FEMA Camps

Now I know you don't like serious things in this forum, but I have this urge to warn people. Hate me for that. What do you think about the FEMA Camps they've been building the last few years? Interesting thing about them is that the fence faces inwards like in prison - the threat is people escaping, rather than people infiltrating.

(interesting after 0:50)


Here is a big movie if anyone is interested.


What do you think about the coffins? How many bodies per coffin?

Pics of the brand new FEMA trains.

whats FEMA?

The Federal Agency that is asigned to deal with Civil Unrest/Rebelion.

pretty sure this was posted once before on LP, but cant seem to find the thread now..

the intention of this conspiracy theory is to make people believe the american government is aware of a future event in which hundreds of thousands of americans are going to be needed to be buried suddenly?

i'm all for questioning things and finding out deeper reasonings and shit, but this one makes zero sense to me.

maybe because the people theorizing seemed pretty hare-brained, i dunno.

"we found the website where we think where these disposable coffins were made at, and we noticed that the lids that they're advertising on the website are rounded.. but the lids, hundreds of thousands of lids there. the lids we found were flat. and they were reinforced. you know what that could mean? that means you can stack them onto each other. that's a lot neater."

"america can stomach this much better"

it's settled. this conspiracy is flawless. they're flat! shit is whack!

On April 05 2011 18:53 devon06atX wrote: i'm all for questioning things and finding out deeper reasonings and shit, but this one makes zero sense to me. .

So what do you think about the coffins and the camps? Lay out a reasonable explanation. There is a reason for spending billions of dollars on them so there has to be a pretty good and simple explanation. America has the most number of prisons so why do they build these camps? There are several hundred of them. Just like you put a range on your opponent's hand, try and analyze this and come up with a reasonable answer.

On April 05 2011 19:02 D_smart_S wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2011 18:53 devon06atX wrote: i'm all for questioning things and finding out deeper reasonings and shit, but this one makes zero sense to me. . So what do you think about the coffins and the camps? Lay out a reasonable explanation. There is a reason for spending billions of dollars on them so there has to be a pretty good and simple explanation. America has the most number of prisons so why do they build these camps? There are several hundred of them. Just like you put a range on your opponent's hand, try and analyze this and come up with a reasonable answer.

i didn't look at the second video tbh, only the first one. i did, however, look at some related fema videos on youtube - looks like there's some conspiracy-minded people talking about gas chambers being put up in america..

i'm pretty sceptical at this point, but i will look at the second video. something i encourage you to do (especially while listening or watching some conspiracy theory stuff) is to be critical of what you're hearing. be critical of everything. don't think that just because this is coming from a source that isn't the authority (government, whatever), that it automatically exempts them from engaging in ridiculous bullshit as well.

But yeah, I'll look over it and tell you what i think. i didn't even know fema existed to tell you the truth. although, why would i - i'm canadian.

This is bullshit and its a shame because of things like these real conspiracies (911) are overlooked.


Those are not coffins, those are grave liners, coffins dont go alone in the dirt,t hey use liners (concrete or plastic), so when the wood rots, the coffin wont collapse and creating a hole in the graveyard.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850

i dont care. i still love the U.S.A.

Baal, I am greatful that you posted the popular mechanics site. Since you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I think you will be more than interested to see this video where Popular Mechanics go head to head vs 9/11 believers (the guys who made Loose Change) in a talk show. I will post it as a PM, cause i don't want thread diversion.

On April 05 2011 19:23 Baal wrote: This is bullshit and its a shame because of things like these real conspiracies (911) are overlooked. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850

There is this concept in medicine that if a patient has many different illnesses at once it is more likely that there is one cause for them all, than a different cause for each illness.

....

On April 05 2011 19:30 D_smart_S wrote: Baal, I am greatful that you posted the popular mechanics site. Since you believe that 9/11 was an inside job, I think you will be more than interested to see this video where Popular Mechanics go head to head vs 9/11 believers (the guys who made Loose Change) in a talk show. I will post it as a PM, cause i don't want thread diversion. Show nested quote + On April 05 2011 19:23 Baal wrote: This is bullshit and its a shame because of things like these real conspiracies (911) are overlooked. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/4312850 There is this concept in medicine that if a patient has many different illnesses at once it is more likely that there is one cause for them all, than a different cause for each illness.

I havent seen loose change and that video is stupid.

I dont feel like going into detail of why 911 is an obvious demolition and the evidence proves it unless you counter the evidence ive posted many times, like molten steel, like WTC 7 collapsing at gravity speed on its footprint absolutely pulverized from a tiny fire in an office when no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire, and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days, or many shots flash bangs from minor explosions fractions of seconds before the building collapsed, how the WTC architect claims the building was made specifically to sustain a full impact from the biggest plane on date with a full tank and how the WTC would never fall in a vertical fashion due to its central column design, if the WTC would fall for any cause, it would fall in a chaotic lateral way.

Just knowing a little history would give you the obvious answer, the Lusitana in the first world war, hitler lighting the parlament on fire actually i can think at leas of 6 incidents where leaders have attacked their own people to incite a war.

Seems like you didn't understand what I mean. I know 9/11 was an inside job. I just said that you showing me an article from Popular Mechanics debunking FEMA camps should not be valid from your perspective as a 9/11 believer, because they have "debunked" the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government.

On April 05 2011 20:24 D_smart_S wrote: Seems like you didn't understand what I mean. I know 9/11 was an inside job. I just said that you showing me an article from Popular Mechanics debunking FEMA camps should not be valid from your perspective as a 9/11 believer, because they have "debunked" the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government.

Oh my bad, i get now your quote about your illness.


Well when hearing about FEMA death camps it sounds unlikely, i dont trust the government but i think a massive extermination and martial law is not very likely.

Also when the other side presents those as coffins without even knowing about grave liners then i can tell that guy didnt make a proper research, all graves use grave liners so 500k grave liners doesnt sound that crazy to me, also they list the manufacturer etc.

I am not saying fema is legit or anything like that, im just saying i havent been presenting with convincing solid evidence of their claims, unlike in 9/11 where the evidence is just undeniable and overwhelming.

I am not a conspiracy theorists despise what some idiots want to think, im a rationalist and i believe what the evidence and logic dictates me and i try not to be biased and keep emotion out of it, unlike people who believe the government wouldnt be capable of demolishing the twin towers despise history showing that they have done the same thing in the past, those people are not objective and deluded by their own emotions and irrational beliefs.

