9/11 Thread

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Rummelsdorf, Dec 12, 2011.

  1. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    Ok, i'm trying not to bore you, but since i have researched it very deeply, here is my point:<br><i>I am only considering the attack on the WTC in NYC, since it is very well documented (dozens of cameras documenting the events), I will not go into the other two supposed plane crashes due to lack of evidence.</i><br>Here are my facts:<br>The three WTC skyscrapers collapsed <u>completely, through the way of greatest resistance and even accelerated.</u><br>This is completely unrealistic for a collapse caused by structural damage (plane impacts) and or fires.<br>In order to collapse in the observed manner, all three towers had to have been rigged / prepared / fixed.<br>(Don't BELIEVE me, i bet you everything in my possession that you can not reproduce such a collapse with any structure and any material under laboratory conditions!)<br>Were the 19 Muslims able to actually do the fixing / rigging / preparation of the towers?<br>My claim: No way could they have secretly rigged WTC7, which was housing several US intelligence agencies / secret services. So who did it?<br>I have no clue who did 9/11, i have my thoughts, but i will not point fingers.<br>The fact that the '9/11 commission' did not even try to investigate those accomplices makes it very clear for me: Inside Job.<br>And it would not even have been the first time that motivation for going to war was created / manipulated:<br>I don't see a war of the US, that was not justified with manipulated evidence: MS Lucitania, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin incident, USS Liberty, Incubator lie, WMDs & 9/11.<br><br>Wargames:<br>Webster Tarpley has found out that on 8-9/11 there were about 19 military exercises, some of which contained simulated events very closely to what actually happened on 9/11.<br>The attacks in London on 7/7 were similar: Peter Power was on the BBC on 7/7 and told us that he and his consulting firm were actually doing a wargame exercise WHILE the attack occured, and then they switched from exercise to real emergency. He told us that they wanted to simulate PRECISELY what happened, when it happened, and where it happened...<br><br>I could provide sources, but google / youtube will find everything if you search propperly...<br><br>I'll proof-read tomorrow, please don't mock me, i am sincere!<br>Good night!
     
  2. Ryan Wigglesworth

    Ryan Wigglesworth Senior Member

    1,570
    0
    0
    The 9/11 Commission tried to find the truth but was stonewalled with major lack of funding and tight lipped politicians who wouldn't even testify alone when asked. <br><br>More was spent investigating Clinton's sex life than was spent investigating the events surrounding 9/11.... No charges were ever laid on any man, osama or otherwise either.<br><br>There are many questions that are not answered, and many pieces that fit together to form convincing evidence of complicity by govt officials and ngos as well as the alphabet bureaus. This goes higher than the govt though boys, dont be foolish enough to think that george bush is the mastermind LOL, but also its critical to not let this bring fear to you, the attacks were meant to generate fear on a wide scale, if you believe that the govt is capable of that then you now fear the govt. hook, line and sinker you fell for their agenda....actually you are taking part in it...
     

  3. SkauneJohan

    SkauneJohan Member

    144
    0
    16
    anyone who think it was planes that destroyed wtc is know nothing about collapsing buildings<br><br>i would recomend watching: zeitgeist the movie (just google it) it has many interesting standpoints around wtc religion and money<br><br><br>just because media says something, it doesn't mean it is true....<br><br>personaly i think it MIGHT have been an inside job to get usa into war<br><br>cheers dudes<br><br><br>
     
  4. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>Ryan Wigglesworth wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">[...]This goes higher than the govt though boys, dont be foolish enough to think that george bush is the mastermind LOL, but also its critical to not let this bring fear to you, the attacks were meant to generate fear on a wide scale,[...]</td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br><br>Exactly, G.W. Bush was a puppet the same way B. Obama is a puppet right now, the only difference between them is the color of their tie ... Look at the interests who made them presidents...<br><br>Here is a correction: I bet you everything in my possession that you can <br>not reproduce such a collapse with any structure and any material under <br>laboratory conditions, <strong>without the use of explosives (or other incendiaries)</strong> !<br><br>So were Muslims involved? Definitely, they left so many traces that one has to wonder if those were left intentionally... But were they the real perpetrators of the crime, or were they just patsies, pawns that were present just to sacrifice them(blame them, have a scape-goat)?<br><br>On youtube.com/physicsandreason there are the best scientific experiments that prove that the WTC could not have collapsed from plane damage and jet fuel fires alone!<br><br>Glad to see that some in this forum already know.</span>
     
