The Great American Conspiracy Theory

[Bullwrinkle]

Originally Posted by msufan

This may be precisely the type of attitude the government counts on. You know, the "pssshhh" (eye roll) -- "that could never happen in this country" attitude.

Check the links.

Per Sigmund Freud "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

However - I suggest you get with Oliver Stone on this. I sense another blockbuster conspiracy movie here and you could certainly help out on the screenplay.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by Bullwrinkle

Per Sigmund Freud "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"
However - I suggest you get with Oliver Stone on this. I sense another blockbuster conspiracy movie here and you could certainly help out on the screenplay.

For each poster that has tried to argue against my points in this thread or the other two, I have not seen a damn shred of actual debate. NOT A SINGLE poster has even attempted to refute the position layed out in the paper regarding WTC 7.

If one of you would just refute a SINGLE point in that paper I would drop it. But it seems no one can. You are disguising this by pretending that you "will not" instead of "you cannot".

[chachi]

Originally Posted by ****weed

and all this time I thought the term chicken described the predator, not the prey.

OK

This is a Chicken Hawk... it hunts chickens...

[msufan]

Originally Posted by MSU_CIO

For each poster that has tried to argue against my points in this thread or the other two, I have not seen a damn shred of actual debate. NOT A SINGLE poster has even attempted to refute the position layed out in the paper regarding WTC 7.

If one of you would just refute a SINGLE point in that paper I would drop it. But it seems no one can. You are disguising this by pretending that you "will not" instead of "you cannot".

Exactly.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by wingfanjim

However, remember the contentious way that the president came into office in 2000. He wouldnt' have had the political capital or the unity to go to war if 9/11 had not happened. Especially since foreign policy was generally considered an afterthought of the 2000 election. If you recall, the issues were almost primarily domestic issues (see social security and the "locked box"). The country was at peace with no apparent enemies in sight. However, 9/11 happens and all of a sudden we have an enemy again. We have threats, our sense of safety has been shattered. NOW you go to the newly frightened American people and tell them that our old enemy Saddam Hussein poses a threat to us too and he has weapons of mass destruction (not true) and he might be in cahoots with OBL (not true) and he's intefering with UN weapons inspectors (true) and the American people rally around the flag and say "GO TO WAR!". A scared, beleagured populace is capable of accepting many things (see Germans under the Nazis). Not to say that we have fallen to the level the Germans did at that time, but i am saying that a fearful populace is much more succeptable to suggestions such as war and violence than a confidant populace living in peace is. Iraq could NOT have happened without 9/11.

And yet so many choose to ignore this.

[wingfanjim]

Originally Posted by MSU_CIO

And yet so many choose to ignore this.

fear is a powerful psychological weapon.

[msufan]

Originally Posted by wingfanjim

fear is a powerful psychological weapon.

And denial is human nature as well, when the thought being denied is too horrible to bear.

I wonder what other classified information the US government has buried away...

[CedarPoet]

I think some of you guys need to ease up on your drinking....

The towers fell on 9-11 because Islamic fascists flew passenger jets into them. That's what radical muslims do, along with shooting presidential candidates (See Robert F. Kennedy assassination), murdering Olympic athletes (See 1972 Munich Massacre), blowing passenger airliners filled with innocent people out of the sky (See Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland), driving truck bombs into U.S. military housing complexes (See Khobar Tower Bombing), running boats full of explosives into U.S. Naval craft (See U.S.S. Cole Attack)...

There are plenty more...the bombing of the barracks in Beirut, etc...

Maybe you guys should spend less time trying to pin this **** on your own government and pay a little more attention to the guys who are actually trying to kill you...namely the radical muslim islamo-fascists who send videotapes to Al Jazeera and CNN saying "Death to the Americans!!!" My guess is THOSE guys are the ones behind all this terrorism. Not Bush.

But then, hey, what the **** do I know?

[msufan]

Poet -- read that paper that CIO linked about the explosives. What points do you disagree with? Your question is about the why of it all: why would the US government do that? Why wouldn't it be the jihadists?

