Originally posted by dean7879
comparing the moon with the 9'11 event is stupid
Not exactly stupid, if you even read his post.
Plus, there is that silly conspiracy that we've actually never been to the Moon and that it was all filmed in a desert with a black backdrop...where, of course, they made sure all of those fuzzie little animals living out there were held captive until it was done...
And then there was the conspiracy theory that the United States disguised a couple of ballistic missiles as airplanes and THAT was what hit the Pentagon and the Towers...
And then... *killed by an assassin to make him shut up*
Well, I appreciate sarcasm. I'm not saying I believe this at all, I'm just saying.
I think the guy's point was that the building's came down from controlled explosives that was planted by somebody in the US government and then crashed planes into the Tower to look like the planes actually did the dirty work and not controlled explosives. To prove his point, he used evidence saying that the person in control of security was the cousin of Bush, some sort of insurance/stock option was used the day before the attack from major companies inside the WTC and that the building when it fell down, look like a controlled explosion.
The coincidence's are suspect but I still believe that this isn't true. But considering this tactic was believed to be used by Churchill in the WW1 (believed to have sunk the Lusitania to give reasons for US to join of WW1) I don't see this completely far fetched.
Some of the ideas that this guy is presenting are not too far fetched, but it could be that he is over-analyzing something for sake of finding something to use.
Alot of the evidence he is providing does allow for questions to be asked and I hope somebody we can actually find out what happened instead of just hearing from the White House Press Room because if you believe what they say, well the opposition should be able to believe Micheal Moore/ this dude in the article. Both are extremely biased.
Originally posted by Smasandian
Well, I appreciate sarcasm. I'm not saying I believe this at all, I'm just saying.I think the guy's point was that the building's came down from controlled explosives that was planted by somebody in the US government and then crashed planes into the Tower to look like the planes actually did the dirty work and not controlled explosives. To prove his point, he used evidence saying that the person in control of security was the cousin of Bush, some sort of insurance/stock option was used the day before the attack from major companies inside the WTC and that the building when it fell down, look like a controlled explosion.
The coincidence's are suspect but I still believe that this isn't true. But considering this tactic was believed to be used by Churchill in the WW1 (believed to have sunk the Lusitania to give reasons for US to join of WW1) I don't see this completely far fetched.
Some of the ideas that this guy is presenting are not too far fetched, but it could be that he is over-analyzing something for sake of finding something to use.
Alot of the evidence he is providing does allow for questions to be asked and I hope somebody we can actually find out what happened instead of just hearing from the White House Press Room because if you believe what they say, well the opposition should be able to believe Micheal Moore/ this dude in the article. Both are extremely biased.
👆 coudnt of said it better
Originally posted by speiderman
This is complete non-sense. I watched the video of the planes going into the tower the morning of september 11th. It happened. Hijackers drove 747 into the north tower, south tower and pentagon.
of course the planes crashed in to the buildings...no one is saying otherwise
Originally posted by baracustastic
So lemme get this straight......Some extremely skilled and brilliantly undetected terrorists somehow managed to rig the two most famous buildings in the world with explosive charges in order to collapse them in such a way that they didn't fall onto the rest of manhattan (how considerate for them to kill only a few thousand instead of 10s of thousands).
Then, to cover up the fact that they had used explosives to destroy the buildings, they hi-jack 2 commercial airliners and fly them into exactly the right floor of each building. Having done this they then delay the explosions for long enough to allow most of the workers to save themselves (again, very considerate) just to make it look like it was the 800 degrees centigrade (1500 degrees in yank) aviation fuel fires that melted enough of the remaining intact steel structure and so caused collapse.
They went to all this trouble to hide the fact they used explosives. Wow, you know what? That really makes sense. No, honestly, I'm being serious.
If you're a terrorist you don't want to cripple the American economy even more by making the towers fall in such a way that both sets of 110 storeys collapse on surrounding buildings, you work that extra bit harder to save lives. Here was me thinking they wanted to cause as much destuction as possible. But really they're just fluffy kittens who want to put across their hatred of America in a violent, but not too violent way, I mean they don't want an R rating, PG-13 will do nicely.
Maybe the other terrorists were bullying them for being the smartest terrorists in the class and the so they wanted to dumb-down the most sophisticated act of terrorism in the history of mankind to become "one of the lads" at terrorist school?
What about the Pentagon? Was there not enough explosives and super-talented pilots to pull the same thing off? Did they send the work-experience kid to be pilot? Or was it cincidence that a plane flew into that? Maybe that was job of the Bully terrorists?
Yup, I'm sold.
wow you posted all that without even listening to the guy in the link....that is what this thread is about 😉
a plane crashed into the pentagon...and the pentagon didnt see this comin? its that easy huh?
Originally posted by baracustastic
What's the bloke's evidence for controlled explosions? I aint downloading an hour long film onto my already overstuffed computer.
you dont have to download it..just click on the link..and it will open onto quick time
what gets me is you are writing loads of stuff down arguing with people and you havent even listened to the guy on the link!!
*sigh*
Originally posted by dean7879
wow you posted all that without even listening to the guy in the link....that is what this thread is about 😉
a plane crashed into the pentagon...and the pentagon didnt see this comin? its that easy huh?
Yes, yes it is. Normally you don't expect a 747 to crash into your work office (which just happens to be the Pentagon or the WTC)...
thats bull...dont the pentagon have radar???it probably wasnt even a plane that crashed into the pentagon
http://tritarget.com/article.php/20041017011728840
http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm
suspicious if u ask me
"the radar wont prevent an attack only warn about one, and for what they knew the plane could have multiple targets in DC besides the pentagon. And due to the fact of the news from New York must have had a paralyzing affect on them them"
But the Pentagon is the most important military building in the most powerful country in the world. So your saying is that they are more important buildins other than the White House and the Pentagon?
Thier the military and the people who make decisions, no matter what happens to thier country, they shouldnt get fazed at all.
And the pictures ive seen, there isnt a plane at all. So its somewhat supicous but people still need more evidence.