**** me, where do you begin with this? "9/11 was a genuine attack" Well it certainly wasn't a Copperfield trick. I think we can safely say it happened. "The conspiracy evidence is fuelled by non important academics who want a minute of fame and who write incompetent papers with illogical conclusions. And school kids who get sucked into the mystery and half truths." Really? Because a minute of fame has become a well known proponent of the 9/11 culture. There are plenty of academics who have put forward their theories and pushed evidence for an inside job, to write this off as the workings of school children isn't fair. The discussion isn't as cut and dry as this, there's a lot more to it than most are willing to bother finding out about. "If we wanted an excuse to invade anywhere, any government could do it without resorting to extreme loss of life and a world changing terrorist victory event." Of course they could. That's obvious, but it's nowhere near as simple as that. People don't like war, it kills people. Ask any person on the street whether they think war is a good idea and I'd wager most would tell you it's not. There would no doubt be some who insist on it as a necessary evil, but they would probably agree that it is nonetheless a tragic, avoidable outcome of modern politics. What you have to get your head around is exactly why a government or group of people would deem such a loss of life as collateral damage and the answer is money. War costs money. But it also makes a hell of a lot of money. By being at war, countries have an excuse to pour funding into their military and go nuts with their spending. But a country can't just go to war unless it is justified in the eyes of the people. Osama Bin Laden was a dickhead before 9/11 and world security services were fully aware of the threat of Al-Queda, so why wasn't there action before 9/11? Because there was no public opinion. The US couldn't justify war with a terrorist group unless that group were public enemy #1 because otherwise a war with them would be senseless and would just be seen as America marching into another Middle Eastern country and taking control. So, something like 9/11 happens. Which again, a competent intelligence outfit would have been well aware of, given how espionage actually works. The UK, the US et al would all have been prepared for an attack of some kind from this group at some point, so I find it very hard to believe they wouldn't have found something out beforehand. Having a training day using the exact same scenario on the exact same day (ditto 7/7) wasn't the brightest of ideas. Which is why it's almost certainly bollocks. A training scenario involving hijacked planes flying into buildings, the same buildings that were actually targeted, happening at the exact time the attacks happened. Even if that was true and that's why they couldn't scramble any sort of fighter jets, this suggests that Al-Queda had intelligence that the US (and later the UK) would be performing this type of training on that day. Yeah. Okay. "The real lies are so well hidden you don't see them. This one isn't a lie!" This isn't well hidden and that's the point. Such a terrible event on this scale could never be doubted, even with all the tantalising links and leaks because anybody calling out the government for murdering their own citizens would be unpatriotic. The sinking of the Lusitania, which enabled the US to enter WW1, is a prime example of this. That cost just under 2,000 lives (plus however many more Americans who subsequently joined the fighting). That's worth a look and Churchill himself was quoted as saying we needed to draw neutral fleets in to be sunk to gain support from other nations. The best way to hide a lie is plausible deniability. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Lusitania, the murder of James Forrestall, JFK, the existence of Area 51 (which they said simply didn't exist, not sure how they were going to get away with that one, must've been kicking themselves when Google Earth came out.), there are plenty of other examples out there for you to look up. Make something so unbelievable that nobody will ever doubt it, control how much 'evidence' or 'conspiracy' is leaked and monitor reactions. missile hitting the pentagon? If there was a contingency for what to do in a breach, where sensitive equipment or papers may be open to professional "looters", maybe a self initiated destruction maybe an option, like a burn after reading. The catalyst would always be an attack. You don't shoot your own Intel HQ. FFS. Seriously. The thing was annihilated by a loon in a plane. End of. Your own intel HQ. If you were going to commit an atrocity like this, that'd be the first thing you'd do, you burn every shred of evidence that could possibly be linked to the actual cause. Note that they targeted the Pentagon and also successfully targeted Building 7, the two places where records of high profile financial transactions, Black Ops missions and high level government affairs were kept. They'll have transferred these to a highly secure database. But if it was an attack against the West, then why not target the Statue of Liberty, an icon of everything Al-Qaeda supposedly hate? It would destroy moral across the country. Or why not target George Bush in the White House, take out another iconic building (the supposed target of UA93, although it's unlikely that would ever have been successful given fighter pilot response times) and kill the President of the United States? Simply put, the body count would have been lower. Nothing gets people pissed off like a loss of human life and they knew that. To justify a military incursion into the Middle East, another one, they had to have fuel which would get the masses going. And 9/11 did just that.
