Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 2376-2400 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 23:07:23 BDT
Spin says:
Dav: Grow up and take your own advice, I do not mind people talking nonsense in the absence of any verification, (indeed even I, genius that I am, may be accused of talking nonsense when it comes to unverifiable subjects), but to talk nonsense in the face of blindingly obvious proof is the height of ignorance.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 16:21:13 BDT
Where I am from in scotland we all say it, but I know the Irish do also.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 16:25:04 BDT
What Am I to do go and find all the stuff for you, Sa said Ive seen better resolution, but not good enough to go, oh look theres the wheels.

But explain logically why they are in same coordinates only possible explanation (With MCT) is they went back later and put the right stuff in the right place, which means in all honesty the NASA images would be irrelevant.

But does that seem likely?

No reply from you at all on what evidence made you ever think there was a conspiracy?

Surely that importnat.

You seem to push the burden of proof onto the established official line. surely the burden of proof must lie with the Conspiracy Theory itself.

Ive seen possible reasons why they could ahve done it, ive heard possible ways round osome of the evidence that it did happen, I ahve never heard one piece of decent evidence that shows it did not happen.

There is more evidence of God being real for petes sake and thats almost nothing.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 17:37:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 17:42:00 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
You have dodged my question - why is there not better resolution pictures than the ones provided by NASA etc?
You know the same ones we have that Google Earth provide for us of Earth,
I'm quite sure that if you had found a link directing me to such clear cut images you would have done so,
The reason is you cannot because there aren't any, and I sure as hell cannot find these 'better resolution images'

'No reply from you at all on what evidence made you ever think there was a conspiracy?'

The reason is above why I think there may have been a conspiracy and in addition if you wanted to clinch victory in this debate you would have provided similiar Google Earth Images!
Surely there must be some doubt in your mind now as to why the images cannot even provide the basic shape of the moon buggy let alone discern what they are,

If the boot had been on the other foot and you had provided concise detailed images such as we have on Google earth etc I would have thrown my hand in and congratulated you!

As I have said the images have been downloaded and there is no conclusive proof of what they are exactly other than manmade objects,
Not really relevant if the coordinates are the same or not - if it was an unmanned probe (or probes) that went to the moon originally then NASA could just give their coordinates.

So come on Mr C close up resolution pictures like Google Earth please - or did they send a 1960's camera with the LRO?

Posted on 13 Jun 2012 09:28:13 BDT
Mossad , Israeli secret service for foreign countries , new about it for sure , callm it what you want , false flag seems inadequate when you think what has happened to the Afghanis since for taking ALL the blame. Israel certainly gained from 9 / 11 and vested interests in America did , but which other country did ? Certainly NOT the UK as Blair used us and lied to us to get us into it with America , Biggest losers , Iraq and Afghanistan with Pakistan bringing up the rear.

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 16:16:52 BDT
Last edited by the author on 13 Jun 2012 16:18:37 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hy, can I call you William,
As you say Mossad and all the rest of the oil interested world knew about - and are 'always involved' wherever there is agitation in the Middle East. It doesn't take a genius to work that one out does it? I'm surprised that you wouldn't think that the UK would benefit from 911 or should I say Blair?
Perhaps you would be interested in the article I am posting. I would just post the link but many people have trouble accessing them, and can't then be bothered. I think it is important to all of us to know the truth and seek it where we can.