On April 05 2011 20:24 D_smart_S wrote: If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government.

Popular mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation

On April 05 2011 20:44 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2011 20:24 D_smart_S wrote: Seems like you didn't understand what I mean. I know 9/11 was an inside job. I just said that you showing me an article from Popular Mechanics debunking FEMA camps should not be valid from your perspective as a 9/11 believer, because they have "debunked" the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government. I am not a conspiracy theorists despise what some idiots want to think, im a rationalist and i believe what the evidence and logic dictates me and i try not to be biased and keep emotion out of it, unlike people who believe the government wouldnt be capable of demolishing the twin towers despise history showing that they have done the same thing in the past, those people are not objective and deluded by their own emotions and irrational beliefs.

everyone thinks they are a rationalist who justifys all their views logically w/o bias, kent hovid uses his logic to come to the conclusion that the world is 6k yrs old, Bill Kaysing uses his logic to dictate we never landed on the moon, my mom uses her logic to think jfk and oswald were both killed by the cia, Dan Crain uses evidence he has to say that he worked on alien viruses in area 51, some ppl use whatever logic skills they have to think amygdalin cures cancer...a very small amount of ppl ever think anything that they admit is completely illogical, everyone justifys their beliefs with some form of logic without what they think is any biased.

i'm not even sure wtf ur talking about w/ the rms lusitania as being the gov't hurting it's own ppl. Germany torpedoed it because it was carrying ammunition and supplies. R u talking bout the gov't using a civilian ship to carry munitions thinking germany wouldn't attack a ship w/ civilians on it and that's what u mean by a gov't hurting it's own ppl? Or do you think the US or British gov't sank the ship and then blamed it on the germans?

EDIT: gonna clarify something you are a conspiracy theorist by definition (you advocate at least 1 conspiracy theory), you are not a nutjob, there's a major difference.

palak is your reply supposed to mean anything?

serious question, what's the point of what you are saying

i mean honestly, do you really think d_smart was trying to say that the government owns popular mechanics?

no, you surely didn't, so you're just being an ass.

On April 05 2011 22:52 asdf2000 wrote: i mean honestly, do you really think d_smart was trying to say that the government owns popular mechanics? .

after the other thread, i wouldn't be surprised at all if he thinks popular mechanics is in some way owned by the US gov't or paid by the US gov't to publish articles that debunk any theories against them and therefore is unreliable.

oh and as for control, it comes in different levels.

to say no one controls anything in the world would be absolutely retarded. some people have incredible amounts of power and influence, and thus incredible amounts of control. it's not a conspiracy, it's a fact.

^moore is referring to the bank, cia, nwo, etc, conspiracies which believe that the actions of governments world wide are controlled by an elite few people that are the leaders of whatever organization the conspiracy theory is against.

if america were gearing up for some stupid civil bullshit they wouldnt be worrying about a bazillion coffins.. they would blow us up like the blow everything else up.. they cant send troops after any mega large group of civilians that dont deserve it... we all own guns

hopefully its all just preparation for dealing with Scientology

500,000 coffins is a scary thing because if we have learned anything from history we know that any instance of mass murder or genocide is usually accompanied by making sure all the victims get a proper burial in their own coffin.

On April 06 2011 02:25 blackjacki2 wrote: 500,000 coffins is a scary thing because if we have learned anything from history we know that any instance of mass murder or genocide is usually accompanied by making sure all the victims get a proper burial in their own coffin.

yah the most rofl obvious counterpoint by far

if they were planning on needing to bury 500, 000 people so quickly that they need to stock up on coffins (rofl), they sure as hell would choose not to bury every mass murder victim in their own coffin.

nice moore vid, very true

It comes in steps. Why do you think there is this nation wide campaign for collecting weapons? In the 1940s after Japan's attack (Pearl Harbour), a campaign starts that goes like this - "there is a lot of hatred among the nation for japanese people, so it would be good if we separate you for some time until people calm down." This is exactly the same thing as what happened in Germany. Jews were told to board the train, that they would work in a seperate place, away from trouble (because they were demonized by Hitler and ppl hated them). They were enslaved for the rest of their lives by their Government. Where are their rights? Imagine this - a crisis happen in USA (bioterrorism, nuclear strike), the Government comes in and says that ppl should be quarantined for their own safety so they are sent to the camps. Would you go to the camps or would you rather be arrested? Don't forget, the government of the USA can kill any citizen lawfully without a trial if that citizen is considered a domestic terrorist. I'm not shitting you, there is such a law. Does that sound right to you? Isn't it way too easy to abuse? Just put a 'domestic terrorist' label on you and you are never to be heard of again. Released documents specify that the watchlist for domestic terrorist has more than doubled recently and includes people who advocate Gun Right, Ron Paul voters, any opposition of the Government, End the FED campaign and so on. Just watch the movie for better explaination!
Remember, Hitler was elected lawfully, Stalin too. Power corrupts, money buys and every generation suffers. Don't be naive. I think that the big movie i posted would give you the big picture very very well. History repeats itself.

this really makes no sense

You should put it in context. Here is some explanation:

ugh, whenever i've tried to engage in a reasonable conversation with a conspiracy theorist about conspiracies they just shut me down. Like they've seen the truth and there's no amount of convincing that i can do to change their mind. Conspiracy theorists to me are on the same level of open mindedness as someone deep in a religion.


i think having an opinion on something shows bias. Since an opinion is formed on your own upbringing/genetics/experiences and not the entire worlds. Your own life is bias as it deviates from everyone elses life. yes, this paragraph is extremely retarded. But it bugs me that everyone seems to think they are right, be it from a highly educated background or being raised in a shithole.

