fly an airplane into last June's economic summit in Genoa, Italy.
CIA Cited Risk Before Attack: The U.S. government has gathered evidence that links some of the Sept. 11 hijackers to Osama bin Laden's network through phone intercepts, wire transfers and participation in Afghan training camps, officials said Wednesday.
Bush did not heed several warnings of attacks: George Bush's administration was warned repeatedly that a devastating attack on the United States was on its way, including a State Department advisory as late as 7 September, but either failed to read the signals or was unable to follow up on intelligence tips in time to prevent last Tuesday's onslaught on the country.
Egypt Leader Says He Warned America
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak says he warned the United States that ``something would happen'' 12 days before the Sept. 11 terror attacks on New York and Washington.
Egypt Warned U.S. of a Qaeda Plot, Mubarak Asserts: Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday.
CIA 'ignored warning' on al Qaeda: A former US intelligence agent has alleged that the CIA ignored detailed warnings he passed on in 1998 that a Gulf state was harbouring an al-Qaeda cell led by two known terrorists.
What We Knew: Warning Given......Story Missed: We were warned. Some of the best minds in the United States attempted to alert the nation that, without a new emphasis on homeland security and attention to terrorism, "Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers" as the result of terrorist attacks.
U.S. Identified Some Elements of Hijack Plot in Advance: Transportation Secretary Norman Y. Mineta said today that his department knew elements of the threat to aviation before last week's terrorist attacks but could not have pieced them together to avert the plot.
Earlier Hijackings Offered Signals That Were Missed: Over and over since Sept. 11, aviation and security officials have said they were shocked that terrorists had hijacked airliners and crashed them into landmark buildings.
Warning signs - Should officials have known the terror attacks were coming? They hit it before in 1993. And on Sept. 11, they hit it again ? this time taking the World Trade Center down. In the aftermath of the devastating attacks, pieces of the puzzle are beginning to come together. How did the terrorist plot go undetected? Were warning signs missed? Should we have known more?
Transcript: Actor James Woods on O'Reilly (9/11 hijackers do a dry run - FBI warned - nothing happens)
Many Say U.S. Planned for Terror but Failed to Take Action: Somewhere in the havoc of the moment, Richard A. Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, recalled the long drumbeat of warnings about terrorists striking on American soil, many of them delivered and debated in that very room.
Argentinians Say They Heard Terror Alert Weeks Before 9/11: Leaders of Argentina's Jewish community received a warning about an impending major terrorist attack against the United States, Argentina or France just weeks before September 11, the Forward has learned.
Missed Chance - A wasted FBI asset? The FBI had a chance to infiltrate an al Qaeda training camp in the months before the September 11 attacks?and possibly learn about the coming strike?but the proposal was rejected by top officials, U.S. News has learned.
Moroccan secret agent 'predicted New York attack': A MOROCCAN secret service agent says that for two years he successfully infiltrated al-Qaeda before breaking cover last summer to warn his bosses that the terror group was plotting ?something spectacular? in New York.
Spy chiefs warned ministers of al-Qaeda attacks: BRITAIN?S spy chiefs warned the Prime Minister less than two months before September 11 that Osama bin Laden?s al-Qaeda group was in ?the final stages? of preparing a terrorist attack in the West, it was disclosed yesterday.
Panel: '98 meeting foresaw 9/11 attack: Three years to the day before the attacks that leveled the World Trade Center and damaged the Pentagon, U.S. spymasters concluded they must improve surveillance on terrorists or the nation would face a catastrophic assault, a congressional panel will report today.
Pilot Said to Boast of Murder Year Before Sept 11 - "In addition the words 'World Trade Center' were mentioned.": One of the kamikaze hijackers who destroyed the World Trade Center apparently boasted more than a year before the September 11 attack that his actions would kill thousands, Germany's public prosecutor said on Thursday.
Taleban 'warned US of attack'
An aide to the former Taleban foreign minister, Wakil Ahmad Muttawakil, has revealed that he was sent to warn American diplomats and the United Nations that Osama bin Laden was due to launch a huge attack on American soil.
Did the U.S. Ignore Warning of 9-11 Attack? In July, 2001 a U.S. State Department official was told by an aide to a top Taliban government minister that Osama bin Laden was planning a huge attack on American soil and that the attack was imminent. The warning was never passed on to Washington, Britain?s Independent newspaper reports.
U.S. Knew of Terror Cell Before 9/11: An alleged terrorist cell based in western New York and trained by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network was on the U.S. government's radar before the Sept. 11 attacks, a prosecutor said today.
US 'failed to heed' terror warnings: American intelligence services had been warned that Osama Bin Laden was considering attacking US targets with aircraft three years before the 11 September attacks, a congressional investigator said.
This is about half of them. Most if not all are from so-called 'legitimate' news sources, whatever your definition of that may be.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184267 - 09/26/04 10:09 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Oh yeah, lets not forget the warnings on the EVE of the attack:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#eve
Top Pentagon officials were warned and cancelled flights on September 10th
NEWSWEEK has learned that the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip.
Pentagon officials cancelled September 11 flying plans day before: On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building: In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism ? it was to be a simulated accident.
NSA Intercepts On Eve of 9/11 Sent a Warning: The National Security Agency intercepted two messages on the eve of the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon warning that something was going to happen the next day, but the messages were not translated until Sept. 12, senior U.S. intelligence officials said yesterday.
