Anniversary Of 9/11

[gokartman78]

How so? Yes, people lost their lives but that doesn't mean we should completely ignore the larger picture of the repercussions that happened because of the attack.

If this thread was in, say the Rumble Strip, then yes I could see it being no place for a broader discussion. Quite a bit happened after the events of 9/11 and I think it's important to look at what's happened since then. The anniversary is an opportunity to not only remember those who lost their lives, but also reflect on how we are continuing to be affected.

You are right in saying we can talk about it, just not at this moment in time. People may be thinking back to that day throughout this week. Have this conspiracy discussion in another thread at a later date.

 

[Keef]

So, in a nutshell then, you're another person who believes 9/11 was an inside job judging by your post. Tell me, do you believe a rocket is also what hit the Pentagon?

When so many experts in building design and demolition don't agree with the official story it's hard not to question it.

There are data recorders on the plane and numerous radar tracks supposedly showing te airplanes course into the building. I see no reason to argue that because the information was readily available to investigators.

I think the terrorist attack was real, though I think there was already enough information to stop it and that it was effectively allowed to happen. I also think building 7 in particular was designed with emergency demolition methods built in. Reasonable idea given that it was basically a secondary headquarters for our intelligence agencies, housed plenty of top secret information, and was relatively in damaged aside from some office furniture fires. I think the failure of that building was an emergency coverup effort.

Or you could bother watching the video with an open mind and ask me about specific things you take issue with.

 

[Sttrobe]

You got to be serious thinking 9/11 wasn't a inside job..

 

[MUSC4EVER]

All these conspricies about 9/11 are a bit embarrasing IMO..do you know how many conspriciys there are about the 7/7 attacks in London?? none!! not one!!..and those attacks were over seven years ago!!

 

[Keef]

That's because Britons trust their government and don't ask questions. The US was founded upon the idea that government cannot be trusted.

 

[MUSC4EVER]

That's because Britons trust their government and don't ask questions. The US was founded upon the idea that government cannot be trusted.

I see your point, but i think its fair to say that we brits DO NOT trust the current government...at all!

 

[Keef]

I'll be honest, I know you don't. But it's hard to have any faith when all I see are eyes rolling at all the bogus decisions your government makes. Many people if not most do the exact same thing here, and it makes me sad.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Joey's quote is genuine. However unless you can provide a citation for yours, you're just making things up and passing them off as "facts". Should that be the case I would think it calls for moderator attention.

Fabricating things in a discussion like this weakens your whole argument. You're welcome to your opinions. But just making stuff up to support it makes me think your opinions aren't worth serious consideration.

The "quotes" from clearly fictitious people demonstrate my opinion and those of millions of others who find these so called "intrusions on liberty" not only acceptable, but worthy as well as effective to varying degrees. To take exception with my choice of "clearly fictitious" above, you'll need to demonstrate previous quote you have taken seriously, and the person quoted was "A Smart Husband" "My Silly Uncle" or the 20th Generation+ of a Famous American.

That said, if you feel stating Ben Franklin the 23rd (or whatever number I posted - it's the least important characters in this thread) and "His Intelligent Wife" (as if we wouldnt know her name??) to be fabrication of "facts" then by all means, alert moderators.

The quotes were a direct response to the idea that Revolutionary ideals may not apply to 9/11. Frankin's quote originally posted sure doesn't, in my opinion.

If it does, then modern paperwork needed for owning a land or home is not agreeable to Ben Franklin! People should simply walk onto open land and stake claim, build a home, etc. as tens of thousands did in his time throughout 2/3 of the nation (outside the colonies).

We would want anyone's liberties violated at the expense of the greater good!

 

[Encyclopedia]

I'll be honest, I know you don't. But it's hard to have any faith when all I see are eyes rolling at all the bogus decisions your government makes. Many people if not most do the exact same thing here, and it makes me sad.