On April 05 2011 20:19 Baal wrote: I dont feel like going into detail of why 911 is an obvious demolition and the evidence proves it unless you counter the evidence ive posted many times, like molten steel, like WTC 7 collapsing at gravity speed

The building collapsed from the top down. Demolitions collapse from the bottom up. The time it took for it to collapse is completely irrelevant, as it did not collapse in a manner in which controlled demolitions are initiated.

no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days

No building in history has ever been filled with jet fuel after being struck by a 747

or many shots flash bangs from minor explosions fractions of seconds before the building collapsed

Controlled demolitions are not initated via a series of minor explosions minutes before the demolition begins. It happens instantaneously and is incredibly loud beyond belief. The explosions necessary to trigger the chain reaction for a demolition can be seen for miles and are done in concert, not spaced out over the span of 5 minutes with the occasional bang here or there.

how the WTC architect claims the building was made specifically to sustain a full impact from the biggest plane on date with a full tank

Which was a plane much smaller than what actually hit it, so whats your point? We can build the next one to withstand a A330 airbus, but if the space shuttle crashes into it then who gives a fuck?

and how the WTC would never fall in a vertical fashion due to its central column design, if the WTC would fall for any cause, it would fall in a chaotic lateral way.

only if a controlled demolition were attempted. But since the building was demolished starting near the top, the expectation for its destruction was unforseen. But at least we know how a building of that size would collapse now if blow apart near the top.

Just knowing a little history would give you the obvious answer, the Lusitana in the first world war, hitler lighting the parlament on fire actually i can think at leas of 6 incidents where leaders have attacked their own people to incite a war.

Those wars served fundamental purposes and had the intended effect of their architects. You'd have to be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet to go to all this effort to start a measly little random war in the middle east which proved wholly worthless and just wasted our own time and money, which anyone and everyone could have predicted who were involved in any such conspiracy in the first place. Much easier ways to trick the population into a war other than the worlds most complicated conspiracy.

Let's not derail the thread please.
"Those wars served fundamental purposes and had the intended effect of their architects. You'd have to be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet to go to all this effort to start a measly little random war in the middle east which proved wholly worthless and just wasted our own time and money, which anyone and everyone could have predicted who were involved in any such conspiracy in the first place. Much easier ways to trick the population into a war other than the worlds most complicated conspiracy."

Go to google and learn more about False Flag Operations please. It's a well-known military strategy used for centuries. On another note, you admit that the war was proven worthless and wasted your money. Well, yes it wasted the taxpayers' money. So what's the problem? The Federal Reserve (private bank) sponsored your Government to go to war and is now going to collect everything they gave but with interest. They sure didn't lose a dime, and will surely fill their pockets with cash. The war surely did not waste their time either. They didn't go to the Middle East, several hundred thousand taxpayers went there and lost their time or life. If you believe that controlling the oil fields world wide serves no purpose to anyone, you have to be the dumbest motherfucker to ever live on this planet.
To get back on topic. Why depopulation? First, you should realise that there is a consensus that people are way too much. So you should either kill people or make changes in a way that most people don't have kids or have only 1. You can't just ask people to not have kids, cause people love kids. Now, i think we have all heard on TV these discussions on human overgrowth. Even here in Bulgaria, where we have negative birth rate (ppl get fewer and fewer). In other words, there is media campaign, propaganda that has to convince people that we are way too many. In order for you to believe it, authority figures come up and speak on the topic. But they aren't going to tell you - "we are gonna kill ya!" You have to read between the lines.
Watch this short clip please.

How do you think would the equation be solved? Pay attention to the last 30 seconds.

On April 05 2011 22:30 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On April 05 2011 20:24 D_smart_S wrote: If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government. Popular mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation   On April 05 2011 20:44 Baal wrote:   On April 05 2011 20:24 D_smart_S wrote: Seems like you didn't understand what I mean. I know 9/11 was an inside job. I just said that you showing me an article from Popular Mechanics debunking FEMA camps should not be valid from your perspective as a 9/11 believer, because they have "debunked" the 9/11 conspiracy theory. If you ask yourself why they debunk every theory, especially the obvious 9/11 inside job, you would come to the conclusion that they are simply bought by the Government. I am not a conspiracy theorists despise what some idiots want to think, im a rationalist and i believe what the evidence and logic dictates me and i try not to be biased and keep emotion out of it, unlike people who believe the government wouldnt be capable of demolishing the twin towers despise history showing that they have done the same thing in the past, those people are not objective and deluded by their own emotions and irrational beliefs. everyone thinks they are a rationalist who justifys all their views logically w/o bias, kent hovid uses his logic to come to the conclusion that the world is 6k yrs old, Bill Kaysing uses his logic to dictate we never landed on the moon, my mom uses her logic to think jfk and oswald were both killed by the cia, Dan Crain uses evidence he has to say that he worked on alien viruses in area 51, some ppl use whatever logic skills they have to think amygdalin cures cancer...a very small amount of ppl ever think anything that they admit is completely illogical, everyone justifys their beliefs with some form of logic without what they think is any biased. i'm not even sure wtf ur talking about w/ the rms lusitania as being the gov't hurting it's own ppl. Germany torpedoed it because it was carrying ammunition and supplies. R u talking bout the gov't using a civilian ship to carry munitions thinking germany wouldn't attack a ship w/ civilians on it and that's what u mean by a gov't hurting it's own ppl? Or do you think the US or British gov't sank the ship and then blamed it on the germans? EDIT: gonna clarify something you are a conspiracy theorist by definition (you advocate at least 1 conspiracy theory), you are not a nutjob, there's a major difference.

No there is no such thing as "personal logic", they dont use reason and evidence to pursue the truth, they try to rationalize with flawed thinking their illogical beliefs, evidence points out an earth way older than 6k years, there are no studies that provide documented evidence that amygdalin cures cancer, evidence and logic points out that JFK was assasinated by the government, i thought that was considered the consensus by now lol, wow some people are deluded.

About the Lusitana, the ship was put in danger on purpose sent to be sunken by the Germans to gain popular support against them, and it worked.

The Germans declared that sea a war zone, and claimed they would sink any ship on sight, the Lusitana was a very well known ship, it was issued many warnings that it shouldnt sail, so many that its regular capitain refused to navigate it, the Lusitana despite all warnings from many papers sailed into warzone and it was obviously sunk by a german submarine.

"The sinking turned public opinion in many countries against Germany, contributed to the American entry into World War I and became an iconic symbol in recruiting campaigns of why the war was being fought" - Wikipedia. How convenient isnt it?.

Oh and you might not be aware of this but also there were 2 Mexican ships sunken in the gulf of mexico supposedly by a German submarine which led to mexico support the war (mostly through oil trade with USA), yes you heard that right, German submarines sinking neutral ships across the atlantic ocean... right.

