Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Jim Corr is a legend for having the courage to present a completely alternative view
Options
Comments
-
yes but whose to say they would have known what they were doing? Or rather, they did not know they had any involvment in 911. Maybe any such project would have been years ago.
That's another point, I still don't see how any conspiricy needs to involve 1000s of people.
"Deliver this package to WTC7." You wouldn't think to ask what's in the package.
And another idea, abeit far-fetched, even for a hypothetical scenario discussion
. Ever seen that Derren Brown TV show thing. Is it possible to get people to do things and subsequently forget they've done them. 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
And another idea, abeit far-fetched, even for a hypothetical scenario discussion. Ever seen that Derren Brown TV show thing. Is it possible to get people to do things and subsequently forget they've done them.
Im glad you mentioned that, yes there is a strong possibility that that could have been used for this and many other projects.
MKULTRA is a historically accepted conspiracy about the mind control program going on in America for decades. It describes manchurian candidate scenarios where people are controlled to do things against their will by black project members of the government:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKULTRA
The Americans are well aware of Freuds Theories on human behaviour and psychology and know exactly how to exploit it to such an extent that people like yourselves are so brainwashed by mass media already that nothing else could even remotely be true, no matter what the evidence, no matter how many 'officials' themselves continue to ask questions, no matter how many ex-CIA, FBI, Government agents whistleblow these issues etc. etc. etc.
You would learn a hell of a lot from Adam Curtis with regard to this. This is not conspiracy related material but explains a lot about how humans that are in high positions of control would act when they know you better than you know your own self.
Adam Curtis, the guy that made Pandora's Box has also made some critically acclaimed documentaries for the BBC, watch these:
The Power Of Nightmares:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&hl=en
The Century Of The Self:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8953172273825999151&hl=en
The Trap:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=404227395387111085&hl=en
If you havent seen these yet, then really, you wont even begin to believe that these conspiracies are more likely to be true than false according to human behaviour.
There are 11 historically accepted conspiracies that we know of so far, can you name any of them?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
Is it absolutely inconceivable that the US military could have developed a bunker-bustery type weapon with the purpose of taking down skyscrapers?
Nope. Not absolutely inconceivable at all. Its also not absolutely inconceivable that magic is real, and that the US or someone else hired some evil magicians to cast spells which brought the buildings down.
I admit my scenario is unlikely, and that there isn't a spot of evidence to support it. How about you and yours?
Evidence?
Again...not absolutely inconceivable. Again...evidence?Explosives that used timers?
Lets just imagine that I repeat myself hereOr, hiring a team of engineers to develop new ways of carrying out a controlled demolition in a fast manner?
Seriously...you can rephrase your questions like this :
"Isn't it possible that the buildings were brought down in a secretely-created manner we can't begin to explain which looks just like a "natural" collapse would?"
The answer is yes, as long as you accept that it looks just like a "natural" collapse would.
ETA:
One can, of course, argue that it doesn't looks like a natural collapose would. In such a case, one needs to detail what features are not just atypical, but entirely inexplicable and detail how an alternate explanation explains these features. Additionally, any alternate explanation must not introduce any inexplicable features of its own.
For example...radiometric analysis was done in the wake of September 11. There was no exceptional background radiation. Thus, if one wishes to introduce the concept of some sort of nuclear device, one must also explain how a nuclear device can create no radiometric signature.
Sure...there's always the fallback on appealing to the seekr1t projects that the military have, and how we can't possibly know what their capabilities are...at which point I go back to mentioning wizards and witches to show why such logic is fundamentally inapplicable.
Or dragons. The towers could have been taken down by dragons. Tad Williams may have had advance knowledge.0 -
-
Pixel8 wrote:I have yet to see images of fires engulfing the whole building like Diogenes, Bonkey or JJ6000 have claimed, not saying it isnt true, i just haven't seen any of you post *evidence* to show that more than 3 floors of WTC7 were on fire.
Smoke billowing from every floor.Here are some pics i've seen of WTC7 after debris had hit it and also a few hours later:
http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html
I'd really choose my sources better The Web Fairy is a delusional no player, as is killtown, who enjoys harassing eye witnesses and sending them abuse.i dont believe they would have just let it fall uncontrollably if they *knew* for hours before that is was going to come down. That just makes no sense at all.