Then you should se us Swedes. We are the worst. The strongest reaction a Swede can have is clenching their fist in their pocket (so no one sees it.). The government could get away with almost anything here.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^In fairness, though, your government has a pretty damn thorough social welfare system.

 

[McLaren]

When so many experts in building design and demolition don't agree with the official story it's hard not to question it.

And yet all the experts who don't question it as well as the scientists who show us exactly how & why the buildings fell aren't any less valid?

Or you could bother watching the video with an open mind and ask me about specific things you take issue with.

Um, how about no for a couple reasons.

1) I've already seen it twice.
2) I don't need to see it again when I didn't agree with it the first 2 times.
3) I don't have an issue with anything in the video because I've already seen enough information/evidence to for me to personally conclude its not a conspiracy.

So how about YOU post what's such a conspiracy about the attacks because I don't think there's anything you could explain in that video that I haven't already seen from someone else in the last few years. It's why I don't even get involved with the debate anymore; it's a beaten horse argument in my experience.

 

[Keef]

So how about YOU post what's such a conspiracy about the attacks...

I already did.

And yet all the experts who don't question it as well as the scientists who show us exactly how & why the buildings fell aren't any less valid?

I've never seen any non-governmental organization supporting the official story. I've seen various models and rehashes but no extra evidence or testing supporting it. I wish you'd help me out on that one because I'm not sure where to look.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Watched the "102 Minutes that Changed America" last night on History. That's the best way to see the attack IMO, without a narrator and nothing but the sounds of the events as they unfold by the people that were on the ground.

 

[McLaren]

I've never seen any non-governmental organization supporting the official story. I've seen various models and rehashes but no extra evidence or testing supporting it. I wish you'd help me out on that one because I'm not sure where to look.

Then you aren't looking hard enough. Start with Popular Mechanics & Google from there. Plenty of non-governmental stories disproving the conspiracy theories.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

I've found that many conspiracy clow-- Ooops, theorists, often present an alternative to the standard, accepted view on a piece of the evidence with evidence that is often circumstantial or worse - simply weak. When refuted, the conspiracy theorist quickly resorts to "prove me wrong then" or something similar.

That's not how it works.

When you are refuting the views of 99% of humans, YOU need to prove it to us. Even if after attempt #1, one it I am not convinced of the conspiracy theorist's view, the burden is still on them, not on the one who sides with the overwhing majority of those on the planet with an opinion.



Good shout on the Polular Mechanics piece from years ago. Absolutely destroyed so many crazy conspiracy theories in a handful of pages. It was almost entertaining in a way. Certainly not the subject matter, but the "stop being foolish with all your crap" tone was brilliant.

 

[Pupik]

We've been over this before, welcome to 2005.

 

[Scaff]

That's because Britons trust their government and don't ask questions.

As one I can assure you that we most certainly do not place blind faith in our government and do ask questions.

In some cases repeatedly and consistently, as the events in the UK of today quite clearly show:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-19543964

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Popular Mechanics destroys 16 popular conspiracy theory myths...


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842


Magazine editors, scientists and the 300 sources used, including outside professionals in the areas of aviation, engineering, technology, military, etc. are listed as well.

 

[Sam48]

I think the terrorist attack was real, though I think there was already enough information to stop it and that it was effectively allowed to happen.

I kinda have to agree. I'm in the middle in regards to the official story and the conspirators. There is a lot of evidence out there that points to a government coverup (Especially in the destruction of evidence). There is even evidence that the news media was in on it and faked certain aspects of the live footage. However, the problem with all of this is that our government is terrible at keeping a secret. Therefore, the more people there are involved, the harder it is to cover up. And, with that in mind, no one has come forward and admitted to anything of the sort. However, in the years following 9/11, many key witnesses and government officials mysteriously died or went missing all together.

I'll say this then. 9/11 was definitely a terrorist attack, but there are many more unanswered questions then there are answered, and the government's not talking.

 

[McLaren]

I kinda have to agree. I'm in the middle in regards to the official story and the conspirators. There is a lot of evidence out there that points to a government coverup (Especially in the destruction of evidence). There is even evidence that the news media was in on it and faked certain aspects of the live footage. However, the problem with all of this is that our government is terrible at keeping a secret. Therefore, the more people there are involved, the harder it is to cover up. And, with that in mind, no one has come forward and admitted to anything of the sort. However, in the years following 9/11, many key witnesses and government officials mysteriously died or went missing all together.

I'll say this then. 9/11 was definitely a terrorist attack, but there are many more unanswered questions then there are answered, and the government's not talking.

The government doesn't have to talk anymore because they've already released what they wanted to; it's called the 9/11 Commission Report & there is a gigantic amount of evidence in there that disproves a lot of conspiracists' arguments about the "lack of proof it was a terrorist attack".

The only issue conspiracists have with it is that it was released by the government, therefore, it's automatically untrue.
The real issue is 95% of these idiots have never read 100 pages into it, let alone the entire 500+, & they will never give it a chance. Now, I haven't read all of it either, but I read further than most of the people on the opposite side of the debate will, granted that was about 4 years ago. There is a lot of interested recollection of events in it, but you have to really read it & come across said events whilst doing so.

 

[FoolKiller]

There are data recorders on the plane and numerous radar tracks supposedly showing te airplanes course into the building. I see no reason to argue that because the information was readily available to investigators.

I think the terrorist attack was real,

<snip>

Or you could bother watching the video with an open mind and ask me about specific things you take issue with.

You doubt that the attacks were really terrorists, but to backup your stance of a coverup (intelligence dropped the ball, so of course they left out details) you suggest we watch a video that says it was an inside job and that I repeatedly have turn off at 17 minutes (if I dont fall asleep to the world's worst narrator first) because he asks where any evidence of a plane at The Pentagon is. Find better evidence to back your stance, not the looniest tune you can find.

And the Loose Change guys are so concerned about truth for the victims that they now sell their 10th Anniversary package for $25. Convince people of a threat and then make money off of them. Straight from Al Gore's play book.

The "quotes" from clearly fictitious people demonstrate my opinion and those of millions of others who find these so called "intrusions on liberty" not only acceptable, but worthy as well as effective to varying degrees.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you asked if we really thought the Founding Fathers would defend protecting the rights they granted us in the face of a threat. Joey gave a factual quote to show he did. You then made up "quotes" to refute his point. He was addressing your original point. You went on a tangent.

We would want anyone's liberties violated at the expense of the greater good!

What is the greater good worth without individual liberties? What good is a government that protects you from boogeyman terrorists if it can't perform it's primary duty of protecting individual rights? Really, what have they prevented? The only two terror attacks on planes since 9/11 were stopped by the passengers in flight. What are they protecting us from? Why must we all be treated as a criminal for daring to fly? Why must I now always be subjected to full pat downs for the great crime of having an implanted medical device? What is hiding in diapers, walkers, or the TSA agents empty heads? What kind of security is being provided by people without proper law enforcement training who work there because they couldn't get another job anywhere else?

I'm still wondering where you stand on the points I made regarding things like months of detainment and torture without charges, US citizens ordered assisinated by the president without warrants, and drones, flown by 19-year-olds stuck on a base with little entertainment, having legal authority to look in your daughter's window with no reasonable cause.

 

[Keef]

Popular Mechanic's "debunking" doesn't provide any more proof than either side of the argument has already provided, especially the only part of the whole deal I'm concerned with which is the collapse of WTC 7. I find it rather conspicuous that the building fell so elegantly considering the nature of its purpose, which was to house various secret documents that the government had long refused to make public, and to operate as the largest field office in the country for our intelligence agencies. If there was any information to be kept secret before and after these events, related or not, it would have been in that building. That's the only issue where I believe the actual story was hidden and evidence was destroyed to stunt any investigative efforts. I'd look into it but NIST refuses to make any of their computer modelling and data spreadsheets available to the public.

This is what I'm watching now.



I think some of this stuff is bogus, like the suggestion that it wasn't an actual terrorist attack or that those were military planes. You can't simply fool numerous radar stations by pulling a switcheroo - radar detects things until they're out of range and I know those planes were on radar during their entire flight, and I know that because about 95% of the country east of the Mississppi has radar coverage, and I know that because I've been trained to operate in that controlled airspace. The only areas where coverage is limited at low altitudes is over the peaks of the Appalachians, especially in far eastern Virginia in the Shenandoa Valley, but at the altitudes these planes were flying down to a thousand or two feet above the mountains there is coverage.

EDIT: There's a lot of weird stuff at the end of that video but before then it shows some interesting things and whatnot.

Where I'm at now I'm convinced that there's not enough hard evidence on either side to make one side believe the other. I'm far to skeptical of the institution of government to believe what they tell me without allowing access to their own sources of information and so I simply can't agree with the official story until that happens. Whatever the story, there are certainly more important things to concentrate on in the near future like establishing an open, honest system so confusing fiascos like this never happen again.

 

[McLaren]

Popular Mechanic's "debunking" doesn't provide any more proof than either side of the argument has already provided, especially the only part of the whole deal I'm concerned with which is the collapse of WTC 7. I find it rather conspicuous that the building fell so elegantly considering the nature of its purpose, which was to house various secret documents that the government had long refused to make public, and to operate as the largest field office in the country for our intelligence agencies. If there was any information to be kept secret before and after these events, related or not, it would have been in that building. That's the only issue where I believe the actual story was hidden and evidence was destroyed to stunt any investigative efforts. I'd look into it but NIST refuses to make any of their computer modelling and data spreadsheets available to the public.

Popular Mechanics states they talked to over 300 experts in various fields to back their findings, yet you believe they provide no more proof than the other side of the table. Which is a bit incorrect on the "more" part because P.M. was among the first to actually debunk several of the myths of 9/11.

When so many experts in building design and demolition don't agree with the official story it's hard not to question it.

So, you only question the collapse because a certain amount of experts don't agree with how it collapsed, yet when someone provides you with a link that sources over 300 experts in various fields who do agree, you essentially write them off as providing no more evidence than the other side?

What is the actual number of these "so many" experts & what is it that they've said that makes you take their stance over the other side who do agree? Do they have legitimate concerns (concerns that P.M.'s own sources may have already addressed?) or is just the sheer fact that they are questioning it & you've hopped on with them?

Where I'm at now I'm convinced that there's not enough hard evidence on either side to make one side believe the other. I'm far to skeptical of the institution of government to believe what they tell me without allowing access to their own sources of information and so I simply can't agree with the official story until that happens. Whatever the story, there are certainly more important things to concentrate on in the near future like establishing an open, honest system so confusing fiascos like this never happen again.

What exact hard evidence are you looking for?

BTW, the underline part proves my exact point about conspiracists & the report issued in 2004. That hard evidence you're looking for is probably in that book somewhere, but you'll write it off without even getting past the table of contents because the govt. released.

 

[Keef]

What exact hard evidence are you looking for?

BTW, the underline part proves my exact point about conspiracists & the report issued in 2004. That hard evidence you're looking for is probably in that book somewhere...

In particular, the digital stress simulations and data which NIST said very specifically that they would not release publicly.

You're right though, actual hard evidence would be in that book if it wasn't kept top secret by the agency that botched the investigations. Why the hell would they keep simple stress analyses secret if the analyses were consistent with their explanation and video proof? It's not like there isn't an entire industry devoted to large building demolition. The science of knocking down buildings isn't a big secret, it's on the Discovery channel for cripe's sake. Especially WTC 7 given that there wasn't a soul left in it and it was full of stuff they didn't want anybody to know. If they'd have told me that I'd have been like...well, yeah, I guess blowing it up is the best way to make sure nobody finds out. Touche. It would be way easier to just tell us all the gnarly awesome things they do so we can be like, hey, when these guys want something done they get it done.