US Heard 'Tomorrow Is Zero Hour' on Eve of Attacks: U.S. intelligence intercepted two messages the day before the Sept. 11 attacks that indicated an event was planned the following day, but the communications were not translated until Sept. 12, government sources said on Wednesday.
A Big Warning: The National Security Agency intercepted and secretly recorded at least one conversation in Arabic before the Sept. 11 attacks in which the participants spoke about something big that was going to happen on that day, ABCNEWS has learned.
NSA didn't share key pre-Sept. 11 information, sources say: A secretive U.S. eavesdropping agency monitored telephone conversations before Sept. 11 between the suspected commander of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks and the alleged chief hijacker, but did not share the information with other intelligence agencies, U.S. officials said Thursday.
Condoleezza Rice Warned Sept. 6 About Imminent Terror Attack: Five days before Sept. 11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice was warned that a terrorist attack inside the United States was imminent, a former U.S. senator who headed up a blue-ribbon commission on terrorism revealed late Tuesday.
PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT - U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE - 7TH SEPTEMBER (SAYING BIN LADEN WAS ABOUT TO ATTACK): "We are also concerned about information we received in May 2001 that American citizens may be the target of a terrorist threat from extremist groups with links to Usama Bin Ladin's Al-Qaida organization."
German police confirm Iranian deportee phoned warnings: German police have confirmed an Iranian man phoned US police from his deportation cell to warn of the planned attack on the World Trade Centre.
FBI 'ignored leads': The German authorities have rejected reports that an Iranian man detained in Hanover could have helped avert Tuesday's devastating attacks on New York and Washington.
Bin Laden's Trail - Rushdie Air Ban (banned from flying from September 3rd): THE author Salman Rushdie believes that US authorities knew of an imminent terrorist strike when they banned him from taking internal flights in Canada and the US only a week before the attacks.
Some Got Warning: Don't Go Downtown on Sept. 11: Federal investigators have received evidence that some Middle Easterners in the New York area were warned ahead of time to stay out of lower Manhattan the morning of Sept. 11, the Daily News has learned.
Prior Knowledge of Sept. 11 Not Just Urban Legend: "Do you see those two buildings?" he asked while pointing toward the World Trade Center. "They won't be standing there next week." It was noon, Sept. 6, 2001.
Police: Student spoke of attacks before Sept. 11: Authorities are tracking numerous leads that some people, including members of the Arab-American community, heard rumors of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington in the days leading up to the hijackings, law enforcement sources say.
Trade Center warning baffles police: I went to Brooklyn this week in search of an ?urban myth? about the World Trade Center attacks. What I came back with was no longer a myth ? it was cold, chilling fact. But it didn?t clear anything up for me; that the ?myth? was true only made matters murkier. Was word of the attacks on the street beforehand? I wanted to find out.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184285 - 09/26/04 10:13 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Changing the subject again?
Fine.
Look, it may seem to you that I'm avoiding taking this further because I have been "brainwashed" or am "close-minded". The fact of the matter is that I have discussed all of this stuff countless times in the past since 9-11 took place. There is nothing new in that laundry list you just threw up there. It has all been thrashed out a ridiculous number of times in the last three years, and I'm not going to waste my time doing it all over again.
Look in the archives. Go to the top of the first page in this forum and read the sticky thread describing how to access archived PA&L posts. You'll see I am not making this up.
It may be new to you, but it's not new to me and it's incredibly tedious to thrash through all that murk one more time. A lot of the questions you ask have been answered in the 9-11 Commission's report as well. It is readily available as a book, and is also available in its entirety online. Do yourself a favor and read it.
pinky
--------------------
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3184459 - 09/26/04 11:00 PM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Dude, you can make all the assumptions you want, I am not one to judge people, your probably one of the most logical thinking people I have seen on this board and I have nothing but complete respect for that. But look at what you are denying here? There is a WEALTH of information that has actually led the bush admins into a lawsuit over this. You could call the guy filing it a moron, a conspiracy theorist, you could call him or me or anyone anything, but to generalize everyhting and everybody that happens to goes against the mainstream and official report into one category and automatically assuming it all to be theory just makes no sense to me, especially when alot of the stuff has been published in mainstream media. I might end up reading the 9/11 commission report some time, although I am in no rush to do that seeing as how it from what I gather so far is likely a complete fraud. At any rate, maybe we can agree to dissagree? I'm getting tired of arguing over all this, I trust that atleast some of what I have brought to the table here is worthy of consideration, at the very least for myself, and by posting here all I was hoping to do was help bring some alternative ideas to the attention of others, because quite frankly, this affects us all.
I guess I might just be crazy, but here from my vantage point, it just seems to make sense that certain elements in the government have the power, and are definitely in a position to be able to orchestrate - and/or at the very least allow something like 9/11 to happen..Why? Probably in order to gain more control over it's people. They have done it before, and I would think, they would probably do it again. The patriot act, patriot act II, all of these things are being discussed and passed and presented to the public as if they are supposed to 'help' protect them from the 'terrorists'..the outside enemy. Well the outside enemy and those offering us protection from it appear to be in business together, which kind of makes me wonder who the enemy actually is. And then you have Skull & Bones, and that whole thing. This isn't just story telling, it may seem like some insane fictionous story, but it's real life. And quite frankly, I find it to be pretty fucking scary.