The Iraq war, which started in 2003, has caused the deaths of between 100,000 and over one million people, depending on whose estimate you believe.
Two men were ultimately responsible for the decision to start it: George W Bush and Tony Blair, who claim that they were 'provoked' into starting the war by 'the imminent threat Iraq presented to world peace'.
They further maintain that the war was 'legal'. A series of leaked documents shows not only that these contentions are untrue, but that 'Bush and Blair knew they were untrue'.
The Downing Street memo, a record of a meeting in July 2002, reveals that Sir Richard Dearlove, director of the UK's foreign intelligence service MI6, told Blair that in Washington "Military action was now seen as inevitable, because Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being FIXED around the policy."
The foreign secretary (Jack Straw) then told Blair that "The case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran." He suggested that "We should 'work up' a plan" to produce "legal justification for the use of force." The Attorney-General told the prime minister that there were only "three possible legal bases" for launching a war: "self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [Security Council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case." Bush and Blair FAILED to obtain Security Council authorisation.
In other words the memo reveals that 'Blair knew that the decision to attack Iraq had already been made; that it preceded the justification, which was being retrofitted to an act of aggression; that the only legal reasons for an attack didn't apply, and that the war couldn't be launched without UN authorisation.'
The legal status of Bush's decision had already been explained to Blair. In March 2002, as another leaked memo shows, Jack Straw had reminded him of the conditions required to launch a legal war:
"i) There must be an ''armed attack upon a State'' or such an attack must be imminent; (Sew the seed for False Flag Op 9/11)
ii) The use of force must be necessary and other means to reverse/avert the attack must be unavailable;
iii) The acts in self-defence must be proportionate and strictly confined to the object of stopping the attack."
Straw explained that the possible development or possession of weapons of mass destruction "does not in itself amount to an armed attack; what would be needed would be clear evidence of an IMMINENT ATTACK."
A third memo, from the Cabinet Office, explained that "there is no greater threat now than in recent years that Saddam will use WMD ... A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers' advice, none currently exists."
The Charter of the United Nations spells out the conditions that must apply if a war is to have legal justification, as follows:

Article 33
1. The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.
2. The Security Council shall, when it deems necessary, call upon the parties to settle their dispute by such means.
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an ARMED ATTACK OCCURS against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

NONE of these conditions were met by the governments of the United States or the United Kingdom. They ''did not seek peaceful means of resolving the dispute.'' In fact before the war began, ''it was Saddam Hussein sought to settle the dispute by diplomatic means, and offered to give Bush and Blair almost everything they wanted.'' But they REFUSED TO DISCUSS any peaceful resolution with him, then lied to THEIR PEOPLE about the possibilities for diplomacy. At one point, when the Iraqi government offered to let the UN weapons inspectors back in to complete their task, the US State Department announced that it would "go into thwart mode" to prevent this from happening.
NO ARMED ATTACK had taken place against a Member of the United Nations, and the UK and US 'did not need to mount a war' of self-defence.
Without legal justification, ''the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder, committed by those who launched it.'' Tony Blair and George W Bush should be facing trial for commissioning the supreme international crime!!!

Blair and Bush should be before a War Crimes Court, Why arn't they???
Blair is a richer man now that he ever was when he was PM. How does that work???
EVIL LYING WAR CRIMINAL... and Ca'moron' is no better, following in his footsteps, hand in hand with Clinton.
Sorry for the legthy post, but I can find no shorter way of getting all the information together.
Margaret

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 21:41:50 BDT
Have you checked NASA website?

In all honesty I am not sure why they have never recorded more images of it, I suppose a CT would answer that with they cant, but surely this is illogical, perhaps its they have nothing set up to take more high resolution images although I have a more likely reason.

a camera in Earth orbit is the right distance away to do as you say, the moon is much farther away, really check the distances, thats quite a good reason.

Its illogical because they could have placed them there at any time afterwards therefore the evidence would not be clear cut as you say, clearly there are non lunar objects at the correct coordinates, so my point is that I am sure Berk would simply assert they were put there later. Unless we think its still impossible to go to the moon, I would have thought that unlikley, we can build and run an international space station etc.

so I dont think its the golden ticket, my question was dodged by you I would say also. until the LRO was brought up, you still thought it was a Conmspiracy, what evidence made you not believe the official record surely all the things normally claimed have been easily debunked many times, by people completely independent of NASA and US etc?

