Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-14-2009, 05:30 PM   #105
SimonCP
The Truthseeker
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Quote:
How dare you say that US planed an attack on their own fucking country! You should ashamed of yourself for even thinking that.
I am truly disgusted at your closed-mindedness and blind belief in the honesty of the US Government/Military. The US and foreign governments/militaries have staged terrorism against their own people in the past.

Quote:
You do know that US would not attack their own interests right?
-The Towers were considered "poorly designed money-losers"

-The Pentagon was hit in the only section that was nearly empty and had a bunch of "inconvenient paperwork" that had to do with massive budget problems.

-Building 7 was worthless to them, and only had documents that related to corporate scandals/CIA operations -- i.e: stuff they might WANT to get rid of.

And besides, the US planned to launch attacks like that in Florida/Washington back in 1963. Of course the US Government would attack it's own interests for greater profit.

Quote:
The only time the United States has ever moved for a drastic move is either to stop communism or to benefit their economy (and to a later extent, promote the status quo/balance of power). Does 9/11 do either?
9/11 triggered wars against Iraq/Afghanistan (Which were pre-planned when Bush came into office, btw -- how did they know to plan them?). Maybe you don't know the kind of people that were in government at the time. In 1998, 18 members of a conservative "think-tank" called PNAC urged Clinton to go to war with Iraq. In the Bush administration, 10 of those characters would be key government officials -- this included Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld.

Quote:
No. What you do not realize is that America is built on precedence, and it has not blew up its own large economic center to do anything. Sure, America probably had plans to do it to Cuba, Latin America, Middle East, but IT DOES NOT ATTACK ITS OWN PEOPLE.
Really? Then why is it that in 1962, the top commanders of the US Military planned to commit acts of terrorism in Florida/Washington and against US Military personnel abroad? And why does all of the evidence point to the OKC Bombing being a covert military operation?

Quote:
You have to think, thousands of people dying… for what? A war to gain oil? Hardly, Iraq has barely half the oil Kuwait does (not to mention the connection is kind of vague)
In addition to making $$$ for the oil industry, the Iraq War also fulfilled the $$$ fantasies of the defense industry. Also, Kuwait has less oil than Iraq. Saudi Arabia has the most oil, and it's on very friendly terms with the US.

Quote:
and Afghanistan… are you even bringing that up?
The CIA/USG has a long history of covert drug trafficking. Afghanistan is rich business in the Opium trade. Tons of poppies. It also made the defense industry tons.

Quote:
You keep talking about it benefiting the Bush government, if this was preplanned without the people's knowledge, his rating would be much higher as his response would be much more effective.
Bush's approval rating soared after 9/11:



Quote:
Plus, Bush used WMDs (and freedom) for Iraq. Afghanistan was the only one attacked for connection with 9/11.
That's like saying Cambodia had nothing to do with Vietnam. The simple fact is that Iraq, like Afghanistan, would be politically impossible without the emotional outrage created by 9/11.

Quote:
So for all purpose, I have the advantage over you. And remember, you have to look at this through "innocent until guilty" standpoint.
From that standpoint, Osama is innocent. The FBI's Rex Tomb admitted that they don't put OBL on the most-wanted list because they have 'no hard evidence' connecting him to the 9/11 Attacks.

Quote:

i actually have an explanation for this on the second pic you have those areas highlited well that is actually dpris from the building that fell and was blown into the side of the building due to the law of intertia and gravity and along with the fact that the wind could very easily twords that way.
There is a video of these very explosions that prove that they are coming out of the building, not crashing into the building.

Quote:
and to explain that well its nearly imossible to tell that airliner jets have windows(even on video) becuase of how fast they travel and if you dont trust me just go to an airport and look at some of the planes taking off or landing
The truth at the World Trade Center is that there was no plane -- only fake videos.

Quote:
and a bout the pentagon im rally not sure but the terrorists(the real people behind the atacks) could have launchen an ICBM at the pentagon that was a dud. because the terorists do have ICBM's but there known for not being so great.
That would prove the government's story a lie.

