Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Apparently it's more than a Saudi connection, but the Saudi government itself. Once you ask the question why would Saudi Arabia do this, it puts a completely different interpretation on recent events in the Middle East, as opposed to what we are being told. And it does matter that several million innocent people have died, along with too many of our young soldiers, because of things governments would rather we didn't know.

Never said it was news, and if you read my post, nowhere do I state my position regarding the conspiracy theories. You assume too much.
And yes, I believe that bears do indeed **** in the woods

Martin2005

How many pages were in the report?

Does it say anywhere that this wasn't a terrorist attack?

gary77

iTrader: (1)

you are asking the wrong person , i have no idea what he is talking about and would need to look into it

jonc

A conspiracy can't be considered true simply because there is no evidence to say that that it's false. If you say the WTC buildings was a controlled demolition, that explosives and thermite were used; videos showing "molten metal" coming out of the side of the building and puffs of white clouds just below the site of the crash before coming down.
Well I have a few questions:
1. Why was "molten metal" coming out of the side of the building when thermite was supposidly used in the core of the building?
2. How did the explosives and detonators survive the heat/fire crash damage?
3. Show me an example of where detonation of explosives in a controlled demolition starts at the top of the building working downwards. Conspiracy theories for WTC collaps points to explosions beginning at the crash site. How did those who planted the explosives or the pilots know which floors the planes were going to crash into?

Questions also need to be asked and directed at those who put out these conspiracy theories.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

I found this, it goes into it in good detail:

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...ty-eight-pages

Martin2005

I think that the implication of the complicity of the Saudi's is legitimate based upon what we know about the nature of the regime and some members of the Royal Family. I certainly wouldn't dismiss this.

There isn't much here that wasn't
already suspect. I would doubt that this goes to the top of the Saudi government though, as it's hard to see what they would gain from it.

gary77

iTrader: (1)

they are all reasonable questions
1 i wasnt aware that the theory of thermite being used is confined to it only being used in the core of the building
2 i cant answer that question maybe someone else can
3 i dont see how the fact it wasnt demolished in the standard way makes any differance and i would guess that it is not the best way to do it .

and how did they crash the plane into the building at the right hight , i'm not sure how difficult that would be

Martin2005

I'm not joining the conspiracy here, but hitting the right floor I guess just requires the ability to fly a plane at the correct altitude

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

What about the relationship of the Bush family with the Saudi Royal Family? And with the Bin Ladens? This may not lead to the Royal Family itself, but what about the clerics that keep them in power? And it's when you try and figure out what they would gain from it, then it gets interesting. Saudi Arabia holds a lot of cards, they could pull down the ponzi scheme that is the Federal Reserve, and thus the US economy and the dollar, overnight if it suited them.
So the real question is who instigated 9/11 and why? I'll bet it wasn't Al Quaida or Bin Laden. He seems more like the fall guy.

Martin2005

How much would you bet?

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

Interesting my @ss. George W Bush was as pro-oil a POTUS as the Saudis or anyone else could possibly have hoped to see in the White House. What conceivable leverage could there have been to gain over him by committing what essentially added up to an act of wanton mass-murder and large-scale vandalism?

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Very good question. And interesting, yes, when you factor in the clerics and the balance of power in Saudi.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

In other words, the best you can come up with in terms of actually answering it is the vaguest of vague insinuations that there was some other motive involved than simply wanting to blow **** up and kill as many infidel capitalists as possible in the process.

And around we go again


Edit: Your edit adds nothing that remotely qualifies as anything more than an extremely vague insinuation.