The building collapsed from the top down. Demolitions collapse from the bottom up. The time it took for it to collapse is completely irrelevant, as it did not collapse in a manner in which controlled demolitions are initiated.

That is not true, you havent even seen the video it seems as the WTC7 clearly falls from bottom up, also the time it takes to collapse its VERY relevant dumbass, a building with intact steel structure and columns should not fall at the same speed as a building that has its columns pulverized as they dont offer resistance.

No building in history has ever been filled with jet fuel after being struck by a 747

WTC 7 was not hit by a jet, it had minor fires, the FEMA reported those fires as being the main reason of its collapse.

Controlled demolitions are not initated via a series of minor explosions minutes before the demolition begins. It happens instantaneously and is incredibly loud beyond belief. The explosions necessary to trigger the chain reaction for a demolition can be seen for miles and are done in concert, not spaced out over the span of 5 minutes with the occasional bang here or there.

You dont need all the explosions to be that simultaneos, i can show you demolitions where explosions go off for over a minute, they are just done that way because its more efficient and concealing it is being demolished is not a priority, on the WTC concealing it it was so obviously its not going to be demolished in a standard fashion.

Which was a plane much smaller than what actually hit it, so whats your point? We can build the next one to withstand a A330 airbus, but if the space shuttle crashes into it then who gives a fuck?

It was not much smaller, it was barely smaller, also after 9/11 he said that the WTC would never fall from those crashes.

Those wars served fundamental purposes and had the intended effect of their architects. You'd have to be the biggest fucking idiot on the planet to go to all this effort to start a measly little random war in the middle east which proved wholly worthless and just wasted our own time and money, which anyone and everyone could have predicted who were involved in any such conspiracy in the first place. Much easier ways to trick the population into a war other than the worlds most complicated conspiracy.

It is a waste of tax payers money, but the Iraqui/Afghan war are extremely profitable to many people, for startes oiling companies like Exxon who are currently drilling in Iraq, and also removing a hostile dictator sitting on a lot of oil giving the finger to the USA is quite convenient.

the public would have never agreed to go into two (and maybe more) wars without being "attacked", its standar procedure as i said:


If history should have taught us anything by now is that fear runs wild in peoples hearts and they wont challenge their leaders, the stockholm syndrome is very powerful and we wonder "how could the german population support that war?", "how could people live under the kings foot without every revolting?" and are unable to see their own truth, that they are no better and live in the same exact delusion.

People need to understand human nature, that only wicked people pursue power, and nothing corrupts more than power, its only then, when we have a natural mistrust for people with positions of power that we will be free of them, as long as weak hope lets you believe that an honest good hearted guy managed to climb to the top of the world in a mountain of snakes you will be a slave, no shining knight is at the top of that mountain of snakes, that place only belongs to the biggest snake.

baal, why do you think they used airplanes at all? If they bombed down WTC, why bother with the planes?

The collapse of building 7 before it happened
If you would argue, that it's another building, go and search on related videos and compare the buildings around WTC7 and you will see the standing building is WTC7 indeed.
This is the future-knowing-reporter talking about it


"baal, why do you think they used airplanes at all? If they bombed down WTC, why bother with the planes?" - because the official story has to be believable. Moreover, such huge buildings can come down only by controlled demolition, which needs weeks of preparation and security access. If there were no planes and the official story is "al quaeda had put controlled demolition in the buildings" then ppl would start question how is it possible that they were granted access, when there are security guards and they need weeks for planting bombs and engineers and specialists and tons of explosives. It's way more believable to say "extremists took the planes and crashed them into the buildings and so they fell". There is no logic flaw in such a official story from people's perspective because most people are not experts to know physics that well.

"People need to understand human nature, that only wicked people pursue power, and nothing corrupts more than power, its only then, when we have a natural mistrust for people with positions of power that we will be free of them, as long as weak hope lets you believe that an honest good hearted guy managed to climb to the top of the world in a mountain of snakes you will be a slave, no shining knight is at the top of that mountain of snakes, that place only belongs to the biggest snake."
That is very true indeed. People in countries like Bulgaria are more prone to look into conspiracies like these because we experience government rape day in and day out. People know that the Government wants every bit of penny you have. People in the west or USA are generally happier with their lives and they see the bright side of life so it's hard to show them the dark side of the world. There is this mental block, which occurs when new information contradicts with your opinion and knowledge of the world. It's like a foreign object in your body, and the body rejects it as a natural response.

No there is no such thing as "personal logic", they dont use reason and evidence to pursue the truth, they try to rationalize with flawed thinking their illogical beliefs, evidence points out an earth way older than 6k years, there are no studies that provide documented evidence that amygdalin cures cancer, evidence and logic points out that JFK was assasinated by the government, i thought that was considered the consensus by now lol, wow some people are deluded.

there's a lot of scientific studies n such that say the earth is only 6k yrs old....50-70% depending on the poll think jfk was a cover up, but no one agrees on who the hell did the cover up, mob, cia, cubans, fed, lbj, soviet union, israel...also there really isn't reliable evidence that there was a cover-up or second shooter, grassy knoll doesn't provide a shot and there is no physical evidence in any film or in the autopsy that jfk was hit from a bullet from anywhere but oswald, the magic bullet crap is because ppl don't know where ppl were sitting in the car.

as for lusitania we pretty much agree, i think it was more the gov't using civilians as a human shield to put germany in a catch 22 situation, but not much of a difference

Baal - why do you think they would ever bother demolishing WTC7 as part of the ruse?

Among all the events of 911 it stands out as being so weird, it really only serves to attract suspicion.

On April 06 2011 10:18 auffenpuffer wrote: baal, why do you think they used airplanes at all? If they bombed down WTC, why bother with the planes?

I dont have a way to know this for sure, if you want my opinion is because it arises less questioning, many would be in stronger disbelief of explosives planed in the building with security staff watching over it, also i think its a much better way to spread panic, a calculated demolition isnt as good to spread fear than random flights being hijacked and used as missiles that can target anywhere, any time, people start to wonder where they could hit, and if their plane might be hijacked, just see at TSA and see how afraid people of flights that that they are tolerating having their kids strip searched and their boobs squeezed by strangers.

Since the twin towers and building 7 collapse differently, are you that only building 7 was a controlled demolition or that both were and they just decided to use different methods?