I believe I've quoted a senior fire chief who when asked what they were going to do about the other building damaged and his attitude was "screw it let em burn"
Over three hundred firefighters were killed on 911. These were these men's brothers, sons, fathers, and friends. Half of their equipment was buried under rubble that their co workers were under. Every firefighter in New York who wasn't either dead or fighting for their lives, was trying to save as many people as possible, or running into scene of unimaginable chaos and horror, desperately trying to find the men and women they worked with.
I find your cynical back seat quarterbacking over where the NYC fire department priorities lied that day to be deeply offensive, and if you voiced that opinion near a NYC fire house, I suspect you'll be looking for your teeth.You're correct in saying that if WTC was taken down by a controlled demolition they could not have used conventional demolition methods.
But here's the thing.
"How do we demolish a building without using conventional demolition methods? It hasn't been done before, ah crap. Surely there's nothing we can do so"
A better question would be, "why would we want to?"I feel confident that it would be possible to figure out a way of doing it.
Just because it hasn't been done before dooesn't mean it's impossible.
It's not inconceivable that the US military would have looked into weapons for demolishing sky-skrapers.
Is that plausable?
Perhaps, your problem lies in the fact that it's been over half a decade and you've yet to elaborate beyond the drawing board for a conceivable weapon.And there's always the mini-nukes scenario. Thus nulifying the need for 'tonnes of explosives'.
The "mini-nukes scenario" Imagine a man peering at you quizzically over some spectacles. What pray tell is a mini nuke scenario.
No please tell us how you detonate a nuclear weapon with the blast radius of one city block that doesn't create a EMP pulse, or lead to a massive dose of radiation that would still be evident at ground zero today.Destruction of evidence?
What evidence of what?Again, taking broad statements and interpriting them to make them seem as unintelegent as you can.
I find that you're interpriting broad proposed hypothetical scenarios in a way so as to make them as unintelegent as you can. Yes, I find that patronising.
You just invented a new form of nuclear explosive defense three lines ago. Why not go hog wild and say the WTC was destroyed by a cloaked Romulan War Bird?I've started another thread on the motives for Iraq and Afghanistan, you're more than welcome to participate. For me that's a very important factor in judging whether or not the US would have carried out 911.
Ah see this explains it. Unhappy with the present US administration behaviour you've gone back and decided that in order to carry out these invasions the US administration must have created an elaborate scheme to justify it.
See your problem is you're approaching this event with a predetermined opinion on what occured, and instead of objectively rationally and imperially examining the evidence, you are simply disregarding any information which does not fit your rigid entrenched opinion of what did occur, and inventing evidence as to satisfy your predetermined opinion.
Consider this. You watched power of nightmares didn't you? You know that entrenched fundamental Islam has been growing for decades in both the West and Middle East. You know that their are ruthless neo conservatives in America, and at the time of sept 11th their power was in the ascent.
So what's harder to believe that a group of fanatical jihadists hell bent on mayrtdom, trained in a dedicated plot for years to carry out a terrorist atrocity, which Neo Conservatives capitalised on to further their agenda.
There, you don't need Darren Brown, and secret government Mini Nukes, you've got a plausible rational and yet horrifying chain of events.0 -
Smoke billowing from every floor.
thats not quite the same as Engulfed with fires on every floor, would you like to show us photos with Flames on every floor, like this one of the Windsor tower?
you could at least provide evidence rather than just making attacks against people who's websites disagree with you
I'd really choose my sources better The Web Fairy is a delusional no player, as is killtown, who enjoys harassing eye witnesses and sending them abuse.
again, what are you adding to the debate here?I believe I've quoted a senior fire chief who when asked what they were going to do about the other building damaged and his attitude was "screw it let em burn"
Over three hundred firefighters were killed on 911. These were these men's brothers, sons, fathers, and friends. Half of their equipment was buried under rubble that their co workers were under. Every firefighter in New York who wasn't either dead or fighting for their lives, was trying to save as many people as possible, or running into scene of unimaginable chaos and horror, desperately trying to find the men and women they worked with.
I find your cynical back seat quarterbacking over where the NYC fire department priorities lied that day to be deeply offensive, and if you voiced that opinion near a NYC fire house, I suspect you'll be looking for your teeth.