People are dying over this, people have/are being manipulated on many levels, people are losing their freedoms and trust for eachother over this, the constitution and bill of rights have basically been forgotten, and I am very concerned of the fact that people actually seem to be supporting what is happening. People are continuously being divided, look at all this left and right bs, as an example, people in this forum seem to be constantly arguing with eachother, holding on to their respective left/right positions as if that is to define who they are at the deepest level. This is not who we are, or, atleast neither can fully define who I am. Why should I associate my own will and power with some guy who is supposed to be spreaking for millions of people, and is obviously failing miserably? Everybody can't all be labeled each with their own little barcode and rounded up into funny little categories like that. We are fucking human beings, we have something that the mainstream seems to surpress called individuallity, and as such, why shouldnt we realize this and start working toward making this world a better place for all who live in it?
So I guess all I've been meaning to do is try and help plant somewhat of a seed of doubt in a few people, to try and get people scratching their heads. To help get even just one person asking themselves..what if? would make it all worth while from my position. After all, all it takes is but one person to make all the difference in the world. The government is getting too much control, and sadly people are willingly submitting to it. I fear if there isnt some kind of massive change, or revolution soon, we are going to be assuring that our next generation of children grow up into nothing less than some kind of tyrannical police state nightmare. The window of oporitunity is getting smaller, they are literally squeezing themselves in and around our lives tighter and tighter as time ticks by, and I don't feel we have the time to just sit here and bitch over nothing and continue to waste time, because once they have their desired system in place, they are not going to give it up. Call me crazy all you want, but I'm not kidding. Sure, I might seem to be getting alot of my thoughts and ideas from Jones' and people like him..but I've thought in this way pretty much my whole life, and to me, they seem to be speaking the truth, he helps put things into context that anybody can understand, something I was never very good at. People like him are only being human, they are questioning what is happening, they are doing the research and that I think is a very important quality in a human being. Questioning authority. Questioning life, questioning beliefs, questioning everything. If anybody really wants to help promote a complete authoritative state by doing what they want you to, by remaining divided, then fine..keep clinging onto their bullshit, as if out of the whole spectrum of possibilities this is the only reality/system we can possibly be working for, as if to assume we have no choice in the matter..go ahead and keep at eachothers throats like they are counting on you to do and hitch along for their 'free' ride to a tyrannical hell. I for one do not like this idea, and as long as I am alive I don't plan on just sitting on my ass and taking all the shit they are spoonfeeding the populations, but instead promoting individuality, promoting creativity, promoting what I truely believe it means to be human. Woopdie doo eh?
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3184742 - 09/27/04 12:20 AM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
The guardian, while left leaning, is a reputable source. Sorry I had it confused with something else. My bad. Sorry.
Your link, still provides no clear evidence about the "W" document. Not clear to me at least.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3185800 - 09/27/04 10:11 AM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
ekomstop, what pinky is desperately trying to tell you, is that the list of evidence you are presenting, is a mixture of false information, unproven information, and generally sketchy. He's also trying to tell you that if you look through the archives of these very forums, you'll find posts that he's made that go into further detail as to why the items on the list are false, unproven, or sketchy.
What I was saying in my "What's really going on?" thread applies to the items on the list as well. For instance, the pentagon officials cancelling Sept. 11 flights. First off, how often do officials from the pentagon cancel flights throughout an average year? How many pentagon officials are there in total? They certainly all travel a lot, so there's no doubt that cancelling flights probably happens on a regular basis. Maybe it happens once a month, every week... maybe even every day. Until you have that kind of information, you can't claim that it's evidence of anything.
Until you can go through the whole list, and prove that all the entries in it are actually valid evidence then, it's pretty hard to take them seriously.
How do I know that half of them aren't completely fabricated? How do I know that what's been presented as something out of the ordinary really is?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3185833 - 09/27/04 10:23 AM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
ekomstop writes:
There is a WEALTH of information that has actually led the bush admins into a lawsuit over this.
Frivolous lawsuits get filed every day. Any fool can file a lawsuit. Get back to us when the lawsuit is decided.
... to generalize everyhting and everybody that happens to goes against the mainstream and official report into one category and automatically assuming it all to be theory just makes no sense to me.
As I have pointed out to you before -- more than once -- it is you making the assumptions here. You assume that I don't check these claims out. I do. There is a famous post in the archives (from Rono, I believe) with about sixty charges raised by the doofus who used to run whatreallyhappened.com. I spent days checking the charges, then refuting them in detail, one by one, with references and links.No one refuted my refutations.
...especially when alot of the stuff has been published in mainstream media.
The mainstream media fucks up all the time. See the "sixteen words" they still get wrong. See the continuing stories claiming that Bush declared "mission accomplished". See the Rathergate fiasco. Check some of my other posts about AP and al-Reuters headlines versus the body of the text. Check the "tailwind" farce. Or the Jenin "massacre". Or dozens and dozens of similar examples.
I might end up reading the 9/11 commission report some time, although I am in no rush to do that seeing as how it from what I gather so far is likely a complete fraud.
You see no disconnect for giving me shit for not checking the fever swamp ravings at sites like rense.com while admitting that you have already dismissed out of hand the most thorough and comprehensive investigation ever done? Now we know how seriously we should take you.
I guess I might just be crazy, but here from my vantage point, it just seems to make sense that certain elements in the government have the power, and are definitely in a position to be able to orchestrate - and/or at the very least allow something like 9/11 to happen.
Does it make sense to you that Clinton, on his way out the door, pulled Bush aside and said, "Listen, George, we've got this deal going with some Islamic nutjobs that I have to fill you in on. Don't blow it, okay? It'll work out for the best." Because that's what would have had to have happened. It is indisputable that the planning for the attack began long before Bush was even nominated as the GOP presidential candidate.
