Thread: 9-11...after all this time do you really think it was terrorists?

Originally Posted by mrbig1

Originally Posted by El Kabong

why wouldn't a building fall straight down? Nobody has explained that to me

I'm asking you to think for yourself. Have you ever in your lifetime ever saw or heard of a building come straight without demolition? How did building 7 come straight down and wasn't even hit. explain that to me. Better yet explain it to yourself.

How should it have come down?

It happened, it was no conspiracy. The end.

Originally Posted by mrbig1

Has anyone ever saw a building come straight down? Building 7 wasn't hit but it came straight down as well. Only demolition buildings come straight down. I don't care what people say. I have eyes of my own and can think for myself.

No, no you can't. You, like me and everyone else in this thread, in all likelyhood have no credibility on this subject and a woefully inadequate level of information and understanding to form any kind of opinion. You're merely parroting "facts" that you heard from people you think would know. Which is fine: nobody has the time to know a fuckload about every topic so we have to rely on "experts" to fill in the blanks on a lot of things. But don't act like you're this "free thinker": these aren't your opinions, you just chose a side and are towing the line. Unless of course you can tell me you're an authority on demolition, physics, whatever.

This isn't an open and shut fact - there are "experts" on each side of the fence, some saying it could happen and others saying it's impossible. The fact is, very few of these "experts" have really that much credibility on the subject: the fact that you're a physics major or you've been on a demolition crew all your life knocking down old decrepit buildings gives you the authority to say, without any doubt, what is and isn't possible when a passenger airplane full of jet fuel is flown into two of the biggest, busiest, heaviest buildings in the world? How many scientific studies have been done on airplanes flying into skyscrapers? It's an insane scenario with a BILLION different variables and moving parts in the equation (unlike a regular demolition which, as the name states, is a very controlled operation).

Lets say for the sake of argument, 100% of the "experts" agree that this is highly unlikely: you then have to factor in "adnormality" factor: the fact that "freak" occurances happen every day that defy explanation, odds and/or logic. Scientific opinion varies and changes so often, it would be far from definitive proof.

Also, it ignores a basic logical question: why would the government, having just pulled off the greatest conspiracy in the history of conspiracies (one that involved HUNDREDS of people in the know and not objecting to killing thousands of innocent Americans, sneaking TONS of explosives into the busiest buildings in the world and installing it without anyone noticing, hijacking planes, ect ect), decide to perform a perfect, "by the book" demolition of the WTC? Demolitions are designed, planned and timed out perfectly to cause the building to collapse on itself and not spill out. Why not set the explosives off at random times or put them in atypical places so that the building would topple over completely? Would that be just as easy (actually, much easier) than performing a controlled demolition?

Why would they, having pulled off this genius conspiracy, choose to do a perfect controlled demolition that would no doubt make people suspicious and give people "cause" to look into whether or not it was an inside job?

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Originally Posted by mrbig1

Has anyone ever saw a building come straight down? Building 7 wasn't hit but it came straight down as well. Only demolition buildings come straight down. I don't care what people say. I have eyes of my own and can think for myself.

No, no you can't. You, like me and everyone else in this thread, in all likelyhood have no credibility on this subject and a woefully inadequate level of information and understanding to form any kind of opinion. You're merely parroting "facts" that you heard from people you think would know. Which is fine: nobody has the time to know a fuckload about every topic so we have to rely on "experts" to fill in the blanks on a lot of things. But don't act like you're this "free thinker": these aren't your opinions, you just chose a side and are towing the line. Unless of course you can tell me you're an authority on demolition, physics, whatever.

This isn't an open and shut fact - there are "experts" on each side of the fence, some saying it could happen and others saying it's impossible. The fact is, very few of these "experts" have really that much credibility on the subject: the fact that you're a physics major or you've been on a demolition crew all your life knocking down old decrepit buildings gives you the authority to say, without any doubt, what is and isn't possible when a passenger airplane full of jet fuel is flown into two of the biggest, busiest, heaviest buildings in the world? How many scientific studies have been done on airplanes flying into skyscrapers? It's an insane scenario with a BILLION different variables and moving parts in the equation (unlike a regular demolition which, as the name states, is a very controlled operation).

Lets say for the sake of argument, 100% of the "experts" agree that this is highly unlikely: you then have to factor in "adnormality" factor: the fact that "freak" occurances happen every day that defy explanation, odds and/or logic. Scientific opinion varies and changes so often, it would be far from definitive proof.

