seriously america!?

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by Wren57

haha bringing up loose change. have you read this whole thread? I get the feeling the answer is no. you are exactly the type of person steve is talking about when he refers to sheep.

why even bother with planes if there were planted explosives? why not just blow the damn thing up and say it was another bombing like in, what was it, 92? Oh, I guess the gov't tried it then and it didn't work so they had to come up with a better idea so they could listen to your phone calls and enforce UN resolutions. that makes sense.

Why not do that? Do you really think we could've sold the public on the idea that a small group of terrorists would have the strategic and engineering knowledge to bring either building down? Hell...they're having a hard time selling this mess of bullshit they've come up with so far.

And actually, when I say sheep, I'm refering to you, Wren. People like you and Rob who just kind of went "well George Bush goes to muh church so I surely do believe him" and then claimed it's all common sense. You know...like there's anything common or any sense involved with bringing down 3 very large buildings.. You both claim that I'm close minded, but instead of taking anything I've said with even a grain of salt, you immediately had to search for something to counter the idea...something that fit into what you believe is reality. You keep saying my arguments are weak and whatnot, but anything you've posted is just as speculatory. If anyone had any real concrete facts, no one would have any grounds to argue any of this.

And you're right Rob...the evidence has been put out...on the towers. The pentagon is a whole other story.

[Wren57]

Nice assumptions about mine and Rob's character, Steve. For the record, I haven't been to church in 5-6 years and don't really think Bush is doing that great of a job. 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not you support Bush, it has to do with members of an organization that hate us and have repeatedly called for jihad against America and Americans hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I do look at every argument you present, and when it doesn't fit together with your other arguments, I find online *factual* websites and post *statistics* proving your discrepencies, no whatreallyhappened.com websites and obvious propoganda bullshit. I look at the *facts* of who hijacked the plane, what they did with it, the effectiveness of the plane as a weapon, and the result. I don't know how that could be any more concrete. From that I draw my conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe that terrorists hijacked the plane and brought down the towers? Would you like non-stop video footage of the people shaking hands with bin Laden, coming into the US, going through flight-school, going through airport security, hijacking the plane and flying it into the buildings... then you'd need a camera on every weight-bearing beam in the WTC to ensure they crumpled under the hundreds of tons of weight after being weaked by a giant airplane crashing into them and the jet-fuel burn afterwards. Please answer this question with a real answer and not a "Bush is bad, bad man" answer.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by Wren57

Nice assumptions about mine and Rob's character, Steve. For the record, I haven't been to church in 5-6 years and don't really think Bush is doing that great of a job. 9/11 has nothing to do with whether or not you support Bush, it has to do with members of an organization that hate us and have repeatedly called for jihad against America and Americans hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. I do look at every argument you present, and when it doesn't fit together with your other arguments, I find online *factual* websites and post *statistics* proving your discrepencies, no whatreallyhappened.com websites and obvious propoganda bullshit. I look at the *facts* of who hijacked the plane, what they did with it, the effectiveness of the plane as a weapon, and the result. I don't know how that could be any more concrete. From that I draw my conclusions.

Just out of curiosity, what would it take for you to believe that terrorists hijacked the plane and brought down the towers? Would you like non-stop video footage of the people shaking hands with bin Laden, coming into the US, going through flight-school, going through airport security, hijacking the plane and flying it into the buildings... then you'd need a camera on every weight-bearing beam in the WTC to ensure they crumpled under the hundreds of tons of weight after being weaked by a giant airplane crashing into them and the jet-fuel burn afterwards. Please answer this question with a real answer and not a "Bush is bad, bad man" answer.

Ask and ye shall receive. Let me start by saying that although Al Qaeda claims to want to declare a jihad on America, they simply don't have the means to pull off an effective attack. The media constantly reported that some dipshit wanna-be pilot crashed an airliner into the pentagon in manuevers that most top gun pilots couldn't pull off (500mph, just feet from the ground).