Why? Probably in order to gain more control over it's people.
Why? Why do they want more control? To accomplish..... what? To enrich themselves how?
They have done it before, and I would think, they would probably do it again.
Who has done this before? When? Examples, please.
The patriot act, patriot act II, all of these things are being discussed and passed and presented to the public as if they are supposed to 'help' protect them from the 'terrorists'..the outside enemy.
The vast majority of the provisions of the act do just that. Yes, there are sections that are poorly worded, and other sections that are almost certainly not required. I agree that the patriot act should not be renewed word for word when it expires. Changes should be made. And I point out that it is Congress who decides whether or not it will be renewed, not George Bush or Karl Rove.
Well the outside enemy and those offering us protection from it appear to be in business together, which kind of makes me wonder who the enemy actually is.
Al Qaeda is in business with the US administration? Get serious.
And then you have Skull & Bones, and that whole thing.
What about Skull and Bones? What do they have to do with anything? Why not throw in the Bildebergers and the Masons and the Illuminati and the Roman Catholic Church and the Rotarians and the Elks while you're at it?
This isn't just story telling, it may seem like some insane fictionous story, but it's real life.
No it's not. It's fantasy.
And quite frankly, I find it to be pretty fucking scary.
Prozac is widely available to treat anxiety and panic attacks.
People are dying over this, people have/are being manipulated on many levels, people are losing their freedoms and trust for eachother over this, the constitution and bill of rights have basically been forgotten, and I am very concerned of the fact that people actually seem to be supporting what is happening. People are continuously being divided, look at all this left and right bs, as an example, people in this forum seem to be constantly arguing with eachother, holding on to their respective left/right positions as if that is to define who they are at the deepest level. This is not who we are, or, atleast neither can fully define who I am. Why should I associate my own will and power with some guy who is supposed to be spreaking for millions of people, and is obviously failing miserably? Everybody can't all be labeled each with their own little barcode and rounded up into funny little categories like that. We are fucking human beings, we have something that the mainstream seems to surpress called individuallity, and as such, why shouldnt we realize this and start working toward making this world a better place for all who live in it?
You of course have the right to believe anything anyone tells you. No one is forcing you to investigate on your own, no one can make you apply reason and logic to the lamer arguments you come across so frequently, no one cares one way or the other if you want to live your life cringing in terror at the thought of what the Skull and Bones crew might do to you next week. But don't expect people who do expend the effort to look into the nutbar speculations floating around out there like turds in a bowl to feel the same way you do. If you believe rense.com is a valid information source, it's not going to affect my future one way or the other.
So I guess all I've been meaning to do is try and help plant somewhat of a seed of doubt in a few people, to try and get people scratching their heads. To help get even just one person asking themselves..what if? would make it all worth while from my position. After all, all it takes is but one person to make all the difference in the world. The government is getting too much control, and sadly people are willingly submitting to it.
On this we agree. If you've read even a fraction of my posts on this board you will know already I want even less government than you do. But there are plenty of easily verifiable real examples of government overstepping their boundaries. No need to hinge your criticism on loopy loony conspiracy theories about 9-11. The Islamic murderers have been attacking people they disagree with for decades. On 9-11 they did a more spectacular job of it than they had previously. They needed no assistance from the US government in order to do that. The US government after the fall of the USSR had become complacent. The US paid the price. That's unfortunate, but it's really no complex than that.
I fear if there isnt some kind of massive change, or revolution soon, we are going to be assuring that our next generation of children grow up into nothing less than some kind of tyrannical police state nightmare.
Oh, please. Give me an example of an innocent American citizen doing time for checking out the wrong library books. America, despite government meddling in too many aspects of the lives of its citizens, is far from a "police state".
The window of oporitunity is getting smaller, they are literally squeezing themselves in and around our lives tighter and tighter as time ticks by, and I don't feel we have the time to just sit here and bitch over nothing and continue to waste time, because once they have their desired system in place, they are not going to give it up.
That's my point. You are wasting your energy obsessing over the wrong thing. You want to protest something, protest the IRS or the Social Security scam or the ludicrous state of drug prohibition.
Call me crazy all you want, but I'm not kidding. Sure, I might seem to be getting alot of my thoughts and ideas from Jones' and people like him..but I've thought in this way pretty much my whole life...
In which case my debunking their lunacy will do no good. If you are predisposed to this way of thought, you will always find a way to avoid acknowledging your errors. Just recently, you have speculated that the weird numbering of the supposed "Presidential Executive Order" is because the one in question is secret and others are not. You use the patently illogical tactic of challenging me to prove a negative -- "Yeah, well... the guy on TV says he has this Executive Order. Why hasn't Bush denied it? Prove to me the guy is lying." You ignore mountains of evidence -- including the positive identification of the bodies -- that a commercial airliner filled with passengers hit the Pentagon because "the hole it left doesn't look right to me" or that maybe the forensic team is in on the coverup.
Anyone can play that game forever on anything.
...and to me, they seem to be speaking the truth, he helps put things into context that anybody can understand, something I was never very good at. People like him are only being human, they are questioning what is happening, they are doing the research and that I think is a very important quality in a human being.
Logic and reason is a more important quality. Besides, they don't do research. When one of their claims is debunked, they ignore it. What does Alex Jones have to say about the indisputable fact that the Pentagon corpses have been positively identified? He has nothing to say -- he ignores it because it doesn't fit his agenda. That's not being "human"... at least not being a fully functional human. The primary mode of survival for humans is through the exercise of reason.