  5. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
    I totally believe that radical muslim terrorists were behind the attack. Just like almost every other terrorist attack in my lifetime. I also think that the US government, along with the other major governments in Europe and elsewhere, knew much more than what they say they did. I won't go into what was and wasn't investigated, and I'm not an explosives expert, or an engineer, or a demolitions expert, (although I'm pretty good at breaking things.) All governments, not just the US got what they really wanted, tighter control of their 'subjects' in the name of security. I would like to ask some of the UK members, since this is an international forum, if what I have heard about is really true. Has the government actually made it basically a crime to defend yourself from an attack? I've heard you can't even carry a pocket knife now. In the US, the government can now 'detain' you for as long as they like, with no charges ever filed against you, because they consider you a 'threat to security' whatever that may mean....
     
  6. Ryan Wigglesworth

    Ryan Wigglesworth Senior Member

    1,570
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>JayG wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">I totally believe that radical muslim terrorists were behind the attack. Just like almost every other terrorist attack in my lifetime. I also think that the US government, along with the other major governments in Europe and elsewhere, knew much more than what they say they did. I won't go into what was and wasn't investigated, and I'm not an explosives expert, or an engineer, or a demolitions expert, (although I'm pretty good at breaking things.) All governments, not just the US got what they really wanted, tighter control of their 'subjects' in the name of security. I would like to ask some of the UK members, since this is an international forum, if what I have heard about is really true. Has the government actually made it basically a crime to defend yourself from an attack? I've heard you can't even carry a pocket knife now. In the US, the government can now 'detain' you for as long as they like, with no charges ever filed against you, because they consider you a 'threat to security' whatever that may mean....</td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br><br>Familiarize yourself with this : False Flag attacks for further reference on real events :<br><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair</a><br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods</a></span>
     
  7. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>JayG wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">I totally believe [...]</td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br>Thats the power of the media.<br>Sou you claim that the governments got what they wanted .. so they just sit idly and wait for terrorist attacks in order to get what they want?<br>There are two popular views on 9/11: LIHOP and MIHOP<br>Let It Happen On Purpose<br>Make It Happen On Purpose<br><br>Do you go with LIHOP?<br>Then how could AlQaeda rig those three skyscrapers?!?<br>The twin towers had a steel structure stronger than a battle ship. Try collapsing that with a few tons of jet fuel... Jet fuel is a form of hydro-carbon, like methane or wood, and it can not burn any hotter than those.<br>Did your steel stove ever collapse?<br><br>I believe Al-CIAda would be a better name for the real terrorists...<br><br>Btw: Remember the WTC Bombing in 1993? Turns out the leader of the extremist group was an informant for the FBI, and the bureau even supplied the group with the explosives. The informant believed they were part of a drill and only became suspicious after he had been given REAL explosives and ordered to use them. He then recorded the phone calls with his FBI contact on tape. The NYTimes even published an article about it. The TV spun it towards "The FBI could have prevented the bombing" (if they had given the muslim cell fake explosives)...</span>
     
  8. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
     
  9. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>JayG wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">I believe every one of the pilots and others that took over those planes were muslim terrorists. </td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br>I know that many people still believe the official conspiracy theory, that's why i started this thread.<br><br>So is it a religion, or can you prove that you were not lied to through the media?<br><br>The unnatural collapse of the WTC is documented without a reasonable doubt. (WTC (twin towers) was a steel tube in tube structure, not steel re-enforced concrete)<br>So even IF there were terrorists on the planes, the demolition of the three skyscrapers was definitely an inside job.<br>I forgot that those towers collapsed <strong>through the way of greatest resistance</strong>. <br>Reproduce that under lab conditions and i'll guarantee you a Nobel prize in physics...</span>
     
