Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 2857 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Sep 2010 10:31:27 BDT
Examining the available evidence for the past five years, I am certain that the events of 9/11 were conceived, planned, executed and being covered-up by the elements within the US hierarchy - A false flag operation used as a pretext to capture the energy-rich regions of the earth starting but not ending with Afghanistan and Iraq. Next Stop: Iran. Tell me what you think. But before that, let me list just a few of the hundreds of discrepancies you've not seen in the complicit corporate media regarding the fallen buildings:-

1. Three skyscrapers came down at free-fall speed straight onto their own footprints in around 10 seconds - North and South Towers and building number 7. The latter was a 47 storey steel-concrete building that was not hit by a plane, had small exterior damage from fallen debris and minor fires in only two floors. This building came down mysteriously like a pack of cards at 17:20 on 9/11. Never, in the history of architecture, before or after 9/11, steel-concrete buildings have come down like these three buildings did due to fire, e.g. check Winsor Tower in Madrid that was engulfed in an inferno for 18 hours, yet the steel structure still stood tall. Open fires do not reach above 1400F; steel begins to melt at 2800F.
2. Presence of unignited nano-thermite particles in the dust taken form the above buildings. Nano-thermite is a military form of thermite used to reach extreme temperatures in excess of 5000F in very short time in controlled demolition work. Nano-Thermite is not a substance that can be made in one's bath tub or kitchen. This substance is US-patented.
3. Presence of iron and sulphur oxides in the dust taken from the above buildings. These are the well-known by-products of ignited thermite.
4. Presence of pools of molten steel under the skyscrapers for months after 9/11. Open fires, including those from jet fuel, do not melt steel - otherwise you would have your cooking pot melting in front of your eyes as you try to cook your dinner tonight.
5. Testimonies of hundreds of workers, survivors, fire-fighters and medical staff that they heard sounds of sequenced explosions before, during and after the planes hit the two towers.
6. In 2000, about 160 times errant planes are intercepted within 10 to 15 minutes by pairs of fighter jets. This was and is routine standard operating procedure. In 2001, before 9/11, this standard procedure was carried out around 60 times with 100% success. On 9/11, for 2.5 hours, 4 errant aeroplanes criss-cross the most secure air-space in the world without a single jet fighter being ordered to intercept. Allegedly, 19 Muslim fundamentalists who couldn't even fly a single-engined Sesna according to their flight instructors, outwit the might of the US air defence. Funny, why didn't the Russians think of this tactic during the so called Cold War? By the way, 6 of those 19 hijackers are still alive to this day.

So that we can have an intelligent debate, Please check the credibility and accuracy of what you have just read before responding. Thanks you and let's ask for a truly independent and international inquiry into the events of 9/11 to bring to justice the real perpetrates of these and many other atrocities carried out all around the world.

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 10:53:34 BDT
J.Yasimoto says:
I like the cut of your jib and wish to subscribe to your point of view.

Did you know that if you add 9 and 11 you get 20. Add 2 and 0 to get 2. This was George Bush's favourite number. Allegedly. Hmmm... very suspicious!

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 10:55:58 BDT
Withnail says:
Conspiracy theory rubbish.

We know what happened on 9/11, it was a terrorist attack and it was terrible. We don't need to look any further than the people who commited the acts in order to know who was behind it. It wasn't the US, it wasn't Israel and it wasn't an Annunanki Lizard. It was religous fundamentalists who believed this was part of a war on the "great evil empire" of the USA.

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 11:48:02 BDT
Hi crazy diamond,
I asked for an intelligent debate, hence the request to check the credibility and accuracy of what I said before making any comments on the issue.
Which part of what I posted do you not agree with and why? Do you not agree with the falling of 3 buildings? Do you not agree with the universal laws of physics that are uniform and consistent and hold true anywhere and everywhere including the 3 buildings? Do you not agree with the evidential presence of unignited nano-themite or its ignited by-products of iron and sulphur oxides in the dust from these fallen buildings? Do you not agree with oral testimonies of hundreds of people to the 9/11 commission itself regarding explosions before, during and after the planes hit the twin towers? Do you not agree that the US air defence was breached for 2.5 hours without a single fighter jet being instructed to intercept? To refute these facts, you must show evidence to the contrary - Not just a blanket statement which is a regurgitation of what all of us have heard and read in the corporate news media and the official explanation of the 9/11.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 11:55:48 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:24:59 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 12:17:51 BDT
Last edited by the author on 6 Sep 2010 12:18:44 BDT
Neutral says:
DFS writes,

"I asked for an intelligent debate". Unfortunately the subject matter itself is irrational and therefore excludes intelligence. On this point Neutral is in broadl agreement with cd and Ku.

cd wrote, " We know what happened on 9/11, it was a terrorist attack and it was terrible. We don't need to look any further than the people who commited the acts in order to know who was behind it. It wasn't the US, it wasn't Israel and it wasn't an Annunanki Lizard. It was religous fundamentalists who believed this was part of a war on the "great evil empire" of the USA."