But when you look at the specifics of what happened, the HOW becomes quite difficult to refute. HOW did 7 fall, how did the towers implode symmetrically on their own footprints, how did people hear explosions coming from the basement of buildings, how did people suffer severe burns in the basement immediately after impact when it was the upper floors that were hit, etc., etc.

CIO is right -- no one seems to be able to refute the "How" questions, so everyone attacks the "why" ones.

[wingfanjim]

Originally Posted by msufan

And denial is human nature as well, when the thought being denied is too horrible to bear.

I wonder what other classified information the US government has buried away...

well in 33 years the JFK assasination documents will be declassified. We might find some stuff out then.

[CedarPoet]

Originally Posted by msufan

Poet -- read that paper that CIO linked about the explosives. What points do you disagree with? Your question is about the why of it all: why would the US government do that? Why wouldn't it be the jihadists?

But when you look at the specifics of what happened, the HOW becomes quite difficult to refute. HOW did 7 fall, how did the towers implode symmetrically on their own footprints, how did people hear explosions coming from the basement of buildings, how did people suffer severe burns in the basement immediately after impact when it was the upper floors that were hit, etc., etc.

CIO is right -- no one seems to be able to refute the "How" questions, so everyone attacks the "why" ones.

That's a fair statement. So then let's have full investigation, with unbiased scientific professionals conducting the study (no politicians) who have nothing to gain or lose by exposing the facts. Maybe I'd be surprised, but I can't help but think when the study was completed, they would find that building 7 fell due to the planes flying into the first two towers and the intense heat from the burning jet fuel. But let them do an investigation. However, you know as well as I do that when the study was completed, there would be a whole new wave of conspiracy theories about the study itself.

[wingfanjim]

Originally Posted by msufan

But when you look at the specifics of what happened, the HOW becomes quite difficult to refute. HOW did 7 fall, how did the towers implode symmetrically on their own footprints, how did people hear explosions coming from the basement of buildings, how did people suffer severe burns in the basement immediately after impact when it was the upper floors that were hit, etc., etc.

Towers 1 and 2 really aren't much of a mystery. My dad was a Detroit Firefighter for over 30 years and I remember the evening of september 11 I was asking him how a plane could take out a building that big. He said you would be amazed what fire can do to steel. He's dealt with all different kinds of structure fires in his life, and it didn't shock him in the least the way towers 1 and 2 fell. Also the design of the towers lead to it. They weren't really supported in the middles. The steel bands on the outside were what held the building up. As the heat made the steel expand and weaken, the weight of the wreckage became too much to support and so one floor after another pancaked on top of each other. I tend to value my dad's proffessional opinion on this.

As far as the burns of people in the basement. Remember, those planes were LOADED with jet fuel, that jet fuel ignited on impact and burning jet fuel raced down elevator shafts. I would imagine that burn victims in the basement were those probably standing near an elevator shaft and when the burning fuel hit the bottom of the shaft it poured out into the basement.

The rest of these arguments are actually quite compelling and I think work investigating. However, the circumstances that lead to the collapse of towers 1 and 2 seem pretty concrete and conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

[msufan]

Originally Posted by CedarPoet

That's a fair statement. So then let's have full investigation, with unbiased scientific professionals conducting the study (no politicians) who have nothing to gain or lose by exposing the facts. Maybe I'd be surprised, but I can't help but think when the study was completed, they would find that building 7 fell due to the planes flying into the first two towers and the intense heat from the burning jet fuel. But let them do an investigation. However, you know as well as I do that when the study was completed, there would be a whole new wave of conspiracy theories about the study itself.

I agree -- let's do such a study. Why wasn't the 9/11 commission report just that type of study? That's another thing that points toward the conspiracy theory -- the fact that everything is covered up.

There would be no need for secrecy is something wasn't being hidden.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by wingfanjim

However, the circumstances that lead to the collapse of towers 1 and 2 seem pretty concrete and conspiracy theory doesn't hold water.