Luckily for us they immediately carted off all the scrap from these buildings for recycling before any of the components could be gathered and reassembled to study where failures may have occurred and what caused them. Something like what the NTSB often spends years doing with trains and planes and various other things, oh my. Or like the local police do when investigating that crash that made you late for work. Or even a homicide detective. So anyways, now that nearly ever piece of evidence has been destroyed, the only thing we really have to work with are computer simulations, the same type of very reliable simulations that are used to design the buildings in the first place. Too bad all access to such things, and even the information to create new ones, is top secret.

As far as I can tell, the only logical reason to hide evidence or silence witnesses is if they're saying something that you don't want to be found out. That's not a new concept either.



I'm really starting to dig the intense music they put in these videos. Again, this one presents some airplane switcheroo theories that I'm confident are bogus.





Well I had a nice little summary written up but Windows Update disagreed. It's a CIA conspiracy, I tell you. Anyways, the government arrested this lady a while back and says that she's crazy, made everything up, and was declared unfit to stand trial and her charges were dropped. But then, it's not like they can say she was telling the truth.

 

[McLaren]

Kudos for bypassing my question about why you believe "so many" experts have a point to question the building demolition but ignore the experts who agree with the official story.

I'll share the same treatment & completely bypass any sort of your evidence you're looking for as well. I'd tell you to read the book because god knows some sort of hint might actually be in there about what you're seeking regarding WTC 7's collapse, but it'd be completely wrong anyway.

You know, government written & backed, and all that jazz.

 

[jcm]

You know it's 9/11 when some ******* kid start making jokes about it. I only heard it from one kid this year which was a nice improvement though. "I'm going to get a custom liscense plate that says HA 911 and drive through New York with it..."

👎 You'd think that at 15 everyone would be mature enough to realise what happened, but I guess not quite. Hopefully time will change that, or at least not put me in any classes with him next year.

RIP all those affected in any way by this.

What bothers me most is that throughout history there have been so many equally horrible, or even more horrible events... It's very much not a perfect world.

I shouldn't get involved in this, but I don't believe in the conspiracy theories. Can't completely 100% rule them out, but it's so unlikely that there's really no point thinking about in my opinion.

 

[BobK]

The "quotes" from clearly fictitious people demonstrate my opinion and those of millions of others who find these so called "intrusions on liberty" not only acceptable, but worthy as well as effective to varying degrees.

If this opinion is held by millions of others I would think it wouldn't have been terribly difficult to find a real, legitimate quote or two instead of coming up with total fabrications.

To take exception with my choice of "clearly fictitious" above, you'll need to demonstrate previous quote you have taken seriously, and the person quoted was "A Smart Husband" "My Silly Uncle" or the 20th Generation+ of a Famous American.

Why should *I* have to demonstrate anything when you are the one who is making stuff up here?

That said, if you feel stating Ben Franklin the 23rd (or whatever number I posted - it's the least important characters in this thread) and "His Intelligent Wife" (as if we wouldnt know her name??) to be fabrication of "facts" then by all means, alert moderators.

As you wish. Done.

We would want anyone's liberties violated at the expense of the greater good!

Is this misphrased? As it is it doesn't really make much sense.

Popular Mechanics destroys 16 popular conspiracy theory myths...


http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842


Magazine editors, scientists and the 300 sources used, including outside professionals in the areas of aviation, engineering, technology, military, etc. are listed as well.

This, however, I'm in complete agreement with.

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Anyone claiming current regulations re: ticketing, databases of passengers, security at airports, items no longer allowed on planes, etc have not contributed to canceling, halting, or making potential terrorists think twice about another attack using a commercial airline is.... Absurd.

Asking for "proof" another airline attack was thwarted, well... Ask some terrorists I guess. They can tell you. or security leaders at your local airport.

Maybe try doing so during your next legal, necessary and (what should be a welcome) pat down and/or wand search. You know, that 30 seconds of your life now lost forever in the name of YOUR own safety.

