You know me KJ I have not stated my personal thoughts on the subject as such but what I will say and I tend to apply this to a lot of things is that there are 3 sides to every story. We have the official version We have the unofficial version And we have the truth which is probably somewhere in the middle A very interesting debate though I nave to say, it hasn't even got out of hand either
backing and training from who exactly? it's well documented that bin laden was armed by the Yanks to fight the Russians years before 9/11, the links between the binladen and bush family also are well documented. so if you mean armed and trained by America then ok right you are. the debris argument is soft at best, the worst atrocity on American soil since P.H. and they not only clear the debris but destroy it as well, all done before any independent body could investigate or even get near it. sorry but what utter garbage. I don't personally believe it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon, FBI agents conviscated cctv footage from key buildings which would've clearly shown what actually hit it, confiscated within minutes of the event ..... they have never been seen to this day. this is also not the only case of supressed evidence. http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/evidence.html I'm not some anti government anarchist just someone who wants to know the answers to some very obvious question's. and like nj says above America have done false flag attacks many many times before.
Next weeks conspiracy thread is about UFO's and are we alone in the universe, so please stay tuned in to Norway jacks conspiracy weekly
Kops: "backing and training" - you are correct in America arming the mujahadeen but there is zero - I repeat zero - credible evidence that the U.S trained the terrorists that carried out 9/11 either in a general sense or to do that specific task. If you say there is, other than videos made by people who come at it from a less than objective standpoint then put it up. Debris: The argument that it had to be cleared isn't "soft" at all. Look at the income that is generated by NYC domestically and worldwide. Bringing southern Manhattan to a halt for 6 months or more would have crucified the U.S economy and possibly the world's too. It had to be cleared. You imply there was little or no forensic investigation of the wreckage but we both know this isn't correct. 20,000 body parts were recovered and the even then the damage was so extensive that about 1,000 people remained unidentified even after this length of time. The forensic examination of the wreckage was detailed enough to allow the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to conclude in 2005 that a lack of fireproofing caused the towers to collapse, and whereas some questioned whether said fireproofing could have been 'dislodge' as suggested in their report, the outcome was the same - the fireproofing had either been degraded over time, or was insufficient in the first place or had become 'dislodged'. In other words, the intense fire caused by burning aviation fuel was enough to buckle the support structure. Maybe the NIST were yet another part of this huge conspiracy? http://www.newscientist.com/article...key-to-twin-towers-collapse.html#.UjA-Srx4PE8 The Pentagon: You have ignored the eyewitness accounts, preferring to highlight a lack of evidence as opposed to real evidence such as the paucity of CCTV (none of which would have been pointing upwards). If there was a conspiracy why would the authorities have released any CCTV at all? I repeat what I said earlier that of the eyewitnesses who gave sworn affidavits to an independent research team, at least 45 saw what they described as a "plane" fly into the Pentagon. At least 23 said they saw an "American Airlines plane" fly into the Pentagon and exactly zero say they saw a "missile" hit the Pentagon. Pretty compelling I think, unless as I said earlier American Airlines puts its livery on missiles. In case you missed it earlier: http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon...witnesses.html
Its like the whole religion/Atheism debate. Anyone who claims it was conspiracy, or was terrorists is stuck up their own arse with arrogance. We dont know and all we can do is speculate. Those who go further than speculation and suggest they know one way or the other are fools.
Not only is the last post wrong, it's unsulting to those who have an opinion based on what we know, having looked at the subject in some detail, and formulating your own opinion. I respect other people's views that this was a conspiracy even though I am able to forcefully disagree with them. If all this is just too complicated for you try reading some books. You might find enlightenment and be able to come to your own conclusions instead of just rudely insulting people. Kops: In the spirit of even-handedness I looked at the explosives theory and found this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/ It clearly shows that a forensic examination of the steel was in fact possible. However, even then if you read it you can see where this thermite story came from. The characteristics of the damaged girders, especially the presence of sulphur, could be explained by overheating in the ground after the collapse, or by some other, unknown factors. When asked (see last para) whether it was aslo "consistent with thermite" a professor replied "yes". I accept that it's food for thought but is inconclusive at best. It certainly doesn't mean thermite was used - far from it. The damage was described as "a very unusual event". Well my reply would be "no ****, Sherlock" this was a very unusual event in itself wasn't it?
I ve got no problem with people formulating an opinion, but opinions are speculation. However, there are far too many claims from people about subjects that cant be clarified. I dont know what happenned and you dont know what happenned. I feel bad for everyone who died that day and their families. The world is full of ****ers who will kill for their own outlook and i will only believe what I see with my eyes. I wasnt having a go with my post, and think speculation and discussion is healthy so long as people accept that they do not have the answers and their thoughts are just opinion
And also Telling me to go read some books completely proves my point correct. Books are tertiary or at best secondary sources of evidence. As an objective human being I only truly believe what i see with my own eyes and even in that instance I suggest it is possible to fool people.
"I wasnt having a go with my post" Then you shouldn't have said that anyone with an opinion is "stuck up their own ass with arrogance" should you? If you don't accept information from sources other than your own eyes then I hope you don't get called up for jury service. Nodody can say for certainty what happened - not many things are truly certain - so in that sense you're right but it doesn't prevent me having an opinion based on what I believe to be the evidence. When I looked into it I came at it totally objecively then came to my conclusion. I believe that conclusion is correct and that anyone who says otherwise is wrong. They feel the same in reverse I'm sure and there's no arrogance in that. Throwing your hands up and effectively saying 'nothing can be proved so what's the point' is just a cop-out. But I respect your decision to cop-out. Calling people arrogant because they have an opinion is out of order.
Im not saying anyone with an opinion is arrogant. But anyone who stands 100% behind a claim they cannot prove is giving more credence to their judgment than it is worth. As a third person looking in I have seen to many discussions, where two sides will argue blindly based upon speculation and insisting that the opposition is crazy for their beliefs. If people lived by the grey rather than in the general black and white existance we have then the world would be full of understanding and a much better place. I wouldnt say im copping out, i would just suggest i have not seen enough evidence to convince me, and thats not to say i havent looked at whats available. But yeh, i didnt mean to cause any offence, just came in all guns blazing with my, ' How the **** would you know what happenned?' lol
I take your point, but all a person can do is look at the evidence and come to a conclusion. If the evidence is suspect you disregard it. If it 'speaks' clearly then you listen. That's not speculation. In the example I gave above that's exactly how a jury trial works where there is no room at all for speculation. That's why I also think you're wrong on making the analogy with the religious debate we had. In that case there is no evidence either way really, only a lack of it. Let's not get into that one again, people.
I have for many years been a anic over thinker to the point of chronic depression. I have come to the conclusion that if there is anyone watching over us they probably laugh at our propensity to try and apply meaning to everything that occurs when we could spend more time shagging, eating and laughing. It is a humans nature to try and apply truth or logic to a situation, sometimes where the situation is ilogical or the truth is hidden/clear it is impossible to give clarity or truth. So in these situations which can cause endless debate with no hope of actually coming to a conclusion I just give it a big........WHATEVER! its one of the reasons I like sports discussion so much. You are dealing with real and definate quantitites. When the ref blows for the end of the game, the result is the result.
I fully admit Id be **** at Jury duty. i would probably just try and look into their soul, make a decision quick time and then try and get home as soon as possible.
Nudge nudge nuff said. Or in other words, are you now claiming that an explosion between an airplane and a building, does not produce enough heat to set paper on fire? Why yes you are. No honestly, stop trying to be Sherlock Holmes, because you'll only get Dr Watson arrested.
Hmmm? I'm guessing here that your going down the route of there being strong evidence that we are being visited by little green men as no one can prove you wrong, just as no one can actually prove you wrong on this despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and therefore, that makes you a winner! Fair play you've played a blinder! But i've got your card marked matey! Oh, and pearl harbour? If the United States knew, why didn't they simply sink the Japanese fleet with their carriers after the Japs had launched their planes? Would have been quite a swift ending to a war that cost thousands upon thousands of American lives don't you think? But of course, I can't prove that they didn't so that makes you the winner as you will have something else to put what I have just stated into question wont it. A very clever but simple game you play NJ!
Mr Ferrari , just read up on all the information RE Pearl harbour . It wouldn't have been a swift ending to the war as the USA wernt at war with them at the time!!... Japan declared war on the USA 7th December 1941, Germany and Italy declared war on the USA on the 8th , the USA DIDNT declare war on anybody until after they were attacked which was of course the way they wanted it PS Everyone knows they are not little Green men they are little GREY men !! but we will talk more about that next week
I ve got no problem with people formulating an opinion, but opinions are speculation. However, there are far too many claims from people about subjects that cant be clarified. I dont know what happenned and you dont know what happenned. Of course we know what happened...It was a terrorist attack plain and simple. everything else is fabrication with no substance whatsoever and made by looneys who are in the same club as David ike...