If the firebrigade did nothing wrong then where would the problem lie?A better question would be, "why would we want to?"
OK lets look at the occupants of WTC7 again, see any underlying connection between most of the organisations in the building?
Tactical Battlefield Nuclear weapons have been with us since the 70's ever seen a Nuclear Mortar, ever heard of a 'Suitcase Bomb'?Perhaps, your problem lies in the fact that it's been over half a decade and you've yet to elaborate beyond the drawing board for a conceivable weapon.
The "mini-nukes scenario" Imagine a man peering at you quizzically over some spectacles. What pray tell is a mini nuke scenario.
Very CarefullyNo please tell us how you detonate a nuclear weapon with the blast radius of one city block that doesn't create a EMP pulse, or lead to a massive dose of radiation that would still be evident at ground zero today.
evidence of Arson/Explosives in WTC7What evidence of what?
See this is where you show yerself up as a selfsatisfied git who hasn't a clue, JUST BECAUSE YOU NEVER HEARD OF IT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!You just invented a new form of nuclear explosive defense three lines ago.
battlefield nukes have been around for a long time, so it IS POSSIBLE to have a Nuclear device thats small enough to be delivered as a FedEx package and still contain the punch required to do the damage we saw.
Now I'm not saying that this is how they did it, I'm mereley offering up a possibility that you were obviously unaware of when you dismissed the notion out of hand.Why not go hog wild and say the WTC was destroyed by a cloaked Romulan War Bird?
You are not Bonkey, you cant do IronicCleverness, it makes you look even pettier.
Lets See, the Neocons were talkin about requiring a Catalyst to launch an invasion, to shore up US military dominance as far back as 1996.Ah see this explains it. Unhappy with the present US administration behaviour you've gone back and decided that in order to carry out these invasions the US administration must have created an elaborate scheme to justify it.
and this differs from your approach Because???See your problem is you're approaching this event with a predetermined opinion on what occured, and instead of objectively rationally and imperially examining the evidence, you are simply disregarding any information which does not fit your rigid entrenched opinion of what did occur, and inventing evidence as to satisfy your predetermined opinion.Consider this. You watched power of nightmares didn't you? You know that entrenched fundamental Islam has been growing for decades in both the West and Middle East. You know that their are ruthless neo conservatives in America, and at the time of sept 11th their power was in the ascent.
So what's harder to believe that a group of fanatical jihadists hell bent on mayrtdom, trained in a dedicated plot for years to carry out a terrorist atrocity, which Neo Conservatives capitalised on to further their agenda.
There, you don't need Darren Brown, and secret government Mini Nukes, you've got a plausible rational and yet horrifying chain of events.
who trained these Jihadists, where did the resources come from? are we to believe that there was no one in the continental USA who was aware of what was going on?0 -
You are aware, aren't you, that the photograph you've posted was taken at night whereas the WTC7 one was in daylight?Mahatma coat wrote: »thats not quite the same as Engulfed with fires on every floor, would you like to show us photos with Flames on every floor, like this one of the Windsor tower?
OK, we have a hypothesis: WTC7 was demolished using miniature nuclear weapons.battlefield nukes have been around for a long time, so it IS POSSIBLE to have a Nuclear device thats small enough to be delivered as a FedEx package and still contain the punch required to do the damage we saw.
Now I'm not saying that this is how they did it, I'm mereley offering up a possibility that you were obviously unaware of when you dismissed the notion out of hand.
Let's test the hypothesis by checking whether it fits the observed facts: we can take it for granted that even a small nuclear device would leave a distinct radioactive signature. It's also a given that anything with sufficient explosive power to bring down a 47-storey building would leave a seismic signature.
Were there unusual levels of radiation in the vicinity of the WTC in the immediate aftermath? Nope.
Was there a seismic record of an explosion? Nope.
Your hypothesis has been tested and found to be invalid, therefore it can be confidently stated that it didn't happen. Yay for the scientific method.
For those of you who have a problem with what you dismiss as the "official story" - that's how you go about challenging it.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »thats not quite the same as Engulfed with fires on every floor, would you like to show us photos with Flames on every floor, like this one of the Windsor tower?
