Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 21:32:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Sep 2010 21:33:46 BDT
gille liath says:
Yes, I'm sorry to say that's a very silly post. Two wrongs, or any number of wrongs you like, don't make a right. It's that note of 'serves you right' on the liberal 'anti-war' side that rather undermines their claim to the moral high ground.

Apart from that, it is no more than common sense to point out that the atom bomb was not dropped as an act of terrorism, but to end a terrible, undeclared war unleashed by Japan against America and half of Asia, vying in its ferocity with the Nazi invasion of Russia.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 22:01:02 BDT
Fazool says:
I have nothing against Americans or anyone who died in 9/11 - but I would say that the American response seemed to be one of complete incredulity that it actually happened to them - the most powerful nation in the world!. This also seemed to create the inevitable response of outrage and frankly it seemed to manifest itself in the characterisitc American way - complete hollywood, grand scale. As my Dad used to say, when he was alive - 'Only in America'! Bless em...

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 22:13:44 BDT
Dreamer says:
But its the whole outlook. I'm not saying that the people who lost family shouldn't grieve, but the whole country shouldn't act like it was the only atrocity ever commited especially when that country has done far worse things.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 22:24:10 BDT
David Groom says:
gille liath,

'Apart from that, it is no more than common sense to point out that the atom bomb was not dropped as an act of terrorism, but to end a terrible, undeclared war unleashed by Japan against America and half of Asia, vying in its ferocity with the Nazi invasion of Russia.'

I don't think we can judge the way in which both the US and the UK acted in WWII, by the standards of today. Nor should we condemn them for what they did. Yes, the US used an atomic bomb an it did kill and injure a huge number of people, but as I say, you can't judge them against today's standards. They saw the Japanese menace and took the action they thought necessary in order to win. The only issue I have is that they chose a civilian target rather a than a military one, because in my view, if they chose the latter, the result would still have been surrender.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 22:28:05 BDT
David Groom says:
Fazool,

'I have nothing against Americans or anyone who died in 9/11 - but I would say that the American response seemed to be one of complete incredulity that it actually happened to them - the most powerful nation in the world!'

I don't agree. I think they reacted initially with the shock that anybody would in the circumstances. After that it is hardly surprising that they decided to take extreme action against those involved. No government anywhere in the world would simply sit back and do nothing. I don't think anything else could have been expected. Afghanistan is lucky that it wasn't turned into radioactive glass.

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 23:18:57 BDT
PeaceMonger says:
Its good of you to try and fight the good fight Dr Shemirani, but i realised long ago how difficult most people find it to accept something(no matter how clearly it is to see) when it totally contradicts every thing they have been TRAINED to,and want to believe. WAKE UP FROM YOUR SLUMBER BROTHERS AND SISTERS!
False flag terror has been used by ALL countrys and political party's for century's. These kind operations from even from the past 50 years are now being de-classified just one example being Operation Northwood's(made public through freedom of information legislation in 1997). In 1962 there was a PENTAGON plan to garner support for an invasion of Cuba. Proposals included having 300 bogus "student's" (Special Forces personnel under "carefully prepared aliases") depart from a U.S airport on a flight obstensibly taking them over Cuba but landing at a nearby airforce base instead,to be replaced by an empty drone aircraft using the same transponder to fool air traffic controllers. Once over Cuba,a tape recording in the the drone would issue an emergency call claiming the plane was under attack by Cuba;it would then be blown up. Foreign air traffic controllers would confirm that 300 Americans had just been murdered by Fidel Castro. The Joint Chiefs of Staff concluded that that the media could be fooled by bogus "relative's" produced to match the fake victims. Sound familiar?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 23:27:24 BDT
Neutral says:
DFS

Refers to "an internationally peer-reviewed paper written by Professor of Physics - Prof. Steven Jones." That's the same Steven Jones who believes 9/11 was engineered by neocons in the American administration in order to expand Israeli influence, justify the occupation of Arab countries and expand military spending.

According to the Daily Mail, "Professor Steven Jones, who lectures in physics at the Brigham Young University in Utah, says the official version of events is the biggest and most evil cover up in history. He has joined the 9/11 Scholars for Truth whose membership includes up to 75 leading scientists and experts from universities across the US. Prof Jones said: "We don't believe that 19 hijackers and a few others in a cave in Afghanistan pulled this off acting alone." We challenge this official conspiracy theory and, by God, we're going to get to the bottom of this."

