Learn more Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Click Here Shop Kindle Amazon Music Unlimited for Family Shop now Shop Women's Shop Men's
Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

9/11 - fake, fluke or false flag?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 51-75 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 13:57:41 BST
Damaskcat says:
I would have thought that the shock wave from the two falling buildings could have triggered the collapse of the third - as in an earthquake.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 14:05:32 BST
RABB says:
"Now, rather than premature speculation, name calling and apportioning blame on who could have done this"

What premature speculation? What name calling? And finally, you yourself are apportioning blame squarely at the door of the US Government.

"many tens of thousands of people worldwide, including myself, are demanding an independent, open and international public inquiry into the events of 9/11."

Fine, have it, I don't care. But if such an inquiry actually ends up saying it was terrorists and not the Government, take a look at it objectively before inevitably branding it as corrupt.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 14:39:49 BST
Fazool says:
I would support the idea of a public enquiry if enough evidence suggested that an enquiry was worthwhile. Unfortunately due to the nature of the beast you are dealing with, the fact that there is already a cover up in place, the chances of it ever coming to a conclusion other than, 'It was the terrorists, after all' are very low. Call me a cynic but....

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 15:09:05 BST
Hi Fazool,
Be optimistic. There is already an enormous body of physical evidence collected from a multitude of sources including US government documents, US government officials testimonies under oath to the 9/11 commission itself which have been suppressed and omitted from their final report, oral and written testimonies of survivors, emergency workers, fire-fighters, medical staff, military, intelligence and national security staff, FBI, NORAD and official investigators. These testimonies and evidence, together with the abundance of discrepancies, inaccuracies and omissions in the official story of 9/11 form a very strong and persuasive case for an independent, open and international inquiry into the events of 9/11.

All we, the concerned international citizenry, need to do is to support such a case by demanding from our own respective members of the parliament to put pressure on our governments for such an inquiry to take place.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 16:49:47 BST
Pendragon says:
Dr FS

You mention "4. Presence of pools of molten steel under the skyscrapers for months after 9/11."

I had not come across this issue before. Can you provide a reference which gives some more info on this aspect? Thanks.

Posted on 7 Sep 2010, 17:57:35 BST
Why are people always so strongly against ideas that attempt to challenge what we are spoon-fed? Why does it always have to get so personal and descend into name-calling? Rather than having an open mind and closely looking into facts that potentially affect everyone on this earth and the lives we lead, a lot of people seem to do the much easier thing of jumping on the "anti-conspiracy" band wagon and ridiculing what they don't want to believe could be possible.

I can't say that I blame you, it is scary to admit that the governments and media that we have believed and trusted for so long could be totally corrupt and attempting to control the world. But what may be even scarier is the idea that if you accept that, you now have to try to do something about it. If you actually look into and extensively research these "conspiracy theories" there are a huge amount of interesting and totally viable ideas. However, once you start to wake up to the truth, its hard to go back to your lives safe in the belief that your government is protecting you from harm and you can continue to have all your little comforts and securities.

I believe that this is the reason for all the scorn and brushing aside that takes place.

It really makes me feel sick to see the way people respond to people like Dr Faramarz Shemirani, as if they are doing something profoundly wrong by debating these kinds of issues. I think the reason why most people decide to try to bring these issues to light is because they are trying to prevent all the destruction, loss of life, cruelty and poverty that occurs as a result of these corrupt governments. Yet what they are trying to do (i.e. stopping mass murder and cruelty) is so quickly reduced to immature comments and name-calling.

Ku, its interesting that you say "I won't be returning to this thread, I've already wasted to much time here", yet 7 posts on, here you still are, trying to have your last little word. Judging by the substance of your comments it looks like you simply enjoy arguing for the sake of it, in which case its not just your time you're wasting, its all of ours.

We need to stop wasting our time and energies starting wars, whether its countries at war or Amazon users in a forum, this energy can be put to much better use in trying to help those who are less capable.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 18:12:34 BST
Fazool says:
Don't tarnish everyone with the same brush though. Some of us have only just started visiting forums and these are the first time they have even engaged in some of the debates

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 18:41:28 BST
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010, 22:24:07 BST]

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 18:43:16 BST
Defenceman says:
Miss E Burles,

'I believe that this is the reason for all the scorn and brushing aside that takes place.'