The only difference between us perhaps is that Neutral regards 9/11 as a political act perpetrated by people with a religiously expressed ideology rather than a religious attack on a secular enemy.

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 13:17:16 BDT
Hi Ku,
"This conspiracy crap is poison." Poison for who? Again, I reiterate the need for intelligent, evidence-based debate. To refute the points I posted, you must provide evidence to the contrary and not by empty, meaningless sentimental statements.
1. Steel-concrete buildings do not come down at free-fall speed straight into their own foot prints as a result of open fires. I challenge you to dispute this fact by providing verifiable details of another example before or after 9/11.
2. The evidential presence of unignited nano-thermite and its ignited by-products cannot be simply wished away. Nano-thermite cannot be manufactured in a cave in Afghanistan. It is a US military patented explosive material. Only a few US military contractors have the technology to manufacture this. This evidence was published in at least two internationally peer-reviewed scientific papers by Prof. Steve Jones et al.
3. The existence of pools of molten iron beneath the buildings was reported by clean-up workers and clearly visible from NASA's own satellite pictures of the site and documented and later suppressed and omitted by people working within the 9/11 commission itself. These massive pools of molten iron - we know it is molten iron from its radiographic signature, can not simply be brushed under the carpet. Again check the physical fact that open fires, at ideal conditions, can only reach up to 1400F, steel begins to melt at around 2800F. What then can produce molten iron?
4. The second-by-second timelines of the events on 9/11 were corroborated by military/intelligence/defence and NORAD sources and published by Paul Thompson. The standard operating procedures regarding errant aircrafts has been part of the NORAD operating procedure, and deployed regularly, since 1970's and can be inspected and verified.
5. The official US embassy letters to people whose names were given as part of the 19 hijackers, can simply be inspected on the internet and their authenticity verified. These letters, quite clearly, exonerate the people concerned from any activity related to 9/11.

So, I ask once again, put your emotions, empty rhetoric, hand waving and name calling to one side, and objectively examine and scrutinise the available evidence presented and provide corroborated evidence to the contrary to dispute them.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 13:33:47 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:25:11 BDT]

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 14:01:16 BDT
Hi Ku,
Neither could you refute the evidence I put forward. Rather than an instantaneous, irrational knee-jerk reaction to a very important subject that is profoundly affecting all of us, and has resulted in the deaths of over 1,500,000 innocent Afghan and Iraqi people so far, open your mind and objectively scrutinise the evidence and ask for an independent international inquiry into the events of 9/11.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 14:05:20 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 8 Sep 2010 18:18:35 BDT]

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 14:46:26 BDT
Hi Ku,
To the contrary, I know what corroborated evidence is - It's my job. In any case, I believe you are ready to look at just one such evidence. Download and study very carefully the following link which shows the physical presence of nano-thermite explosive material in the twin towers dust. The paper is an internationally peer-reviewed paper written by Professor of Physics - Prof. Steven Jones, Ex-Insurance investigator tasked initially to look at the structural failure of twin towers - Kevin R. Ryan and other co-writers:-

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM

For further corroborative evidence by over 1200 architects and engineers, see www.ae911truth.org. Remember, this is not an assault on you or any other person who accepts the official narrative. This is to show and prove beyond doubt that what we have been told by the US government, falls apart under critical examination faster than the free-fall of the doomed buildings. And, to ask for an independent international inquiry into the events of 9/11 so that we, the international citizenry, can bring to justice the real perpetrators of these atrocities and stop them from happening again.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 15:32:37 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:25:21 BDT]

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 15:56:26 BDT
Damaskcat says:
The explosive material could have come from the planes themselves and been put there by the hijackers.

What about all the other information which ties in with the official line? Or do we just ignore that?

I have no problem with the concept of the American government not being totally honest - they may not have been totally honest for very good reasons of security.

