COMMENTS:
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
Not for me
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
This is carrying the conspiracy theories to a new level of absurdity.
I dont believe anything without at least some proof. I also have better things to do than research such things.
However, there was certainly a motive for the American government to do such a thing. The billions (maybe trillions?) of dollars that will be generated by selling the oil obtained from the conquest of Iraq, as well as the masisve spending on war material as a boost to the economy, and the possibility of new markets opening in the gradually liberalising middle east, are all a motive.
Also, I have been led to believe (though I am by no means certain) that there are a number of discrepencies and pecularities surrounding the 9/11 attack, that havent been given adequate explanation (?)
So, until some compelling evidenc eis laid before me by an individual who, though they may ultimately be doing the public a favour, almost certainly has too much time on their hands. I wont lose any sleep over it.
Im always open minded though.
Alf, you have hit the nail on the head about compelling evidence.
I am a little ashamed to admit that I bought the conspiracy stories when I first read/heard them.
Trust me when I say a) there are no discrepancies or peculiarities that challenge the official explanation and b) motive is not proof of anything.
There were/are government conspiracies, but they're more mundane than 'orchestrating' the attacks.
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
where's kenfromdublin when we need him?
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
All I know for DAMN SURE is who's benefitted the most from it.
But we were headed for war as soon as we'd picked our president (it's true, go look it up) whether 9/11 happened or not we'd be at war right now. Too bad we didn't "accomplish" our "mission" with Iraq and get that the F over with.
by Jyl on Mon May 07, 07 9:11am
[+]
Ask yourself, what happened to the evidence. 
Perhaps the greatest crime pulled off on American soil and no physical evidence is available now for greater examination.
They could put TWA 800 back together after pulling it out of the ocean, but with this tragedy, the steel was put on a fast boat to China.
Something just isn't right here.
Not orchestrated, but possibly catered to... no one can be absolutely certain on either platform. There are a lot of unanswered questions. Still shocks me that flight 77 all but flew over Andrews Air-force Base. Is our Air-force really that incompetent? Then there is an emotionless, expressionless Bush... no shock... no surprise... he just sits there. That is certainly an important question that should be asked and we deserve an answer... what was he doing/thinking!?
Truly, I would like to believe, NO, they were unaware... but I can not ABSOLUTELY rule it out.
by MO_ on Mon May 07, 07 8:24pm
[+]
Welcome to another horribly unreliable vote-spammned ballot with no crediblility whatsoever.
Watch as the votes for the vote-spammer's voices climb by upto hundreds of votes a day as he tries desperately to compensate for his small mind and flacid impotency.
Hey, DoK!
Fuck off!
Thoroughly vote-spammed ballot with a totally meaningless result so far removed from reality and any presented evidence, that you have to wonder why anyone posts these kinds of ballots. Propaganda games, maybe.
Watch as the votes for the vote-spammer's voices climb by upto hundreds of votes a day as he tries desperately to compensate for his small mind and flacid impotency.
Hey DoK, is that an insult?
Anyway - it's a bit rich to whine about a lack of evidence when Conspiracy Theorists have yet to produce a single piece of physical evidence to back up any of their claims.
That claim of yours is not true.
You tried to claim there was no evidence of explosives but all you can do is wave your arms around and scream insults when anyone mentions Professor Steven Jones and his X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. Which show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. (And no, thermate was NOT used during the clean up operation...this stuff was in the building, and ignited, prior to collapse.) If you're new to this information, you might want to check out "Molten Metal" and "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against"
You can look up Steven Jones lecture on the subject on youtube.
There's also the video evidence showing the explosions taking out the floors well below the falling debris, and the witnesses to the same.
Stephen Jones has not made any realistic claims AT ALL. Do you realise how much thermite would have been needed to cut the steel columns? TONS.
"There's also the video evidence..."
Which is not physical evidence is it. It is misinterpreted evidence.
By physical evidence I mean traces of dynamite or equivalent explosive charges as used in controlled demolition, DNA, plane parts, missile parts etc.
So, when you're ready cite references to your PHYSICAL EVIDENCE.
(Stephen Jones has not made any realistic claims AT ALL
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 4:27pm)
According to who? You? Since when did you become the final arbiter of what is evidence and what is not?
I say, watch the videos and read the documentation. People have the right to think for themselves
( "There's also the video evidence..."
Which is not physical evidence is it. It is misinterpreted evidence.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 4:27pm)
Again, you try to make yourself the judge for everyone else. They should see for themselves.
( By physical evidence I mean traces of dynamite or equivalent explosive charges
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 4:27pm)
Like exactly what Steven Jones found. As I said already, and you seem only able to wave your arms about and scream "that's not relevant"- Professor Steven Jones has X-ray spectrometry evidence from samples taken at the WTC site. Which show a PERFECT MATCH for the highly specialized compound "thermate" (used for cutting through steel) found in the WTC debris. Read also "Molten Metal" and "Fire Initiated Collapse - Primary Arguments Against"
Anyone can look up Steven Jones lecture on the subject on youtube.
Yet all you can do is make blank dismissals without any reasons at all
(DNA, plane parts,
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 4:27pm)
Isn't that the sort of evidence YOU should be providing? I haven't seen provide anything like that. Show us some real videos of a huge passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. Show us the DNA evidence linking Arab hijackers to 9-11.
(missile parts etc.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 4:27pm)
Strawman. I never said anything about a missile hitting anything. Stick to what is said, not what you wish that I was saying.