  10. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>Rummelsdorf wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote"> So is it a religion, or can you prove that you were not lied to through the media?<br><br>I forgot that those towers collapsed <strong>through the way of greatest resistance</strong>. <br>Reproduce that under lab conditions and i'll guarantee you a Nobel prize in physics...</td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br><br><br><br>Religion has nothing to do with it, I don't understand your question. It could have just as well been radical right wing christians, I don't care. Can you really prove we were lied to? I think the witnesses that called out from the planes made it pretty clear who they were, or, I guess according to you, that was fabricated also? Straight down is not the way of greatest resistance, it's called gravity. If they had jumped up in the air first, that would have been the way of greatest resistance.<br><br>There's a pretty good example at about 1:15 of a building coming straight down just like the towers did in this video.<br><br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU&feature=player_detailpage" class="postlink" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU&feature=player_detailpage</a><br><br>Notice how they do it? they take out a few support columns, they don't blow up the entire building. What is different about the towers compaired to these buildings? The towers started to collapse at the point where the planes hit, not the bottom. In a building that big, it really wouldn't take that much to bring it down, it's own weight does most of the work.<br><br>Now, on the other hand, I do not believe or trust the media most of the time either. The stories are slanted to whichever way they want you to think. The details of this incident are probably way off from the real story, but the major points are probably pretty close.</span>
     
  11. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>JayG wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">
    <br>There's a pretty good example at about 1:15 of a building coming straight down just like the towers did in this video.<br><br>
    </td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br><br>The Content Mafia does not allow me to watch that video...<br>But those demolitions were probably not comparable at all:<br>It was not a steel structure like the twin towers, it is openly claimed to be demolished with explosives, and the collapse certainly did not speed up when the potential energy was used to destroy parts of the building.<br><br>When a moving mass collides with a stationary mass, it always slows down.<br>There is a demolition technique where the middle of the building is cleared, and the last standing support structures are then toppled (without explosives), and the upper part of the building completely crushes the lower part. Due to Newtons third law, actio = reactio, it has to start in the middle, because X levels above can only crush X levels below. So if a twin tower would not have been a battle ship like steel structure, and a symmetrical collapse would have been initiated (highly unlikely after asymmetrical plane damage), 20 floors (e.g.) above could only destroy 20 floors below.<br><br>And how about WTC7? It even accelerated like free fall for 100 feet... Impossible without being rigged. That means someone knew in advance and rigged the buildings. That means 9/11 was NOT a surprise attack.<br>I also doubt that there was a passenger plane flown into the pentagon, and that it was a passenger plane that made that crater near Shanksville...<br><br>With all these wargame exercises going on on 9/11, i have no doubt that they were used as a cover.<br>I don't claim that the 'phone calls' from the planes were faked, or part of an exercise, but i believe it would be totally possible...<br><br>Have you read about Operation Northwoods? There they would have produced a fake radio message from an unmanned plane, after it had been switched with the real one...<br><br>Have i written that i don't find a single war of the USA after 1933, where the reason for the US to go to war was not manipulated or faked?</span>
     
  12. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
    So... It's easier for you to believe someone rigged two skyscrapers with enough high explosives to bring them down, faked plane crashes, killed thousands, and covered it up so well that only a handful of people like yourself know the real truth than it is to believe a group of radical Muslims that profess a deep hatred for the US and tend to blow themselves up quite regularly hijacked some planes and flew them into some really big hard to miss skyscrapers trying to kill as many Americans as they could?
     
  13. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>JayG wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">So... It's easier for you to believe someone rigged two skyscrapers with enough high explosives to bring them down, faked plane crashes, killed thousands, and covered it up so well that only a handful of people like yourself know the real truth than it is to believe a group of radical Muslims that profess a deep hatred for the US and tend to blow themselves up quite regularly hijacked some planes and flew them into some really big hard to miss skyscrapers trying to kill as many Americans as they could? </td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br>Make that three skyscrapers. They didn't just blow themselves to dust. It is easier to believe, because it is supported by well-documented evidence (footage of the collapses). What hard evidence does exist for the 'Muslims did 9/11' theory? I believe those Muslims that are claimed to have been involved in 9/11 and that did not show up alive and well after 9/11 (many reportedly did) were indeed involved, as patsies, unknowingly, to take the blame.<br><br>I could list a huge number of related facts, like where they got their visas (google "michael springman visa CIA"), where they were trained at US military bases (9/11 Hijackers trained U.S. military bases) or how close they were to the FBI (How the FBI protected AlQaedas 9/11 Hijacking Trainer)...<br><br>All just coincidence?</span>
     
