9/11

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 09:41 pm
@Holiday20310401,
McCain doesn't look good, in fact he looks delusional. But that's not my point. My point is that even if he's elected you can't make the case that it's a totalitarian system, because his administration will be much different than Bush's (even if technically many political stances are the same). Totalitarianism doesn't end with 4 year election cycles.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 09:44 pm
@Aedes,
Totalitarian movements don't have to come from governments.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Tue 9 Sep, 2008 09:47 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Holiday20310401;24288 wrote:
Totalitarian movements don't have to come from governments.
Then which totalitarian movement were you referring to a few posts ago, if it's not the executive branch of the US government, namely the Bush administration and the CIA (which is part of the executive branch of government).
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 01:26 am
@Aedes,
We're a good ways away from a totalitarian regime, but the clouds are getting dark. Even Obama jumped sides and voted to give the NSA surveillance powers.

I'm aware that wiretapping is not new. The Huston Plan, one of the great gifts to the American public on behalf of the Nixon administration, allowed for unwarranted wiretapping and gave the government the ability to burglarize citizens homes, essentially at will.

If you watched the RNC you witnessed the insane nationalism. The seeds of nationalism and an extreme, populist ideology to back it up tend to yield a nasty fruit. Take a pound of "Nation First", marinade in Christian fundamentalism, slap that on the grill of war and.... well, I'm too afraid to bite. I'll be in Canada. Sounds like they can hardly hold a government together. My kind of place.

Lies are a political trademark, but today's electorate is so blind and brainwashed that no one notices the increasingly outrageous remarks, especially the Republican, Rove inspired, talking points. By the way, Rove pupils are running McCain's campaign and Rove himself admits to being regularly contacted by McCain lackeys for guidance.

McCain doesn't scare me. He's old and, as Aedes says, probably delusional. My grandparents are that way - I understand. Palin, on the other hand, is absolutely terrifying. If McCain wins, she's next in line for the GOP.

Then we get into law. John Yoo comes to mind - see the Patriot Act, Unitary Executive theory. Who ever wins this election will most certainly appoint two, and maybe even three, new Supreme Court Justices. If those new justices are conservatives we can expect decades of draconian decisions. I would feel a little more comfortable knowing they will at least let us keep the guns, but my shotgun is no use against a tank - and that's what the guns are for, so that we the people can stand up to the government as needed. The Second Amendment is obsolete. Canada sounds nice, or maybe I could teach English in the east.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:24 am
@Didymos Thomas,
all,

I don't know about 9/11? But if you're looking for huge conpiracies what about Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?

We had a bank called 'Northern Rock' go bust about a year ago and the government stepped in to prop it up.

It ended up costing the tax payer about 40 billion to keep a bank in business - the shareholders lost all thier money, but those who owed the bank could just keep right on paying thier mortgages.

Different story when a company goes bust owing you money/or your pension. They don't step in to make sure you get paid, but when the boot's on the other foot...the little guy still get's kicked in the asre.

iconoclast.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 01:53 pm
@astrotheological,
astrotheological wrote:
I believe that 9/11 was just a huge set up by the American government just to make an excuse for the people of the United States to go to war against Iraq and other countries in the middle east. They didn't actually find any weapons of mass destruction anyways. They just wanted the oil.

Besides how can a plane even take down a tower of that size anyways. Then the other tower just happens to fall as well. Also the pentagon was claimed to be hit by an airplane but there was no sign of a crash anywhere.

Also this isn't the only time the American government has done this to its own people. Back when pearl harbour happened the Austrailians had warned the U.S. that there were Japanese bombers heading towards hawaii. Of course though the U.S. government lets pearl harbour get bombed so that the citizens of the U.S. will want to go to war.


"Besides how can a plane even take down a tower of that size anyways?"

A great question...

There is only one way a single plane could hit a tower that size and bring it down in the way how it fell.