Sky scrapers do tend to collapse within their own footprint - that's how they're designed to cause minimal damage to surrounding buildings if something goes wrong and they collapse.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 16:02:29 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:25:32 BDT]

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 16:08:17 BDT
Hi Ku,

It took me nearly 6 months to read, digest, verify, critically examine and corraborate the paper, its authors and the cited sources therein. And I am used to examining this kind of evidence. I am amazed at how fast you did all of these in about 45 minutes. Put aside your preconceived ideas and the regular rhetoric you've heard and read about the evidence and objectively and critically examine the paper I pointed out. I do not expect to hear from you again, unless you can have a solid and positive contribution to make on this issue.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 16:11:15 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:25:43 BDT]

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 16:20:10 BDT
Hi Damaskcat,

"Sky scrapers do tend to collapse within their own footprint". Says who? Give me just one more example of such a collapse due to open fires before or after 9/11. Over 1200 architects and engineers, whose job it is to design these skyscrapers disagree with you. I can provide many examples of steel-concrete buildings engulfed in infernos for hours, and not just sporadic fires, that did not come down in their own foot-prints and stood tall and almost intact after the fires were put out. I can also provide you myriad of examples of buildings brought down by controlled demolition that show ALL the features of the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 17:05:37 BDT
David Groom says:
Ku,

'Steel doesn't have to be heated to melting temperature before it weakens dramatically.'

And just to add to what Ku says here, you have to take account of the huge kinetic energy of a full aircraft flying at several hundred miles per hour. What happens when an object with kinetic energy comes to a halt, as inside one of the towers? It all turns to heat! So your temperature premise simply doesn't work because it fails to take account of all the energy sources.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 17:56:50 BDT
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010 22:25:56 BDT]

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 19:37:54 BDT
gille liath says:
I don't see any reason to think it was anything other than it appeared to be; except in the sense that the US proclaimed it an 'act of war', an attitude that never made any sense and has caused most of the subsequent problems.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 19:58:49 BDT
M. Jolliff says:
Though naturally inclined towards conspiracy theories (my first thought on the day in question was 'these so-called terrorists are the descendants of those who invented chess and the Hashishim, how in the hell could they be so stupid as to hit the one target in America guaranteed to upset the entire world and justify anything that the Huge Berserk Warthog's son wishes to do) I am in agreement with Gille.

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 20:34:07 BDT
Fazool says:
Hi Doctor,

'It took me nearly 6 months to read, digest, verify, critically examine and corraborate the paper, its authors and the cited sources therein.'

Wow you are spending a lot of time on this! What, in particular made you embark on this mission? What was your starting point? Did you ever believe it was the work of terrorists - the official story? Did you believe that it was the work of the US government from the start and then set about finding ways to prove it?

Posted on 6 Sep 2010 20:40:41 BDT
Dreamer says:
Although naturally suspicious of the US govt I really doubt that 911 was anything other than a particularly brutal terrorist attack. The real disgrace was america's reaction. All those tears and mourning and oh how terrible it all is when its happening to us for once, what about all those people the IRA killed with the help of american funding. Do you get that level of mourning for what they did to vietnam, or iraq, or north korea. What about the nuclear bombing of japan, that was far worse than 911. But no when americans get hurt it is far worse we have to start a war to get revenge and "justice", doesn't really matter if the people we bomb had anything to do with 911, as long as they are the same colour it counts as retribution.
It makes me sick to hear them moan about it. It's pure hypocrisy from the only country ever to use a nuclear bomb in anger.

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 20:46:51 BDT
Withnail says:
Occam's Razor has been mentioned many times on these threads, and basically, being of a scientific bent, you must have an understanding of the idea.

You have spent 6 months ignoring the obvious reason - Muslim Terrorists, and searched out every possible reason to prove it was the much less obvious conclusion - US or Israel.

You haven't confirmed that that is your conclusion, but I am confident that is your idea, unless you think it was Dr Evil???

In reply to an earlier post on 6 Sep 2010 20:52:19 BDT
Withnail says:
Urm - not a great argument.

If you met someone who lost a relative (under any circumstances), it would be rather crass to say to them "WTF, pull yourself together, you only lost one relative while there were millions killed in Hiroshima". Do you see that it doesn't really translate?
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 115 Next ›
[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
 


ARRAY(0xb6980690)
 

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 7 customers

Search Customer Discussions