Wot Oscar said. Notice the bright clear sky in one, and the dark sky in the other?you could at least provide evidence rather than just making attacks against people who's websites disagree with you
Both the webfairy and killtown have a proven track record of lying, deceit and of selectively choosing which facts they promote and ignore which don't suit their rather odd chain of events on the day.again, what are you adding to the debate here?
If the firebrigade did nothing wrong then where would the problem lie?
The person I am responding to is expressing wonder why didn't the fire department fight the fires in WTC7 I'm just pointing out that the NYC fire department had more important matters on their mind that day.OK lets look at the occupants of WTC7 again, see any underlying connection between most of the organisations in the building?
The largest occupant of the WTC 7 was the Saloman brothers, your point is?Very Carefully
Careful now Mahatma you're in danger of dethroning your hard won crown from that holocaust denial thread.
Are you saying that the only reason that we see EMP pulses and radiation after a nuclear explosion is because in every single other instance the French, British, Americans, Soviets, India, and Pakistan were just careless?
It's a wonder greenpeace/CND don't use this argument themselves;
"Responsible use of Nuclear Weapons Now."evidence of Arson/Explosives in WTC7
Circular reasonings. You're trying to suggest that they destroyed WTC 7 to destroy the evidence that they, er, used arson and explosives to destroy the WTC7.See this is where you show yerself up as a selfsatisfied git who hasn't a clue, JUST BECAUSE YOU NEVER HEARD OF IT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!
battlefield nukes have been around for a long time, so it IS POSSIBLE to have a Nuclear device thats small enough to be delivered as a FedEx package and still contain the punch required to do the damage we saw.
Now I'm not saying that this is how they did it, I'm mereley offering up a possibility that you were obviously unaware of when you dismissed the notion out of hand.
No I'm perfectly aware of this. However even a small Nuclear device emits a EMP and would release radiation that would still be identifiable at Ground Zero today. Not to mention as Oscar said their would certainly be a identifiable seismic record.
Simply making a nuclear device smaller doesn't make these problems disappear.
So I may be a "self satisfied git" as you put it in yet another personal attack, but I happen to be a "self satisfied git" who lives in reality.
Come join us here some time.You are not Bonkey, you cant do IronicCleverness, it makes you look even pettier.
Gosh well you sure told me, I'll never ever do "IronicCleverness" ever again, because Mahatma Coat told me I'm so bad at it.Lets See, the Neocons were talkin about requiring a Catalyst to launch an invasion, to shore up US military dominance as far back as 1996.
Evidence? And please in the name of sweet merciful god I don't want to see PNAC misquoted, again.and this differs from your approach Because???
Show me where I arrived at a predetermined conclusion about events, and then fitted the facts around this conclusion, and you'd be in danger of having a point.who trained these Jihadists, where did the resources come from? are we to believe that there was no one in the continental USA who was aware of what was going on?
The Saudi's and Pakistan for a start. I'd suggest you pick up Jason Burke's Al Qaeda if you are ignorant of the actual facts of the Soviet Afghanistan war. And yes people were aware, but it's very easy to cherry pick what facts people should and shouldn't have picked up on with hindsight.0 -
Mahatma coat wrote: »thats not quite the same as Engulfed with fires on every floor, would you like to show us photos with Flames on every floor, like this one of the Windsor tower?
The steel-construction part of the Windsor Tower collapsed from fire.
WTC7 collapsed from a combination of structural damage and fire.
Why would one expect the fires to be the same?
The face of WTC 7 which faced the towers was the south face. The damage to WTC 7 was primarily on the south face. The smoke coming from WTC 7 was primarily from the south face. Killtown shows the north, east and west faces. Many of his pictures don't show the whole building, or are cut off so that you can't see the billowing of smoke from the south face.you could at least provide evidence rather than just making attacks against people who's websites disagree with you
The picture center-top, however, shows smoke billowing out from the building's south face, as does the right-hand one on the second row.
If you wish to argue that there weren't fires on every floor, and that the eyewitnesses who made such comments were wrong...I have no problem with that, whatever about the others who've taken you to task on that. The collapse-scenario for WTC7 isn't reliant on there being fires on every floor. I also believe that NISTs interim report - which should be considered the most current "official account" - neither makes nor relies on such a claim.
