Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 50% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen in Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:11:58 BDT
Mr. P. Ashby says:
In which case - I suppose that would make him more knowledgable in the world of physics.
Therefore he can certainly give us an insight into what didn't happen.
None of us can really claim to know everything that caused the event in a nice tidy package, but if we can study what didnt happen or what couldnt possibly of happened, we can edge closer to the truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:16:32 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Sep 2010 13:17:18 BDT
Dr Faramarz Shermirani.

Can you please tell us what the subejct of your thesis was? I am really interested to find out what you spent 3/4 years of your life researching. If you have an MD, again I'll ask, are you currently practicing?

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:20:01 BDT
Ku says:
Your incompetence is just stunning, Shemirani.

"Furthermore another article explains that the pilot who lives in Casablanca was named Walid al-Shri (not Waleed M. al-Shehri) and that much of the BBC information regarding "alive" hijackers was incorrect according to the same sources used by BBC.[26] In September 2007, a video recording of his last testament was released to mark the 6th anniversary of the attacks."

All you had to do was look up the wiki entry for the full story.

You clearly have an agenda that has nothing to do with determining the truth.

I know you have a little following here who hang on your every word. And they're welcome to base in the stew of inaccuracies you're spoon-feeding them.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:37:59 BDT
Mr. P. Ashby says:
Also its important to gather someones own understanding of the word Zionism too.
Some think its just the belief in Israels right to exist, where others think it refers to the belief that Hebrews are the master race. A lot of Rabbis arent Zionists in either form - They refer to the Torah which classes them as a banished people who must not have a nation state at all.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:43:03 BDT
Withnail says:
I have already said that I am not involving myself in this debate until the full hypothesis is brought out - i.e. not how the buildings fell, but he hypothesis about who was behind it.

Once we start getting that, then I will happily discuss further.

ps if 2 people with the same qualifications come up with different conclusions it would suggest that at least one and possibly both are wrong. DFS - has his view others have theirs.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:48:34 BDT
Mr. P. Ashby says:
Well there is the theory that 'the bigger the lie, the easier the sell'.
Instance one - I come to you and ask for $50 because I bet all my money on a horse and it lost.
Instance two - I come to you and ask for $50 because my little sister has cancer and I need funds for her operation.
Which spiel is likely to be more successful? Which spiel would you feel worse about questioning?

There is a long history of lies before wars in the world - The Reichstag Fire, The Gleiwitz incident, The Gulf of Tonkin, Possibly Pearl Harbor, The USS Maine during the Spanish-American war... and others.
I urge you to look into them. This sort of incident is not the exception, but the historical norm.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:51:22 BDT
Ku says:
Or you can read Bruce Hoffman's "Inside Terrorism", read Bin Laden's Epistle of 1996 where he declares war on the U.S., look at the Embassy bombings in East Africa in 1998, the attack on the USS Cole in 2000, and come to the conclusion that there's a serious terrorist threat out there that's being deliberately or inadvertently aided and abetted by these people peddling their CT rubbish.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:53:28 BDT
Mr. P. Ashby says:
I think you are misquoting somewhat - Its the first party to refer to someone they disagree with as a Nazi.
If we are not allowed to discuss German history then the History channel will go out of business overnight.

Nice try though.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 13:57:12 BDT
Mr. P. Ashby says:
Yes, I had heard that - I also see that despite Osama Bin Ladin being on the FBI most wanted list, he is not listed as being wanted in connection to 9/11.
These inconsistencies dont sit well with me.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 14:00:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Sep 2010 14:00:45 BDT
Ku says:
This is what the FBI site says. Sorry about the caps lock.


Did you see the 'other terrorist attacks' bit?

Perhaps you only see what you want to, Ashby.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 14:22:22 BDT
Hi Assim,

Look at the initial hole in the Pentagon. It is half the size of the Boeing 757 that allegedly smashed into it. You will see that immediately after the impact, even the glass in the surrounding windows of the hole are still intact.