The key to how it fell is not really known to the public, I call it the "Accordion Effect" once the plane had hit the tower the "Core" was open, and the "Core" is a shaft that gose from top to bottom of the tower( And at the bottom there are fans that prevent stail air and moisture in the core), and is filled with the tower's main steel support's coated with anti-flame foam...

So everyone know's that the fire could not get hot enuf to melt the steel and create a pool of melted steel that was reported to be found in the debre, and also the foam prevent's that, even without the foam the fuel could not create a temp to melt the steel.

Well the only way for the fire to get hot enuf to melt the steel within the core, is for the fire to be fueled by high amount's of oxygen...

So how could high amount's of oxygen fuel the fire in the core?

Well... I call it the accordion effect, since once the plane had opened a hole into the core from the out side, that allowed high amount's of air to be s**ked down the core and fuel the flame's which would cause the temp of the fire to be higher than the melting point of steel, once a few of the support's began to melt (which caused the slight tilt in the tower as it fell so thats the side where the first few steel supports began to melt) it drop's the floor's above it down onto the floor bellow it, so how do you play an accordion?...

Once the floor's fell onto another it just blew more air to fuel the fire which sent a fire so hot down the core that it melted the bolt's on the top floor's which allowed more floors to fall, once about 18-21 floor's have done this the amount of "accordion effect" would be so great that the fire would melt the steel&bolt's and blow everything out of the window's in a back draft effect as it all shot down the core... Once at the half way point the fire would lose alot of the accordion effect and the wieght of gravity would break all the bolt's in the support's from then on...

Sadly, the year before hacker's and stolen the design spec's so they knew it was best for them not to hit the tower down low (Like they anyone els would if they didnt know that an accordion effect could be created down the core and bring down the hole tower with a single plane...) so they hit the tower's up high...

So when you say "how can a plane even take down a tower of that size anyways?" A plane cannot, but jet fuel, fuel by high amount's of oxygen fueling the jet fuel can create the temp that is needed to melt steel. (O and since only the top 21 floor's where effected by the vibration's of the impact of the plane which flaked off the protective foam on the support's only those floor's support's where melted... (Allso there is footage of the hole where the plane hit before it started to fall, and you could see the floor above geting sucked down and back, and smoke around the hole getting sucked in and down.)

So, even with this know, people's spectulations and theories will still be out there floating :rolleyes:like a un-wanted turd in a pool

So to recap the reason's why the tower's fell how they did was due to the core's design, the vibration from the impact, gravity, oxygen, jet fuel, and the accordion effect, and the high location of the impact.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Sat 20 Sep, 2008 08:42 pm
@No0ne,
Totalitarian society if happened in US would come to Canada quickly too. And did you hear about how in Sydney there is surveillance via satellites that allows for viewing homes and seeing objects from as small as 10cm by 10cm.
 
No0ne
 
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 03:57 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Um.. to simply put it

:detective:The plane hit's the tower, the shockwave ripel's through the support's and flake's off the insulation above and bellow the impact, the jet fuel start's to burn the office's, the heat start's to rise and so dose the flame's, the steel support's above the impact start to welt and bend which cause's un-equal distrabution of wieght on the bolt's and therefore the bolts on one side snap, which cause's the half above the impact to have a tilt in it as it falls, once the half above the impact fall's to the point of impact the smoke from the fire bellow get's blown out of the window's and up out of the floor's above in a spiral motion while sucking air throught it's middle, and the amount and speed of the air flow is increased when the floor's above the impact collapse onto one another, which allow the jet fuel to melt the un-insulated steel support's bellow the impact spot equaly for the floor's bellow the impact spot to drop evenly onto the floor's support's bellow it that still have insulation, once the floor's that have had there supports melted drop onto the floor's bellow them, they snap the bolt's of the insulated steel support's due to much wieght on them, which then each floor falls onto one another with no tilt.

So that is one way that could prove where the melted steel came from, and the tilt of the top half above the impact spot as it fell, and the seemly no tilt in the tower bellow the impact spot as it fell, which made it seem like a controled DEM.

So this is one point of view that would support how such could happen by a single plane and the law's of physic's.