They emit EMP, and have a distinctive radiation signature. Neither were present on September 11, 2001.Tactical Battlefield Nuclear weapons have been with us since the 70's ever seen a Nuclear Mortar, ever heard of a 'Suitcase Bomb'?
As far as I'm aware, there are no nuclear explosives which do not emit EMP. A dirty-bomb would not, but it also wouldn't be highly explosive.
I've never heard of a teacup orbiting Pluto either. Does that mean it would be reasonable for someone to suggest that it exists?See this is where you show yerself up as a selfsatisfied git who hasn't a clue, JUST BECAUSE YOU NEVER HEARD OF IT DOES NOT MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST!!!!!
If someone wants to suggest that a suitcase nuke with no EMP and no radiation signature exists, then by all means...let them do so. Until they can provide at least a theoretically sound design for such a device, however, their suggestion should be (rightly) considered science fiction.
What large explosion did we see that you're referring to?battlefield nukes have been around for a long time, so it IS POSSIBLE to have a Nuclear device thats small enough to be delivered as a FedEx package and still contain the punch required to do the damage we saw.
If you're referring to the infamous "New Pearl Harbour" comment in PNAC, then no, they weren't. They were talking to the only thing that would invalidate the slow-and-careful progression that they both laid out and maintained was unstoppable if done right.Lets See, the Neocons were talkin about requiring a Catalyst to launch an invasion, to shore up US military dominance as far back as 1996.0 -
-
Smoke billowing from every floor.
Yes i see the smoke, where are the pictures of fire? I only see 2 floors with black around the windows half way up the building which would indicate flames *were* there but not anymore, no black around any other windows? So there wasnt any fire around all those other windows?
What time was that picture taken at? Could it be around the time or shortly after the WTC's 1&2 came down at which time the whole area was 'billowing' with smoke and pulverised concrete in the air? Thats what it looks like to me, or else it was taken when WTC7 was being demolished which would prove it wasnt on fire when it was demolished, which is it?
But since you dont practice what you preach and post the actual evidence for your claim and use common sense instead of linking an image from 911debunking.com (same every time, lets have some others) without any explanation of the time it was taken or anything else, you're just wasting time and destroying what would otherwise be a very informative thread for a lot of people. Instead its ruined with troll crap from yourself and only a few others.I'd really choose my sources better The Web Fairy is a delusional no player, as is killtown, who enjoys harassing eye witnesses and sending them abuse.
The thing about it is, that you pick any number of websites from numerous places on the internet and they all say similar things to what that web fairy site says, ive heard what they say a thousand times and seen lots of info, evidence, claims and questions which do more to back the conspiracy than debunk it.
I have posted only a few of those sources at this stage and you dont seem to have looked at any of them.
All you and naysayers ever reference is 911debunking.com, are you the webmaster or something? I'd like to see more sources saying what you claim to be the case.I believe I've quoted a senior fire chief who when asked what they were going to do about the other building damaged and his attitude was "screw it let em burn"
You quoted a firefighter? well done, a whole 1 firefighter, thats comprehensive man, he must know the full story! Wheres the link? You constantly ignore our links and then post none yourself...
Look at this for a lot more than 1 firefighter saying the opposite to what you claim:
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+conspiracy&sitesearch=#Over three hundred firefighters were killed on 911. These were these men's brothers, sons, fathers, and friends. Half of their equipment was buried under rubble that their co workers were under. Every firefighter in New York who wasn't either dead or fighting for their lives, was trying to save as many people as possible, or running into scene of unimaginable chaos and horror, desperately trying to find the men and women they worked with.
That proves nothing. New York State has how many firefighters that would have travelled to the scene as soon as they heard? Firefighter numbers have nothing to do with this, other states would have got involved in the rescue if they needed it and probably did.
Sure Bush even says he saw the first plane hit the first WTC on TV when it wasnt even televised till the day after, the *first* plane hitting, not the second one which was televised the whole day of Sept 11th with the government script to back all the bull**** up. haha, check this one out for a big bush blooper:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60I find your cynical back seat quarterbacking over where the NYC fire department priorities lied that day to be deeply offensive, and if you voiced that opinion near a NYC fire house, I suspect you'll be looking for your teeth.
Dont put words in my mouth then.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement