Originally posted by sonhouseAre you saying we should invade Pakistan to go get Bin Laden?
Overthrow of Taliban? Check again, they are back in force, they never were defeated, just kicked out of town. They regrouped in the hills.
So why didn't the Bushwhacker go after Bin Laden directly instead of futzing around Iraq? Whoppiedoo, we got rid of the guy holding Iran in check. So now we have an Iranian situation. Great move. And Bin Laden gets to celebrate his 50th birthday. What's wrong with this picture?
Originally posted by Lone KnightI'm sure it was a conspiracy orchestrated by the beeb. 🙄
Here's a stunner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
"BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell"
You can still see WTC 7 standing in the background whilst their correspondent talks about it having fallen down.
I can't believe people still think terrorists were responsible...
Is it possible the reporter didn't know which one #7 was?
How about if they got word that #7 was heavily damaged and likely going to fall and got their stories wrong somewhere between whoever heard word on the street and the reporter? Its not like the news has never gotten their facts wrong before, or there has never been confusion at the scene of a catastrophe.
It couldn't possibly be that the beeb dropped the ball during the media shark version of a feeding frenzy, it must be a conspiracy. 🙄
It seems there is a never ending supply of clowns out there to spam threads with lunacy everytime 9/11 comes up. Where do you people come from? How do you even get the way you are?
Originally posted by Lone KnightRemember Bagdad Bob? He was the Iraqi information Minister during the invasion.
Here's a stunner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
"BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell"
You can still see WTC 7 standing in the background whilst their correspondent talks about it having fallen down.
I can't believe people still think terrorists were responsible...
I remember he was in Bagdad giving interviews, and during one of those interviews he assured the world that the Americans were not in Bagdad. Right about that time an M1A rolled by in the backround.
Do you think that was a media conspiracy too?
1 edit
A controlled demolition destroyed the buildings??
The only way that could make sense would be if the charges were already in place and they figured out a way to hide all the cables that are used to blow the explosives because it would have taken way longer than an hour to retrofit the buildings with explosives after the planes hit. However......
After the trade centre bombing a few years before that, there was a concern that if the support pillars at the bottom were destroyed, the building would topple over sideways and take out a huge area.
So they MIGHT have pre-installed detonators to bring the building down in the event of a future terrorist attack that would only be used if there was a danger the building would topple over sideways again.
To be fair, helicopter pilots did report that the building was starting to lean sharply just moments before it collapsed. Could the reports of the tower leaning have been the justification the "authorities" used to blow the pre-installed explosives if they were worried the tower would topple sideways??
Maybe I suppose, but I don't know how safe it would be to have pre-installed explosives just sitting around waiting to be detonated. Seems a big risk to take that the explosives just didn't go off by accident.
Originally posted by uzlessNot to mention how old those explosives would have been by 2001.
A controlled demolition destroyed the buildings??
The only way that could make sense would be if the charges were already in place and they figured out a way to hide all the cables that are used to blow the explosives because it would have taken way longer than an hour to retrofit the buildings with explosives after the planes hit. However......
A ...[text shortened]... be detonated. Seems a big risk to take that the explosives just didn't go off by accident.
The facts are there.
I could go into more detail about the 7/7 sham but I can't be arsed now - the evidence is more concrete, how do you explain that?
I had to take a picture of yesterday's Sun front page today, the way it tries to stir up anti-Iran sentiment by comparing their premier to Hitler is ridiculous.
But of course all you robots would say that our Navy was in Iraqi waters...
Originally posted by Lone KnightWell, I suppose you could be the robot since your claim that they weren't in Iraqi waters is only beleived by one country in the world. And you of of course.
The facts are there.
I could go into more detail about the 7/7 sham but I can't be arsed now - the evidence is more concrete, how do you explain that?
I had to take a picture of yesterday's Sun front page today, the way it tries to stir up anti-Iran sentiment by comparing their premier to Hitler is ridiculous.