And the vote spamming on this ballot is waaaaaay too obvious.
Who did it? FiddleFaddleOnLSD? Or you maybe?
"I never said anything about a missile hitting anything. Stick to what is said, not what you wish that I was saying."
Enlighten me. What do you think hit the pentagon? Do you have a credible alternative?
("I never said anything about a missile hitting anything. Stick to what is said, not what you wish that I was saying."
Enlighten me. What do you think hit the pentagon? Do you have a credible alternative?
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 7:43pm)
So do you admit you were using a strawman?
Strawman? Of course not. I was merely stating what would be acceptable as kinds of physical evidence.
You don't believe there was a missile? That's great. Now tell us what you do believe.
Like I asked in the Holocaust Denial ballot:
Let's do this point by point, one at a time to make things easier.
I don't mind tackling each of your points in turn.
So, go ahead.
What is your first piece of evidence that the official explanation is not true?
(Strawman? Of course not.
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 9:52pm)
Then why carry on about missiles when I never mentioned any? That's why I called it a strawman
( What is your first piece of evidence that the official explanation is not true?
by wideheadofknowledge on Wed Aug 15, 07 10:22pm)
Why don't you deal with what has already been mentioned many times already instead of always trying to avoid it?
Clearly, I am not avoiding anything, just attempting to clarify the issue.
Clearly you are avoiding every critical point made, and you aren't seeking to clarify anything.
Where's a scientific study showing that cellphones can make minutes-long calls from passenger jets flying at 30,000 feet at 500mph without any use of an onboard cellular basestation - because such technology didn't exist before 2004, and was still in the experimental prototype stage until 2006. Qualcomm spent millions of dollars on the research for developing onboard cellular basestattions just to allow cellphones to make calls from planes, and it's a ridiculous claim to say they spent all that money for no reason at all.
Don't give excuses from Verizon PR types and telecommunications company managers - show that there is real scientific basis for your claims by citing scientific studies.
I can counter all your managerial types with the opinions of real experts (not PR managers, but professionals in telecommunications) who say it's impossible anyway.
So, if you want to show that the cellphone calls were possible, then you'll need a scientific study to show it. Preferrably more than one for confirmation.
Now that's better!
First off can I produce a scientific study that conclusively proves that cell phones can be used at high altitudes? No I can't
However, you cannot produce a scientific study that conclusively proves they do not.
There is inconclusive anecdotal evidence that cell phones work at altitudes and for you to discount that body of evidence you are no longer able to call on ANY anecdotal evidence for ANY of your claims in the future.
The main thrust of this nonsense is simply a strawman at this stage. The flights involved all had airfones - it has been documented now that airfone calls (some, not all) were mistakenly attributed to cell phones.
What is more likely a) Passengers whose cell phones didn't work used an airfone or b)the calls were fake?
( First off can I produce a scientific study that conclusively proves that cell phones can be used at high altitudes? No I can't
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 16, 07 7:54pm)
Another strawman. I asked for a scientific study showing that the cellphone calls were possible, preferrably more than one. You can't show one, not even a single one, that makes your claims highly doubtful.
( However, you cannot produce a scientific study that conclusively proves they do not.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 16, 07 7:54pm)
Yet another strawman argument.
I can however produce scientific studies which show that it is virtually impossible to make a cellphone call under those conditions simply because at 8,000 feet, the chance of a call being able to connect is 10,000 to 1. That's already been cited before. What has also been cited already on one of those ballots specifically about the cellphone calls is that the people who did that study and another related one, came to the conclusion that it is effectively impossible to make an successful cellphone calls above 10,000 feet.
And all of that is only the problems encountered with a slow flying prop-plane at it's best altitude. It can be logically assumed that with a passenger jet flying above 30,000 feet and at 500mph, any cellphone calls would be totally impossible without use of an onboard cellular basestation - which is why companies like Qualcomm spent huge amounts of money on research and development of such technology, and didn't succeed until 2004 for a prototype.
(it has been documented now that airfone calls (some, not all) were mistakenly attributed to cell phones.
by wideheadofknowledge on Thu Aug 16, 07 7:54pm)
Exactly, not all were airfone calls. Now please deal with this problem because it's a huge flaw in the 9-11 myth promoted by the Bush Administration. The cellphones weren't possible under the alleged conditions, and appear therefore to have been faked. That also makes the airfone calls questionable as being faked as well.
DoK, sorry to be a pain but can you cite the scientific study you are talking about?
I'd like to read it - because I can't find a single one.
"That also makes the airfone calls questionable as being faked as well."
Quick aside - what happened to the passengers then? I mean you must have an intelligent, credible alternative theory right?
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
I tend to side with Mo! HI MO!!! (WAVES FRANTICALLY!)
"Orchestrated"? No.
We all know they sub-contract that kind of shit.
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
Why in the heck would the government do that to their own country? You guys think too much.
Voted : I never bought the Conspiracy Theory in the first place
Buildings that are demolished never fall down like that. Demolished buildings fall down like totally different to how those towers fell down. Totally, totally different. Totally. Jeez! Take off your tinfoil hats.
And like why do people say that like Bush is like a moron and stuff? He seems like really clever and courageous.
Rogue elements in the US government (PNAC members) planned and orchestrated 9/11, and far from 'not just one' there are thousands of pieces of compelling evidence that confirm this.
9/11 was an inside job - just do a modicum of independent research folks and ignore blind and ignorant who would have you believe otherwise.
|