My bad on confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1/2, wasnt paying attention to the number. Despite the fact that WTC 7 collapsed in a traditional demolished manner, it still does not dissuade from the fact that WTC 1/2 most certainly did NOT collapse like this. Coupled with the fact that building demolitions require explosives which may tremendous noise, much more so than the infrequent and subtle noises heard by witnesses, there is no reason to believe a conspiracy to knock it down took place.

As someone already mentioned, why go to all this hassle and use airplanes, which many skeptics would find unusual and only arous conspiracy theorists worldwide, when a simple 2nd shot of explosions in the basement would do the same trick and be much more plausible when pawned off to the public? Who's great idea was it to say "hey, lets make this as difficult as possible, and use the one thing that the building was specifically designed against!"?

On top of that, we can clearly see the first two towers initiate their collapse precisely where the planes struck. So that would require explosives to be planted in that location, the location that 2 jumbo jets are scheduled to fly into, so that the collapse is believable. So you're telling me that those planes were perfectly coordinated to fly into the exact location where explosives were previously planted, and when those planes smashed into the building at 300mph or so, that the explosives survive this impact for 45 minutes before finally being detonated. And that when they were ultimately detonated, they made certain to do give as much time as humanely possible for every single video camera in the city to be observing, producing as much evidence as anyone could ask for, so that the whole world could study and observe the moment of destruction for decades to come? Thats like committing a bank robbery in broad daylight, but first calling the cops to let you know you're there, calling every news outlet so they can arrive to film it, and then sitting in the bank for over half an hour before you even begin putting money in the bag. Was the gov't just fucking showing off at this point or something?

And despite whatever demolitions you have where explosives are spread out over a certain amount of time, there is always a final act. You dont just blast a few key points, sit back for half an hour, and like a tree it just gradually starts to give way and collapses on its own. It still requires significant explosive force to initiate the collapse, the kind which cant be concealed, especially for something as massive as a 100 story building.

On April 06 2011 10:53 blackjacki2 wrote: Since the twin towers and building 7 collapse differently, are you that only building 7 was a controlled demolition or that both were and they just decided to use different methods?

The 3 collapsed in a vertical way at gravity speed, something extremely rarely seen in collapsing buildings that are not demolished since the steel beams and columns present resistance and make the building fall sideways, or only parts of it fall etc:

examples of normal building collapses:







Even failed demolitions fall that way often.

Sorry for the typos, on a time budget typing from work.

i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower

no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days

this isn't true, it's just spouted because it's annoying to disprove.

kader toy factory in thailand was a steel structure with poor fireproofing http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english?content&nd=857170498

Sight and Sound theater in Pennsylvania was a steel structure and collapsed due to fires in 1997 http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

I'll be the first to agree that WTC1/2 falling down on top of itself is very unusual in appearance, and that I too initially expected it to fall wildly out of control destroying several city blocks and other buildings in its path. At the same time I'm not an engineer so I have no reason to say it's impossible for it to fall exactly as it did. I also have to weigh a heavy degree of common sense and suggest that, if the common idiot like me can assume it should fall sideways, then why the hell wouldnt the gov't just go ahead and let it fall sideways. Why go out of their way to make it fall so cleanly?

I'll also be first to do a big triple take once any legitimate efforts to control iraqi oil materialize. Vague statements about Exxon drilling in tandem with the fact that somebody needs to manage the shit in a state of total anarchy does not immediately make me think "well obviously thats what we want". Our involvement in Iraqi oil still seems to be so minimal without any signs of progress that I'm not buying it yet. If 20 years from now we control all the oil fields then I'll definitely think we exploited the shit out of this war, but still not necessarily the result of a 9/11 conspiracy due to the myriad of problems building the conspiracy. At best, the only conspiracy I can easily agree with is the possibility that we simply LET 9/11 happen as per the terrorists plan. I.E. no explosives used, no involvement from the gov't, but we did have prior knowledge to the event and allowed it to happen and use whatever fallout as an excuse to war. The gov't didnt know if the buildings would collapse and quite frankly didnt care, just let whatever happens happen.

Going back to this whole "fell at gravity speed" nonsense, and the structural integrity of the building interfering with this, lets rewind the tape and see how the first 2 towers once again fell. While it might be difficult for the first 20 or so floors to fall unobstructed on the floors beneath them, surely by floor 50-70, with million of tons of debris weighing down, they simply didnt have a chance to resist whatsoever. It's like stomping on a building made of wet spaghetti noodles at this point, it cant even begin to withstand the force of the collapsed floors crashing down above it even for a nanosecond. So the only question is at what point does the force become so incredible that it simply plows right through the rest of the building? Basically the building is guaranteed to "fall at gravity speed" once you have that much force coming down on it.

But then again, the first two towers didnt "fall" at all, they collapsed in on themselves, something which no building ever does.

On April 06 2011 10:56 NewbSaibot wrote: My bad on confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1/2, wasnt paying attention to the number. Despite the fact that WTC 7 collapsed in a traditional demolished manner, it still does not dissuade from the fact that WTC 1/2 most certainly did NOT collapse like this.

So you say that someone was granted access for a few weeks to wire the whole building 7 with explosives, which was one of the most secure buildings in the world with the biggest CIA center in it, yet it is way too far fetched to assume the same for WTC1 and WTC2?
How old are you, 5?

On April 06 2011 10:56 NewbSaibot wrote: My bad on confusing WTC 7 with WTC 1/2, wasnt paying attention to the number. Despite the fact that WTC 7 collapsed in a traditional demolished manner, it still does not dissuade from the fact that WTC 1/2 most certainly did NOT collapse like this. Coupled with the fact that building demolitions require explosives which may tremendous noise, much more so than the infrequent and subtle noises heard by witnesses, there is no reason to believe a conspiracy to knock it down took place.

Oh you mean a huge loud explosion like this one?



Or exlosions so strong it knocks people over?


Or explosions strong enough to demolish the lobby?

As someone already mentioned, why go to all this hassle and use airplanes, which many skeptics would find unusual and only arous conspiracy theorists worldwide, when a simple 2nd shot of explosions in the basement would do the same trick and be much more plausible when pawned off to the public? Who's great idea was it to say "hey, lets make this as difficult as possible, and use the one thing that the building was specifically designed against!"?