Questioning authority. Questioning life, questioning beliefs, questioning everything. If anybody really wants to help promote a complete authoritative state by doing what they want you to, by remaining divided, then fine..keep clinging onto their bullshit...
Historically, one cannot sustain an authoritative state through the promotion of bullshit. This is why the USSR is with us no longer. And it's why folks like Alex Jones and the moonbats at rense.com will get nowhere... because the average person recognizes bullshit when he sees it.
...as if out of the whole spectrum of possibilities this is the only reality/system we can possibly be working for, as if to assume we have no choice in the matter..go ahead and keep at eachothers throats like they are counting on you to do and hitch along for their 'free' ride to a tyrannical hell. I for one do not like this idea, and as long as I am alive I don't plan on just sitting on my ass and taking all the shit they are spoonfeeding the populations, but instead promoting individuality, promoting creativity, promoting what I truely believe it means to be human.
No, instead you'll just sit on your ass and accept uncritically the shit the moonbats are spoonfeeding you. As I said before, it's no skin off my nose. I am not affected by their delusions.
Woopdie doo eh?
Peachy keen.
pinky
--------------------
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3185859 - 09/27/04 10:35 AM (19 years, 1 day ago) |
|
|
Questioning authority. Questioning life, questioning beliefs, questioning everything.
Except, of course, websites claiming that Bush knew.
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3185910 - 09/27/04 10:53 AM (19 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phluck]
#3185957 - 09/27/04 11:04 AM (19 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
I realize what he is trying to say and like I said I respect his position, although it might not seem like it , I can remain a little skeptical myself, however, I've seen a pile of documentaries, I've read quite a few articles pointing out inconsistensies in the official report (although I admit a number of them are probably pretty lowsy attempts, I can't seem to find it in me to disregard them all as theory), and quite frankly, when I see bush and friends speaking at any given time, I get quite a strong feeling that they are completely full of horse shit. Of course that is just a subjective thing and may only be speaking for myself here, but I mean..they keep warning people that "There will be another terrorist attack" "Americans will die on American soil, possibly in high numbers" ... they really seem to be able to predict the future, don't they? But no, with all the warnings beforehand, they couldn't do so on 9/11.
Think about their 'explination' for why the terrorists attacked in the first place. "they hate us because of our freedom" ...maybe so, but personally, I don't buy it. I see what they are trying to build, they are raising security everywhere, they can already see into your home via satelite images, the definition of a terrorist has been extended way beyond the realm of reason, and because of what happened on 9/11, the people are thinking all of this survalence and security is a good thing. They used 9/11 as a stepping stone to implement these new sets of rules. Sure they tell everyone it is to be used for the terrorists..but again, how do they define a terrorist?
I'm not about to go through every single article and try and prove it correct, I'm just bringing some of the information that has been gathered for people to consider. As far as I know, the majority (atleast) of these articles wern't simply fabricated, they are from mainstream news, many of which says their sources are directly from FBI agents, warnings from insiders in other countries, and the like. But if anybody can prove they are all full of shit, I'd love to learn that our governments may not actually be insane corrupt lunatics..
I mean, I could simply buy the official report and disregard everything else as fabricated..but say for example somebody were to just find out this whole situation right now..a clear mind regarding 'both' sides of the story..without having been exposed to CNN and FOX and all this repetative 'in your face' terrorism this, terrorism that. basically, a neutral position on the whole thing. So from their vantage point, either side could be about as fabricated as the other. I wonder which perspective would make more sense to them? The hi-jackers with box-cutters? when I started looking into some of this stuff a couple years ago pretty much as soon as I started seeing all this conspiracy theory stuff, at first I was completely skeptical..I figured it was just a matter of time before the shit started poping up, and was pretty much inevitable. but eventually I just started asking myself..for what reason would this happen? why would 'terrorists' even bother to put the effort into such a sophisticated operation, especially on a particular date with the signature 9/11? Just that raises a whole series of new questions in my mind. Seems to me like it was used as a big mind game, that number that is always associated with 'danger' and negativity..911! 911! 911!, everywhere.
The bush admins on Cipro weeks before the highly publicised Anthrax attacks. The millitary flying taliban members back to safety post 9/11. All the pre knowledge and warnings of the possibility of such a thing happening. A number of the terrorists being trained and funded at US military bases, not to mention some are said to still be alive today. The Official Death Lists For All Four 911 Airliners Are Missing 36 Or 37 People Including All "19 Terrorists" These Four Airliners Were Also Somehow Averaging 70% Empty. NORAD was said to have ran drills two years prior using jets are weapons. And they still contend they have never heard of such a thing? The oaklahoma city bombing report is a fraud and is clearly a cover up involving government insiders, an FBI supervisor ordered the 1993 WTC attack to take place..ect, ect, ect..I mean, how can all of this be ignored? And this is just barely scratching the surface.
Do you have high speed? If so would you please consider doing what many people here have seemed to avoid and watch this documentary ? I'd love to know what you think. This is one of about 10 of them.