Actually, the websites you look at are just as suspect as anything I could provide. Face it...everyone has an agenda and they will bend facts to meet their agenda. Any site you could pull a "fact" off of (including government website) is nol ess "propoganda bullshit" thatn anything I could site. You know why facts don't matter here? Because there are no facts readily available to the public...it's ALL speculation. You can accuse me of not knowing the ins and outs of structural engineering (I'll readily admit I'm not a scholar in the subject), but you claim to know better than me. You don't. My guess is that you're a business major which would include nothing in the fields of structural engineering or architecture. No one in the public really knows what brought those buildings down. Not me, not you...no one. So my speculation as to why they came down is as much "common sense" as yours. The reason I asked that no one include Wikipedia is that any poor dumb son of a bitch can add an entry there. There's no filter on what goes up and what doesn't. Sure...if you submit bogus shit it will get deleted...eventually. Until then it's open for anyone to see. If you don't like whatreallyhappened.com (a site I have actually never really looked at aside from those videos), I can find a miriad of others.

What would it take for me to believe the government's account of 9/11? Nothing short of a miracle. Dimes to dollars even if they aren't lying about the official cause (which is virtually implausible), you just know they're lying about something. You know all of that bitching people did about the pantagon attacks? All the government would've had to do is release a few surveillance tapes. At the very least, 3 cameras should have caught the event, but all tapes were confiscated and we were given 5 (count 'em...5) frames of footage that are so distorted it could be anything. Shit...I could chuck a cardboard box at the pentagon and acheive the same results. Somebody somewhere is lying about something and the entire administration is sticking with the lie because if they don't then they all go down.

You don't have to listen to me...just look at some things collected by some people with a LOT more free time than I have:

http://www.rense.com/Datapages/ess911.htm

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

[Wren57]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

What would it take for me to believe the government's account of 9/11? Nothing short of a miracle... you just know they're lying about something.

Nope, I don't "just know they're lying about something." The sequence of events dating back to the creating of Israel makes perfect logical chronological sense... to me, at least. Another question to you: what war did we start in reaction to 9/11? If you say Afghanistan, I'm going to ask what we have to gain by being in Afghanistan. If you say Iraq, I'm going to point you to a UN resolution that could have been upheld using force regardless of the existance of 9/11. Oh, it was just used to get popular support for a war? Well, it was NEVER a popular war; even before entering Iraq the country was split on whether we should go or not. So, since we can't see eye to eye on the physical evidence, I guess the motive argument can now be addressed.

The only possible motive I can see is that it has led to an expansion of federal and executive powers, but that also is not popular and could've happened without 9/11 due to the SCOTUS being loaded with federalists. Here is where you say "No it couldn't have happened" like you know for sure... well, legally speaking, it still could have happened. If anything, there is going to be a huge backlash against federal power because of all of this... and you don't think that if this is a long-plotted conspiracy, that these conspiracy plotters would think long-term about the political and social consequences?

[AzCivic]

why can't the conspircy theorists agree on what their conspiracy is? if this was all put together by the gov't why did they crash the 4th plane in a field? just to make us scratch our heads?

why question what crashed into the pentagon? if the gov't had control of 3 planes why couldn't they have control of another to crash into the pentagon?

I like how steve likes to belittle those who are religous, yet his famous professor is a mormon who's greatest work is "Proof that Christ visited central america".

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by Wren57

Nope, I don't "just know they're lying about something." The sequence of events dating back to the creating of Israel makes perfect logical chronological sense... to me, at least. Another question to you: what war did we start in reaction to 9/11? If you say Afghanistan, I'm going to ask what we have to gain by being in Afghanistan. If you say Iraq, I'm going to point you to a UN resolution that could have been upheld using force regardless of the existance of 9/11. Oh, it was just used to get popular support for a war? Well, it was NEVER a popular war; even before entering Iraq the country was split on whether we should go or not. So, since we can't see eye to eye on the physical evidence, I guess the motive argument can now be addressed.

The only possible motive I can see is that it has led to an expansion of federal and executive powers, but that also is not popular and could've happened without 9/11 due to the SCOTUS being loaded with federalists. Here is where you say "No it couldn't have happened" like you know for sure... well, legally speaking, it still could have happened. If anything, there is going to be a huge backlash against federal power because of all of this... and you don't think that if this is a long-plotted conspiracy, that these conspiracy plotters would think long-term about the political and social consequences?