Dr Jones's university, Brigham Young, had his paper removed from the university's website saying they were, "concerned about the increasingly speculative and accusatory nature of these statements by Dr. Jones." In brief, Jones had become a 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Kevin Ryan is the former Site Manager for Environmental Health Laboratories, a division of Underwriters Laboratories which may be why DFS thought he was an ex-insurance investigator rather than a chemist.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 23:32:44 BDT
gille liath says:
Well, your view is much the same as mine, then. It's debatable whether dropping the bomb was right, but the least you can say about it from the Allied side is it was understandable they thought it valid to sacrifice Japanese lives rather than, potentially, tens of thousands more of their own soldiers. From the Japanese side, although you can probably never say something like that is deserved, it was at any rate indisputably the direct consequence of their own actions as a nation.

I don't really know what you're getting at when you say we can't judge by today's standards, though. Mores change, but they haven't changed much in that time. I've no idea of your views, but is it by any chance your way of approving Hiroshima, whilst disapproving of Iraq?

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 23:35:14 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Sep 2010 23:49:57 BDT
gille liath says:
"when it totally contradicts every thing they have been TRAINED to,and want to believe"

Bugger off, you patronising bleeder. You're the one believing what you want to believe.

It's funny - and this has come up a few times lately - how some left-liberals are simply incapable of accepting that grown-up people are responsible for their own opinions. Anybody who disagrees with you is a victim of media indoctrination - only those who agree are truly free, rational agents...

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 08:30:01 BDT
Damaskcat says:
gl wrote: ''It's funny - and this has come up a few times lately - how some left-liberals are simply incapable of accepting that grown-up people are responsible for their own opinions. Anybody who disagrees with you is a victim of media indoctrination - only those who agree are truly free, rational agents... '' My thoughts exactly!

I think wherever there are events like 9/11 there will be conspiracy theorists - if only because the event was so big. If the plot had been foiled - as it would have been if US internal flights had had better security measures in place - then there would have been no conspiracy theories at all because the plot didn't come off.

It was only possible for 9/11 to happen because America didn't think anything like this would ever happen. Frederick Forsyth had come up with a similar plot for a book but his publishers rejected it as too incredible even for thriller readers to accept. So if something is too incredible you aren't going to be able to put measures in place to stop it happening though as I say if American internal flight security had been more effective then it could have been prevented.

In the UK we've been used to terrorist attacks by the IRA and consequently our security services are able to think the unthinkable and guard against it. America in spite of previous attempts on the World Trade Centre could not comprehend the idea that the most powerful nation in the world could ever be a serious target for terrorists. That was their mistake. Something simple and outrageous was always going to work against America because they appeared to think they were invulnerable to terrorism.

None of that excuses what the terrorists did but it goes some way to explain how it could ever have happened.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 08:51:32 BDT
Fazool says:
DG,

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with. I was simply pointing out, in response to dreamer's post, that the American's are great at cranking up the media machine. In fact I actually managed to watch the whole plane thing pan out on TV live (we have televisions at work). I also think that there was particular shock in America because it just don't usually happen in their own home.
'After that it is hardly surprising that they decided to take extreme action against those involved. No government anywhere in the world would simply sit back and do nothing. I don't think anything else could have been expected. Afghanistan is lucky that it wasn't turned into radioactive glass.'
I made no comments on whether it was surprising that they invaded Afganistan on the back of 9/11 but since you mention it I am not surprised they didn't sit back and do nothing about it. I suppose, though, that if it happened in another country, say portugal, they may not have had the resources to mobilise an attack on Afghanistan to route out the Taliban and Al Quaeda. They would probably have had to go to the UN to enlist international assistance...

Posted on 7 Sep 2010 09:32:41 BDT
To advance the debate intellectually and re-direct it back to one that is scientific and evidence-based, can anyone provide just one verifiable example of a steel-concrete building falling straight down onto its own footprint at free-fall speed anytime or anywhere in the world before or after 9/11 due to open fire? All I am asking is just ONE VERIFIABLE precedence. I have looked long and wide and cannot find another example.

Stop the empty, meaningless rhetoric, hand waving, name calling, character assassination and blame apportioning. Right now, I am only interested in just one example of another building showing the same collapse features as of the 3 buildings that fell on 9/11.