"He who would trade liberty for security, deserves neither liberty nor security" ~ Benjamin Franklin
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phred]
#3186000 - 09/27/04 11:20 AM (19 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
well I think it's pretty clear that we dissagree on alot of this. Have a nice day.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 14 days
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186019 - 09/27/04 11:25 AM (19 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
The bush admins on Cipro weeks before the highly publicised Anthrax attacks. The millitary flying taliban members back to safety post 9/11. All the pre knowledge and warnings of the possibility of such a thing happening. A number of the terrorists being trained and funded at US military bases, not to mention some are said to still be alive today. The Official Death Lists For All Four 911 Airliners Are Missing 36 Or 37 People Including All "19 Terrorists" These Four Airliners Were Also Somehow Averaging 70% Empty. NORAD was said to have ran drills two years prior using jets are weapons. And they still contend they have never heard of such a thing? The oaklahoma city bombing report is a fraud and is clearly a cover up involving government insiders, an FBI supervisor ordered the 1993 WTC attack to take place..ect, ect, ect..I mean, how can all of this be ignored?
If all of this is true, then of course it shouldn't be ignored. The question is, is any of this accurate? Did some guy on the internet just make it up?
And if it is true, is it truly out of the ordinary? For instance, Bush admins on Cipro weeks before the anthrax incidents may sound pretty suspicious... until you consider the fact that Cipro is an extremely common anti-biotic, given for all kinds of things. Anytime your doctor has given you an anti-biotic prescription, there's a pretty good chance that it was Cipro.
Norad was said to have run drills using jets as weapons? Said by who? Anyways, I would suspect that NORAD has propabily run drills for just about threat they could possibly think of.
For all the other claims, are you sure they're entirely true? Where did the information come from? How do you know it hasn't been twisted or misrepresented somewhere along the way?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Phluck]
#3186062 - 09/27/04 11:32 AM (19 years, 23 hours ago) |
|
|
Like I said, the majority of what I have presented stems from non-other that the mainstream news/media. Please take some time to go through the archives here here and here. if you find anything suspicious, ie bullshit, I'd love to hear about it.
Check out that video if you can, it basically goes through a good pile of mainstream news articles, might save alot of reading, though everything can be double checked and investigated for accuracy by you, and is highly encouraged. I have a bunch of others that get closer and closer to the heart of the matter if you're interested.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186230 - 09/27/04 12:15 PM (19 years, 22 hours ago) |
|
|
You did it!
You changed conspiracies again.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186675 - 09/27/04 02:13 PM (19 years, 20 hours ago) |
|
|
*hangs head in shame*
This just in (atleast to my knowledge), I thought this was two years ago, but it turns out they were actually running these so-called 'simulations' on the morning of september 11.
http://www.nlsi.net/hs-alc-info.htm
"John Fulton - Intelligence Networking & Analysis
On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day. Information is the most powerful tool available in the homeland security effort. At the core of every initiative currently underway to protect our country and its citizens is the challenge of getting the right information to the right people at the right time. How can so much information from around the world be captured and processed in meaningful and timely ways? Mr. Fulton shares his insights into the intelligence community, and shares a vision of how today's information systems will be developed into even better counter-terrorism tools of tomorrow.
John Fulton?s 25 years in the intelligence community has contributed to his recognition as an expert in risk & threat response analysis, scenario gaming, and strategic planning. He is on staff for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), currently serving as Chief of the Strategic War Gaming Division of the National Reconnaissance Office, and as a member of U.S. Joint Forces Command's Project Alpha - a prestigious "think tank" for advanced concepts related to such issues as homeland security. He formerly served as the mission director for our nation's satellite imagery program as well as replacing Army Astronaut Same Gemar as the Director of the National Security Space Master Plan for the U.S. Department of Defense and Intelligence Space Communities under the auspices of the Deputy UnderSecretary of Defense (Space).
His counter-terrorism and homeland security responsibilities include advising the Director Central Intelligence Staff for Homeland Security, the U.S. Marshall's Office, and collaboration with the National Security Council.
In the private sector Fulton has developed a number of patents related to positioning, "smart GPS " applications, communications, and audio/video technology. He oversees the development of public & personal safety applications of these capabilities through SafeSTAR projects, and contributes to the strategic planning and conceptual design of the SafeSTAR Homeland Security Command Center."
http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
By John J. Lumpkin, Associated Press
WASHINGTON ? In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism -- it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise."
Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon -- took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.
An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day."
The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and Security Institute.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186691 - 09/27/04 02:17 PM (19 years, 20 hours ago) |
|
|
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/usterror/usterror.jsp?id=ns99991280
Autopilot could land hijacked planes
Aeroplane hijackings could be halted in progress with existing technologies, say aviation researchers, but the attempt would be risky.
"Most modern aircraft have some form of autopilot that could be re-programmed to ignore commands from a hijacker and instead take direction from the ground," says Jeff Gosling of the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
If a hijacking were detected in progress, being able to control a plane from the ground would be crucial, says Gosling. "The only other thing you could do is shoot the target down."
Autopilot, the system that maintains altitude, speed, and direction during flight, is fully capable of landing a plane without help from the pilot, says aviation engineering researcher Dale Oderman at Purdue University in Lafayette, Indiana. "We are already capable of flying unmanned military spy planes, so it is not far off to think that a remote system could land a commercial passenger jet."
Hijacking the fail-safe
However, Jeffrey Speyer, an aerospace engineer at the University of California, Los Angeles has qualms about the idea of remote control, saying that system could be a terrorist target itself.
He is devising a control system that would allow planes to fly close together in bird-like flocks. He says it could be adapted to override a hijacker's instructions, but "the system might be tampered with by the very people who you don't want taking over the plane."
The US Federal Aviation Administration experimented with remote landing of a commercial jet during the 1980's, says spokesperson Holly Baker at the FAA's William J. Hughes Technical Centre in Atlantic City, New Jersey. However it has not been an active topic of research in recent years.