To your first question, I actually think of Afghanistan and Iraq as the same war. I look at one as build up to the other. I think we were promised both would be quick and clean..."shock and awe" and whatnot...and both turned out to be miserable. People have pretty much forgotten about Afghanistan these days, but a friend of mine stationed in Iraq said you couldn't pay him enough to transfer to Afghanistan. Yeah, we could have gone into either country without everything that happened...but who would our allies be? I don't even think England would've back us if all we had was a U.N. resolution. I also think both events just fueled the bias and, in many cases, hatred of islam as a whole in this country. I'm not one of those people who go against racial profiling...I mean in the hypothetical if 19 guys hijack planes and do nasty shit with them and they all happen to be arab, I think it's fair to lean on arabs a bit. But people have used islam to justify a lot of things and they've perverted the religion to suit they're needs. Sure, there are people who'll go crazy with religion, but that's true of just about any religion (and that goes double for this country).

As for motive, if it's not war then it's, as you pointed out, expantion of powers or the suspension of civilian rights. True, we could have done it without any fireworks, but it's amazing how compliable people become with a good dose of fear and an even bigger dose of ethnocentrism and nationalism. Suddenly people looked at the PATRIOT Act...arguably the most unpatriotic document ever written...and just accepted it. Hell...some people even supported it and still do, all in the name of the "greater good". Do you really think this would've flown without the fear of terrorism? You think Jonh Q. Dipshit would think it's ok to suspend habeus corpus and tap people's phones without court orders or the presentation of any evidence? I mean essentially it makes the constitution null and void. I honestly don't think any of that could've been accomplished without a severe catalyst.

And Rob...I'm not exactly sure what you have issue with. Are you asking me why different people have different ideas? That's really beyond me. I know you're not used to people having differing opinions, but it really does happen. And yes...I do enjoy belittling religion because it breeds this sort of sheep-like following where "if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it".

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

And Rob...I'm not exactly sure what you have issue with. Are you asking me why different people have different ideas? That's really beyond me. I know you're not used to people having differing opinions, but it really does happen. And yes...I do enjoy belittling religion because it breeds this sort of sheep-like following where "if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it".

I have issue with this supposed conspiracy that not even the conspiracy theorists themselves can agree on. How can you present an argument to what the gov't says happened if you don't even know what you are trying to say. We get that they(you) think the gov't had something to do with it, but if you're going to provide an alternative at least agree on what the hell that alternative is.

"if he said it, it must be true. Ok...well...I don't have any proof at all really, but HE said it"

LOL says the one who, with no proof of his own and very weak evidence provided by others, is arguing that the gov't killed thousands of its own people just to get a little more power and get a couple of allies to help us (as if we need it) attack Iraq.

way to dodge the questions, and make up replies to something that wasn't even asked.

[Gone]

I'm not getting into this argument but I just wanted to state that GT was almost completely correct saying that it'd be rare for a building as tall as that to come crashing down in a perfect line.

Yet, I'm not saying it is impossible. Almost everything is possible just give it time, but in a physics calculation that building might as well have been made of wood to not put up with that resistance (besides the fact that wood wouldn't hold shit, just something weaker than metal to say).

You also have to think about the strength of the plane's initial impact on the building. That first connection with a steel beam could make the entire building structurely unsound, depending on the level of engineering each floor was put into mind.

I'm not sure how the building was crafted so I leave no remark on it. Maybe those "terrorists" knew where it's weak points were (from some anonymous person(s)). Everything has it's possibilities until proven otherwise.

[AzCivic]

Originally Posted by Gone

I'm not getting into this argument but I just wanted to state that GT was almost completely correct saying that it'd be rare for a building as tall as that to come crashing down in a perfect line.

first off it didn't fall completely straight, the portion above the crash did tilt. so the crash obviously messed something up. secondly what do you expect, it to just lean over like the leaning tower of pisa and then fall? its not a jenga game, i'm sure it had an extremely strong base to prevent it from just tipping over.

