 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Northern Pie
We are watching!
Joined: 27 May 2001
Location: Queensland
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I have been interested about this for a while and remember thinking to myself while watching the buildings collapse that there would be a lot more information to come concerning why they did collapse, but none forthcoming......I do not subscribe to the point of view that it is some sort of JFK type cover up (Besides we all know that the emu shot JFK there is photo evidence on Nicks but I just haven't been able to find it....coverup? lol) With the careful planning of the terrorists responsible is it not also possible that they had planted all kinds of explosives etc throughout the building and the crashing of the planes into the building acted as some sort of "Fuse" to detonate the explosives?
Whatever is the real outcome, I look forward to the movie starring Maulder & Scully 
Cheers
PP - it was actually Joseph Smith....
_________________
“NEVER LEAVE, NEVER GIVE UP ON THEM AND ALWAYS BE THERE AT THE END TO CLAP THEM OFF THE GROUND. WE ARE COLLINGWOOD SUPPORTERS SON, EVEN IF THEY BEAT US, WE ARE STILL BETTER THAN THEM”!(my mum) |
|
|
|
 |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What is your real name? |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't think the "who" is in doubt, well not by thinking people anyway.
Remember, 9/11 was the second attempt to destroy the twin towers, the first was in 1993.
IMO, what is in doubt is the "when was it known that attacks were imminent" and why was the Bin Laden family allowed to leave the US by plane the day after the attack, when all other aircraft was grounded.
I have no doubt that the intelligence agencies knew far more than we have ever been told. So in that regard, I say there is a conspiracy.
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| magpie greg wrote: | | David wrote: | PP, I thought that was Joseph Smith. Although, the other guy may have had something to do with the founding of the church, I don't know.
Greg, I've heard a few theories, and then I've heard a few of those debunked. It seems like a lot of people believe what they want to believe, so my philosophy is this:
what is more likely?
1) The US government, in a calculated attempt to gain support for their planned war in Iraq, decided to systematically and competently destroy one of their structures and kill hundreds of their own citizens, blaming the attacks on Islamic extremists who had nothing to do with the country they planned to invade. This operation was the idea of the Bush administration, who probably employed the CIA and sections of the armed forces to complete this difficult procedure. Despite the large amount of numbers involved, nobody has yet admitted to being a participant in this plot. *scary music* - have they been silenced? Well, apparently not, because college dudes and a physics professor have been allowed to spread their theories freely without any fear of retribution from this evil US government, usually so cavalier with the lives of its civilians. Despite the amazing complexity and perfect execution of this operation, the government did not have the foresight to link it with the country they wished to invade, or, indeed, show any competence or foresight in that future decision.
Or,
2) A few Islamic jihadists, members of a group that is allegedly responsible for countless terrorist attacks elsewhere in the world, including those little countries that Americans don't really think about, were called upon to hijack a few planes and destroy a few significant American cultural icons, thus sending a message to the western world about what they thought of their decadence. The celebrations in Palestinian streets in the aftermath were proof enough that there were more than a few people who wanted to do this... and, is anyone disputing that they could have done it? Other terrorist groups were probably kicking themselves because they didn't think of it first.
Just looking at that logically, which would you guess is more likely?
Of course, just because the second option is more likely, doesn't mean it necessarily happened, and really, we can't completely dismiss 9/11 conspiracy theories without all the facts. However, we can react to the inherent flaw in the reasoning - the mindset that cannot comprehend the idea that outside forces could ever pull off such an (let's face it, relatively simple) act. Instead, not content with the obvious flaws already present in the Bush administration and its policies, we must assume that they are capable of the most horrible deeds imaginable, able to sink so low as to kill hundreds of its own citizens, simply to create a flimsy premise to go to an incompetently-fought and planned war.
This is the problem with conspiracy theories. It's not that they're always wrong - the chances are, some of them may well be right. The problem is the thought process: decide what you want to believe, then find all possible 'facts' and arguments to support this proposition, meanwhile screening out anything that might compromise your argument. The fact is, anyone can make a convincing argument for practically anything, and once you start listening to nothing other than what you want to believe, you will be able to convince yourself of that argument's validity. It's for those reasons that conspiracy theories have existed since the beginning of time, from the Flat Earth Society to creationism to Roswell. True intelligence and knowledge comes from analysing all possible data, and coming to the most logical (and, often, most boring and predictable) conclusion. |
There are other options David. For example, what if the USA knew the attacks were going to happen and decided to let it proceed for whatever reason? |
A far more likely scenario, admittedly.