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Really don't understand why your being so confrontational, I'm merely having a discussion, not suggesting I have any answers.

markjmd

iTrader: (11)

If you haven't figured out for yourself that when it comes to certain topics, "just having a discussion" is inevitably seen by the conspiracy theorists as hard proof they have another convinced believer on their side, it's about time someone pointed it out.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Really? Is that a theory or can you back it up with evidence?

hodgy0_2

sure, but when you boil your post down it amounts too

Governments don't always tell us everything, sometimes outright lie, keep secrets - and can have "agendas" that they do not always share with the public, sometimes this is (un)official sometimes they are just covering up simple c0ckups - to protect careers and reputations


this simple (and sometime un palatable) truth then gets distorted, mangled and bastadized, by conspiritards

who think this very fact - governments can be duplicitous, is 100% evidence of not only a vast conspiracy, - that stretches from 9/11 to 7/7 through the Boston Bombings to Charlie Hebdo - but to some shadowy world government (nearly always with a banker/jewish slant)

and can be discovered and exposed by analysing grainy youtube footage and conducting large scale chemistry experiments in their back garden, and repeatedly repeating untruths, half-truths, distortions and simple lies

there are plenty of reasoned analysis of recent middle eastern global events - but none done by David Icke

Tidgy

It's funny how these conspiracy nuts always raise questions and say must be a conspiracy, then when questions are raise about there suposed truth they have no idea and just say you never know all the facts of a conspiracy. lol

Geezer

There are certain things, though, that are fact, not opinion, and they have a bearing on the 'truth' of what happened. There's nothing wrong with questioning, as I said before, none of us are experts in these things.

But, it's not an opinion that steel would have to melt in order for the WTC to collapse and the temps were not high enough, it's factually incorrect. So that particular bit of the conspiracy theory falls down.

So, you can say you think it was an inside job because Bush was linked to x, then that is your right, but when you make claims about the mechanics which are incorrect, that is quite different.

But, there are also areas which cover both, like you saying "there is no way that a plane hitting WTC would bring it down". OK, on the face of it, you may not be able to believe that, but on what do you base that opinion? Apart from a very light plane virtually bouncing off Empire State in the 30s, there was no precedent for this. It was not within the design paramters on WTC, there were no studies on the effects of large airliners, still full of fuel, hitting buildings at 500mph.

It's only natural that questions would be asked, but each and every single point has been debunked. You do have the odd individual who claims to be an expert, or sometimes they do have expertise in that field, but the majority of independent experts disagree.

I remember watching on the day, and as the first tower fell, I remember saying to my wife about the pressure blowing out the windows as it fell. There was nothing to indicate anything other than a structural failure. No bangs, no flashes, no collapse form the bottom. Go and look on youtube. see how may top down collapses you can find.

The Pentagon, in your opinion, a missile. But the characteristics are all wrong. It is penetrating damage, not explosive damage. A bunker buster would make a small hole with a large explosive are deep inside the building, yet we have a large hole on the outside, reducing in each ring.

So whilst you are allowed your opinions, ultimately, they have to be underpinned by facts, but the facts do not point to what you believe. Again, the only remaining quesiton is "who?", not "how".

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

Indeed. Which is why, personally, I never automatically accept the official line, and take the time to research alternative scenarios, some of which are, for sure, pretty nutty. You seem to suggest that the simple act of questioning the official story of 9/11 makes one a "conspritard" (oh, how Tabloid is that label?). As voters and citizens, we have a duty to closely monitor what governments are supposedly doing in our name.


Ah David Icke. A very late comer to the conspiracy theory game. All he has ever done is regurgitate long established theories and make them appear even crazier. I think he's a plant, to discredit any legitimate alternative interpretations of events . He does a good job of it.
I first became interested in so-called conspiracy theories in the seventies, when I was in my 20s. Way before the internet popularised it all. Some have turned out to be true, some have turned out to be total bollocks. I still keep an open mind about it all, but one thing I know for sure, the official story is never the whole truth.

Geezer

No, questioning is ok, conspiritard relates to people who still believe stuff once it is debunked.