To provide precedence and demonstrate repeatability is one of the most - if not the most, important step in scientific and forensic investigative work.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 10:03:09 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
I agree. We need to fly a 737 into Canary Wharf TOOT SWEET. And watch very CAREFULLY what happens.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 10:05:21 BDT
gille liath says:
I'm a Lefty myself, as you may know! But this is one of the great weaknesses of Leftist thinking.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 10:06:42 BDT
gille liath says:
That's exactly the point, JY. Talking about 'scientific debate' sounds well but is a sham, because science means testing hypotheses and - naturally - there is none of that going on here.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 10:44:39 BDT
RAB says:
You need to stop repeating yourself and take some of your own advice about having an open mind, mate.

Throughout this thread I have seen reasoned, intelligent debate that has got me thinking. You fail to see this because no-one is bending over backwards to support your theory or help you gather evidence for your own tirade. Instead, quite feasible explanations have been provided for your questions, which, judging by your responses, were rhetorical unless the answer you sought came up.

I myself don't have a view either way on the matter, because these kind of debates do tend to run in circles eventually. However, this has made for very good reading, keep it up, guys and gals.

Posted on 7 Sep 2010 12:00:20 BDT
So far, nobody has provided another example of a falling steel-concert building that exhibits the collapse features of the 3 buildings on 9/11. Take as long as you want to search for another example. When you find one, just provide the details here for all to check and verify for themselves.

The twin towers were designed and built like a mosquito meshing on your door - with interwoven, inter-connected 6-inch thick steel beams. Take a pencil and pierce a mosquito mesh in several different places. What happens? Does the whole mesh fall apart and disintegrate?

There were around 250 of inter-connected supporting steel beams on the periphery and around 50 in the core section. The floors were made up of thick reinforced steel-concrete sections welded and bolted together and to the supporting beams. The whole structure was designed and built to withstand the multiple impacts of jet-fuel laden planes - Each of these planes with as much kinetic energy as the planes that actually hit the towers on 9/11. This is not what I am saying. This is what the architect of the twin towers himself is telling us. Check his interview on the net for yourself. Check the original twin tower plans showing these huge thick supporting steel beams on the net.

What force, heat and energy are then capable of pulverising this enormous amount of steel, concrete and office material into fine dust? You reckon it is oxygen-starved open fires from the jet fuel? Fires that at best, in ideal conditions, could only reach 1400F with the melting point of steel at 2800F.

What force, heat and energy are then capable of pulling such an enormous steel-concrete structure through its path of maximum resistance straight down at free-fall speed? Shattering, disintegrating, pulverising steel and concrete from the floors below. Do you think gravity can do this?

What then? What force, heat and energy are capable of doing all this and leave a massive pools of molten iron at the base of all 3 buildings?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 12:16:30 BDT
David Groom says:
gille liath,

'I don't really know what you're getting at when you say we can't judge by today's standards, though. Mores change, but they haven't changed much in that time.'

I guess all I am saying is that dropping the A-bomb on civilians then was considered fair game when the nation was at war, in the same way that fire-bombing Dresden was. Nowadays, the military in the western world go out of their way, not always successfully, to avoid civilian casualties. I doubt that dropping a nuclear device on a city would be considered acceptable in any wartime circumstances nowadays.

'I've no idea of your views, but is it by any chance your way of approving Hiroshima, whilst disapproving of Iraq?'

Not really, as I don't have any personal experience of those times, although broadly speaking when one nation attacks another I take the view that they are entitled to retaliate to the full, which is what the US did. So, yes, I agree that Hiroshima (with my caveat about civilian targets) was justified.

Iraq is in an altogether different class. In my view this was little more than Bush's unfinished business from Gulf War I, with Tony Blair hanging onto Bush's coat tails. I don't really think that Saddam was as big a threat to the world as was made out, but I don't believe this was the key factor in the war. After all, North Korea and Iran are probably bigger threats, yet I don't see the west lining up to attack, despite Tony Blair trying to lay the ground work last week. Overall then, I broadly supported the war until it became clear that we were misled by the government.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 12:20:45 BDT
David Groom says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 12:33:06 BDT
Withnail says:
The internet is a mine of information isn't it?

I think this was your PHD -

The development of a generalised finite element scheme for heat transfer and fluid flow analysis

So you obviously know more about the physics of these things than most of us, my problem continues to be that you have not produced your alternative hypothesis for what happened. I am waiting with bated breath for the conspiracy to come forward - why are you avoiding that bit?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 12:34:04 BDT
gille liath says:
It wasn't really considered acceptable to bomb civilians in WWII - on the contrary, it was an atrocity, which is why it was essential to be able to claim (as everybody did) that the enemy had started it. It's just that any expedient was justifiable in a war that was a desperate struggle for existence.