(*note to prove, one must be able to show that the core that absorb's earthqwakes vibration's and wind, would absorbe the force from the impact of the air plane.)
(*note to prove, one must be able to show that the force from an plane could flake off the insulation that was used in the tower's)
(*note to prove, one must be able to show that the amount of jet fuel, paper, desks, computers, printers, ect, and large amount's of flowing air into the fire could create a temp that would melt steel without insulation, or the bolt's that hold the steel to one another)
 
SummyF
 
Reply Mon 22 Sep, 2008 07:57 pm
@Holiday20310401,
Okay aedes you say that these people are stupid

i have to quote alex jones

"you think people in caves did this" ?

i think i would be beneficial for you to observe some of the changes in political ideologist in the neo-liberal(neoconservative) schools have said


just look at the title of samuel hunningtons book

(clash of civilization) 1996

it was about islamic world vs western world



---------this is proof in the academic field-----------------


if you haven't watched zeitgeist watch it

read noam chomskys book "HEGEMONY OR SURVIVAL"

btw if your already hatein on chomsky your nuts

he is the 8th most cited scholar
 
No0ne
 
Reply Thu 25 Sep, 2008 03:31 pm
@SummyF,
:detective:Just beware of philosopher's that make book's, for they have sold there self to the way's of humanity....and therefore they have an angenda that is not of your own, but to profit from your short comming's...

If they truly wanted to tell the world, they would just use the internet.

So therefore it's clear that book maker's intention's are not as pure as the philosopher that willingly give's away his/her's life work, just to inform and share one's own philosophy...

"Pride, and fame, is there game..."

Both and more I will never seek...
 
ariciunervos
 
Reply Fri 26 Sep, 2008 11:26 am
@No0ne,
I've just skimmed through this thread and I haven't seen this thing being mentioned .... 10 September 2001. Rumsfeld publicly declares Rumsfeld publicly declares the pentagon can't account for 2,300,000,000,000 USD, one day before the twins fell.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Sun 22 Feb, 2009 04:16 pm
@astrotheological,
astrotheological wrote:
I believe that 9/11 was just a huge set up by the American government just to make an excuse for the people of the United States to go to war against Iraq and other countries in the middle east. They didn't actually find any weapons of mass destruction anyways. They just wanted the oil.

Besides how can a plane even take down a tower of that size anyways. Then the other tower just happens to fall as well. Also the pentagon was claimed to be hit by an airplane but there was no sign of a crash anywhere.

Also this isn't the only time the American government has done this to its own people. Back when pearl harbour happened the Austrailians had warned the U.S. that there were Japanese bombers heading towards hawaii. Of course though the U.S. government lets pearl harbour get bombed so that the citizens of the U.S. will want to go to war.

So many conspiracy theories these days. While things are not always as they seem, more than likely in this case, things are as they seem.
 
avatar6v7
 
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 01:07 pm
@Elmud,
Elmud wrote:
So many conspiracy theories these days. While things are not always as they seem, more than likely in this case, things are as they seem.

My problem with the issue of conspiracy theories is that there doesn't seem to be any middle ground between belief in complete goverment control of everything, and wide-eyed naivity. Of course Islamic terroists flew a couple of planes into the twin towers, the evidence is obvious. But why is it so propostourous to imagine that the US goverment let them? Just because the US used Islamic terroism as an excuse, does not mean that it is not a real and deadly threat. I dislike most conspiracy theories because they attempt to oversimplify complicated conflicts and movements, and I hate simple acceptance of what governments and media say for the same reason.
To people who think that there are no conspiracys, I can only show the example of history, and given how machiavellian even simple relativly primitive societies could be, consider how much more complex and numerous conspiracys must be today- advanced technology, vast beuracries and millitary-industrial complexes. Anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies is an idiot, and uneducated to boot. However as some of the people posting proved, people are willing to swallow conspiracy theories more ridiculous than the lies told for public consumption- the whole plane disintigration thing in this case- 'planes are made of thick heavy metal.' Anybody who payed the least attention in scince class, or who even thought about it, would realise that 'thick heavy metal' is not going to get into the sky. Honestly.
On the matter of 9-11, I think that there is plenty of evidence that the CIA did not drop the ball on it, but infact discovered the plot, and the descion was made, at some level, to let the attacks go ahead. The chereography of the government in this situation indicates this- the position of the President during the attacks- safely tucked away in a primary school far away, the swiftness with which the incident was converted into a justification for war, the token criticism and lack of real recrimination of and in the CIA. Considering all the terroist groups willing to take pot shots at the US, why should the goverment bother with elabroate deceptions when it can just look the other way at the right time?
 