Now I want you to do a little experiment. Try putting both your fists in your mouth at the same time! My guess is, unless you are a contortionist, you will not be able to do this. It is physically impossible. Yet, we are lead to believe that a Boeing 757, went through a hole half its size. And that the impact was so smooth that the surrounding windows remained intact. Yet, the resulting fire was so intense that the plane, yes you have guessed it by now, and all its passengers vaporised into thin air as a result.

There were 86 security cameras all around the Pentagon. What we are shown by the officials as the absolute irrefutable evidence, after years of request for the release of the video footage from all these cameras, is just 2 still frames supposedly showing the impact of the plane with the Pentagon. Now, carefully examine these two "official" still frames. Do you see any plane? The official explanation of why we do not see the actual plane is that the plane was going so fast that in between these two frames the plane completely planted itself in the building. The date on the still frames is even incorrect! It shows 12 September!

There are so many other inconsistencies, inaccuracies and omissions with the official story of what happened at the Pentagon that many researches have devoted chapters of books to it. You can google them for youself. Make sure that you study the opposing views put forward by the defenders of the official story.

A very good source is an investigation that was carried out by a member of the European Parliament and aired across Europe in September 2007 (except in the UK) called "Zero: An Investigation into 9/11". It is available on DVD format and you can purchase it. It might also be available on youtube. I urge you all to watch it and make your own mind about the many points that are raised including the attack on the Pentagon.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 14:32:04 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Sep 2010 14:55:21 BDT
Ku says:
"Try putting both your fists in your mouth at the same time!"

I wish you would, Shemirani.

You clearly aren't interested in what happens to structures like planes when they make high-speed impact with structures like the Pentagon.

EDIT no 2: Show me a model of what you think should've happened. And I'm not talking about a cartoon-style cut-out.

EDIT: I'm noting the nay-votes with interest. Clearly a misuse of the principle. Because without people disagreeing, there'd be no discussion. Just a bunch of sycophantic aye-voters.

I think I know what the problem is here. Many people have trouble with rational explanations. So they look for semi-plausible arguments that jive with their preconceptions.

In a sense, this is really a question of religion and beliefs rather than rational argument. If people think that there was merit in Shemirani quoting a BBC article that was qualified and superseded by a later BBC item, be my guests.

Well, I've said my peace.

Posted on 10 Sep 2010 19:37:56 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Sep 2010 19:39:29 BDT
Sou'Wester says:
In accepting this conspiracy theory we are asked to take several huge leaps of faith; an open-minded individual might be prepared to jump once - maybe even twice - but the balance of probability makes it very difficult to make such leaps repeatedly. As stated earlier, I am no expert on structural engineering or demolition, but IF the official explanation for the World Tower collapses was as far-fetched as Dr Shemirani would have us believe, surely there would have been a huge volume of sceptical comment from people around the world who do have such expertise? However, for argument's sake let's make that first leap of faith and move on to the point on which those on both sides of this argument seem to agree; that setting explosives in these buildings would have taken weeks of meticulous work and planning. So, this shadowy organisation is able to clandestinely obtain the services of (or train) sufficient operatives to carry out this highly skilled and risky work, not exactly the sort of workforce that grows on trees. I expect many of us will have seen documentaries on demolition of redundant buildings by explosions; it seems hard (and dangerous) enough to get things sorted out in an unpopulated empty shell of a building, are we then to assume that operatives were able to plant explosives in such busy, populated buildings so skilfully without anybody noticing them? And usually when we see buildings brought down with explosives there's no ambiguity about the matter; onlookers don't remark "I think I might just have heard a bang,", the evidence is there for all to see and hear in spectacular detail. Or, with the WTC, are we to believe that these super-human experts could not only plant all the explosives required un-noticed but also in a manner that disguised the eventual cause of demolition? We're now already well beyond a leap of faith too far, but even if we were to accept all of the above as possible, why, having achieved their objectives, did the perpetrators launch the air attack, either with planes or - as some have suggested - missiles disguised as planes (?) This, quite unnecessarily, increases the risk of exposure a hundredfold or more; I cannot fathom how an organisation brilliant enough to pull of the demolition by explosives would put the whole plan at risk just for a bit of "icing on the cake".
That there may be some extreme Neocons or other shadowy figures in the west who would contemplate false flag attacks of some kind I can accept. That they would be able to carry out a project of this size and complexity, which would have required the active or tacit involvement of so many people, without the conspiracy being uncovered stretches that balance of probability too far. I've no doubt there are many things about 9/11 that we don't know; probably never will, but it will take a lot more evidence than Doctor Shemirani and others print here to convince me that this was anything other than the terrorist attack described in official accounts.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 20:04:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 Sep 2010 08:50:11 BDT
Roland says:
Sou'Wester, I spent an hour or two going down Shemirani's avenue of thought, I wrote a post a bit like yours, then I read it back to myself and thought, why am I writing this? It won't help. I felt like a gullible plonker for wasting my time, so I deleted it.