But of course all you robots would say that our Navy was in Iraqi waters...
Originally posted by Lone KnightI can see why you're aLoneatKnight .. maybe try law School, you seem to have the intellect for it. The facts are there .. I could go on
The facts are there.
I could go into more detail about the 7/7 sham but I can't be arsed now - the evidence is more concrete, how do you explain that?
I had to take a picture of yesterday's Sun front page today, the way it tries to stir up anti-Iran sentiment by comparing their premier to Hitler is ridiculous.
But of course all you robots would say that our Navy was in Iraqi waters...
Originally posted by kmax87What absolute drivel.
What the old lady said at the end of the piece, what I was telling everone the next day after having watched it overnight live on every free to air and cable channel in Sydney Australia.
As she said,..."I tell you what .. a person who believes that this wasn't set up by our government is an idiot.."
I was doing a university bridging course that year a ...[text shortened]... is the terrorists were given a day to crow their victory. Thats all they would ever be given.
Yes lets kill another couple of thousand people and blow the buildings up. We don't want to damage the American pshyce.
The fact that an entire global network of demolition and architecture experts never spotted what you did makes you very talented.
Either that or you believe what you want, regardless of the quality of the counter-argument, and have easy access to a large supply of class A drugs.
Hey, did you know Tony Blair invented AIDS to prevent the African nations closing the trade gap. I read it in a book
🙂
2 edits
Originally posted by PolicestateActually I've read a little about this and it isn't ridiculous. One of the planes didn't hit the central core of the building head on but took out supports on one side, you wouldn't expect a symmetrical collapse under those circumstances, it's really unlikely. This has been noted by demolition experts. There were puffs of smoke seen rising up the sides of the building. There were a bunch of decisions made that seem to only make sense if there was a conspiracy - the roof escape was, unusually, locked and helicopters were instructed not to attempt rescues.
What absolute drivel.
Yes lets kill another couple of thousand people and blow the buildings up. We don't want to damage the American pshyce.
The fact that an entire global network of demolition and architecture experts never spotted what you did makes you very talented.
Either that or you believe what you want, regardless of the quality of the coun ...[text shortened]... air invented AIDS to prevent the African nations closing the trade gap. I read it in a book
🙂
There are two basic scenarios, one where it was a grand conspiracy entirely initiated by the US government to justify it doing what it liked abroad, and the other that it was decided to take the buildings down tidily rather than having something 1,300 ft high dropping like a felled tree onto Lower Manhattan. Both scenarios have difficulties, in the "bringing it down safely" scenario you'd have to ask why so much thermite happened to be conveniently set up in the building to be used as an emergency self-destruct device and why they didn't simply just admit it, after all they would have been acting to avoid even more deaths. The "grand conspiracy" scenario, with either the CIA learning of the plan and rigging the buildings to ensure terrorist success, or the CIA (or whoever) actually initiating the attack to ensure easy justification for a few foreign wars and removing some legal protections, is very problematic as the consequences of being caught are unthinkable and it's really not clear that even if their invasions had gone perfectly that they'd gain enough to justify the economic damage caused by taking out the buildings.
I'm pretty sceptical about these conspiracy theories but there are some peculiarities about the day that haven't really been explained (see David Tebbs post on p2 of Thread 56092 for a more complete discussion and some links) so I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYes. It can be dismissed out of hand.
Actually I've read a little about this and it isn't ridiculous. One of the planes didn't hit the central core of the building head on but took out supports on one side, you wouldn't expect a symmetrical collapse under those circumstances, it's really unlikely. This has been noted by demolition experts. There were puffs of smoke seen rising up the side ...[text shortened]... e discussion and some links) so I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand.
How would one rig the building without anyone knowing and where would they hide those wiles wnd miles of cables?
The theory is crap. As for falling sideways, its obvious that the impact didn't bring it down or they would have fallen on impact. It was the heat degrading the central supports in the core of the building.
Its all pretty simple actually. Unless one wants to believe its a conspiracy.