Icon
 
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
@avatar6v7,
avatar6v7 wrote:
My problem with the issue of conspiracy theories is that there doesn't seem to be any middle ground between belief in complete goverment control of everything, and wide-eyed naivity. Of course Islamic terroists flew a couple of planes into the twin towers, the evidence is obvious. But why is it so propostourous to imagine that the US goverment let them? Just because the US used Islamic terroism as an excuse, does not mean that it is not a real and deadly threat. I dislike most conspiracy theories because they attempt to oversimplify complicated conflicts and movements, and I hate simple acceptance of what governments and media say for the same reason.
To people who think that there are no conspiracys, I can only show the example of history, and given how machiavellian even simple relativly primitive societies could be, consider how much more complex and numerous conspiracys must be today- advanced technology, vast beuracries and millitary-industrial complexes. Anyone who thinks that there are no conspiracies is an idiot, and uneducated to boot. However as some of the people posting proved, people are willing to swallow conspiracy theories more ridiculous than the lies told for public consumption- the whole plane disintigration thing in this case- 'planes are made of thick heavy metal.' Anybody who payed the least attention in scince class, or who even thought about it, would realise that 'thick heavy metal' is not going to get into the sky. Honestly.
On the matter of 9-11, I think that there is plenty of evidence that the CIA did not drop the ball on it, but infact discovered the plot, and the descion was made, at some level, to let the attacks go ahead. The chereography of the government in this situation indicates this- the position of the President during the attacks- safely tucked away in a primary school far away, the swiftness with which the incident was converted into a justification for war, the token criticism and lack of real recrimination of and in the CIA. Considering all the terroist groups willing to take pot shots at the US, why should the goverment bother with elabroate deceptions when it can just look the other way at the right time?

Something I have tried to explain to my friends... still I enjoy their theories. Some of them get pretty funny.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 02:21 pm
@astrotheological,
I find humor in conspiracy theories. Especially the ridiculous ones that a lot of stupid people a lot of money to hear about from boneheads like David Icke. They make for good laughs.

As to 9/11, the only way I could see something like that happening is if the U.S. government knew it was going to happen and let it. The evidence that is out there strongly points to that being the case. The Bush administration was warned far in advance by intelligence agencies but chose to do nothing. Reading PNAC documents also suggests that many higher ups in the administration wanted a massive attack to happen to build up the military, and launch a war to push U.S. hegemony.
 
Elmud
 
Reply Wed 25 Feb, 2009 05:05 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus wrote:
I find humor in conspiracy theories. Especially the ridiculous ones that a lot of stupid people a lot of money to hear about from boneheads like David Icke. They make for good laughs.

As to 9/11, the only way I could see something like that happening is if the U.S. government knew it was going to happen and let it. The evidence that is out there strongly points to that being the case. The Bush administration was warned far in advance by intelligence agencies but chose to do nothing. Reading PNAC documents also suggests that many higher ups in the administration wanted a massive attack to happen to build up the military, and launch a war to push U.S. hegemony.

Laughs out loud at "boneheads".
 
pagan
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 03:17 pm
@Elmud,
the whole 9/11 conspiracy worries me. At first i thought the idea of a government plot was ridiculous. But i do remember comparing the news from the net while it happened with what the british radio and tv networks were broadcasting and saying to myself "how can i know so much more in advance than the bbc just by using a 56k internet connection?".