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/09/145289_comment.php#145399
Before 911! TV show about plane crash into WTC
by xx Friday, Sep. 06, 2002 at 3:32 AM
RealVideo: stream with RealPlayer or download RM file (2.3 mebibytes)
The lonegunman TV show aired pilot episod in March and in July 0f 2001.
Its about a government plot to remotley control a 727 into the WTC. Below is some clips from the script.
We know the government like to plant these little easter eggs, as disinformation. So when someone brings it up they can say yea, that was just a TV show! I saw that!
What do you think the chances are that they will ever reair this again?
And they told you they had never heard of such a thing.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186765 - 09/27/04 02:30 PM (19 years, 20 hours ago) |
|
|
OK, now you're just posting articles that have nothing to do with anything you have already said, and you aren't saying anything about why you are posting them.
This isn't OTD.
Please stay on topic or connect the dots again.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186833 - 09/27/04 02:42 PM (19 years, 20 hours ago) |
|
|
They are relavent. Prove to me with a legitimate source that they are not and I'll consider stopping.
UQ Wire: 911 Hijackers Who Lived At A US Navy Base
"Amid reports in the days after the September 11 attacks that two of the hijackers, Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi received flight training at Florida?s Pensacola Naval Air Station, a new dot has been connected which may shed more light on past revelations that 9/11 terrorists learned to fly at secure United States military bases.
Royal Saudi Air Force Major Ambarak S. Alghamdi had continued to remain in his position as a Pensacola Naval Air Station flight instructor after the 9/11 attacks, notwithstanding his Saudi Government ties - and that most of the terrorists were Saudis."
How convenient this must have been
"Passport discovery
Rescue workers sifting through the tons of rubble earlier discovered a passport belonging to one of the suspected hijackers a few blocks from where the World Trade Center's twin towers once stood."
The Case of the Missing Terrorist
"Where is alleged Moussaoui Henchman Atif Ahmad?
In a mystery that raises further questions about official accounts of the September 11 attacks, a man named as a key player in the Al Qaeda 9/11 conspiracy seems to have vanished from the face of the earth.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186864 - 09/27/04 02:51 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27888
Feds sued over anthrax documents
Legal group wonders why White House took Cipro before attacks
"In October, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Judicial Watch wants to know why White House workers, including President Bush, began taking the drug nearly a month before anthrax was detected on Capitol Hill.
"The American people deserve a full accounting from the Bush administration, the FBI and other agencies concerning the anthrax attacks," Judicial Watch Chairman and General Counsel Larry Klayman said in a statement. "The FBI's investigation seems to have dead-ended, and frankly, that is not very reassuring given their performance with the Sept. 11 hijackers. One doesn't simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew nine months ago."
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186887 - 09/27/04 03:01 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
You want me to provide evidence disproving your posts, and I would love to. The problem is you are moving WAY too fast.
If you wish for this to be a thread that discusses the facts and conspiracies surriounding 9-11, let's take it one fact or conspiracy at a time.
I love this shit, I love debunking conspiracies and you are a conspiracy buff. We'd be lost without each other. It makes for fun, pollitical discussion.
But we can't have this discussion if you are not clear with your aims.
It is your thread, you started it.
Please, let us look at these things one at a time. Who knows? We may stumble upon something interesting.
I do find it odd...
There are MANY LEGITIMATE things that are fucked up about 9-11.
Why haven't you been discussing them?
It seems you are intentionally posting the dumbest things you can find, and changing the topic instead of discussing them.
Most of the conspiracies you post in here are wrong.
But, you are NOT wrong for posting them.
With a little finess, this discussion could actually become quite productive.
You have posted soo many things, I can't keep track of the point YOU are trying to make.
Slow down...
Back up a bit...
Baby steps...
Let's continue.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186889 - 09/27/04 03:02 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
U.S. planned for attack on al-Qaida 2 days prior to Sept 11
WASHINGTON, May 16 ? President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News.
CIA agent 'met Bin Laden in July'
Le Figaro today claimed that a CIA agent met Osama bin Laden in a Gulf hospital as recently as last July and received "precise information" about an imminent attack on the US.
The Hijackers We Let Escape
The CIA tracked two suspected terrorists to a Qaeda summit in Malaysia in January 2000, then looked on as they re-entered America and began preparations for September 11. Inside what may be the worst intelligence failure of all. A NEWSWEEK exclusive
FBI Let Suspected Terrorist Get Away
A suspected bomber on President Bush's new list of "most wanted" terrorists was in the FBI's grasp eight years ago for allegedly playing a role in the first attack on the World Trade Center, but he was released and then allowed to leave the country, authorities acknowledged Thursday.
What really happened to flight 93?
Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard
Reported by: 9News Staff
Web produced by: Liz Foreman
9/11/01 11:43:57 AM
A Boeing 767 out of Boston made an emergency landing Tuesday at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport due to concerns that it may have a bomb aboard, said Mayor Michael R. White.
White said the plane had been moved to a secure area of the airport, and was evacuated.
United identified the plane as Flight 93. The airline did say how many people were aboard the flight.
United said it was also "deeply concerned" about another flight, Flight 175, a Boeing 767, which was bound from Boston to Los Angeles.
On behalf of the airline CEO James Goodwin said: "The thoughts of everyone at United are with the passengers and crew of these flights. Our prayers are also with everyone on the ground who may have been involved.
"United is working with all the relevant authorities, including the FBI, to obtain further information on these flights," he said.
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186899 - 09/27/04 03:04 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
HELLO?