What are the implications of this, if it is found to be the case, though? That's another point that I always consider about the September 11 conspiracy theories. Does this mean terrorism is any less of a threat? Does it mean the Bush administration should share responsibility? What does it mean, and what should we do about it?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Im not really sure. . . . |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Whatever happened, I'm pretty sure Didak wasn't involved.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: |
A far more likely scenario, admittedly.
What are the implications of this, if it is found to be the case, though? That's another point that I always consider about the September 11 conspiracy theories. Does this mean terrorism is any less of a threat? Does it mean the Bush administration should share responsibility? What does it mean, and what should we do about it? |
Terrorists David?
Who are the Terrorists?
Is there only 1 definition?
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Do you have any conditions I should know about? |
|
|
|
|
rambopriscilla 
vvv USE FOUND FOR CAT!
Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Location: Yarra Valley
|
| Post subject: Re: Twin Towers conspiracy theories won't go away... | |
|
| magpie greg wrote: | | ~Madness~ wrote: | | Proud Pies wrote: | | sorry, didn't mean to derail the thread, it just caught my eye |
Don't worry jac, it will be derailed before long. When the ones who come out and say it wasn't a terrorist act get on board!! They're all just misunderstood very bad pilots. lol. |
Omar, I have a funny feeling this is aimed at you!
Having said that, with regards to 11/9 the USA in it stupdity reaped what it sowed itself through its own foreign policy. |
I remember when Anthony Mundine said that. It turned practically the whole country against him didn't it?
_________________
- "Number 42? I see you've got Darren Millane in the Heaven footy side"
- "No that's God. He just tries to play like Millane" |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Frank Stone wrote: | | David wrote: |
A far more likely scenario, admittedly.
What are the implications of this, if it is found to be the case, though? That's another point that I always consider about the September 11 conspiracy theories. Does this mean terrorism is any less of a threat? Does it mean the Bush administration should share responsibility? What does it mean, and what should we do about it? |
Terrorists David?
Who are the Terrorists?
Is there only 1 definition? |
Come on. I've had this argument before with Omar. Probably with you too.
Terrorists are people who use fear as their main weapon - a typical terrorist tactic is to attack groups of civilians, with the goal being maximum casualties. Suicide bombing is a very effective measure as the concept of assailants who are willing to kill themselves as well as you is more frightening. Terrorism seems to be the preferred weapon of many Oppressed Groups, due to their lack of tanks, planes and atomic bombs. Terrorism is useful for small groups, as they can use people's fear as a tool for achieving their goals - e.g., stop publishing those cartoons of Mohammed, or we'll blow you up. Pull your country's troops out of Iraq, or you may be blown up.
On the other hand, the American army actively tries to minimise civilian casualties, and usually has a more specific goal in mind, say the capture/death of a leader, or the defeat of armed forces. The method used here is one of simply overpowering the opponent, the opponent usually being armed or in a position of power. The people killed in terrorist attacks aren't opponents, they're simply used to send a message to the actual opponent. At least soldiers choose to be in the army (well, usually), and at least they get guns.
Is either method of fighting better than the other? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it's ideologically-driven blindness to not see that there's a difference between the two.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Proud Pies 
Joined: 22 Feb 2003
Location: Knox-ish
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Northern Pie wrote: | I have been interested about this for a while and remember thinking to myself while watching the buildings collapse that there would be a lot more information to come concerning why they did collapse, but none forthcoming......I do not subscribe to the point of view that it is some sort of JFK type cover up (Besides we all know that the emu shot JFK there is photo evidence on Nicks but I just haven't been able to find it....coverup? lol) With the careful planning of the terrorists responsible is it not also possible that they had planted all kinds of explosives etc throughout the building and the crashing of the planes into the building acted as some sort of "Fuse" to detonate the explosives?