All countries, in all times, do what they think necessary and possible for their own security and to secure their own interests. Things are possible for the US, as Top Nation, which are not possible for others. I'm not saying it's right, just that it is what actually happens. The only thing that's changed today is the need, in the media age, to keep in with public opinion; and the perceived need to keep up the charade of the UN, which ultimately amounts to the same thing.

Posted on 7 Sep 2010 13:16:52 BDT
Hi crazy diamond,

Yes you are right - I know about these things more than anybody who has contributed to this debate so far. And I have tried to present the indelible physical evidence that refutes the official story in a language that is understandable and digestible by most people.

I have already given you what I and over 1200 architects and engineers worldwide believe and proven can facilitate the complete collapses of a steel-concrete building in a manner that has ALL the features of the collapses of the Twin Towers and building number 7. There is only one way of producing the same collapse - time and again. You do not need any computer simulation, you don't need open fires. You don't need a pancake theory. You don't need a bending inward theory. You just need to bring such a building down by controlled demolition using sequenced detonation of explosive charges placed on supporting steel beams at every floor.

1. The building will come straight down onto its own foot-print at free-fall speed.
2. It will produce enormous amount of pulverised steel and concrete.
3. It will produce microscopic spherical balls of pure iron.
4. It will produce by-products of iron oxide and sulphur oxide.
5. It will produce a pool of molten iron.

And these are ALL the features that you see in the collapses of all 3 buildings on 9/11.

Now, rather than premature speculation, name calling and apportioning blame on who could have done this, many tens of thousands of people worldwide, including myself, are demanding an independent, open and international public inquiry into the events of 9/11. That is ALL the events before, during and after 9/11.

Do you support the idea of such a public inquiry?

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 13:24:48 BDT
batdog says:
"So far, nobody has provided another example of a falling steel-concert building that exhibits the collapse features of the 3 buildings on 9/11."

Why keep asking a question that you know full well will be answered in the negative? If I come back to you and say, no I don't know of any examples, do I then automatically have to subscribe to your beliefs? Of course not. I come back to you and say give me an example of a scientific experiment that has involved flying two fuel-laden aircraft into structures that are exactly the same as the Twin Towers (and associated buildings); and I'm not talking computer modelling or tests on scale buildings, I'm talking about an exact replication of the events. That the architect states that the structures were designed to withstand multiple impacts is neither here nor there - they were not tested with an event like 9/11. Physics, chemistry, structural engineering will suggest that what happened should not have happened but I'm prepared to keep an open mind.

Focussing on the physics of the event is too narrow minded. If there were no evidence for the planning and carrying out of the plot I would have minor suspicions but reading something like Lawrence Wright's "The Looming Tower", which provides an investigative analysis of the background to the plot, I'm satisfied that Bin-Laden was involved. The only cover up by the US government was to hide their massive incompetence in failing to prevent the attacks. Unfortunately, this has only added fuel to the fires of conspiracy (pun intended).

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010 13:33:30 BDT
Withnail says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 7 Sep 2010 13:50:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 7 Sep 2010 13:53:30 BDT
Hi batdog,

Building number 7 was not hit by a plane. It was 90 yards away from the Twin Towers. It had minor exterior damage from fallen debris. It had minor sporadic fires on two floors that the fireman attending said (in the oral history of 9/11 released to public after a freedom of information request in 2004), "give me two water hoses and I will put the fires out." Yes, mysteriously, this building too comes down like a pack of cards at 17:20 on 9/11. This was a 47 storey steel-concrete building - a skyscraper in its own right.

Now, after the event, Barry Jones who was the security manager at this building testified that when he entered the building at 10:00 in the morning of 9/11 (nearly 7.5 hours before it collapsed), there was total devastation and it looked as though bombs had exploded in there.

There is no physical explanation other than controlled demolition that will satisfy the actual collapse of this building in the manner it did. You can actually see huge plumes of smoke and dust bellowing from the base of this building BEFORE the collapse is initiated. Contrary to what you say, corroborative physical evidence is absolutely EVERTHING.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  163
Total posts:  2864
Initial post:  6 Sep 2010
Latest post:  27 Oct 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 9 customers

Search Customer Discussions