Also, it ignores a basic logical question: why would the government, having just pulled off the greatest conspiracy in the history of conspiracies (one that involved HUNDREDS of people in the know and not objecting to killing thousands of innocent Americans, sneaking TONS of explosives into the busiest buildings in the world and installing it without anyone noticing, hijacking planes, ect ect), decide to perform a perfect, "by the book" demolition of the WTC? Demolitions are designed, planned and timed out perfectly to cause the building to collapse on itself and not spill out. Why not set the explosives off at random times or put them in atypical places so that the building would topple over completely? Would that be just as easy (actually, much easier) than performing a controlled demolition?

Why would they, having pulled off this genius conspiracy, choose to do a perfect controlled demolition that would no doubt make people suspicious and give people "cause" to look into whether or not it was an inside job?

I will give you that. I don't know it for sure. I just have questions that have never been answered. How did building 7 come down? It wasn't even hit. In America if you question the Government you're some kind of nut. So it better to be a good little slave and say nothing.

Originally Posted by mrbig1

Has anyone ever saw a building come straight down? Building 7 wasn't hit but it came straight down as well. Only demolition buildings come straight down. I don't care what people say. I have eyes of my own and can think for myself. I believe it was terrorists but our Government knew about it and did nothing. So they helped it along with demolition. I'm willing to listen if someone could explain this to me. So start explaining.

I just did if you read it , theres probable cause, I maybe wrong too but cant think of any reason why they would do it. If they did do it for security reasons imagine what was in there.

I dont think the twin towers would of been detonated but if there were charges in the footings or the metal structure up through the floors for simular reasons to building 7:
They could of justified it to the public (if they were caught at it, or forced to ) by saying it was loaded pre packed what ever they call it, so that the buildings came straight down so as to have zero impact on the crowded surrounds.

I bet they figured they never had to justify it after what happened. Why would they? let it go,let the confusion that follows wipe them clear.

WTC7 was hit with debris and caught on fire which the NYFD couldn't put out for a long time. Structural integrity was compromised by the fires and lead to the collapse.


So again how should a building hit with a plane loaded with fuel collapse? You DO realize that skyscrapers like the WTC towers are built to withstand certain events....high winds, accidents involving planes/helicopters.... they aren't built to topple over like a fucking Jenga tower

Sorry for running on fumes a little at the start of the thread, I needed a rest. With all the terrible things that have happened to our countries in terms of the elite essentially imposing a police state, invading countries, denying rights, torturing, rendition, etc etc. It just seems that 9-11 was the perfect pretext to do all that, just as the Gulf of Tonkin was the perfect lie to start napalming Vietnam.

I'm not really looking at it from an analysis of buildings, plane trajectories or anything like that, but considering what we get up to as the leading rogue states, would I rule out that we would carry out our version of the burning down of the Reichstag?

Looking at the government responses to even the NSA scandals. They lie, new information comes out, they lie and readjust, then they get caught again. It almost becomes a comedy routine. There is something in this particular class of elite that is completely lacking in credibility and on every issue now I think people are automatically calling BS.

Even on 9-11 the government narrative is just not working. I think something like 40% of Americans think the government was in on it. Looking at how easy it was for the planes to be hijacked, how easy it was for the Saudi's to get out of America, and of course the smaller building falling. Also hadn't the Pentagon revealed that billions had gone missing a few days prior? Then suddenly a terrorist attack and that story basically vanished.

it amazes me how fucking dumb you can be miles.

Saddam Hussein had already violated conditions which he was bound to uphold under threat of further hostilities.


The United States needed nothing else to attack Iraq....am I the only one that sees that? To end a war you have a treaty, if the conditions of the treaty are not kept in good faith you have another war...that is what happened with Iraq.


Is it just that my explanation is too simple for you to comprehend? My explanation makes too much sense for you guys?

If any nation in the world should be under UN sanctions it is America. To even waffle about saddam is false as anything Saddam has done, America has done so much worse. Did Saddam perv on people on their webcams like Obama? Did he destroy millions in multiple invaded nations? Saddam was small fry compared to the real international villain of the past 50 years and back on topic, Saddam was NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.

Originally Posted by Gandalf

If any nation in the world should be under UN sanctions it is America. To even waffle about saddam is false as anything Saddam has done, America has done so much worse. Did Saddam perv on people on their webcams like Obama? Did he destroy millions in multiple invaded nations? Saddam was small fry compared to the real international villain of the past 50 years and back on topic, Saddam was NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.