  14. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
    Let's look at a little history. Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Yes. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? yes. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? yes. Is there any other cases where the government has hijacked airliners? No. Any other cases where the government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? No. any cases where the government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? No. Suppose It was a conspiracy, What was the intent? If it was to bring down the Towers, why demolish from the top down? That's not how any other controlled demolitions are done. Or maybe the intent was simply to crash planes into the Towers and produce casualties but not cause building collapse at all. Which would mean the collapses were unintentional, and came down on their own. Why use planes at all? Why not simply stage a bigger and better remake of the 1993 attack? Why not claim the terrorists detonated a large truck load of explosives at the central core of the building? Why have a time gap between the plane crashes and building collapse, and why did the South Tower, which was hit later, fall first? Because it was hit lower and had more mass above the weak sections.<br><br>What do you mean by a 'battleship' construction? It was called tube construction, because the inside was mainly an open design with support columns in the center and outer walls. It was still a standard steel beam building. No armor plating, just standard building grade steel. (and like I said, built by the lowest bidder) There's plenty of old photos showing the construction back in the 60's. The structure near the top isn't designed to hold up to a 100 story load, only 25 to 30, it isn't as strong as the base. The crash weakened one or two floors to the point of failure and gravity did the rest. <br><br>Enough with the "Operation Northwoods" stuff. It didn't happen. It was planned, but didn't happen. They had a lot of "what if" things wrote up. Every country does. If you want to throw things like that out there, how about the Gleiwitz incident, a staged attack by Nazi forces posing as Poles to justify invading Poland, the Mukden incident, engineered by the Japanese military as an excuse for invading northern China, there's been several false flag ops put on by the Russians, not to mention the tar sand fiasco going on with Canada and the US to offload polluted Canadian oil to China right now, I mean come on! every government in the world pulls crap like that. It's nothing new, but this doesn't fall into the same catagory. If it was a conspiracy, it wasn't very well thought out, and if it wasn't well thought out, it would have been blown wide open by now, involving thousands of people. It was way too sloppy to have been a planned demolition. <br><br>The government DID take advantage of the situation, as did big business. It was exploited to the fullest extent possible. "Buy a new TV or the terrorists win" "we need to strip search your 85 year old mother so we're all safer on airplanes" kind of crap, and the media played right along, and they all profited from it, either in ratings, dollars or power.
     
  15. andreas

    andreas New Member

    31
    0
    0
    My god, what is a 9/11 thread doing on a slingshot-enthousiasts forum. <br><br>I know this is the off-topic section and this forum is somewhat informal organised. (which I think is a great thing) But the internet is allready swarming with discussions about this kind of things. What's next, aliën abductions? <br><br>I'm serious, what's the need of discussing. Somehow some people can´t resist it.
     
  16. SkauneJohan

    SkauneJohan Member

    144
    0
    16
    <table width="90%" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0" border="0" align="center">
    <tr><td><span class="genmed"><b>andreas wrote:</b></span></td></tr>
    <tr><td class="quote">My god, what is a 9/11 thread doing on a slingshot-enthousiasts forum. <br><br><br><br>I'm serious, what's the need of discussing. Somehow some people can´t resist it. </td></tr>
    </table>
    <span class="postbody"><br><br>I agree, instead of starting argument and disagreement, let the love for slingshots bond us instead<br><br>we all have different opinions and the truth is media lies a lot, just like polititians but in every lie there is some truth also......</span>
     
  17. JayG

    JayG New Member

    31
    0
    0
    I just wanted to see what he had to say. So far it seems more like he doesn't like the US than anything else. I know I will not change his mind, it was made up a long time ago. I'm also not taking it personal, everyone is entitled to an opinion, right or wrong. This is the off topic area, as long as we keep it a civilized discussion I don't see a problem with it. If there is, the moderator can delete it at any time.
     
  18. SkauneJohan

    SkauneJohan Member

    144
    0
    16
    I am just feeling some tension and i wanna stop a discussion before it goes too far <img src="http://illiweb.com/fa/i/smiles/icon_razz.gif" alt="Razz" longdesc="9">
     
  19. Rummelsdorf

    Rummelsdorf New Member

    51
    0
    0
    I'm sorry! I didn't want to cause any dissent.