The only conspiracy i could see was that flight 93 looked as if it was shot down, but that would be sadly understandable.

Since then i have seriously reconsidered how the twin towers fell. It just doesn't look right. But what really worries me is the building WT7. I never took any notice at the time but looking at the videos it definitely looks like a professional demolition job. There are eye witnesses who were told it was going to be brought down. There is the very curious bbc live interview with the correspondent standing in front of a window showing the scene and she reports that the building had collapsed. But it is clearly visible in the background and doesnt fall untill 20 minutes later. The bbc offer no explanation for this. The 9/11 commission doesnt mention it and the US government has given no definitive alternative explanation, or denial that it was a controlled demolition. Why is this?

At first it seems irrelevant. But consider how long it would take to set up the necessary explosives. Consider the not insignificant circumstances around the building. Not least that it was on fire! Who in their right minds would get massive amounts of explosives through that chaos, set it up in a rush, fire in the building and not to mention extreme high security. It just doesnt make sense to me. I can only conclude that the explosives were already there. September 11th 2001 was a Tuesday. That would imply that for at least one working day, hundreds if not thousands of people were working amongst high explosives.

How did the explosives get there? Why use highjacked aircraft if terrorists can infiltrate such a massive public building so completely and undiscovered? And why have they not repeated the operation?

All this bothers me. But what bothers me more than anything is that i and many others recognise that something is very wrong with the official story ......... and do nothing. I mean i still act normally. I am not stunned. I am not active. I have just got used to it and it is just a general cynicism towards the authorities. In other words i dont have to imagine if politicians and military and secret organisations were to do something like that. I already believe there is something that seriously does not add up. But i would never have imagined that i would be so passive.

...... i would really like to go back to believing that the conspiracy theories are fixed and hoaxes. If you can help, then please do. I dont like looking at the state i am in.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 03:42 pm
@astrotheological,
I hear you there Pagan. What I find odd is the difference between the media coverage the day it happened, and the day after after the government declared Al Queda responsible. The three buildings all collapsed like no other buildings in the past, and fires were supposedly to blame, but no towers have ever fallen due to fires.

There is also an echo to this difference. If you watch the Oklahoma City news coverage of the bombing there, the news was reporting that there were numerous bombs found in the building. But of course there was nothing said about that as the story progressed.

The problem I see in both of these events is how poorly constructed the official government stories seem. Not to mention, the investigations were shoddy at the very least. Then on top of it, there ends up being all kinds of crazy alternate explanations that are ridiculous to say the least (e.g. space weapons, mini nukes, Leprechauns, inter-dimensional reptile beings that have infiltrated the human race). Thus, very plausible alternate explanations end up lost among all the junk created by crazies.

With that said, will we ever know the real truth? Not as long as the government operates as it does. The thing is though, I don't know if I really want to know the truth. People would probably be outraged and many probably would revolt, and I can guarantee that marshal law will be put into place. Private security forces would be roaming the streets, there would be a crack down on liberties, and the religious nuts and right wing fanatics would seize power in anyway they could, because as it is known, they take advantage of any security breach and use it to their advantage.
 
pagan
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 04:43 pm
@Theaetetus,
yeh

Theaetetus i nearly posted 'capitalist democracy' as my favourite myth in another thread. And i mean that truly. I dont believe that politicians represent the people who elect them. But i do think the myth protects us from anarchy without an overtly oppressive state. And that the chaos of the elections protects us from overt dictatorships and the like.

But i worry that the myth is being manipulated with more and more confidence by those who would gain from secretly distorting it. That doesnt sound stable........ and I also suspect that it maintains global inequality.

But if democracy and free trade doesnt proliferate wealth, justice and freedom then what possibly could?
 
Caroline
 
Reply Sun 12 Jul, 2009 11:22 pm
@astrotheological,
I can't believe this, 3,000 people were burnt to death by their own leaders.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 02/22/2024 at 09:30:25