Either way I did see better resolution but it would not be that impressive to you, It was not that clear (prob too far away) so unless there are others this golden ticket wont be of use to conclude this

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 21:47:19 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Your post has just come through on my phone,
I've been playing devil's advocate to be honest,
I am more of the opinion that the landings did take place as there were several missions after,
why fake more missions when one is enough,
However the fact is the pics are rubbish from the LRO when they should by rights be as clear as google earth images,

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 21:52:47 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
The reason I was playing CT was to try and stimulate some debate on it as there are still discrepancies like the one I have just described,
Unfortunately Berk & Spew totally ruin any chance of a meaningful debate with their antics,
I am convinced Berk is just a psuedonym of a regular poster on here,
Spew is a computer virus - notice he just generates answers to peoples posts that only bear a passing resemblance if any to what the poster has written,
Just like a simple computer scanning its files and the nearest resemblance to the post usually from a textbook is then posted,
That is my CT theory on this website

Posted on 13 Jun 2012 21:56:31 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
Earth satellites are upto 200 miles away from the earth's surface yet still manage to take closeup photos of cars etc,
The LRO was only 50 miles from the moon surface and yet only managed to photograph dots!

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 22:04:37 BDT
Is that a fact it was only 50 miles away, that's pretty close, where was it going?

Is that a fact?

Also possible it was further away when those coordinates came into view, by time it got closer, the moon may have spun round, just conjecture, but a valid theory

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jun 2012 22:10:56 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
No they had it so it was bang over the landing site,
it was only 50 miles away,
checked on their website,
which is why it is suspicious that the images are so indiscernable

Posted on 13 Jun 2012 22:17:32 BDT
Not knowing the technology I am not sure.

I think wed need someone from NASA to explain that

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 10:26:17 BDT
Excellent , I agree with every word you said.

In reply to an earlier post on 14 Jun 2012 13:54:49 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
I'm sure NASA would come up with some technical explanation as to why they could not produce images as good as Google Earth,
Whatever their explanation it would have to account as to why the moon with no atomsphere and the LRO being only 50 miles above the supposed Moon Landing site has not produced detailed images,
Chance once and for all for NASA to put the rumours to bed and all they manage is a few dots and arrows images!

Posted on 16 Jun 2012 10:00:30 BDT
Molly Brown says:
This is the thread you needed Simon,

Simon "the fount" Boyd says:
What so many people don't seem to understand is their own epistemology..."how they know, what they know"...hence the average jack and jill believe anything they are told, read about or see on the goggle box. Understanding your own convincer strategies is very important to mental health and real sanity. Sadly the unsane billions are like sponges...whatever they are exposed to becomes true...whether it is propaganda Nazi style, Soviet Russia style or UK/USA style...it's all rubbish...As Bruce Lee said:

* Research your own experience
* Absorb what is useful
* Reject what is useless
* Add what is uniquely your own

As to 9/11, my epistemology is largely unclear as in I have very little idea what happened that day. I have seen the images. Heard opinions. Read many views and have no idea. Only two things remain unanswered for me...

* Why did building 7 collapse in the way it did?
* How did a pilot fly a large airliner 60 feet above the ground into the pentagon?

Outside of this I have no knowledge about who did it, why etc. The fact that I know that I don't know does not make me a conspiracy theorist...just makes me wise...only the wise admit their ignorance, the dull and stupid "know"...they always know...they are always certain...believing the official version or believing 9/11 was an inside job are two sides of the same ignorant coin...ego!
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse | Ignore this customerStop ignoring customer

0 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 10:20:30 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 17:14:05 BDT
Pipkin says:
Hi Simon,
In reply to your query about Building 7. Here is some interesting information.... It is from August 2006 but relevant never the less.

The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing.....
This represents another 'modern day miracle' in light of the commonly accepted premise that ''since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage will implode within two hours.''
This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.....
The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full 'seven hours' after it had begun to burn.

On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just '56 minutes' before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an 'hour and 45 minutes.' ACCORDING TO THE ''OFFICIAL'' TRANSCRIPTS OF THE FIREFIGHTER TAPES, FIRES IN BOTH TOWERE WERE ALMOST OUT IMMEDIATELY ''BEFORE'' THE COLLAPSE.
The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was 'not hit by a plane,' as the twin towers were on 9/11.
However, the ''absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within '7 seconds later' that fateful afternoon.''

Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, 'experts' simply decided to 'reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics' to make it easier for everyone to understand. :0

Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous free fall collapse!!!!

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 12:50:48 BDT
ric_mac says:
It's probably available somewhere on the internet, but in a TV programme by James May he explained that websites like Google Earth and Wikimapia use combinations of satellite and aerial photography depending upon the magnification of viewing. Images that clearly illustrate objects the size of a motor car are from aerial photography. He demonstrated by laying out a design of about half the size of a tennis court (if I remember correctly) and had it photographed it from both plane and satellite. In the satellite photograph the design was unrecognisable.

There is far too much evidence supporting the actuality of the moon landings for any doubt to be reasonably entertained.

A two-part Channel 4 documentary in the 1980s or 1990s ('Red Star In Orbit', an installment of their once excellent 'Equinox' science series) described the (too-infrequently-told) story of the USSR/Russia's achievements in space exploration and the reasons for the programme's failure in respect of a manned lunar mission. The US were quite slow to catch up, using existing military ballistic rocket technology (Atlas/Redstone/Titan boosters, used for mercury and Gemini project launches) until the use of specially purpose-developed Saturn IB and Saturn V boosters for the Apollo missions. Though the US had a poor start they then came good. The USSR got it right up-front and then failed through political pressures and, ultimately, impractical later vehicle design. Even so, they had -- and continue to have -- an enviable record of successful launches based on their brilliant, now fifty-year-old booster designs. Here's the launch to the ISS of a Soyuz mission from earlier this year (first Soyuz flight was 1967 and the booster is much like that used on the first Vostok flight in 1961):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18068188

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 16:18:58 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
The clincher for me is that the moon was revisited several times after the first landing,
Why keep repeating a hoax when once would have been sufficent,
Satellites can pick out individual images such as the moon buggy without the aid of aerial photography,
They have been used in agriculture to pinpoint and discern individual trees and animals,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16545333

Which is why I am surprised the LRO produced such scant barely discernable images of the moon landing sites,
The Russians as you say still have the best booster designs reflected in their continued use to the ISS,

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jun 2012 17:36:53 BDT
ric_mac says:
Hi Dav45,

From your BBC reference: "Meanwhile, hundreds of kilometres up in space, the same patch of land is being photographed by a satellite, which clearly pinpoints individual trees and animals."

I think there's a bit of journalistic license there. I doubt that one would be able to make an absolute identification of a feature except to say that a green blob in a green field is likely to be a tree and a tan blob, with lots of other tan blobs is likely to be a cow with other cattle. For illustration, see the photograph at the bottom of this page at its full size and resolution:

http://www.astrium-geo.com/na/1143-agricultural-policy-and-law-enforcement

Also remember there is no similarly bright colour on the moon to help distinguish features as there is in the example above.

There is an extensive gallery of example satellite images on the same site, at:

http://www.astrium-geo.com/uk/1442-image-gallery

I'd be surprised if something is clearly identifiable as a car in any of the (satellite) examples except by the implication of its context (eg a red blob on a grey road).

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 12:05:14 BDT
Hi David, I just joined this debate... can you show me the paper on the Twin Towers causing the destruction of WTC7 that refutes Jason Powell's arguments. I also would like to debunk these conspiracy theorists.

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 12:26:42 BDT
.. and here is a total lazy twit who can't research for himself and tries to ride the backs of those who support the government conspiracy. Grow up Sidderley!

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 12:48:05 BDT
Strong words from Bert..

In reply to an earlier post on 19 Jun 2012 14:09:50 BDT
Mr B Tonks says:
You two will be as thick as thieves from now on I should imagine,
New conspiracy debunking documentary series - The GroomSid Files!
[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
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  162
Total posts:  2857
Initial post:  6 Sep 2010
Latest post:  14 Nov 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 8 customers

Search Customer Discussions