People, here you see the TRADEMARK of the conspiracy nut. A rational person (such as myself) will make a comment, based in fact, a comment which can be backed up by fact and TRUE history not revisionist history. This comment is met with off topic nonsense and inane ramblings by the conspiracy nut (played by miles in this example) in order to throw me off track or at least confuse people who might attempt to follow a my train of thought in this debate.

At the end of The Persian Gulf War Saddam was given some guidelines to go by if he wanted to continue his reign. He did not follow those guidelines and thus war was declared.

I mentioned nothing about Saddam spying, nothing about Saddam invading nations (which he did do, but I didn't mention it), nothing about Saddam killing people (again, he DID do that but I didn't mention that specifically because I wanted to stay on topic), I did not say that Saddam or Iraq were linked to 9/11 attacks, and I did not compare or contrast Saddam with the United States.

You see miles it is very simple, if Saddam followed the guidelines he'd still be alive and still be running Iraq. But he chose not to follow those guidelines and therefore he was overthrown, tried by a tribunal convicted and sentenced to death.


But again, I'll have stated facts and miles will retreat into his typical "America is the root of all evil"

I am not having that. You have just made up the criteria.

Let's stick to the basic facts about Saddam.
1. No WMD
2. No link to 9-11
3. In many years a far less dangerous state than America.
4. Historically speaking the US is one of the worst, Saddam is popcorn.

Saddam is nothing to do with 9-11. This is the conspiracy. You are coming into this thread and are ranting about Saddam and he had nothing to do with 9-11.

Maybe the conspiracy is why you are in this thread. We know that the NSA likes to stir things up, is that your latest role.

the usa had no right to "give" Saddam any "conditions" to adhere to. He didnt have to abide by anything the usa said. who the fuck is the usa to impose their desires on Saddam Huseein? He was a true man who didnt bend over and take it up the ass. Like everyone else does when amerikkka "gives" them "conditions" to abide by.

Saddam exposed the hypocrisy of amerikkka. No legitimacy for amerikkka. Why impose conditions and requirements on saddam when Israel has violated over 2 thousand UN Sec Council resolutions since 1948 without any pemnalties at all? The UN Sec Coucnil is illegitiamte. And saddam exposed it.

Also did I say anything that cannot be backed up? Lyle hasn't been reading enough Glenn Greenwald perhaps. My information is always on the ball.

Saddam Hussein was a true man. He was attacked by Kurds from Erbil and Kirkuk, assassination attempts, one in 1984 and another in 1989. So he struck back at their village, Halabja. Just like the usa struck back at David Koresh in Waco Texas. They killed innocent people. So did saddam. Fuck off, amerikkka.

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Originally Posted by Gandalf

If any nation in the world should be under UN sanctions it is America. To even waffle about saddam is false as anything Saddam has done, America has done so much worse. Did Saddam perv on people on their webcams like Obama? Did he destroy millions in multiple invaded nations? Saddam was small fry compared to the real international villain of the past 50 years and back on topic, Saddam was NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11.

People, here you see the TRADEMARK of the conspiracy nut. A rational person (such as myself) will make a comment, based in fact, a comment which can be backed up by fact and TRUE history not revisionist history. This comment is met with off topic nonsense and inane ramblings by the conspiracy nut (played by miles in this example) in order to throw me off track or at least confuse people who might attempt to follow a my train of thought in this debate.

At the end of The Persian Gulf War Saddam was given some guidelines to go by if he wanted to continue his reign. He did not follow those guidelines and thus war was declared.

I mentioned nothing about Saddam spying, nothing about Saddam invading nations (which he did do, but I didn't mention it), nothing about Saddam killing people (again, he DID do that but I didn't mention that specifically because I wanted to stay on topic), I did not say that Saddam or Iraq were linked to 9/11 attacks, and I did not compare or contrast Saddam with the United States.

You see miles it is very simple, if Saddam followed the guidelines he'd still be alive and still be running Iraq. But he chose not to follow those guidelines and therefore he was overthrown, tried by a tribunal convicted and sentenced to death.


But again, I'll have stated facts and miles will retreat into his typical "America is the root of all evil"

You will see my post was on point and good. You just went into Alex Jones land and the reasons are your own. I like America and you know it, but I hate bullshit. I thought you did too, but it only matters when it is domestic policy.