Liverpool FC Forum

by **112-1077774096** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:31 pm

9/11 documentaries

fill your boots mate, even the bbc conspiracy on here

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:34 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:[

One of the most convincing arguments (besides tons of evidence) against conspiracy theories is the fact that conspiracy theorists are actually able to speak. If a government was ruthless enough to send airplanes filled with terrified innocent passengers into huge skyscrapers filled with terrified innocent civilians, they would not hesitate in killing anyone who seriously threatened the secrecy of said plot. The only defence against this question from theorists tends to be the old "yeah, but killing me would raise suspicion man so they'll try to discredit me instead!" which IMO indicates a mindset of 50% deluded self-importance and 50% paranoia.

Well, what you say here has an ironic suggestibility, and that there in lies an answer. Conspiracies are so detached from the official explanation of things, to the point where they don't set out to disprove anything, but to allude people to other possibilities. They sound so far fetched that most of the time it's categorised into the taboo of conspiracy theory, and vindicated as such that anyone who thinks in a theorist manner is either nuts or just lacks the facts and as such can be just discredited with ease. Of course, no one listens to a mad man. Ironic thing is, most people do and have. They have listened to these men, and women in power spout the same lies. But because they are adorned with a power suit and have some kind of prestige, it makes them credible and believable. Just think of the likes of Thatcher and Nixon. how many lies did they swindle to the masses. Mad men? Just look at Hitler and Lennon (not John). Imagine a world where nothing is ever questioned. We'd be in a very sorry state of affairs. We already are.

Here is another interesting point. It is the belief of many that the planes that hit the towers were not AA planes. If read many accounts, and seen many videos (found on Youtube and elsewhere) of people stating that the planes they saw were not those of American airlines and that they seemed to have no windows or visible decals. Also, study the first and only footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. If you look just before impact, there appears to be a flash coming from the building just before it makes contact. It can also be seen in the second plane crash.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:49 pm

Really, it beggars belief that people actually do believe that three buildings, all with significance politically, and inextricably linked to the hierarchy of government, can just fall ever so conveniently how they did.

The link is not inextricable. They were chosen by the hijackers because of their symbolic value. The WTC represented America's economic power. The Pentagon represented America's military power, and the third target, likely to have been Capitol Hill, represented America's political power. Also, I'm not sure how one could describe the collapse of those skyscrapers as being "convienient".

and those that debunk the theory - and listen to this carefully - with another theory on how those buildings fell, are just as open to fallibility as some of the "non-official" theories. Just because it's glossed up with red tape does not make it true. If you believe the truth that the government spits out, then you are just as accountable of the evil that they commit in the name of their so called justice that they commit, but once again paint it with red tape in order to justify their means.

Classic conspiracy theory tactic = Mistrust all official authorites.

Be it for greed of money, or imperialistic acts of invasion to reap and plunder, as in the case of Iraq. Governments are meant to be in fear of their people, not vice versa. 9/11 struck fear into the hearts of Americans, and people the world over. The message of "you are not safe no matter who you are or where you are" was key.

It didn't strike fear into all Americans. The reaction of the U.S. government to the attacks of September 11 has always been widely opposed by many in America and across the world. If the U.S government planned 9-11 as a means of invading Iraq, it backfired spectacularly and has bogged America down into a nightmare war.

After all, this is supposed to be the most powerful country in the world, and has the best defense, and if it could happen to them, it could happen to anyone. Right?

This is the "argument from incredulity". The belief that America is so powerful that they couldn't possibly have failed to prevent this. On the hand, the belief that America is more powerful than they actually are is most likely one of the main reasons WHY they failed to expect and prevent the attack.

Pearl Harbor could never happen again (Geneva Conventions Act). Yet it did. And that gave the license for war and an invasion of another country that they had no right to invade.

Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation-state upon another. No convention has been written which a fanatical terrorist organisation would be compelled to abide by.

It's also worth pointing out that those who debunk such theories have no practical insight into what actually took place. What they witness is one thing to their minds as experts in certain fields, but to a man or many men who seen that sort of things thousands of times over the course of their career's, there was no doubt in their minds. I'd be more inclined to believe the man who does it for a living, that a man who just analysis things from afar. Kind of like many on here who claim to know that they could do a better job than Rafa Benitez just from sitting on their seats and watching on the TV.

I'm talking about trained and skilled demolitions experts. Many of which had seen what happened and instantly knew that what just happened was the result of what they've been doing for a living for 30 or more years. Who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to question those men?

This is a ludicrous argument. If you refuse to trust official sources, which includes experts in construction, firefighting, physics etc...then naturally you would reject any official argument and report which debunks the opinions of these experts you talk about. You reject the opinions of those who have practical insight on one hand because their conclusions do not fit into your theories, but accept the opinions of others who may have their own insights because their conclusions DO fit into your theories, if indeed those "others" are indeed experts.

Link

Also, if you Google it, I once found an article printed by the BBC on their official site that in fact many of the supposed hijackers on that day's identities were stolen, and that the people responsible, or supposed to be, are still alive and well.

BBC link

That link is from merely 12 days after the attack. It's not surprising that so soon after the attack, information was still being gathered.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 9:58 pm

Well, what you say here has an ironic suggestibility, and that there in lies an answer. Conspiracies are so detached from the official explanation of things, to the point where they don't set out to disprove anything, but to allude people to other possibilities. They sound so far fetched that most of the time it's categorised into the taboo of conspiracy theory, and vindicated as such that anyone who thinks in a theorist manner is either nuts or just lacks the facts and as such can be just discredited with ease. Of course, no one listens to a mad man.

Ironic thing is, most people do and have. They have listened to these men, and women in power spout the same lies. But because they are adorned with a power suit and have some kind of prestige, it makes them credible and believable. Just think of the likes of Thatcher and Nixon. how many lies did they swindle to the masses. Mad men? Just look at Hitler and Lennon (not John). Imagine a world where nothing is ever questioned. We'd be in a very sorry state of affairs. We already are.

The reason that conspiracy theorists are often dismissed as madmen is because they usually are. Their "evidence" is baseless and carries no serious credibility. Rather their material is aimed at a specific fanbase. Suggesting "other possibilities" is fine, as long as it brings supporting evidence with it worth considering. Conspiracy theorists discredit themselves.

Here is another interesting point. It is the belief of many that the planes that hit the towers were not AA planes. If read many accounts, and seen many videos (found on Youtube and elsewhere) of people stating that the planes they saw were not those of American airlines and that they seemed to have no windows or visible decals. Also, study the first and only footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. If you look just before impact, there appears to be a flash coming from the building just before it makes contact. It can also be seen in the second plane crash.

Only one AA plane struck the WTC. The other belonged to United. A flash is easily explained due to the attack occuring on a bright sunny morning on a building covered in highly reflective glass. The AA planes that hit were easily identifiable via components that survived the impact and the transponder signals after take-off. They would have struck their targets with such speed and surprise that an eye-witness could easily be confused as to what livery exactly they were looking at.

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:12 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:
Well, what you say here has an ironic suggestibility, and that there in lies an answer. Conspiracies are so detached from the official explanation of things, to the point where they don't set out to disprove anything, but to allude people to other possibilities. They sound so far fetched that most of the time it's categorised into the taboo of conspiracy theory, and vindicated as such that anyone who thinks in a theorist manner is either nuts or just lacks the facts and as such can be just discredited with ease. Of course, no one listens to a mad man.

Ironic thing is, most people do and have. They have listened to these men, and women in power spout the same lies. But because they are adorned with a power suit and have some kind of prestige, it makes them credible and believable. Just think of the likes of Thatcher and Nixon. how many lies did they swindle to the masses. Mad men? Just look at Hitler and Lennon (not John). Imagine a world where nothing is ever questioned. We'd be in a very sorry state of affairs. We already are.

The reason that conspiracy theorists are often dismissed as madmen is because they usually are. Their "evidence" is baseless and carries no serious credibility. Rather their material is aimed at a specific fanbase. Suggesting "other possibilities" is fine, as long as it brings supporting evidence with it worth considering. Conspiracy theorists discredit themselves.

Here is another interesting point. It is the belief of many that the planes that hit the towers were not AA planes. If read many accounts, and seen many videos (found on Youtube and elsewhere) of people stating that the planes they saw were not those of American airlines and that they seemed to have no windows or visible decals. Also, study the first and only footage of the first plane hitting the first tower. If you look just before impact, there appears to be a flash coming from the building just before it makes contact. It can also be seen in the second plane crash.

Only one AA plane struck the WTC. The other belonged to United. A flash is easily explained due to the attack occuring on a bright sunny morning on a building covered in highly reflective glass. The AA planes that hit were easily identifiable via components that survived the impact and the transponder signals after take-off. They would have struck their targets with such speed and surprise that an eye-witness could easily be confused as to what livery exactly they were looking at.

I suppose I've just been diagnosed as being nuts then. But you're saying that flash was caused by a reflection off glass because it was sunny? And you think the theorists are nuts? Jesus! From other angles, it's clear that this flash wasn't just a flash, it was a small explosion coming from the tower itself just before the plane even touches it. It projects outwards.

At least listen to this fella's view on it, then say that he's mental as well.

MIT engineer

by **Emerald Red** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 10:34 pm

The Manhattan Project wrote:Pearl Harbor was an attack by one nation-state upon another. No convention has been written which a fanatical terrorist organisation would be compelled to abide by.

[

Even more reason to show that the war in Iraq is illegal and a farce. In any case, Geneva Act states that the only way it would be possible for America to go to war with another is if a Pearl Harbor kind of event took place on their own soil. That's what 9/11 was. Had it been a bunch of suicide bombers that blew themselves up on the streets, then no justification could be given. The scale had to be massive. The loss of life had to be huge.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:16 pm

I suppose I've just been diagnosed as being nuts then. But you're saying that flash was caused by a reflection off glass because it was sunny? And you think the theorists are nuts? Jesus! From other angles, it's clear that this flash wasn't just a flash, it was a small explosion coming from the tower itself just before the plane even touches it. It projects outwards.

The "flash" appears just before the WINGS of the plane hit the building. The nose of the plane strikes the building first, thus accounting for why an impact flash appears before the main body of the plane strikes the tower.

Link

At least listen to this fella's view on it, then say that he's mental as well.

MIT engineer

He is not a structural engineer. His expertise is in electrical engineering and biology and has spent the last 27 years as a family physician. The lecture is absurd. Within thirty seconds he says that he and a patient of his came to the conclusion of a controlled demolition merely by looking at the tape. So he's already got a mindset of a "conspiracy" which naturally he tries to justify. The lecture is full of unsupported conspiracies, falsehoods and appeals to other conspiracy nuts.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:22 pm

Even more reason to show that the war in Iraq is illegal and a farce.

The merits or lack thereof of the war in Iraq is unrelated to the issue of conspiracy theories regarding September 11th.

In any case, Geneva Act states that the only way it would be possible for America to go to war with another is if a Pearl Harbor kind of event took place on their own soil. That's what 9/11 was.

Had it been a bunch of suicide bombers that blew themselves up on the streets, then no justification could be given. The scale had to be massive. The loss of life had to be huge.

It was a "Pearl Harbor" type attack only in the sense that it was unexpected and caused hundreds upon hundreds of deaths. The Geneva Conventions relate mainly to treatment of POWS and the matter of illegal combatants. They do not set ground rules for what is required for the United States to declare war.

by **66-1112520797** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 2:27 am

LFC2007 wrote:Wikipedia, that reliable old source.

Still its better than any of your input into this thread.

by **The Grudge** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:40 am

What a sad little paranoid thread!

Some people just are not happy until they feel that the world around them is full of cheats and liars!Hapiness comes within a person..If a person feels that they are happy that is good...if a person feels that they are happy but they want something to be unhappy about,it is easy to find a problem to leach onto!

For the record the actual reason that the twin towers collapsed after standing for so long is because they were held up by steel!
Masonary alone could not stand without an inner structure...As we all know,steel is a conductor of heat.Heat happened when the building went on fire,the building burnt for a while.All steel beams are painted with a coating after installed..usually a firestop of about one hour!After a while the fire stop burnt through the steel got heated and conduction took place causing the inner support of steel to whilt,hence leaving a building with no structure and an inferno! THAT IS WHY the building fell,no other reason!

Its simple for a lot of idiots to come on and paint pictures influenced by their silly little fantasies and whatever depraved websites they visit...In reality we all condemn the SUN for falseness and lies about a certain thing...So why make a thread equally as wrong?
Just because the topics we are choosing to talk shi.te about have not affected us as individuals does not give us a right to talk lies about matters we are uneducated in or ignorant to...especially when it has all been talked about before and an ugly man with very sinister and disgusting values has put his forehead above the water!

THINK about who you are talking to,think about in what context it is being put across to people that listen to him!

by **Emerald Red** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:00 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:The "flash" appears just before the WINGS of the plane hit the building. The nose of the plane strikes the building first, thus accounting for why an impact flash appears before the main body of the plane strikes the tower.

Yes, the flash appears just before the wings of the plane hit. Thats completely obvious, I would think. And the nose of the plane doesn't make contact before those appear. You want proof? Look at these images. There also seems to be something on the underside of the plane. If it's a missile pod, I'm not sure. Nor am I going to claim it is. But it's there. And the fact that it's there, could it suggest that these planes might not have been passenger airliners?

If video's of the second plane crashing are studied with good attention, you can see the flash (or explosion) seems to come at slightly to right of the initial nose impact point, the same side this so called pod is mounted on the plane.

by **66-1112520797** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:14 am

Wow Emerald !

It does look suspicious could these photo's not be faked though ?

Why though Emerald would they possibly put a missile pod on a plane, surely the thing would explode and cause enough damage without one of these pods.

I havent really gotten into this theory of 9/11, but thats not to say I dont believe that there could be a conspiracy theory behind it. I'm pretty open minded about this stuff.

But What would be the reasoning behind blowing up and killing their own people and trade centers though ?

by **Wilhelmsson** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:57 am

Conspiracy theories are damaging for someone’s well being and state of mind as people tend to get so interested and captivated by such theories that it becomes an obsession and addiction.

I have read information about the Kurt Cobain conspiracy surrounding Courtney Love, I have read about who shot JFK and I have read about the Loch Ness Monster.

None of which have substantial evidence to support such claims and usually these theories are surrounded by fabricated lies and coincidental happenings taking place.

As for 9/11 if the US Government did cause it, then we’ll never know, this won’t be another Water Gate. If the US Government did cause it, then it has backfired drastically. I have read that the Evangelical Right was behind it and the Crusades through the Middle East, but there is little evidence to support such claims.

I’d sooner read The Ode’s of John Keats or Selected Play by W.B.Yeats, before I picked up another book based on conspiracy theories.

by **account deleted by request** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 9:58 am

Why though Emerald would they possibly put a missile pod on a plane, surely the thing would explode and cause enough damage without one of these pods.

Maybe it wasn't a missile pod but a remote guidance system ?

by **66-1112520797** » Sun Oct 14, 2007 10:53 am

s@int wrote:
Why though Emerald would they possibly put a missile pod on a plane, surely the thing would explode and cause enough damage without one of these pods.

Maybe it wasn't a missile pod but a remote guidance system ?

Oh Saint.

Liverpool FC Forum

Conspiracy theories - Which do you believe

Who is online