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

10 years after 9/11 - where has the debate brought us?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Does it support it? Well that depends...Is there any other building on record at all falling at free-fall speed that wasn't a controlled demolition?
    Well you see, there you go misrepresenting what the NIST report actually says because you can't actually answer the question.
    I've repeated this point several times and have no interest in repeating it. Especially since you already conceded it in your own roundabout way.

    The building did not fall at a free fall speed.
    And as a matter of fact buildings undergoing controlled demolition usually don't either.

    Now again, do you actually believe that the 2.25 seconds of free fall experienced by a section of the façade of the building indicates that it was a controlled demolition?
    If your answer is no (or more likely) "I don't know" then what exactly was the point you were trying to make to meglome?

    And this Edanto is one of the long term effects of the day.
    Like with JFK and the moon landings, conspiracy theorists will repeat long debunked claims, misrepresent evidence and basically use silly arguments to keep the conspiracy alive.
    I guarantee that even 10 years from now people will still be claiming that WTC7 fell at free fall speed.
    Just like how they claim to the day that the Apollo missions couldn't happen due to radiation, or that the government believes in a "magic bullet" among many other equally stupid, equally debunked nonsense.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Di0genes wrote: »
    It appears sophistry is replacing facts in your argument.

    The point is irrelevant. It's doubtful there's any building to compare to the WTC7, struck by massive piece of debris, and left to burn for hours on end.

    To try and suggest there's a analogy between the fact that part of the WTC7 collapsed for a while at freefall speed with structures that were intentionally demolished, simply because of the way part of one the building collapsed is tenuous.

    What is your argument Brown Bomber. That because it was partial collapse at freefall speed it had to have some help in the form of a controlled demolition?

    Of are you incapable of offering a coherent rational alternative theory to the one presented by the NIST, and are reduced to simple point scoring and nit picking in lieu of a theory....

    So that'll be a no then.


  • Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    edanto wrote: »
    guys - do you mind if we leave the tit for tat about the specifics of the day to other threads about that, and try and keep this thread reasonably focussed on the long term effects of the day?

    Yeah, no worries. Sorry. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    King Mob wrote: »
    Well among other reasons 9/11 directly lead to a couple of those wars.

    Exactly. No matter what the explanation for the cause of it, it has been used as an excuse to warmonger, and has fed the militaryindustrial complex.

    We've lost freedoms through the Patriot act, and travel by air or long distance rail will never be the same.

    Hundreds have been imprisoned in Guantanamo - torture has been redefined as anything over and above the pain of organ failure.... which leaves an awful lot of space for things like waterboarding to occur.

    And these are things that both sides of the 9/11 debate actually agree on, yet hardly ever campaign on!

    This confusion about what happened has led to a dilution of political will to push for more basic human rights.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    edanto wrote: »
    Exactly. No matter what the explanation for the cause of it, it has been used as an excuse to warmonger, and has fed the militaryindustrial complex.

    We've lost freedoms through the Patriot act, and travel by air or long distance rail will never be the same.

    Hundreds have been imprisoned in Guantanamo - torture has been redefined as anything over and above the pain of organ failure.... which leaves an awful lot of space for things like waterboarding to occur.

    And these are things that both sides of the 9/11 debate actually agree on, yet hardly ever campaign on!

    This confusion about what happened has led to a dilution of political will to push for more basic human rights.
    Well I wouldn't claim what I'm doing is "campaigning".
    But want I would like to think is that by learning about and exposing the nonsense claims about 9/11 I'm, at least for myself, removing the confusion about what happened.

    As for the truther side, there's very few of them that actually go out and make movies/ go to tasteless protests. So I very much doubt if these people switched focus it'd make much of a difference.

    But do you believe that this "confusion" is being created on purpose by someone to deliberately dilute political will? If so who and which side are they controlling?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Well, I dunno. But since it is the CT forum :pac:

    It's very well known that the CIA has a strong competency in black propaganda.