Out of interest what exactly do believe and not believe? I am not asking for book about it or even reasons, just a list of points such as..... Planes flew into the buildings yes/no Planes were highjacked by terrorists yes/no Planes were full of dead bodies and controlled by US government yes/no All Jews avoided the area that day yes/no They were tipped off by Isreal/US government/their Rabbi's yes/no Buildings were demolished by explosives planted over the previous months yes/no Some people got phone calls during the highjack from people on the planes yes/no and so on and so on. Just so I get some understanding of how deep this conspiracy is thought to go. I personally believe there have been cover ups to protect people's arses without doubt, I also believe advantage was taken of the situation to press for war. Beyond that I have seen nothing to make me think it was anything more than has been reported.
Here's a few more to be going on with. Is Myra Hindley really dead? Jill Dando and "Kitty" "Miranda" Blair 1983. Spooky. When I posted it, "Miranda" 1983 brought up links on the first page of google. I just tried again, and you have to add "Blair" or nothing relevant comes up.
My thoughts on 9/11 don't need to go into the contentious arguments of dead bodies on planes, drones, phone calls to loved ones etc. all of which can be distracting side discussions. I have looked at much of the evidence from both sides over many years and listened to scores of eye witness accounts and reached the conclusion it was another false flag event. False flag events have occurred throughout history and will continue to do so. Their purpose is to force through an agenda or outcome that wouldn't ordinarily be supported by the masses. The agenda may be that of a Government's, a Corporation or a group of people. IMO 9/11 was another false flag event to support the resurgence of American imperialism and regime change in the middle east as called for in the 'Project for a New American Century' in 1997
Ok, I appreciate I listed many of the more outlandish theories (it wasn't really aimed at you, you just happened to be the last person to post), I was after a variety of responses from posters who believe strongly in the conspiracy's espoused. I apologise for using your post which was a bit unfair of me. One question for you directly though given previous comments..... Do you believe it was a terrorist action that has been used to other peoples advantage or, do you think the whole thing was staged?
No apology needed. I don't believe the official version of events that the aircraft alone were capable of bringing down the towers. I also don't believe fire alone brought down WTC 7. I'll be more lucid tomorrow , I'll get back to you then.
Those who don't agree with you won't have done any research.they get their facts from the tv news and newspapers.
Just to add to these, if you follow the implications, there is a link between those groups and the events surrounding the McCann's. No doubt there's some economies of truth and leaps of faith involved, but they're less far fetched than most 11/9 ones. The demonisation of Dianne Core seems to fit with the subsequent take over of the role too.
Not sure if it proves life after death.but for me it certainly proves intelligent consciousness that we aren't aware of normally.some of it seemed demonic and some kind, loving and helpfull.but you couldn't say definitely as it could all come from the same source.i agree about it not been a game.i would strongly advise anyone not to try it.it appears to open contact with intelligent life that usually exists on a different plane to us.and as with our world their exists good and bad.