This is how science works, you look at something and try to work out how it works. Conspiracy theorists look for evidence to fit their ideas. You see where the trail takes you, not make the trail go where you want.

jonc

The whole thermite theory I've seen so far centers around the placement of such devices either on or inside the inner columns to weaken and facilitate an inner core collapse, hence the molten metal at the base of the elevator shafts. Thing with controlled demolitions is that charges occur near or at the base of the building. This did not occur in the WTC buildings and nobody sets off charges high up in a building, to my knowledge, to bring a building down. Why use an untried and untested method?

So if the collapse of the buildings "looked" like controlled demolition, what does an uncontrolled demoliton initiated by an large aircraft stike supposed to look like? I take it you've seen examples to be able to make a comparison and say that these buildings were clearly subject to a controlled demolition?

If the buildings where imploded like in a contolled demolition, why was there vast damage in the surrounding areas?

Sad Weevil

iTrader: (1)

And herein lies the problem, a large number of theories put forward by disbelievers of the official line have not been debunked fully and conclusively. I think we can be sure that two airliners were deliberately crashed into the twin towers, as we can clearly see it on video from various angles (although some people even disagree about this), but the Pentagon attack is another matter. As long as there is no cctv footage being made available (the Pentagon is probably the most secure building in the US, it's inconceivable that they didn't have a sophisticated cctv setup), or is being deliberately withheld, there remains questions about the official explanation. Myself, I'm not sure either way. But as long as evidence is withheld, and pages from the official report are secret, then of course there is suspicion.

dpb

Why would you need cctv at all , if it were in fact the most secure building in the US

Tidgy

Is it me or does it seem strange that 99% of these conspiracy theorists are trying to sell their 'theories' to the world for money,,,,,

dpb

Just as onerous as the fundamentalists out there

Tidgy

one of the conspiracies i liked was the claim of the 'line of explosives' in the grass infront of the pentagon, shame its at the wrong angle lol

Geezer

No, you have questions as to why CCTV footage has been witheld (but, how do you now what - if anything - has been witheld, or even what worth it would have?) What hit the Pentagon is not disputed, I don't see why you think CCTV would make any difference.

Hundreds of eye witnesses saw plane fly over them and hit it. The destruction at the Pentagon is not consistent with a missile impact. You are hung up over something which will not add to the discussion (unless you think the CCTV footage is going to show clearly some government people at the controls of the plane, or no one and it was remote controlled! )

No matter whihch way you cut it, "how" is done and dusted, "who" is the only viable question left, and without confession or leak, that is effectively unanswerable. You either believe it was Saudi terrorists, or you believe it was the US govt.

I can believe that the govt may withold information that would be embarrassing, but that is not the same as collusion or direct involvement.

hodgy0_2

I can't understand why they get het up about CCTV

there was CCTV, it showed blurred images - but then that is what all the CCTV I have ever seen does, it is **** technology for capturing a slow moving mugger in a shop let alone a low flying object travelling at 500 MPH (the frame rate is sooo low)

and they have released CCTV footage, released under a FOI request - the ones from the Hotel over the road and the Garage - that conspiritards said would deffo prove it was a flying pig

and guess what they show fvck all for two really simple reasons,

1. they were not pointing at the sky, they usually point at the ground where people/cars usually are - to compensate for the fact that they are **** quality and

2. because CCTV is **** quality

and these conspiritards would not be convinced by high speed footage anyway - just like they haven't been with footage of the planes hitting the twin towers

they would simply say - "mmmm how come the Pentagon had high speed footage of a "plane" - isn't that a bit suspicious - I mean did they know something"

and why if CCTV is so crucial, why is there none of the planes hitting the towers, plenty of "tourist" videos (unsurprising as it is New York - and if you have ever been to New York you will see people looking up ALL the fvcking time)

but no CCTV footage, why? well

1. they were not pointing at the sky, they usually point at the ground where people/cars usually are - to compensate for the fact that they are **** quality and

2. because CCTV is **** quality

donny andi

iTrader: (3)

Them there men in black crazy *** dudes are coming for you all , time to stockpile those bunkers and hide til the end of days......

It's a coming