Either he is a muslim who can't, for some reason, accept that some muslims are murderers, or he is being paid by somebody to stir up anti-american feeling. One way or another he's out to lunch.

By the way, you are right. The number of structural engineers in the world is probably in the order of a million, so the number that allegedly supports him is negligible.

Posted on 10 Sep 2010 21:53:21 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 15 Mar 2011 12:51:20 GMT]

Posted on 10 Sep 2010 22:42:21 BDT
Dreamer says:
Why does everyone else assume there are only two options here. Either the official line is utter truth and anyone who questions it is mad, or a shadowy organisation consisting of freemasons and zionits have taken over the us govt an intstituted a massively complex conspiracy to whip up anti terrorist hysteria, a plot requiring huge levels of competance and talent at evey level. (and how much of that do we see in govt), With a massive cover up and silencing of everyone who thought they could make some cash out of going to the press. AND somehow left ridiculous loose ends that make it look suspicious. Now to me both these versions seem a bit simplistic, I think that what happened goes something like this.
Terrorists encouraged in secret behind closed doors by us govt in the hoe that they will commit an atrocity that the us govt can use to channel into whatever war they want. Terrorists obligingly commit an atrocity. US govt wants to leave no doubt who to blame and therefore plant the paper passport and a few other bits and bobs to make it really obvious (you've got to remember their target audience was american). Unfortunatly being the us govt and not known for subtlety they overdid it a bit with the paper passport.
Another option is that the terrorists commited an attack the us govt then spots an oppertunity and plants some extra evidence to help them take advantage of the fallout, they then use the mayhem the terrorists caused to start wars in countries which coincidentally contained lots of oil.
See we've got more options now.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Sep 2010 22:46:47 BDT
Neutral says:

Why DID the Tories abolish care in the community?

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Sep 2010 08:50:02 BDT
Damaskcat says:
Beacuse there were too many people needing it??

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Sep 2010 11:12:31 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 Sep 2010 11:13:01 BDT
Neutral says:

My apologies Damaskcat, I was being frivolous and cynical and asking the question as a response to D's lunatic posting which preceded it, hinting her posting suggested she was somewhat unhinged.

Had it been the question you thought it was then your answer is a slight variation from the truth which is that it was a badly thought out reform measure designed to reduce public expenditure.

Posted on 11 Sep 2010 11:34:19 BDT
Last edited by the author on 11 Sep 2010 13:02:23 BDT
Roland says:
I think she understood your insinuation. She was just widening its scope.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Sep 2010 14:40:25 BDT
Damaskcat says:
Neutral I knew you were - it was a somewhat tongue in cheek response;-)

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Sep 2010 16:57:25 BDT
Neutral says:

I didn't see the tongue or the cheek, though obviously Mr Woodward did. Many thanks for putting me right.

Posted on 11 Sep 2010 17:20:00 BDT
Andy PW says:
I'll just take this opportunity to pay my respects to all those who died nine years ago today in that appalling attack. The fact that we are still in Afghanistan fighting the remnants of the regime that sponsored it is an indication that the threat was real then, and is still real now. My respects also to all the service personnel who have given their lives in this fight, and all the other casualties of war that sadly occur when such things are necessary. Remember, if there had been no Taliban, and no Al Qaeda, and no 9/11, then there would have been no need to send forces to Afghanistan. It is the Taliban and Al Qaeda who are the authors of all the suffering that followed on from what they did.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Sep 2010 21:49:20 BDT
Neutral says:
APW wrote, "The fact that we are still in Afghanistan fighting the remnants of the regime that sponsored it is an indication that the threat was real then, and is still real now." The threat was not from the Taliban it was from Al Qaeda. The Taliban regime was noted for its extreme reactionary views and its imposition of strict Sharia Law. However, the Afghan insurgency is not limited to the Taliban and does have racial and tribal undercurrents.

He adds, " if there had been no Taliban, and no Al Qaeda, and no 9/11, then there would have been no need to send forces to Afghanistan." Why stop there? If the Afghan monarchy had not been overthrown in 1973, if the republic had not been overthrown in 1978, if the remnants of Stalinism had been removed from Russia preventing the establishment of a puppet Communist regime from amongst the remnants of the factious Afghan Communist Party, had the warlords not been so corrupt and oppressive, had the Mujahideen not spent as much time fighting each other instead of the Communists. The list is endless.

The Taliban received assistance from Al Qaeda but this was small relative to the 28,000 regular troops provided by the Pakistan government. Al Qaeda's forces were mainly Arabs. The Bush administration were convinced they could invade Afghanistan, find Osama bin Laden and get out. Unfortunately, there was no plan for what to do when the war was over, apart from providing economically advantageous contracts to their fellow Americans. As an American army document noted, "The history of Afghanistan demonstrates that seizing Afghanistan is the easiest part. Retaining control is the difficult part."

Bush demanded that bin Laden be given up and invaded when he wasn't. However, they still haven't been able to locate him amidst rumours that he has been helped by the Pakistan Intelligence Agency. The USA is unlikely to invade Pakistan, although some of the "home based" terrorists were allegedly trained near the border of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

None of this absolves the Taliban or Al Qaeda of responsibility for the many crimes they committed. On the other hand it does not absolve the USA from its lack of a clear, effective, policy towards Afghanistan and its failure to build for peace.

Neutral does not accept APW's comment, "My respects also to all the service personnel who have given their lives in this fight, and all the other casualties of war that sadly occur when such things are necessary." The deaths weren't necessary. The New Labour government bears a lot of responsibility for increasing British troop numbers in pursuit of a bankrupt policy of intervention. Fighting over there has not prevented terrorism over here. To suggest that it ever did was ridiculous. Meanwhile the Afghan insurgency increases and Osama bin Laden is a free man.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Sep 2010 09:25:11 BDT
Damaskcat says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[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

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Scotland, you are not in the EUROs, you are not in the EU and you don't have your independence. You are one, two, three times a loser. 106 1 minute ago
The difference between those who can't be bothered to vote... 16 2 minutes ago
Hill! 3 8 minutes ago
Whoops here we go... 17 13 minutes ago
A new fairer Referendum on the EU to be announced. 30 14 minutes ago
Article 50 28 15 minutes ago
Never Mind The Referendum, we won't allow Brexit. 3 16 minutes ago
Remember the Labour Party well and good--- Tony Blair did disarm Gadhafi of much WMD by invading Iraq in 2003 422 31 minutes ago
A thrilling victory for Vote Leave 145 35 minutes ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests proving homosexuality is from parental neglect 10 45 minutes ago
Book (Tortured for Christ) show how horrible and murderous the communist government of North Korea was to Christians 109 45 minutes ago
Why I will vote leave... 28 48 minutes ago

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