[QUfairness"Building 7, post: 9700393, member: 1041425"]My thoughts on 9/11 don't need to go into the contentious arguments of dead bodies on planes, drones, phone calls to loved ones etc. all of which can be distracting side discussions. I have looked at much of the evidence from both sides over many years and listened to scores of eye witness accounts and reached the conclusion it was another false flag event. False flag events have occurred throughout history and will continue to do so. Their purpose is to force through an agenda or outcome that wouldn't ordinarily be supported by the masses. The agenda may be that of a Government's, a Corporation or a group of people. IMO 9/11 was another false flag event to support the resurgence of American imperialism and regime change in the middle east as called for in the 'Project for a New American Century' in 1997[/QUOTE] In fairness yourself and sterling both out across very good accounts, and not your usual conspiracy nutter drivel. for me the facts speak for themselves, and terrorism/major incidents is an area I have worked in for 20 years in different roles. I have read and seen the 9/11 evidence, I I can say with following with far more facts and evidence to support 9/11 was a terrorist attack: Al-qaeda planned such an attack - tons of intel support this, ranging from documents, phone intercepts prior and post incident, a testimonial evidence from turned terrorists and from interrogation those involved with the hijackings trained in Madras's before going to US - again a lot of evidence to suppory this, including cctv and travel logs the hijackers continued the training in the US - evidence shows they went to flight schools, martial arts centres, and lived cellular lives as not to compromise the plan there is clear footage of the plane striking the towers, phone calls from planes ect the impact of plane s wouldhave brought down the towers, for every expert whosays it cant there are more who can say it could WTC 7 was brought down by controlled explosion, this was done over 7hrs after the inital attack by rescue services to create a safe area for the emergency service, had it not been brought down the emergency services may have had to withdraw due to risk of collapse. The towers were brought down in a terrorist attack, planned by an islamic group, due to American influence in the middle east. Certainly not a false flag incident but...... Did the US goverment let it happen? I think they did, I think they knew the attack would happen but underestimate d the impact (possible that same tests used to prove thermite theory were wrongly referred to). Various experts said the towers would withstand an aircraft impact, but not full scale experiments could be carried out They planned the training exercise for the day of the attack to try to have resources in place to reduce casualties, again sadly underestimated how successful the attack would be the Pentagon was "attacked" by a missile rather then a plane
Excellent post mate, but you last paragraph is a bit simplistic and not really oikly: Nobody actually knows what is stored where in the pentagon, and those who do certainly would not disclose the information to the public. Likewise , as you state, they already own the intel, if it was that sensitive it would have been either somewhere offnsite in a secure unknow location (everyone has heardmof the Pentagon) or destroyed well before the attack. why not attack iconic targets like Statue of liberty/whitenhouse - firstly statue of liberty is a small target with little loss of life likely (middle eastern terror groups like the shock factor of loss of life). A recce of the whitehouse would quickly show its anti aircraft cacapabilities, add a hit of research on internet and youncan see is a no go. The towers on the other hand are easy to find when flying, bloody big and easy to hit, even for a poor pilot, loss of life would be masive, and is a symbol of capitalism (as referred to in Al-qeada videos post incident)
The whole "how could they build a sky scraper that couldn't survive a direct plane hit" argument is flawed when you see this. http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/structural-integrity/ If a tower can be designed, built and occupied without it being tested for certain wind conditions that happen once every 55 years then its plausible one could be put up and not be tested for the events that happened. Leslie Robertson, the lead WTC structural engineer claimed that even at the time of design the buildings were only tested for an aircraft strike at 180mph and that no additional testing was done for after effects such as fires, secondary explosions and wind effects once there was a hole in the structure. The argument is interesting on both sides though and all things should be questioned when an attack of that scale can happen. Is the Dyatlov pass incident a conspiracy or a mystery?
In fairness yourself and sterling both out across very good accounts, and not your usual conspiracy nutter drivel. for me the facts speak for themselves, and terrorism/major incidents is an area I have worked in for 20 years in different roles. I have read and seen the 9/11 evidence, I I can say with following with far more facts and evidence to support 9/11 was a terrorist attack: Al-qaeda planned such an attack - tons of intel support this, ranging from documents, phone intercepts prior and post incident, a testimonial evidence from turned terrorists and from interrogation those involved with the hijackings trained in Madras's before going to US - again a lot of evidence to suppory this, including cctv and travel logs the hijackers continued the training in the US - evidence shows they went to flight schools, martial arts centres, and lived cellular lives as not to compromise the plan there is clear footage of the plane striking the towers, phone calls from planes ect the impact of plane s wouldhave brought down the towers, for every expert whosays it cant there are more who can say it could WTC 7 was brought down by controlled explosion, this was done over 7hrs after the inital attack by rescue services to create a safe area for the emergency service, had it not been brought down the emergency services may have had to withdraw due to risk of collapse. The towers were brought down in a terrorist attack, planned by an islamic group, due to American influence in the middle east. Certainly not a false flag incident but...... Did the US goverment let it happen? I think they did, I think they knew the attack would happen but underestimate d the impact (possible that same tests used to prove thermite theory were wrongly referred to). Various experts said the towers would withstand an aircraft impact, but not full scale experiments could be carried out They planned the training exercise for the day of the attack to try to have resources in place to reduce casualties, again sadly underestimated how successful the attack would be the Pentagon was "attacked" by a missile rather then a plane[/QUOTE] Excellent reply thank you
Hmmm... mystery, I'd say. And a bloody creepy one too. Especially the slit cut at eye level in the tent.