[AzCivic]

you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

you know what's funny? if the gov't would've said not only did terrorists crash into the towers with planes they also planted explosives and thermite devices, Steve would be arguing some other crack pot point of view, like the gov't used a ground shaking device to bring the buildings down. "you know how much explosives and thermite it'd take to take down a couple of buildings like that!?" he'd ask, and then explain how it'd be impossible to follow through with such a plan w/ out being found out. Its not the evidence to the contrary that made up his mind, its the fact that the gov't told him it happened a certain way so he just can't accept it.

Actually, what's really funny is that you've really begun talking way out of your ass in a (once again) complete lack of a cohesive thought process. If the government could take a serious and unbiased look at everything that happened, I'd shut my mouth. They had that dog and pony show that they called the 9/11 Commission, but there are no less than 115 pieces of evidence either omitted or ignored. Most of this evidence is well documented and not anywhere close to the conspiracy fringe (although some of it is admittedly suspect). Much like the joke that was the Warren Commission (you know people run out of ideas when they turn to magic), the government pretended to search for the truth but ended up feeding the public the most feeble explanation they could come up with. Every time I see a "commission" being formed, I just have this sneaking suspicion I'm about to be fed a load of bullshit. Now that I think about it, all the government would've had to do to shut people up is say "yeah, they put those explosives there before hand". Since they haven't and it would have significantly bolstered their case, I'm guessing they don't have any answer for it.

And to quickly touch on your reply to Gone, if the top of the tower (all floors above the effected area) toppled over sideways, where's the impetus for the rest of the building to fall straight down? I mean...the effected area should either pull the whole building over with it or it would relieve structural pressure on the lower floors leaving them intact. What you're talking about is a building essentially falling vertically in an almost upside down "L" shape. I'm no structural engineer, but I really don't see that happening.

As I said back on the first page of this thread, this is exactly why it's so hard to have any reasonable discussion on this topic or any subject like it. I could provide you with independently verified video of Bush with his finger on the button and you'd still call me a "crack pot" or whatever colorful yet useless euphamism about me being crazy simply because I question what I've been told. If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.

[Gone]

I don't stick my head into public issues since I hardly care, so I was not informed of how the buildling fell. I was just stating that from what was said in this thread. Don't mind me.

[CD5Passion]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

If you can live with what you've been told, plot holes and spelling errors included, that's cool. I can't. It doesn't make me or anyone else crazy. It makes me curious and inquisitive. And really, for every "weak" piece of evidence I've presented, you've come back with something equally as inconclusive...so why the hell am I still getting this "weak argument" bullshit? Face it...you can't prove your end of it any more than I can prove mine.

with that said I think this thread is pretty much done for. I'm sorry I brought it up in the first place...haha wait didn't this thread start with a focus on NorKor?....interesting..

but like steve said you people can't prove your side anymore than we can prove ours.

[AzCivic]

our pesky gov't is at it again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/..._the_big_one_8

quick steve scour the internet and write a big huge post whining about how whatever we're being told is a lie!

[Wren57]

This was clearly orchestrated by the government to remind the people why they should be afraid and why they should trade their liberty for security. Duh.

[AzCivic]

For reals! Didn't you see V for Vendetta?

[GT40FIED]

Originally Posted by AzCivic

our pesky gov't is at it again!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060810/..._the_big_one_8

quick steve scour the internet and write a big huge post whining about how whatever we're being told is a lie!

Why the hell would I do that? That's a much more plausible course of events given the capabilities of a bunch of limey brits. Besides, since those flights would've blown up over the ocean going from the UK to the US, sounds like it was aimed more at UK citizens. Let that puppet Blair deal with it.

[AzCivic]

I just hope I don't get the rubber glove treatment before I board my plane this saturday...

"Sir, you do know this generic hair gel is against the rules and in bad taste right?"

"Sorry I forgot, what do you mean bad taste?"

"Spread 'em"

[GT40FIED]

What if you're already wearing the hair gel? Theoretically you could just blow your head up mid flight, couldn't you? I'd like to know a little more about what these people were carrying exactly. All the news said was that it was in liquid form.

[CD5Passion]

Originally Posted by GT40FIED

What if you're already wearing the hair gel? Theoretically you could just blow your head up mid flight, couldn't you? I'd like to know a little more about what these people were carrying exactly. All the news said was that it was in liquid form.

yeah really, haha they had nitroglycerin..thatd be insane O_O