9/11 loose change.

he still stands

Pepe Silvia wrote:

project for a new american century summed it up nicely in their 2000 report rebuilding america's defenses where they push a pretty big agenda of more nukes/breaking the nuclear non proliferation treaty, militarizing space, spending the surplus on defense and vastly increasing defense spending, pre-emptive attacks, controlling regions with resources, invading iraq, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

but they have "4,075 active, 5,535 total" nuclear weapons, which is more than enough to kill every living creature on this planet, substantially more than any other country, and did the US ever break the treaty? Has the US increase its arsental since 2001? I can't find any evidence that they have.

there haven't been serious talks of militarizing space since 2001, or really since the Reagan administration, right?

spending on defense... again... the US does not need a rational explanation to go to war. They just make one up and use propaganda to get the dumb white people in middle-America to fervently support it. A grandiose conspiracy isn't required. Just a good story-teller.

pre-emptive attacks... same... the justification to go to Iraq was WMDs not 9/11 (although most people thought so at the time, and amazingly, some people still do think so).

presence in the middle-east... the US already has a satellite state (Israel) and essentially Kuwait is as well. And the US didn't need this sort of a conspiracy to increase the presence. Just call it "democratizing" the corrupt state or saving the "righteous state" from its terrible people (see: Nicaraugua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Lebanon, et al)

Lastly, the reason conspiracies almost never work is simple: people cannot keep secrets.

JonnyPistachio

ryanevolution wrote:

9 11 was an inside job. Period.

Inside Afghanistan maybe. These conspiracy theories are so fucking ridiculous it makes me sick.

Kel Varnsen

he still stands wrote:

Lastly, the reason conspiracies almost never work is simple: people cannot keep secrets.

Exactly. I read this on another board before, but during Clinton's presidency he got a blow job from an intern in his office. The kind of thing that by definition only two people should know about. Yet that was all over the news. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories I have seen would require 100's of people to be involved, yet somehow every single one of them keeps quiet?

JonnyPistachio

Kel Varnsen wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Lastly, the reason conspiracies almost never work is simple: people cannot keep secrets.

Exactly. I read this on another board before, but during Clinton's presidency he got a blow job from an intern in his office. The kind of thing that by definition only two people should know about. Yet that was all over the news. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories I have seen would require 100's of people to be involved, yet somehow every single one of them keeps quiet?

this is exactly whati was thinking. There would have had to have been dozens (if not hundreds) of people in on this. And to take the chance at assuming they would always keep quiet forever is just risking too much. Inless you could picture Georgie and Dick running around the trade centers all drunk by themselves a few days before 9/11.

rebornFixer

The public was sold several (related) rationales for Iraq. WMDs, the tyranny and threat posed by Saddam Hussein ... I don't think at ANY point was 9-11 evoked in direct reference to this invasion, although a more general "war on terror" probably got tossed out there. And he still stands, all the "dumb white people" you refer to (I didn't realize the blacks and hispanics were smarter, silly me!) were at least somewhat skeptical about Iraq from the very beginning, and as the thing dragged on, it became and remains a highly unpopular war. So, not only did 9-11 not really get used as a direct excuse for Iraq, people didn't really buy into Bush's rationales anyway, at least not to the extent he was hoping they would.

he still stands

rebornFixer wrote:

The public was sold several (related) rationales for Iraq. WMDs, the tyranny and threat posed by Saddam Hussein ... I don't think at ANY point was 9-11 evoked in direct reference to this invasion, although a more general "war on terror" probably got tossed out there. And he still stands, all the "dumb white people" you refer to (I didn't realize the blacks and hispanics were smarter, silly me!) were at least somewhat skeptical about Iraq from the very beginning, and as the thing dragged on, it became and remains a highly unpopular war. So, not only did 9-11 not really get used as a direct excuse for Iraq, people didn't really buy into Bush's rationales anyway, at least not to the extent he was hoping they would.

yes you are right... it doesn't matter what color people are they are usually ignorant. I'm not being cynical... I just can't believe the bullshit that people buy in to. Politicians have always been corrupt but somehow people still believe in either this dude or that dude.

Also, I beg to differ about the extent that people "bought into" the concept of 9-11 causing the Iraq war. You are right... that was not the position of the Bush administration... but somehow "smart" people still believed that until very recently.

I worked with a guy that was pulling down like $80k or more as a Marketing Manager, good education, trivia whiz. In 2006 he still believed it, probably because he heard it from a conservative pundit. That is what I mean by "everyone is stupid"... these types of people that believe anything they hear. Maybe "stupid" is the wrong word. How about 'gullible.'

Pepe Silvia

Kel Varnsen wrote:

he still stands wrote:

Lastly, the reason conspiracies almost never work is simple: people cannot keep secrets.

Exactly. I read this on another board before, but during Clinton's presidency he got a blow job from an intern in his office. The kind of thing that by definition only two people should know about. Yet that was all over the news. Some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories I have seen would require 100's of people to be involved, yet somehow every single one of them keeps quiet?

1 is dealing with a young girl who thought he loved her and then felt jilted. i mean she kept a dress with his cum on it for fuck's sake!

on the other hand you'd have people who's living is doing things secretly.

Pepe Silvia

he still stands wrote:

Pepe Silvia wrote:

project for a new american century summed it up nicely in their 2000 report rebuilding america's defenses where they push a pretty big agenda of more nukes/breaking the nuclear non proliferation treaty, militarizing space, spending the surplus on defense and vastly increasing defense spending, pre-emptive attacks, controlling regions with resources, invading iraq, "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

but they have "4,075 active, 5,535 total" nuclear weapons, which is more than enough to kill every living creature on this planet, substantially more than any other country, and did the US ever break the treaty? Has the US increase its arsental since 2001? I can't find any evidence that they have.

there haven't been serious talks of militarizing space since 2001, or really since the Reagan administration, right?

spending on defense... again... the US does not need a rational explanation to go to war. They just make one up and use propaganda to get the dumb white people in middle-America to fervently support it. A grandiose conspiracy isn't required. Just a good story-teller.

pre-emptive attacks... same... the justification to go to Iraq was WMDs not 9/11 (although most people thought so at the time, and amazingly, some people still do think so).

presence in the middle-east... the US already has a satellite state (Israel) and essentially Kuwait is as well. And the US didn't need this sort of a conspiracy to increase the presence. Just call it "democratizing" the corrupt state or saving the "righteous state" from its terrible people (see: Nicaraugua, Honduras, Costa Rica, Lebanon, et al)

Lastly, the reason conspiracies almost never work is simple: people cannot keep secrets.

well, pnac (cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitz, perle...) disagree with you, they thought to get to the level they wanted would be a long journey...they also disagree with you on needing to have a presence in iraq and other parts of the region. yeah, they could've gotten a lot of this with media blitzes and pushes, their paper didn't say "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change cannot happen absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." they said "is likely to be a long one'' it would take them a long time to get these things through compared to the virtually instant approval many things got after 9/11. take this as an example:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/14/opini ... ess&st=nyt

that program was originally called the Total Information Awareness Program but people didn't like that because it is basically an orwellian system that would monitor pretty much everyone. they then rename it the Terrorism Information Awareness Program and it gets through

yes, we did break the nuclear non proliferation treaty by helping India decide which sites and reactors would be allowed to be inspected by the IAEA and selling them uranium (as well as the icbm treaty, pulled out of the International Criminal Court, boycotted a UN conference on a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, refused to ratify the UN Convention on Rights of the Child, rejected a UN agreement to enforce a biological weapons ban and opposed a UN initiative against torture), bush started research for new smaller mini nukes, obama has also asked for in increase in making nuclear weapons. and of course they could get increases in the defense budget but not at the high levels they thought was needed to retain our position and achieve their goals

Pepe Silvia

rebornFixer wrote:

The public was sold several (related) rationales for Iraq. WMDs, the tyranny and threat posed by Saddam Hussein ... I don't think at ANY point was 9-11 evoked in direct reference to this invasion, although a more general "war on terror" probably got tossed out there. And he still stands, all the "dumb white people" you refer to (I didn't realize the blacks and hispanics were smarter, silly me!) were at least somewhat skeptical about Iraq from the very beginning, and as the thing dragged on, it became and remains a highly unpopular war. So, not only did 9-11 not really get used as a direct excuse for Iraq, people didn't really buy into Bush's rationales anyway, at least not to the extent he was hoping they would.

i guess you forgot the whole Mohammed Atta met with the Iraqi government and links of al qaeda and Iraq nonsense?

or a year after saying "America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

or

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/ ... index.html

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Vice President Dick Cheney said Thursday the evidence is "overwhelming" that al Qaeda had a relationship with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and he said media reports suggesting that the 9/11 commission has reached a contradictory conclusion were "irresponsible."

"There clearly was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming," Cheney said in an interview with CNBC's "Capitol Report."

"It goes back to the early '90s. It involves a whole series of contacts, high-level contacts with Osama bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officials."

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often times lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in the press said without doing their homework."

Both Cheney and President Bush are strongly disputing suggestions that the commission's conclusion that there were no Iraqi fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks contradicts statements they made in the run-up to the Iraq war about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

"The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda [is] because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda," the president said. (Full story)

or how about:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RytxVNM0llQ

"it's been pretty well confirmed that he did go to Prague and that he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi Intelligence service"

dumb white people??? wtf are you talking about??

TravisTheSky

he still stands wrote:

But... why?

what is the payoff?

I just don't get it...

WHAT IS THE G'DAMN PAYOFF???

I think we have slowly seen the 'payoff' taking place over the last several years: The shock that Americans got on September 11 made many people feel like helpless victims. Some thought it would be great to go on the offense and bomb the hell out of the middle east. Others looked to the government to be savior and protector.

We are turning into a flock of compliant sheep, happy to "Give up our liberties for Freedom."

- The country has been in an official State of Emergency since September of 2001. The president can suspend the constitution and declare Martial Law at any moment for any reason. The PATRIOT Act was invented as a means to control the domestic population (read the MIAC report.) Citizens can be arrested and held indefinitely without habeas corpus. Our phone calls and internet usage are surveilled without warrants. Mobile phones and automobiles have GPS systems in them that can be accessed by any government agency. Phones, computer microphones, cable boxes, etc. can be listened in on. Internet censorship is being implemented because free speech is dangerous.

- Naked body scanners are the latest popular tool to make the sheep feel safe. [Michael Chertoff is making millions from his stock in the company.] As a normal person with dignity, I expected that my peers would be horrified at the thought of being strip searched. But ridiculously, stats indicate that 96% to 100% of people march right through the DNA-mangling terrahertz machines without objection, pausing only to put their arms up in the, "I surrender!! Don't shoot me!!!" position.

hrd2imgn

I saw a show on debunking 9/11 myths the other day and it pretty much showed how ignorant the conspiarcy theorist are

my favorite is: How does a steel building collapse from the heat of a fire below Steel's melting point?

we the answer is pretty clear It doesn't need to melt all the way to lose structural integrity, all it needs to be is weakened enough from the heat to collapse from it's own heat.

second favorite, you can see puffs of smoke coming out of windows as it collapes showing the mini explosions the gov planted to aid the collapse

answer, when you have a building full of dry materials such as dry wall collapsing and compressing it is going to make dust, that dust will be jettisoned out the nearest hole, or basically glass that is breaking as the pressure cracks the windows

I know we can argue this until blue, but engineering sometimes defies logic

I vote no on the conspiracy by the gov

Pepe Silvia

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2009/11/le ... ine_f.html

Throughout the day today, the website Wikileaks will be publishing over half a million messages sent from text pagers on 9/11. According to the website, they range "from Pentagon and New York Police Department exchanges, to computers reporting faults to their operators as the World Trade Center collapsed." It's a little arduous sifting through all the computer gibberish in the documents, but the information contained within can be fascinating. CBS News's Dean McCullagh found messages discussing an evacuation to Mount Weather, "the government's sort-of secret bunker buried under the Virginia mountains west of Washington, D.C." He finds another that warned of a threat to Air Force One, and even one that seemed to celebrate the death of a disliked business executive onboard one of the doomed flights. Other texts refer to a bomb going off in the World Trade Center and military planes forcing down a commercial jet

OnTheEdge

hrd2imgn wrote:

I saw a show on debunking 9/11 myths the other day and it pretty much showed how ignorant the conspiarcy theorist are

my favorite is: How does a steel building collapse from the heat of a fire below Steel's melting point?

we the answer is pretty clear It doesn't need to melt all the way to lose structural integrity, all it needs to be is weakened enough from the heat to collapse from it's own heat.

second favorite, you can see puffs of smoke coming out of windows as it collapes showing the mini explosions the gov planted to aid the collapse

answer, when you have a building full of dry materials such as dry wall collapsing and compressing it is going to make dust, that dust will be jettisoned out the nearest hole, or basically glass that is breaking as the pressure cracks the windows

I know we can argue this until blue, but engineering sometimes defies logic

I vote no on the conspiracy by the gov

I give common sense a :thumbup:

TravisTheSky

Oops, my earlier post turned into a ramble.

Question: "WHY?"

Answer: Fear. For G.W. to launch a War on Terror, he first had to make sure that we were filled with terror.

It has worked nicely, thanks.

he still stands

TravisTheSky wrote:

Oops, my earlier post turned into a ramble.

Question: "WHY?"

Answer: Fear. For G.W. to launch a War on Terror, he first had to make sure that we were filled with terror.

It has worked nicely, thanks.

Like I keep saying, the U.S. does not need "legitimate" reasons to go to war. They just make up a reason or call it "democratizing" a corrupt government or saving a righteous government from its "radicalists" (communists, socialists, taliban, etc). This has been the case since the era of Wilsonian Idealism beginning in 1917 and escalating during the Reagan administration (see Nicraugua, Liberia, Guatemala, et al).

So, that means the government doesn't need to do much except have good "storytellers" to influence the thoughts of the stupid people who still believe in government.

Which means that they don't need to create the most elaborate conspiracy in the history of mankind in order to invade Afghanistan (which never was their priority).

Iraq has nothing to do with this and never was fought because of 9/11. People (still) think this but that just shows how retarded people are.

Cynical rant over.

ryanevolution

mb262200 wrote:

hrd2imgn wrote:

I saw a show on debunking 9/11 myths the other day and it pretty much showed how ignorant the conspiarcy theorist are

my favorite is: How does a steel building collapse from the heat of a fire below Steel's melting point?

we the answer is pretty clear It doesn't need to melt all the way to lose structural integrity, all it needs to be is weakened enough from the heat to collapse from it's own heat.

second favorite, you can see puffs of smoke coming out of windows as it collapes showing the mini explosions the gov planted to aid the collapse

answer, when you have a building full of dry materials such as dry wall collapsing and compressing it is going to make dust, that dust will be jettisoned out the nearest hole, or basically glass that is breaking as the pressure cracks the windows

I know we can argue this until blue, but engineering sometimes defies logic

I vote no on the conspiracy by the gov

I give common sense a :thumbup:

You can stick that ignorant thumbs up straight up your as-! The buildings fell at near free fall speed. Use your "common sense" on that. If the floors collapsed and pancaked it would have fell in 90 seconds, they dropped in under 15. This proves a controlled demolition. So continue your ignorance or wake up.

polaris_x

he still stands wrote:

Like I keep saying, the U.S. does not need "legitimate" reasons to go to war. They just make up a reason or call it "democratizing" a corrupt government or saving a righteous government from its "radicalists" (communists, socialists, taliban, etc). This has been the case since the era of Wilsonian Idealism beginning in 1917 and escalating during the Reagan administration (see Nicraugua, Liberia, Guatemala, et al).

So, that means the government doesn't need to do much except have good "storytellers" to influence the thoughts of the stupid people who still believe in government.

Which means that they don't need to create the most elaborate conspiracy in the history of mankind in order to invade Afghanistan (which never was their priority).

Iraq has nothing to do with this and never was fought because of 9/11. People (still) think this but that just shows how retarded people are.

Cynical rant over.

that's not true ... yes, the US do not need a reason to get involved in other countries ... but they have to do it covertly using the CIA or something ... but to do what they are doing in Iraq now - which is basically taking over the oil supply ... there had to be a 9/11 ...

the US and British have been desperate to get that oil back since they nationalized it way back when ... kuwait was the opening they've been looking for ... but it wasn't enough ...

OnTheEdge

ryanevolution wrote:

mb262200 wrote:

hrd2imgn wrote:

I saw a show on debunking 9/11 myths the other day and it pretty much showed how ignorant the conspiarcy theorist are

my favorite is: How does a steel building collapse from the heat of a fire below Steel's melting point?

we the answer is pretty clear It doesn't need to melt all the way to lose structural integrity, all it needs to be is weakened enough from the heat to collapse from it's own heat.

second favorite, you can see puffs of smoke coming out of windows as it collapes showing the mini explosions the gov planted to aid the collapse

answer, when you have a building full of dry materials such as dry wall collapsing and compressing it is going to make dust, that dust will be jettisoned out the nearest hole, or basically glass that is breaking as the pressure cracks the windows

I know we can argue this until blue, but engineering sometimes defies logic

I vote no on the conspiracy by the gov

I give common sense a :thumbup:

You can stick that ignorant thumbs up straight up your as-! The buildings fell at near free fall speed. Use your "common sense" on that. If the floors collapsed and pancaked it would have fell in 90 seconds, they dropped in under 15. This proves a controlled demolition. So continue your ignorance or wake up.

Ummm, ok.....freak!

Cliffy6745

Science, Engineering, and 1000s of studies > Ryanevolution, Charlie Sheen and a couple curious kids with a camera.

ryanevolution

Cliffy6745 wrote:

Science, Engineering, and 1000s of studies > Ryanevolution, Charlie Sheen and a couple curious kids with a camera.

Right.

1. "Science" says that if the towers fell at "free fall" speed (which means "no resistance", which means a controlled demolition) that time would be 9 seconds. The buildings hit the ground between 11-15 seconds. Near free fall speed. IF the floors had pancaked, as is the official story, "science" says that would have taken 90 seconds plus. THAT is the science. (show me your science or reasoning by the way, oh thats right, you have none)

2. "Engineering" the building was made to withstand airplane impacts. It was engineered that way. How in the world then do two towers completely structurally fail?

3. "1000's of studies" Laughable. Site ONE.

4. "Couple curious kids with a camera" - No, only 30 year veteran employees of the towers, career firemen and police officers, and eyewitnesses who said bombs went off, explosions inside the building. Not to mention the video footage of the third, unhit building being dropped by a controlled demolition.

and beyond all that...the forensic evidence of thermite everywhere, the twisted steel girders comp[letely burned through with thermite and the more intense thermate.

for example...

do you see the diagnol burn through solid steel. That is a controlled demoltion fuckwad. Here is the proof. You have conjecture with nothing to back it up.