Whatever is the real outcome, I look forward to the movie starring Maulder & Scully
Cheers
PP - it was actually Joseph Smith.... |
yep, your right, Joseph Smith.....but i knew Brigham Young was involved  he was the president
Brigham Young (June 1, 1801 – August 29, 1877) was an American leader in the Latter Day Saint movement and was the president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1847 until his death. Young was the first governor of the Utah Territory, United States, and is the namesake of Brigham Young University.
oops, did i de-rail it again?
_________________
Jacqui © Proud Pies 2003 and beyond |
|
|
|
|
Jason 
Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Location: Mackay
|
| Post subject: | |
|
But where is the wreckage at the Pentagon??
I don't know who did it or how, but it seems likely a plane didn't hit the Pentagon...
I'm not saying terrorists are dull and can't fly planes into buildings, or that the American government is evil. But there was no tail section of a plane or the engines of a plane that hit the Pentagon (the section of which was under renovation and thus empty at the time).
I don't even know if those last couple of points are facts or simply conspirators lies!
ARGH! |
|
|
|
|
OEP 
Joined: 12 Jan 2007
Location: Perth
|
| Post subject: | |
|
In keeping with the conspiracy theories how about this (completely of my own creation):
Prior to the planes being flown into the two towers the terrorists had broken into the three building involved and planted explosives knowing that the planes and the explosives would be needed to fell the two towers, and taking the opportunity to seriously damage the attempts of the emergency personal to safe people and / or control the situation by taking out their control centre in the third building.
On the Pentagon what if it was a much smaller plane but was packed with explosives that detonated after impact, that would create substantial damge while leaving very little of the plane to be recovered including the tail.
The US government doesn't release the fact about the explosive in the buildings fearing an even greater public panic / backlash, but they use the already extablished big plane attacks to explain the Pentagon as a means to further push the public to their way of thinking with regards to dealing with the terrorist threats.
Wow, I've got a headache now.....what's that noise outside ?????
_________________
A Collingwood supporter since the egg was inseminated. |
|
|
|
|
Alec. J. Hidell
Joined: 12 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Frank Stone wrote: | | David wrote: |
A far more likely scenario, admittedly.
What are the implications of this, if it is found to be the case, though? That's another point that I always consider about the September 11 conspiracy theories. Does this mean terrorism is any less of a threat? Does it mean the Bush administration should share responsibility? What does it mean, and what should we do about it? |
Terrorists David?
Who are the Terrorists?
Is there only 1 definition? |
Come on. I've had this argument before with Omar. Probably with you too.
Terrorists are people who use fear as their main weapon - a typical terrorist tactic is to attack groups of civilians, with the goal being maximum casualties. Suicide bombing is a very effective measure as the concept of assailants who are willing to kill themselves as well as you is more frightening. Terrorism seems to be the preferred weapon of many Oppressed Groups, due to their lack of tanks, planes and atomic bombs. Terrorism is useful for small groups, as they can use people's fear as a tool for achieving their goals - e.g., stop publishing those cartoons of Mohammed, or we'll blow you up. Pull your country's troops out of Iraq, or you may be blown up.
On the other hand, the American army actively tries to minimise civilian casualties, and usually has a more specific goal in mind, say the capture/death of a leader, or the defeat of armed forces. The method used here is one of simply overpowering the opponent, the opponent usually being armed or in a position of power. The people killed in terrorist attacks aren't opponents, they're simply used to send a message to the actual opponent. At least soldiers choose to be in the army (well, usually), and at least they get guns.
Is either method of fighting better than the other? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is that it's ideologically-driven blindness to not see that there's a difference between the two. |
Paragraph 1 outlines what the US does in paragraph 2.
You believe it because it sits comfortably with your "keeping the boogie men at bay" mentality.
What the so called "terrorists" do is to react, they don't pro-act.
When you begin to understand that, then we might be able to have a informative discussion on how it should best be resolved.
Until then Uncle Sam, wiil keep the boogie men away from you.
_________________
The one man in the world, who never believes he is mad, is the madman. |
|
|
|
|
jack_spain 
Joined: 03 May 2008
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Geez David, Frank Stone's after you now! He has all those inside contacts at the US Embassy in Canberra too. Just watch your back for men in black with dark sunnies. 
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