Quote:
I think that NO, america did not attack itself. Im hearing that alot on tv currently. They were attacked by terrorists fromt he middle east.
The evidence just doesn't point that way.

Quote:
Maddox disagrees with this conspiracy theory (Maddox is an internet article writer, mostly parodies, but sometimes things he hates or disagrees on.)
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons
I've read that article. It makes a very poor argument.

"If the conspiracy theorists were right, then why wouldn't the government kill them?"

The answer to this is simple -- they don't have to.

What's easier:

-Sending death squads around the world to take out all of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (Imagine the kind of money, risks, and cover-up this unnecessary move would require)

-Leaving it up to the mainstream newsmedia to brainwash people into believing that the official story is gospel and that anyone who questions it is a "conspiracy kook" who is on the same boat as the holocaust deniers.

The latter method is more effective. Not only would the first require an amazing amount of time/money/cover-up, but it would also arouse suspicions. People would see the truthers' deaths as confirmations that they were on the right track, and thus, new truthers would appear.

Marginalization/ridicule is free and rather than causing suspicion, it brainwashes people into being absolutely not-suspicious. It even brainwashes them into laughing at anyone who IS suspicious.

Much more effective. Much easier.

And Maddox' argument that "the fires would only have to reach 650 degrees to weaken the steel"? Someone should tell him that NIST couldn't find evidence of fires above 250 degrees and that a FLIR camera picked up fires of 100 degrees. Not NEARLY enough to bring down a highly complex steel/concrete building. I am not alone in saying that, but I stand with over 700 professionals in the architectural/engineering world who agree.

And his argument that you would need to "keep the firefighters quiet"? They didn't. Tons of them talked about explosions/bombs in the building. Some of them are still active in voicing this today. As for all of the other people he thinks would have to be in on it, Maddox should do some research into how military operations are conducted. He'll find a neat little word called "Compartmentalization".

Quote:
Maddox actually makes a good point in his article though. The links at the bottom of that page also debunk a lot of those idiotic theories. I really think some people try to hard to complicate these things sometimes.
1. Cut the insults.

2. As I've shown above, all of Maddox's arguments fall on their face.

3. The links at the bottom of the page (Popular Mechanics, Loose Change Guide) have been heavily debunked many times.

4. It's not people trying to complicate things. It's people following the evidence.

Quote:
About his keeping it secret fromall the witnesses part. where is your counterargument, you only crap out that it's bullshit and that was it, you don't give a valid argument why he is wrong about that.
Keeping it secret from all the witnesses? They didn't. Hundreds of witnesses report explosions inside the Towers. Many witnesses report an aircraft not matching a big jetliner hitting the Towers/Pentagon/Shanksville.

In fact, thanks to the witnesses coming out, we have a lot of evidence against the government's story.

Quote:
also there are a lot of sites that have written down every error in the video. That leads to thinking it's not true rather than thinking it's true.
These very sites have been heavily debunked.

Quote:
I am not convinced that Bush was behind all of this. Perhaps the minor explosions were a gas buildup in the pipes or something flammable.
Can't be, because:
-They matched the sound of high-velocity explosives
-They had a detonation wave

Quote:
Pro-crazy 9/11 conspiricy believer guys: Give one, just one, intelligent reason to believe that the US government or Bush would have to attack the twin towers. So far all I've seen is:

-To get teh Oilz!!1
Then you haven't been looking. Yes, the oil industry did benefit. But here:
-Neoconservatives wanted to invade Iraq and said so in their own reports.

-Neoconservatives scheduled the Afghanistan War for October 2001 when Bush came into office and needed to engineer an event to get people behind it.

-The defense industry was crying for more money and the US Military wanted a budget boost.

-The government got to crackdown on the US people and pass the PATRIOT Act, create the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and destroy many of the constitutional freedoms that Americans used to enjoy.

Quote:
Why? What purpose would it serve to hijack our own planes, crash them into our own buildings,
War On Terror = $$$, Legislation, and Approval Ratings
__________________




It's Gon Rain!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7UBlZcZSE0

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job': http://killtown.911review.org/
The TV footage is fake: http://www.septemberclues.info/
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers: http://drjudywood.com/
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote