911 is a joke

[master splinter]

gotta love nerd rock. this one is for you onesping.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSmK0OF7o0k"]YouTube - Sunz of Alien Technology 'DOMINO FALLS"[/ame]

[Iron Cross]

He felt the earth move under his feet. He felt the sky a tumbling down... tumbling down... tumbling down..

[doc]

WKK got tired of moving clouds, and instead, moved airplanes?

[Iron Cross]

My theory is a group of 9 powerful psychics did it... prove me wrong...

[zachsan]

there is a lot more evidence than that, but we could also say the only evidence you're working with are two planes flying into two buildings and anecdotes about "collapse initiation."

Exactly. Yet you're the one who's asserting a third, outside element, one for which there's no direct evidence whatsoever. Of course we don't have all the facts; but that doesn't make both "sides" equally valid. I don't know what to say if you really want to believe this.

How about this. I contend that everyone is wrong and aliens did it. Explain to me why I'm wrong.

[Firbolg]

From that msnbc link..

The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,”

There are always plans available "on the shelf" for all imaginable scenarios.. thats what the military does and they'd be negligent if they didn't do so. Al Qaeda was already a known threat to US/western interests for some time.

The fact that bush agreed to any plan just before 9/11 is irrelevant.. if he hadn't then everyone would be saying he dropped a bollock by not having a plan ready.

In such large scale events there will always be some inconsistancies, things that are hard to explain (scientifically) and things that could have many causes and the "right one" depends on your view point but in my opinion what you see is what you get.. terrorists/planes/fire/collapse.. the end.

[onesp1ng]

U.S. sought attack on al-Qaida
White House given plan days before Sept. 11

unfortunately, however, the plan was already in affect before 9/11, which demonstrats intent. and there's motive, too. there may be a certain logic at play here, but it still feels a bit too disingenuous for me, and even more so with there never being an investigation into the possibility.

[doc]

What would have happened if the US did not invade Afghanistan? Or, did not do anything after the terrorist act of 9/11. Think about that.

[onesp1ng]

The most evidence you have to offer is some buildings collapsing strangely (depending on who you ask) and anecdotes about people hearing or seeing what could conceivably be explosives.

there is a lot more evidence than that, but we could also say the only evidence you're working with are two planes flying into two buildings and anecdotes about "collapse initiation."

zach, i understand my original statement may have come off a little strong and premature, and for that i apologize, but what's being referenced exactly when you say "concrete and immediate threats?" did that day not act as the impetus for a great deal of US based initiatives overseas? is this... like too politically incorrect or something? i know, i'm just asking too many questions again. (damn...)

actually, i'm surprised that, absent meastro, no one has even mentioned another area that concerns them still regarding 9/11. i'm not trying to "boil the pot," as it were, and it's not my intention to produce hatred toward america or anything ridiculous like that (i've lived on the other side of that coin and it's not a pretty thing). but most people who view this site, from my understanding, are american and so this is an important issue which warrants some discussion.

now, i know very well that this is out of my hands, and that, in a way, we're all "blind men touching an elephant." i've always held to the contention that you take care of the people around you. just, i don't really don't know what people need "as a reason to oppose reckless wars and domestic surveillance," either. maybe this is my way to find out (because, well, it appears there have been "reckless wars" for much of history...and the US is now at the forefront of many of them). so what is it, then, that people need?

you may feel i'm foolish and crazy sounding, and that's fine. i think it's valuable to look at both positions equally and honestly, especially when there's significant evidence that's gone undiscussed. you guys have all the answers: it was the "terrorists." but if you can't explain the inconsistencies, for instance, then why stick to the official account, and, at the same time, suggest people like me are being unreasonable?

[doc]

Where are these theories of the US govt doing this, coming from? I haven't heard much about this before it was brought up here. And what are they saying exactly?

[master splinter]

In the end, i just hope the bigwigs know what they are doing, and i hope even more that our lives will be considered. thats all i ask.

[zachsan]

Onesp1ng, apologies on missing the Public Enemy reference.

Anyway, you're missing the point. The most evidence you have to offer is some buildings collapsing strangely (depending on who you ask) and anecdotes about people hearing or seeing what could conceivably be explosives. This evidence is enough to raise questions about what happened. But I'm sure you must realize, this evidence is not even close to enough to prove that the Bush Administration conspired to launch a massive attack on U.S. soil as a fabricated justification for the "war on terror".

You say that's all the evidence we can get essentially because the conspiracy has been so effective as to prevent meaningful investigation. In other words, you've already come to the conclusion that there's a conspiracy and are then using that assumption to prove that there's a conspiracy. Does this remind you of anything?

People don't need stories about the Illuminati as a reason to oppose reckless wars and domestic surveillance. Of course we should look into things like 9/11 further, but try to focus on the much more concrete and immediate threats, and don't make sweeping and unverifiable claims that will honestly just make you look crazy, and do more harm than good.

[doc]

The sound of an explosion is caused by the pressure wave eminating from the source of the explosive (or, anything that causes a pressure wave...). Think of a car backfiring, a gunshot, or, drop a heavy book from a height so that it lands directly and flatly on its cover.

Floors careening down upon each other, flattening the air below, will most definitely cause various pressure waves, and therefore, the sounds of "explosions".

[onesp1ng]

9/11 was not "a joke". Believe what you will about how it all happened, but remember, a couple thousand people died.

well, i did not say "9/11" is a joke (an old song you probably remember by n.w.a should come to mind). and the point that thousands of people died is exactly why this is so disturbing and deserving of our openness to new ideas and explanations.

the issue you guys seem to be over-looking is that these theories have never been tested and are believed by many to be verifiable. there are also countless first-hand accounts of people who've been recorded saying they heard and saw what looked like explosives, many of whom are firemen and friends and family members of the victims. to say it couldn't have happened, in that the possibility is brushed away without any investigation (when there is plenty of evidence to the contrary), is a ridiculously irresponsible act of jumping to conclusions, and is something that would be simply unimaginable in any other context. with all the first-hand accounts, you guys are still saying it's implausible when no one has even conducted investigations into the possibility except for the "conspirators," who, of course, typically go unheard.

So we stick to the established facts. Planes flew into buildings. Said buildings subsequently burned a while and then fell down. Common sense would suggest a causal relationship.

i only wish i could be as easily swayed to believe something that defies any other reality and any other pretext that we know of. two 110 story buildings disintegrated into dust. i don't want to get into some of the specific details regarding this fact but it's unexplainable on any other terms. common sense would imply a correlation, yes, an association, but not a conclusion that is entirely unfounded.

or perhaps these and other anecdotes should all just be blindly accepted from now on, because, you see, one of the high-jacker's passports was discovered in the aftermath! of course, that small, seemingly inconsequential book of paper was able to fly directly through the blazing heap of jet-fuel (which itself is at blame for "collapsing" two whole 110 story buildings), only later to be found unscathed laying on a sidewalk by some reliable FBI agent. lol... how remarkable!

[doc]

Controlling the middle east is far more important than you can imagine. With the upsurge of Wahabbi Islam in Saudi Arabia, having US bases in the region is imperative. If you think oil is expensive now...

And as for the WMD that Iraq may or may not have, remember two things.

One, they did have WMD's in the early 90's.
Two, Saddam got rid of them. But, he didn't tell anyone. Not even his generals. Saddam feared the Shiites in the south more than he feared the Iranians. In poker, it's called "the bluff".

Sometimes "the bluff" gets you in deeper than you expect. "The bluff" got Saddam in a situation where the US invaded.