1 and 2 fell too fast (free fall) for the pancaking theory. Everything was turned to DUST. The elevators ran in sections, there was no shaft from top to bottom. The shafts only went 1/3 of the way up then you got on a new elevator, so NO, no fuel ran down the shats to the basement.

The fire was so hot there are pictures of people standing in the burning hole. but the steel, that couldn't take the heat.

The panckaking theory is FULL of major holes.

Contrary to your post, WTC 1 and 2 were supported in the middle by 47 (?) giant steel columns. All of which were seemingly disintegrated FROM the TOP of the BOTTOM... odd.

I don't know Jim, but don't be so sure that the Popular Mechanics, NOVA, FEMA and 9/11 Commission version of what happened to WTC 1 and 2 is true. It was all written by pretty much the same guy and avoids a lot of important evidence...

- Free Fall (Not possible w/o explosives)
- Molten Metal (Not possible w/o explosives)
- Explosions Reported / Burn Victims
- Everything turned to very fine particulates (unlikely w/o explosives).
- Symmetrical collapse (Unlikely w/o explosives)
- "Interesting Squibs" in the video. (Who knows, but the only explanation for them is explosives)



NOW THAT ^^^ IS A STEEL MELTING FIRE.

[chachi]

The truth is, if the government was not lying, they would just come out and answer to these claims. Put the burn guy and other witnesses on TV and let us decide, release the videos and pictures. Answer the critics. It would take all of 10 minutes if they were not lying, but they are so they can't.

[Feckweed]

Originally Posted by MSU_CIO

This is a Chicken Hawk... it hunts chickens...

Then perhaps somebody can clue me in on how exactly chicken hawk is supposed to be insulting? I understand liberals and comedy don't go hand in hand ( well, the intentional variety anyways), but why is this supposed to be humorous?

[Al Czervik]

CIO, check out these anomalies with Flight 93. There was no smoke trail that would indicate that the plane was shot down as many people have suggested, but the crash site makes absolutely no sense.
http://www.team8plus.org/forum_viewtopic.php?7.1161
http://www.democraticunderground.com...id=51636#51782
Here are several contradictions with the official story:
http://www.democraticunderground.com...topic_id=28985

I am on the fence with this one as I am with the Pentagon flight.

[chachi]

Originally Posted by ****weed

Then perhaps somebody can clue me in on how exactly chicken hawk is supposed to be insulting? I understand liberals and comedy don't go hand in hand ( well, the intentional variety anyways), but why is this supposed to be humorous?

1. It wasn't meant to be funny. Maybe I should have said the lions need some antelopes to hunt? would that have been better?
2. I am not a liberal.

[Al Czervik]

Supreme Court fails to review case of FBI translator who can blow the cover off of 9/11. Coverup complete.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...C-RSSFeeds0312
http://www.justacitizen.com/articles...%20Article.htm

"If they were to do real investigations we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out. And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up."
http://baltimorechronicle.com/050704SibelEdmonds.shtml

Criminal evidence in Edmonds’ explosive case is apparently getting too close to Washington officials, since the former contract linguist also told us she would not deny that "once this issue gets to be...investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally," revealing the content of the FBI intercepts she heard indicates that recognizable, very high-profile American citizens are linked to the 911 attacks.

Edmonds implied that legislators and even lobbyists were benefiting from laundered narcotics proceeds in an earlier interview with the Baltimore Sun, "...this money travels. And you start trying to go to the root of it and it’s getting into somebody’s political campaign, and somebody’s lobbying. And people don’t want to be traced back to this money."

So the Bush administration’s Department of Justice enlisted its taxpayer-funded lawyers to petition a Republican U.S. Appeals Court to suppress Sibel Edmonds’ criminal evidence allegations--linked to a 3,000 death mass murder--in the name of "state secrets."

When we asked how many Americans were named in the intercepts, Edmonds said "There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized," further revealing that "some are heads of government agencies or politicians--but I don’t want to go any further than that," as we listened in stunned silence.
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modu...rticle&sid=527