I'm afraid that the real reason is that pretty much all conspiracy theories have no shred of truth in them, and the objections raised end up being explained away by rational and reasoned investigation and argument. Like the moon landings or who shot JFK (or do I mean JR?).

One of the other reasons is the sheer number of people who have to know what's going on and the almost impossible task of stopping them from blowing the story to the press. Not only that, but the sheer quantity of detail that has to be organised is pretty much beyond the capability of most governments and government organisations, most of whom are pretty cumbersome and incompetent. Its almost laughable that the US authorities could have organised what is claimed here and not a single one of the many people who would have to be in the know hasn't blown it wide open. Somebody, somewhere would be tempted by the money on offer to tell their story and I am quite sure some of them would have done so. The silence says it all really.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 19:06:40 BST
Last edited by the author on 7 Sep 2010, 21:30:02 BST
gille liath says:
How can 'anti-conspiracy' be a bandwagon? By definition, it is the normal state of things - ie most things happen for the reason they appear to happen.

Your last para there speaks volumes: a) that you think an argument on a forum is in any way analogous to a war, b) that you think we should stop wasting time trying to use our reason and swallow whatever guff whackos and vested interests come up with. Like others, I'd be willing to entertain theories like this if and when someone comes up with actual, authenticated evidence. 'It stands to reason' is not evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 19:13:19 BST
Last edited by the author on 7 Sep 2010, 19:19:46 BST
gille liath says:
The onus is not on us to prove anything. You're the one who's made a study of it, and you're the one who wants us to believe what, on the face of it, is a fantastic theory.

At the moment, you have a hypothesis: buildings don't fall in that way unless demolished deliberately from below. But you haven't done any testing so, as you must know, scientifically it counts for zero.

Even if you were right, it would be grounds for suspicion, but not in itself proof that the whole thing was cooked up by the CIA. It is purely circumstantial evidence, and I for one would need a lot more than that. There's no theory so whacky that it is not supported by at least a few bits of apparent evidence.

And finally, as Mik says, there's absolutely no point in asking us whether we want the US to have a public enquiry. This isn't X Factor. We have no say in the matter whatever, and they don't give a monkey's what we think.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 19:19:34 BST
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010, 22:23:53 BST]

Posted on 7 Sep 2010, 19:23:00 BST
[Deleted by the author on 8 Sep 2010, 00:31:29 BST]

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 22:58:26 BST
Dreamer says:
Hey I'm not scared of a govt I trust turning out to be fake, i don't trust govts. But having looked at the evidence for a conspiracy i'v come to the conclusion that the american govt just isn't that subtle. They're more the we don't like them lets bomb them sort than the, we don't like them so lets make it look like they bombed us first so that we can pretend it was self defence sort.

In reply to an earlier post on 7 Sep 2010, 23:14:06 BST
[Deleted by the author on 7 Sep 2010, 23:16:54 BST]

Posted on 8 Sep 2010, 00:41:38 BST
Last edited by the author on 8 Sep 2010, 00:45:40 BST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 00:51:40 BST
RABB 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 8 Sep 2010, 00:57:03 BST
RAB - your quite funny, your posted a whole comment telling me what you think about my use of the word logic and debating skills without aruging why my comment was wrong etc etc.....and then you also used the word 'emotionally'.................i think you could be tony blair with a phoney screen name

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 01:02:17 BST
RABB says:
You're right, I didn't argue why your post was wrong because that wasn't the point of the post.

I was basically trying to give you a bit of advice for your future posts. I for one fail to regard a post as reasoned debate when it's written in capital letters.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 09:07:13 BST
Last edited by the author on 8 Sep 2010, 09:10:54 BST
Damaskcat says:
Miss E B wrote: ''can't say that I blame you, it is scary to admit that the governments and media that we have believed and trusted for so long could be totally corrupt and attempting to control the world''

I can't say I've ever trusted the media 100% actually. The UK government hasn't as far as I recall ever really said much about 9/11 apart from the obvious condolences to the bereaved. There is a huge difference between regarding the media and governments with a sceptical eye and assuming that everything they say is fiction.