Quote:
Cervantes said:
You want me to provide evidence disproving your posts, and I would love to. The problem is you are moving WAY too fast.
If you wish for this to be a thread that discusses the facts and conspiracies surriounding 9-11, let's take it one fact or conspiracy at a time.
I love this shit, I love debunking conspiracies and you are a conspiracy buff. We'd be lost without each other. It makes for fun, pollitical discussion.
But we can't have this discussion if you are not clear with your aims.
It is your thread, you started it.
Please, let us look at these things one at a time. Who knows? We may stumble upon something interesting.
I do find it odd...
There are MANY LEGITIMATE things that are fucked up about 9-11.
Why haven't you been discussing them?
It seems you are intentionally posting the dumbest things you can find, and changing the topic instead of discussing them.
Most of the conspiracies you post in here are wrong.
But, you are NOT wrong for posting them.
With a little finess, this discussion could actually become quite productive.
You have posted soo many things, I can't keep track of the point YOU are trying to make.
Slow down...
Back up a bit...
Baby steps...
Let's continue.
HELLO?
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186904 - 09/27/04 03:06 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
ok ok..I'll slow down, I need a break anyway. Are you on dial up? If not, would you please take the time to watch this documentary to save us both a lot of wasted time?
Alex Jones' - Masters of Terror
yeah, I was digging around and throwing together that post before I saw yours..my appologies
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186925 - 09/27/04 03:14 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
I will when I can, which will be tonight... later. My gf needs TLC right now.
In the meanwhile, can you list a few things you want me to keep an eye out for during the documentary? I know... all of it... but really, what is most important and worth discussing?
You know... set it up in this thread so people without fast IP's can join in the discussion too.
This will help our discussion of Masters of Terror stay on topic.
And don't freak out, and start posting a lot of links that have nothing to do with the documentary, if people disagree with you. This is PA&L someone always disagrees.
Let's discuss this documentary a bit. For example, if I disagree with some of the points it makes, don't change the subject. Argue your side instead... then move on. Otherwise it seems like you are just trying to piss me off... even if that is not your intention.
OK... gf's getting antsy... gotta' go for now.
Thanks.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186931 - 09/27/04 03:16 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
Download it now so its ready when you get back!
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3186937 - 09/27/04 03:17 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
I will, if you set the discussion up like I asked. 
It Dl'd very fast.
--------------------
Fiddlesticks.
Edited by Rose (09/27/04 03:23 PM)
|
ekomstop
Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 12 years, 7 months
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: Rose]
#3186957 - 09/27/04 03:23 PM (19 years, 19 hours ago) |
|
|
As for what is in the documentary, it basically starts off with a short history lesson, and then goes through all kinds of news articles, television broadcasts, and basically connects the dots and paints a rather clear picture of what has happened/is actually happening on somewhat of a global scale for the viewer.
Seriously, I am very happy to hear you are willing to check this out. I hope you pay very close attention to it throughout the film, as it goes through a LOT of information in a pretty short ammount of time. It's about 2 hours long. Let us continue this discussion afterward, as you will get a much better idea of where exactly I am comming from with all of this. I think I might watch it again tonight aswell for the hell of it.
p.s., you should see if your gf would watch it too for a kind of 'real time' second opinion
Edit: FYI, this video is the follow up to another docufilm called 'The Road to Tyranny', it would probably make more sense to watch them in the appropriate order, but this is the only full video I know of that is available for free via his website..if you have soulseek or aim I can get the first one among others to you if you're interested.
Edited by ekomstop (09/27/04 07:12 PM)
|
Rose
Devil's Advocate
Registered: 09/24/03
Posts: 22,518
Loc: Mod not God
Last seen: 1 year, 1 month
|
Re: Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Fa [Re: ekomstop]
#3189374 - 09/27/04 11:25 PM (19 years, 11 hours ago) |
|
|
Ok... ok... ok... I made it 70 minutes in and stopped because it is getting late... and I wanted to reply a bit before sleeping. Also, I think I am beginning to see where he's going with this video.
The video's pretty dry. A radical Liberal, Texas radio host, Alex Jones, talking to a camera and holding up articles. But after listening a while, I could see he'd at least done his homework on a lot of things.
I'll watch the rest tomorrow, first though, I want to say... Alex Jones presents a case very similar to Michael Moore's in Farenheit 9-11... although, the way he connects his dots makes Moore look like a Christian Conservative.
Also, Alex Jones choses some pretty harsh words to describe things. He makes a compelling case that the USA didn't stop the 9-11 attacks when they had plenty of chances to do so. Comparing this to Nero setting fire to Rome is a bit extreme. He makes a good case showing how America fucked up, and missed a lot of warnings, but he claims America attacked itself. I do not feel he presents a compelling case that America attacked itself. Not so far... at least.
So far, he hasn't presented much (if any) case for WTC 7 or the Teeny-tiny nukes theory you were working on.
Alex Jones does a good job of presenting what has been reported with his own spin. He is spinning and interpreting these facts, but he gets quite a lot right.
If you looked at the 9-11 comission's report, you'd see a lot of similarities.
I'm not saying everything he says is bullshit. Nor am I saying it's all true. I agree with about 2/3 of his opinions and 90% of his facts... so far.
For the most part, you are preaching to the choir, with this video. But I would not go so far as to say "America let 9-11 happen." or, "America Attacked itself.". I certainly would say, "American easily could have prevented 9-11 if they seriously looked at the evidence that was right under their noses."
I will go into more specific detail about the video after I finish watching... but I have |
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Edit 
Reply 