Sorry.... 35 seconds. You have to empty your pockets, remember? Try not to sprain a wrist or something.

 

[Joey D]

Asking for "proof" another airline attack was thwarted, well... Ask some terrorists I guess. They can tell you. or security leaders at your local airport.

As FoolKiller said, the only two potential attacks on airplanes since 9/11 were stopped by the passengers on the plane, not by the TSA. The media would have made a big deal if someone would have been stopped by the TSA as well. The TSA has done nothing but provide a false sense of security to those unwilling to stop and observe what's going on around them.

Maybe try doing so during your next legal, necessary and (what should be a welcome) pat down and/or wand search. You know, that 30 seconds of your life now lost forever in the name of YOUR own safety.

Why should I welcome an organization that assumes I'm a criminal? There have been many instances of people being humiliated by the TSA because they felt the need to "inspect" something. Remember the lady, who was suffering from Leukemia, that had her adult incontinence underwear inspected? Or the lady, who was a breast cancer, that was patted down, even after being scanned, because of her breast implants. There's hundreds of stories out there and that's not even getting into the borderline pedophilia that results in searches on kids.

To become a TSA agent doesn't take a whole lot. Every airport I've been to has TSA agents that look like they'd be flipping burgers or breaking into cars if they didn't have the TSA job...you know the stereotypical rent-a-cop look.

 

[McLaren]

Why should I welcome an organization that assumes I'm a criminal?

Because they can't profile people since it's wrong, & everyone has to be treated equally so no one gets butt hurt.

In seriousness, I highly doubt they assume you're a criminal. If that's how they assume people, then goddamn, send me to jail now. Taking my shoes off & putting my coins and belt, & baggage through a metal detector and then getting waved over with a wand sounds like heaven compared to what I'd heard about what they actually do to criminals.

But wait, I seem to recall doing most of that before when I had to get on a plane.

There have been many instances of people being humiliated by the TSA because they felt the need to "inspect" something. Remember the lady, who was suffering from Leukemia, that had her adult incontinence underwear inspected? Or the lady, who was a breast cancer, that was patted down, even after being scanned, because of her breast implants. There's hundreds of stories out there and that's not even getting into the borderline pedophilia that results in searches on kids.

There's hundreds of stories out there? Do you have links to these stories? Are they legitimate stories, or do a large number of them involve a "victim" getting ass hurt over a simple gesture like most American news articles today.

The stories that make the news are 1 thing & they get turned into this thought that every person who goes through the airport is going to get this treatment. Average Joe then gobbles it up because average Joe only goes to the airport 2-3 times a year. Talk to people who actually travel for a living. There's been a handful that have an issue with the TSA usually over 1 instance rather than having a personal vendetta against the TSA in every airport. A buddy of mine travels constantly to fix airplane engines in other states. I haven't heard him bitch once about always having to go through TSA except to find the shortest line & get in it. I hear more complaints about the Admiral's Club than I do anything else from him.


That being said, when was the last time you went to the airport & was the experience anything what the media made it out to be? Because I found it nothing to be what the media spewed; I was never even physically touched & neither were the dozens of people with me. It wasn't even time consuming. Shoes off, baggage through the machine, step through, wand, "Have a nice flight", put shoes on, grab baggage. 5 minutes of absolute outrage indeed.

I was more pissed off that Priceline had told me my flight was at Terminal C on my ticket instead of the flight actually being at the Terminal across the airport.

To become a TSA agent doesn't take a whole lot. Every airport I've been to has TSA agents that look like they'd be flipping burgers or breaking into cars if they didn't have the TSA job...you know the stereotypical rent-a-cop look.

Because the middle aged man I saw at DFW or the Asian fellow wearing square glasses at Orlando definitely looked like criminals or McDonald's workers easily.

Ignoring the fact that your stereotype could go for people in a gigantic range of jobs, again, when was the last time you actually went to the airport to verify this?