    Some examples:
    Black propaganda was when the US Government spoke in the voice of the enemy, and there is a very famous example. In 1965 the CIA loaded up a junk, a North Vietnamese junk, with communist weapons ... the Agency maintains communist arsenals in the United States and around the world. They floated this junk off the coast of Central Vietnam. Then they shot it up and made it look like a fire fight had taken place. Then they brought in the American press and the international press and said, 'Here's evidence that the North Vietnamese are invading South Vietnam. 'Based on this evidence two Marine battalion landing teams went into Danang and a week after that the American air force began regular bombing of North Vietnam.
    Quote taken from http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Pilger_John/Vietnam_Heroes.html

    Another would be the ironic occasion when the CIAs own black propaganda was collected by an independent author and turned into a book called The Terror Network which created the myth of a global co-ordinated terrorist groups. This myth - though it was created by the CIA - was seized upon by neocons and used as a pretext to rule by fear. This is detailed, and to my mind, proven, by the excellent BBC documentary The Power of Nightmares.

    Is it beyond belief that Langley would use the same methods to captivate people with compelling and contradictory evidence about 9/11? Not beyond belief. To me, it's far more believable that they would do that, compared to the question would they bomb New York and murder thousands of Americans?

    But, having indulged in all that, I still don't know if it seems plausible that the CIA would actively fabricate evidence for the 9/11 truthers. That would be some f0cked up sh1t.

    To me, the simplest explanation is that the neocons just took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to carry out as much of the 'Project for the New American Century' plan as possible.

    From this crisis, the group that already had the plan, the means and the opportunity sprang into action and started to secure the oil resources in the Middle East. And over the decade, they have learnt that if you simply sit back and allow people to twist themselves in knots over something, then you can get away with practically anything you want while they look the other way.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    edanto wrote: »
    To me, the simplest explanation is that the neocons just took advantage of the 9/11 attacks to carry out as much of the 'Project for the New American Century' plan as possible.
    But you see, this in itself is another piece of wrong information that is passed around in the conspiracy circles. Even your watered down version.

    The usual line is that PNAC is the neocon admitting that they had planned 9/11, it being the "new Pearl Harbour" from that one line that forever taken out of context.

    Now, have you yourself actually read the document in full?


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Yip, read many of their papers over the years. I've never quoted the Pearl Harbour line though - it's just too unfortunate.
    "In the Persian Gulf region, the presence of American forces, along with British and French units, has become a semi-permanent fact of life. Though the immediate mission of those forces is to enforce the no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq, they represent the long-term commitment of the United States and its major allies to a region of vital importance. Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."

    This is the the type of thing I had in mind. That's what they were pushing towards over the past 10 years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    edanto wrote: »
    Yip, read many of their papers over the years. I've never quoted the Pearl Harbour line though - it's just too unfortunate.

    This is the the type of thing I had in mind. That's what they were pushing towards over the past 10 years.

    But the thing is, the actual document details their plans to update the armed forces in the absence of a "new Pearl Harbour".
    9/11 pretty much made that entire document obsolete.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,038 ✭✭✭jackiebaron


    Di0genes wrote: »
    That no one has put together a coherent alternative theory as to how the attack was carried out, supported by anything supported by evidence...

    well, what it most certainly has delivered, and only a fool would deny it, is that the wars launched as a result of this 9/11 thing are complete and utter fiascos.

    Now I haven't been in combat (in Iraq or in Afghanistan) and I doubt that you have either, but this bloke has:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=951_1189989944

    So....I will give him my ear. Were the attacks on New York and Washington allowed to happen? Maybe. Quite possibly. But the outcome and ramifications have made such money for so many as the rest of the imbeciles wrap themselves in "made in China" Stars and Stripes.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    well, what it most certainly has delivered, and only a fool would deny it, is that the wars launched as a result of this 9/11 thing are complete and utter fiascos.

    Now I haven't been in combat (in Iraq or in Afghanistan) and I doubt that you have either, but this bloke has:

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=951_1189989944

    So....I will give him my ear. Were the attacks on New York and Washington allowed to happen? Maybe. Quite possibly. But the outcome and ramifications have made such money for so many as the rest of the imbeciles wrap themselves in "made in China" Stars and Stripes.

    Wonderful, completely irrelevant to whether 9/11 was a conspiracy theory.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭edanto


    Just as well, since this thread is about the ramifications of the event and not the whodunnit!


Advertisement