I don't think anyone has a problem with debating these issues but I would like to see some more evidence rather than odd facts which appear to present a discrepancy. I'm reminded of eye witness testimony when I crime has been committed - there are always things which don't add up and no one ever reports things exactly as they happen - as proved by the famous gorilla in the group of people throwing a basket ball.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 09:28:31 BST
Last edited by the author on 8 Sep 2010, 09:40:39 BST
gille liath says:
Outstanding example there, of just how much the syllogism can be abused by mendacious people.

It's notable that no-one who's weighed in on the side of the good Doctor has been able to do so in measured terms. It's all "Wake up! You're being spoon-fed by mass murderers!" (A disturbing image in itself). If you want a proper debate, return to earth.

Posted on 8 Sep 2010, 09:43:36 BST
Thank you all for your contributions so far. I must re-emphasize the need for an intellectual and evidence based debate. Let us avoid unnecessary emotions and instead deploy constructive, positive and solid arguments to advance this debate. Hence, I have a piece of information below that I would like you all to check first and then respond. Here it goes:-

During the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Secretary of Trasportation Norman Mineta issued an order to ground all civilian aircraft traffic for the first time in U.S. history.
Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission about his experience in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as American Airlines flight 77 approached the Pentagon was not included in the 9/11 Commission Report. You can watch the video clip of Norman Mineta's actual testimony to the 9/11 Commission on the net at www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
Mineta testifies that the vice president Dick Cheney refers to orders concerning the plane approaching the Pentagon:
"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."
Commissioner Lee Hamilton queried if the order was to shoot down the plane, to which Mineta replied that he did not know that specifically.
The standard procedure is to automatically shoot down any aircraft that does not carry the US military transponder signature fof (friend or foe) within the P52 zone - A 50-mile security zone around Pentagon and all the surrounding buildings. This means that even, as claimed later by some that the approaching plane's transponder was turned off, it would have been automatically shut down as it would not have been transmitting any signatures. Therefore, the only conclusion that can reasonably be made from Norman Mineta's testimony is that the US Vice President Dick Cheney had given orders to stand down, i.e. not to shoot the plane down. Why?

Check the written version of Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission on the US government's own web site at:
http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

In 2007, Norman Mineta confirms that Dick Cheney ordered the Stand Down on 9/11, see http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/260607_mineta.html

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 10:42:41 BST
Pendragon says:
You seem to have overlooked my request for a reference which gives some more info on the aspect mentioned in your OP, "4. Presence of pools of molten steel under the skyscrapers for months after 9/11."

Are you able to provide a reference? Thanks.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 10:53:30 BST
Hi Pendragon,
Yes I am able to provide references. I prepared 14 references for you last night but forgot to bring them with me to post. I will post these references tomorrow for you. In the meantime, you could go to youtube and search for "molten steel 9/11" and you get loads of video clips of firefigthers and cleanup workers saying that there were pools of molten steel like in a foundary under the buildings. There you can also see NASA's own thermal images of the site that show temperatures in excess of 1300 degrees C. You can also see pictures of steel beams dripping with molten steel as they are being pulled out of the rubble. A very good source and analysis is Richard Gage's video also on youtube that deals with molten iron as well as many many other not publicised evidence, interviews and testimonies regarding the fallen buildings.

In reply to an earlier post on 8 Sep 2010, 11:08:23 BST
Pendragon says:
Thanks Dr FS [I hope you don't mind if I call you that, your full moniker is quite long ;-)], I'll look out for them tomorrow. In the meantime, I will check out the YouTube stuff.
[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
Man made global warming computer models 25 6 minutes ago
JC's Labour to win the next GE 12 40 minutes ago
The beginning of the end for Uber? 55 53 minutes ago
Mark Twain said of adjectives, “if you meet one, kill it.” 6 1 hour ago
Why do we need firmly bosomed girls standing behind boxers...smiling...? 22 1 hour ago
Great news... 0 2 hours ago
Will the North Korean people be able to deal with Trump banning them from his wonderful country? 0 2 hours ago
Victory for the poppy police. 0 3 hours ago
Is it getting worse or is it just the idiots imagination? 0 6 hours ago
How will we do it? 0 7 hours ago
One of our strongest delusions is that negative emotions are produced by circumstances, rather than realising that the causes are inside us. 5 10 hours ago
Prepare to defend the DPRK and the world from the mad man... 54 11 hours ago
 

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