War on terrorism , 9-11, Iluminati etc

MOH

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

Does it make logical sense though for something like a plane to take down a sturdy structure such as a building?
A lot of questions un answered and may never be answered .

Or they will be answered but some people just won't be satisfied

biko

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

1. Do you believe 9-11, Boston Bombing and various other events were planned for the benefit of corrupt people or heads of state?

2. Is there such thing as a new world order or illumiti that controls the minds of people through subliminal messaging and were various celebrities killed for speaking out ?

3. Do you believe that ISIS or ISIL actually exists?

You forgot
Vaccinations
Fluoride
Chemtrails
Jimmy Hoffa
The Bermuda Triangle
Marilyn Monroe
JFK
Santa

Victor

Charlie19 wrote: »

1. No
2. No
3. No

Margaret?

kneemos

biko wrote: »

You forgot
Vaccinations
Fluoride
Chemtrails
Jimmy Hoffa
The Bermuda Triangle
Marilyn Monroe
JFK
Santa

Silence.

That's definitely a conspiracy.

Menas

biko wrote: »

You forgot
Vaccinations
Fluoride
Chemtrails
Jimmy Hoffa
The Bermuda Triangle
Marilyn Monroe
JFK
Santa

Elvis. He also forgot Elvis. For shame.

ScumLord

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

All opinions not to be abused or made fun of

Boooooo!!!

so let's not make it an online feud.

Feud! Feud! Feud! Feud! Feud! Feud!

1. Do you believe 9-11, Boston Bombing and various other events were planned for the benefit of corrupt people or heads of state?

Which heads of which state? Why would the transient employees of a state body spend so much effort when they'll be in another job in two years time. Politicians don't play long games, they only have to survive the public's scrutiny for a number of years, they don't actually care about world order.

2. Is there such thing as a new world order or illumiti that controls the minds of people through subliminal messaging and were various celebrities killed for speaking out ?

Subliminal messaging doesn't work for a start. Who cares what celebrities say and secret orders never stay secret.


I don't think there are global conspiracies as such, I'm sure different groups work together but are fairly open about it. The rest is just side effects of markets drawing rich people together so they can get richer together.

Calibos

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

Does it make logical sense though for something like a plane to take down a sturdy structure such as a building?
A lot of questions un answered and may never be answered .

So let me get this straight. You can't grasp how a metal Boeing 767 weighing 400,000 pounds carrying 90,000 litres of kerosene hitting a building at 600 kilometres an hour could possibly damage a building enough to bring it down but have no problem grasping that a few pounds of C4 could?

galwayrush

1-No
2-No
3-Yes

Potatoeman

A good conspiracy just needs to be believable and very hard to prove one way or the other.

gandalf

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

1. Do you believe 9-11, Boston Bombing and various other events were planned for the benefit of corrupt people or heads of state?

No, absolutely not.

2. Is there such thing as a new world order or illumiti that controls the minds of people through subliminal messaging and were various celebrities killed for speaking out ?

No! Did you watch John Carpenters "They Live!" too many times?

3. Do you believe that ISIS or ISIL actually exists?

Yes of course they exist and they exist because of the incompetence of the various countries that have meddled in the Middles east over the last 50 years.

There is a forum specifically for these kind of things on boards. You would probably get a more "interesting" response there.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

wretcheddomain

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

Does it make logical sense though for something like a plane to take down a sturdy structure such as a building?
A lot of questions un answered and may never be answered .

A lot of questions may be unanswered, but that's the nature of many large scale investigations. Not to know the answer to one question does not invalidate the answers to the questions of which we do have solid answers.

We know, for example, that the nineteen hijackers made it on board the planes. We have CCTV footage of the individuals in question. We also have calls from those inside the planes informing us the planes were being hijacked. Thus, at the very base minimum, we can agree that a hijacking by Islamist terrorists took place. Terrorists who, by the way, had a history of hijacking and apparent motivation to attack the US.

What you're asking us to believe is that not only did this hijacking take place - an already foul act - but that this act had to be assisted in order to bring the towers down. This begs the question of what purpose would it serve the US government to bring the towers down, as opposed to just simply letting the hijacking occur in the first place.

There is no such purpose. Assume the buildings didn't come down for whatever reason, the US would still have had sufficient motivation to invade Afghanistan for its own reasons. It would still have been able to extend this to Iraq in the way that it did. Actually guaranteeing that the buildings came down would not have had any impact on the foreign policy of the United States.

So, in conclusion, what do we have?

• Evidence that 19 Islamist terrorists were involved in hijacking.
• Video evidence that the planes crashed into the buildings in question.
• No evidence or logic, nor any reason to suggest, the US government would assist this project by lacing the buildings with explosives.

In other words, the debate shifts from logic and common sense to arguments about the nature of architecture. I don't really need to know the exact material mechanism of how the buildings came down - or even if it remained an architectural mystery for life - as what I do know, the evidence I've hitherto marshalled, is sufficient enough to reject any conspiratorial guff.

chewed

The fact that Building 7 (which was not damaged by any of the planes hitting, and accidentally (??) went on fire) was obviously brought down by controlled explosives, raises a lot of questions as to how the towers collapsed so quickly!

The_Valeyard

Governments are too incompetent to pull off stuff like that.

BlimpyBoy

chewed wrote: »

The fact that Building 7 (which was not damaged by any of the planes hitting, and accidentally (??) went on fire) was obviously brought down by controlled explosives, raises a lot of questions as to how the towers collapsed so quickly!

It went on fire after being hit by heavy debris from the North tower collapse.

Building 7 was on fire for most of the day and collapsed that evening.

Controlled explosives me hole.

chewed

wretcheddomain wrote: »

So, in conclusion, what do we have?

• Evidence that 19 Islamist terrorists were involved in hijacking.
• Video evidence that the planes crashed into the buildings in question.
• No evidence or logic, nor any reason to suggest, the US government would assist this project by lacing the buildings with explosives.

Who said it was the US Government?

wretcheddomain

chewed wrote: »

Who said it was the US Government?

I'm referring to the conspiracy theory that the US government was involved. There are many other such theories, but I'm specifically focussing on that one. I thought that would have been obvious.

kneemos

chewed wrote: »

The fact that Building 7 (which was not damaged by any of the planes hitting, and accidentally (??) went on fire) was obviously brought down by controlled explosives, raises a lot of questions as to how the towers collapsed so quickly!

You can't expose supporting girders and strap huge volumes of explosives to them all over the building without people looking up from their computers and saying "hey look they're going to blow up the building"and continue with their emails.

chewed

kneemos wrote: »

You can't expose supporting girders and strap huge volumes of explosives to them all over the building without people looking up from their computers and saying "hey look they're going to blow up the building"and continue with their emails.

Have you seen the video footage of that building collapsing? Buildings on fire just don't collapse to the ground in hours!

Calibos

chewed wrote: »

Have you seen the video footage of that building collapsing? Buildings on fire just don't collapse to the ground in hours!

I despair.

cml387

stevowhelo1 wrote: »

Hey guys,
As of recent I've been doing some research looking up stuff on the internet into the war on terrorism and illuminati and various other subjects .

I think I fixed this for you.

chewed

Calibos wrote: »

I despair.

Tell me why you despair? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I like to question everything I see or hear on the news and don't just accept it for what it is.

DO you think that a skyscraper that went on fire should collapse to the ground like that? Are you a demolitions expert?

kneemos

chewed wrote: »

Have you seen the video footage of that building collapsing? Buildings on fire just don't collapse to the ground in hours!

It was bombarded with massive steel girders from the towers.

chewed

And then just collapsed like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqR

FFS!

kneemos

chewed wrote: »

And then just collapsed like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqR

FFS!

Can't see that video,must be a...

wretcheddomain

chewed wrote: »

And then just collapsed like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mamvq7LWqR

FFS!

What political purpose would it serve to ensure the buildings came down?

BlimpyBoy

chewed wrote: »

Tell me why you despair? I'm not a conspiracy theorist but I like to question everything I see or hear on the news and don't just accept it for what it is.

DO you think that a skyscraper that went on fire should collapse to the ground like that? Are you a demolitions expert?

Are you?

The official report gave the main reason for the collapse as fires on multiple floors. I'd say they people who actually investigated the collapse would know more about it than either of us.

"The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse."

wretcheddomain

BlimpyBoy wrote: »

"The fires burned out of control during the afternoon, causing floor beams near column 79 to expand and push a key girder off its seat, triggering the floors to fail around column 79 on Floors 8 to 14. With a loss of lateral support across nine floors, column 79 buckled – pulling the east penthouse and nearby columns down with it. With the buckling of these critical columns, the collapse then progressed east-to-west across the core, ultimately overloading the perimeter support, which buckled between Floors 7 and 17, causing the remaining portion of the building above to fall downward as a single unit. The fires, fueled by office contents, along with the lack of water, were the key reasons for the collapse."

That's too simplistic. It was the US government trying to burn secret filing systems. :rolleyes:

ScumLord

chewed wrote: »

Buildings on fire just don't collapse to the ground in hours!

I would think that's exactly what buildings do when they go on fire. What were you expecting a building on fire to do?

The Diabolical Monocle

Charlie19 wrote: »

1. No
2. No
3. No

Get in that fvcking rehab.

Noobascious

If the CIA and contras helped sell crack cocaine in la and Miami for political gain, I suppose anythings possible.

Little points like sadam was going to sell oil in euros than the globally recognised petrodollar. Not just Iraq Iran Russia Libya.

The Taliban had nearly eradicated opium production before 9/11. A decade later and loads of dead children or fatherless children and destroyed infrastructure the opium production has never been bigger.

Forget about celebrities more like investigative journalists simply shot dead in poorer countries or in more affluent countries had little 'accidents' or 'suicides'