I already said why, also it looks illogical to you that they plotted using planes against a "plane-safe" buildilng, but not that a plane-safe building was brought down by a plane, yup really critical thinking there buddy, you are guided by evidence and not rationalizing your beliefs LOL.

On top of that, we can clearly see the first two towers initiate their collapse precisely where the planes struck. So that would require explosives to be planted in that location, the location that 2 jumbo jets are scheduled to fly into, so that the collapse is believable. So you're telling me that those planes were perfectly coordinated to fly into the exact location where explosives were previously planted, and when those planes smashed into the building at 300mph or so, that the explosives survive this impact for 45 minutes before finally being detonated. And that when they were ultimately detonated, they made certain to do give as much time as humanely possible for every single video camera in the city to be observing, producing as much evidence as anyone could ask for, so that the whole world could study and observe the moment of destruction for decades to come? Thats like committing a bank robbery in broad daylight, but first calling the cops to let you know you're there, calling every news outlet so they can arrive to film it, and then sitting in the bank for over half an hour before you even begin putting money in the bag. Was the gov't just fucking showing off at this point or something?

The building has to be brought down with the minimal amount of explosives for obvious reasons, so it will probably fall from a weakened point.

And despite whatever demolitions you have where explosives are spread out over a certain amount of time, there is always a final act. You dont just blast a few key points, sit back for half an hour, and like a tree it just gradually starts to give way and collapses on its own. It still requires significant explosive force to initiate the collapse, the kind which cant be concealed, especially for something as massive as a 100 story building.

Im guessing you are not familiar with Jenga (and common sense lol), if the structure is severely weakened it requires very minimal force to bring it down.

Also please refute the evidence posted, why did WTC7 fall from minors fires when no steel framed buildling in history has collapsed from fire?, why do we see molten steel but steel melts at 2700degrees, 3 times hotter than jet fuel burns etc.
[/QUOTE]

On April 06 2011 11:16 palak wrote: i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower Show nested quote + no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days this isn't true, it's just spouted because it's annoying to disprove. kader toy factory in thailand was a steel structure with poor fireproofing http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english?content&nd=857170498 Sight and Sound theater in Pennsylvania was a steel structure and collapsed due to fires in 1997 http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf

I read those and they just seem to be faulty buildings without the needed precautions, the thai building was a poorly built building with no fire insulation whatsoever, the theater was in its way to being remodeled for better safety measures, not remotely the case of the world trade centers, and none of those fires seem to be as small as the WTC7 was.

On April 06 2011 11:23 NewbSaibot wrote: I'll be the first to agree that WTC1/2 falling down on top of itself is very unusual in appearance, and that I too initially expected it to fall wildly out of control destroying several city blocks and other buildings in its path. At the same time I'm not an engineer so I have no reason to say it's impossible for it to fall exactly as it did. I also have to weigh a heavy degree of common sense and suggest that, if the common idiot like me can assume it should fall sideways, then why the hell wouldnt the gov't just go ahead and let it fall sideways. Why go out of their way to make it fall so cleanly?

Because the world trade centers falling in a lateral way would devastate new york, the incident would be dozens of times worse with many thousands more dead, the cleaning job would take a decade, and the intent of the government is to induce the country into a war, not to do maximum damage.

I'll also be first to do a big triple take once any legitimate efforts to control iraqi oil materialize. Vague statements about Exxon drilling in tandem with the fact that somebody needs to manage the shit in a state of total anarchy does not immediately make me think "well obviously thats what we want". Our involvement in Iraqi oil still seems to be so minimal without any signs of progress that I'm not buying it yet. If 20 years from now we control all the oil fields then I'll definitely think we exploited the shit out of this war, but still not necessarily the result of a 9/11 conspiracy due to the myriad of problems building the conspiracy. At best, the only conspiracy I can easily agree with is the possibility that we simply LET 9/11 happen as per the terrorists plan. I.E. no explosives used, no involvement from the gov't, but we did have prior knowledge to the event and allowed it to happen and use whatever fallout as an excuse to war. The gov't didnt know if the buildings would collapse and quite frankly didnt care, just let whatever happens happen.

You just proved that you dont believe what evidence says, you will believe what the government is capable of doing, you think they wont be evil enough to kill their own people (despise what history has taught us), and wont listen to evidence pointing it, so you are just wasting my time since you already made up your mind.

there are no vague statements about Exxon drilling, it is a fact, also its not about directly "drinking their milkshake", its about controlling the price of oil.

Going back to this whole "fell at gravity speed" nonsense, and the structural integrity of the building interfering with this, lets rewind the tape and see how the first 2 towers once again fell. While it might be difficult for the first 20 or so floors to fall unobstructed on the floors beneath them, surely by floor 50-70, with million of tons of debris weighing down, they simply didnt have a chance to resist whatsoever. It's like stomping on a building made of wet spaghetti noodles at this point, it cant even begin to withstand the force of the collapsed floors crashing down above it even for a nanosecond. So the only question is at what point does the force become so incredible that it simply plows right through the rest of the building? Basically the building is guaranteed to "fall at gravity speed" once you have that much force coming down on it.

Wrong, this pancake effect isnt entirely true, the falling bulilding does not act as a crushing anvil increasing weight, the force is disperse since its rubble falling, if it encounters enough resistance it will go sideways, as you see in failed demolitions where the columns are not properly removed, the buildings dont go out vertically.

Chop a three down from one side and it wont fall vertically, damage a sand castle from the side and see how it falls, thats why demolishing a building requires perfectly timed explosives, because if they arent used the building wont fall down on its footprint

[/QUOTE]

I cant refute WTC7 collapsing from minor fires, although it is highly suggested that the collapse of the first 2 buildings created such powerful earthquake like tremors that adjacent buildings would have been damaged. What is the significance of WTC7? Why blow that one up, a much smaller inferior building, having no particular symbolic presence, hours after the first two, and without something like a plane to dupe the public into believing the cause of destruction?

Im guessing you are not familiar with Jenga (and common sense lol), if the structure is severely weakened it requires very minimal force to bring it down.

Severely weakened, such as after being hit by a plane perhaps? What you're failing to include is that previous buildings which were engulfed in flames were not previous hit by fucking jet airplanes before collapsing.

I also like how you wrote off the fact that a totally different plane hit the buildings from what they were designed to be hit with. You can sit there and claim that a 707 is "similar" to a 767 all day, but the fact remains that a 767 is a bigger, heavier plane, which carries a larger payload and more fuel. Its impact would have been greater than what the building was designed for. And thats another key point, the buildings were *designed* to be hit by a 707, but that doesnt mean they are impervious to such a thing. It's not like jet airliners go crashing into buildings every other year and extensive design and preparation for such a thing can be planned for. A 707 could just have easily destroyed the buildings just the same. Clearly they are trying to prevent collapse by such a thing or else it would never have been called for during the building's conception, so obviously there is concern that impact with a jet airliner would completely wipe the building out. Guess what, it did. More engineers have spent more time & money building the space shuttle and we lost 3 of those fuckers too. Shit happens.

Btw, these "explosions" heard by shaniqua and McGruff the taxi driver are of no concern to me. There are people who also say they heard/saw cruise missiles flying into the towers too. I could really give a fuck less what a few bystanders claim they heard when there are a million others who disagree on top of all the video taped evidence.

no explosions like at 2:20

#at=62




molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines

On April 06 2011 11:42 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 11:16 palak wrote: i still don't understand how wtc advocates claim that thousands of pounds of explosives were placed inside the towers to where no one noticed and then they also managed to have to the explosives on the 93rd floor of the north toward and 77th floor of the south tower   no building in history with a steel frame has ever collapsed due to fire and bulidings who have being under blazing flames for days this isn't true, it's just spouted because it's annoying to disprove. kader toy factory in thailand was a steel structure with poor fireproofing http://www.ilo.org/safework_bookshelf/english?content&nd=857170498 Sight and Sound theater in Pennsylvania was a steel structure and collapsed due to fires in 1997 http://www.interfire.org/res_file/pdf/Tr-097.pdf I read those and they just seem to be faulty buildings without the needed precautions, the thai building was a poorly built building with no fire insulation whatsoever, the theater was in its way to being remodeled for better safety measures, not remotely the case of the world trade centers, and none of those fires seem to be as small as the WTC7 was.

so steel buildings which are stripped of their fire proofing (like both wtc towers after the plane crash on the floors they were hit on) will eventually weaken and collapse if fires are allowed to burn for an extended period of time.

Also wtc 7 was not properly fire proofed up to code nor was in built properly to resist fires. http://www.mcmorrowreport.com/articles/wtc7.asp

On April 06 2011 12:13 NewbSaibot wrote: I cant refute WTC7 collapsing from minor fires, although it is highly suggested that the collapse of the first 2 buildings created such powerful earthquake like tremors that adjacent buildings would have been damaged. What is the significance of WTC7? Why blow that one up, a much smaller inferior building, having no particular symbolic presence, hours after the first two, and without something like a plane to dupe the public into believing the cause of destruction?

Again your flawed thinking, you challenge that "why didnt they fabricate a valid reason for its collapse" yet you dont challenge the reason for collapse... haha you realize how dumb that is?

Also i dont know (and there is no way to know yet) why, there CIA, department of defense and the IRS had offices there, maybe they wanted to get rid of something? dont know.

Severely weakened, such as after being hit by a plane perhaps? What you're failing to include is that previous buildings which were engulfed in flames were not previous hit by fucking jet airplanes before collapsing.

Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.

I also like how you wrote off the fact that a totally different plane hit the buildings from what they were designed to be hit with. You can sit there and claim that a 707 is "similar" to a 767 all day, but the fact remains that a 767 is a bigger, heavier plane, which carries a larger payload and more fuel. Its impact would have been greater than what the building was designed for. And thats another key point, the buildings were *designed* to be hit by a 707, but that doesnt mean they are impervious to such a thing. It's not like jet airliners go crashing into buildings every other year and extensive design and preparation for such a thing can be planned for. A 707 could just have easily destroyed the buildings just the same. Clearly they are trying to prevent collapse by such a thing or else it would never have been called for during the building's conception, so obviously there is concern that impact with a jet airliner would completely wipe the building out. Guess what, it did. More engineers have spent more time & money building the space shuttle and we lost 3 of those fuckers too. Shit happens.

Yes while it being built to sustain alike impact isnt guarantee it will work, the building failing to resist that kind of impact twice is either very fishy or a terrible design flaw when they were supposed to withstand an alike impact

Btw, these "explosions" heard by shaniqua and McGruff the taxi driver are of no concern to me. There are people who also say they heard/saw cruise missiles flying into the towers too. I could really give a fuck less what a few bystanders claim they heard when there are a million others who disagree on top of all the video taped evidence.

Yes anecdotal evidence of "i heard" are not very good to support anything, thats why i posted firemen claiming seeing colleagues being throwin around by explosions, which are also anecdotal but stronger, but if there was any doubt i posted a video of a big loud explosion that you are choosing to ignore it seems...

Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no.

was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no
did fires burn in it for a long time, yes
did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes

lol baal how noble it is for you to sacrifice your time

also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit

mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them

lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war

gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs

there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there.

what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.

On April 06 2011 12:14 palak wrote: no explosions like at 2:20 #at=62 molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines

read the thread before posting... i already posted evidence of explosions, visual and audible:



0:09



No molten steel? rly?




this is a pre-clean up pic.

On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.

The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11.

That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons.

On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too.

And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past?

On April 06 2011 12:51 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 12:14 palak wrote: no explosions like at 2:20 #at=62 molten steel wasn't molten steel, molten aluminum mixed with whatever debris was around would cause the red fires seen coming from the buildings, steel on the ground could easily be iron and steam reacting. Also thermite doesn't make verticle cuts through columns, its a powder chemical, it burns all over the place, not straight lines read the thread before posting... i already posted evidence of explosions, visual and audible: 0:09 No molten steel? rly? this is a pre-clean up pic.

first explosion video is not near as loud as those used during controlled demolishions which is y i posted the other video, not sure y u reposted the wtc 7 video

as for the picture, those cuts on the columns are made by the clean up crews not by thermite during the collapse, skip to like 1:30 or so in the video and watch from there.


#at=95

On April 06 2011 12:38 palak wrote: Show nested quote + Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no. was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no did fires burn in it for a long time, yes did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes

Ok heres a trivia for you, guess which one collapsed?




+ Show Spoiler +

LOL

On April 06 2011 13:00 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive. The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11. That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons. On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too. And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past?

lusitania killed 128 US CIVILIANS and the US will not go to war due to anything else, as far as it is concerned fuck the other 1872 people or whatever.

Soo what hit the pentagon? Multiple reconstructions have showed the damage on it is consistent with a plane, and if it wasn't hit by a plane, where did the plane that hit it go? Was everyone on that plane part of the conspiracy?

With the economy, sooo then who exactly planned the demolition and made sure the US gov't was involved and spent millions in order to eventually profit from was in the middle east? Haliburton which lost 25% of it's stock price due to the collapses effect on the economy? Who all is profiting from this conspiracy theory, how did they manage to convince hundreds-thousands to go along with them, and how have the hired construction workers or engineers etc managed to all keep quite over the last 10 years over the fact that they were part of this conspiracy?

Also you didn't answer about the fact that tonkin and mexican american war were both started without any american death, just percieved hostility towards america.

Baal, please stop arguing with Palak. He is here for the argument, not for the truth. I can understand if a person isn't sure about some of the evidence. I can understand why someone would doubt the conspiracy theory. There are some very very strong arguments and some that are not as strong. But what Palak is doing is basically giving incredibly unlikely and ridiculous explanation to every detail. If you tell him that there is no other building with reenforced steel that has fallen due to fire, he would search the whole internet, find many cases supporting the 9/11 conspiracy (the big madrid hotel fire for ex.), but he would search some more until finally he finds a building that would support his argument. Then he would do the same with other evidence. That only goes to show that he and people like him do not care about the truth. His ego is so big that he would try defend his thesis rather than want to find what's going on in his country. I don't get attitudes like that. I have a friend that is EXACTLY the same way. He would argue about anything just for the sake of it, just to be pronounced "the winner of the argument".To himself he is always the correct one. For the 6 years I am friends with him, he did not change his mind once for one thing. If I say A, the next second he says that's bullshit and to the rest of his life he is a slave to his ego in persuit to prove himself right. That's just childish.

On April 06 2011 13:08 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 12:38 palak wrote:   Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no. was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no did fires burn in it for a long time, yes did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes + Show Spoiler + Ok heres a trivia for you, guess which one collapsed? + Show Spoiler + LOL

which building was built with a steel reinforced concrete structure which is shown and proven to stand up to direct exposure of fire better then a steel framed structure and which one was built with an improperly fire insulated steel frame?

On April 06 2011 13:04 palak wrote: first explosion video is not near as loud as those used during controlled demolishions which is y i posted the other video, not sure y u reposted the wtc 7 video as for the picture, those cuts on the columns are made by the clean up crews not by thermite during the collapse, skip to like 1:30 or so in the video and watch from there. #at=95

what part of this is a pre-clean up picture didnt you understand?

Are not as loud? are you serious? it scared the living crap out of the firemen that were far far away, also as i said this wasnt supposed to look like a controlled demolition ffs, how dumber can you get?

I havent been able to watch the vids b/c my tethering speed is gimp at work, but if I havent seen these I have seen one's like these. It's usually some single "bang" heard from a distance, 20 minutes before the building ever collapses, which could have been just about anything (most experts suggest it is likely metal beams buckling under load or some such thing). I kinda keep jumping back and forth between WTC 7 and WTC 1 because the arguments can be used against both of them, minus the missing plane.

My point in comparing WTC 1 to Madrid or whatever, is that you are suggesting WTC 7 could not have fallen from simply burning for hours on end, because plenty of other buildings have burned just the same. However the burn theory is what is responsible for WTC 1 collapsing, so they collapsed due to the same reasons. All this really means is that we have 3 unique buildings under 3 unique circumstances which were all destroyed 3 unique ways. 1 hit by plane + burn to ground, other suffers collateral damage + burns to ground, and 1 just burns with no extenuating circumstances at all. There's no point in comparing any of these to each other because they are all too different.

Furthermore you ask why I challenge your claims with further questioning; because without a background in structural engineering I cant make claims about what they could or could not withstand. I have to use the evidence provided & a degree of reasonable common sense. There is nothing wrong with undermining the plausibility of a particular claim as evidence against it. You might as well claim that God exists and because I cant directly disprove it with fact I am therefore unqualified to debate it.

For instance, you state WTC 7 was purposely destroyed. I ask why would anyone destroy that building and you say "i dunno, I can just tell they did". But given the circumstances it is EXTREMELY important to know why this building would be targeted, since you cant factually prove your end either, credibility goes a long way here. It would be ridiculous to postulate a building was wiped out just to cover up some other crime related or otherwise to 9/11. When you want to destroy material records of things you BURN them, or hire a crew to shred them. You dont light a few fires then put them all out by collapsing a building leaving tons of evidence buried under rubble that cleanup crews will eventually uncover.

You also posted pictures of steel beams with angle cuts and just outright said "these were not done during cleanup", but that is precisely when they *were* done. I am sure you said this because you are already familiar with debunker claims that explain why this was done, and simply feel if you counter-debunk that it is no longer so. I'm sorry but it doesnt work this way, it has already been proven that those cuts indeed WERE done as part of standard cleanup practice and not some unusual time before when nobody saw it.

You agree that it is possible that the WTC's suffered a design flaw in the inability to survive impact from a plane they were never designed to survive from (lol?). Then you suggest that it is unlikely they would both suffer the same "flaw", even though the builds were both designed the same way to withstand the same thing. I mean, shouldnt reasonable deduction conclude that if they were both designed the same, then they would both fail in the same manner? Why would building 2 get a free pass and never collapse?

Lastly, you cannot dispute the fact that both WTC 1/2 collapsed at the point of impact from the planes. How in the hell could explosives be planted exactly where two planes would fly? If you watch the planes impact it is clear they are being manually flown and sloppily hit their targets. This was not remote control GPS guided precision attack. And once the planes impact, there could be no explosives anywhere nearby ready to detonate later to initiate collapse.

On April 06 2011 13:08 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 12:38 palak wrote:   Was WTC7 even hit by a plane? oops no, was it engulfed by flames? no. was it built to code and properly fire proofed, no did fires burn in it for a long time, yes did it maintain some damage from falling pieces of the first two towers, yes Ok heres a trivia for you, guess which one collapsed? + Show Spoiler + LOL

wow. hmmmmmmmmmm

On April 06 2011 13:16 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 13:00 Baal wrote:   On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive. The Lusitana killed nearly 2k people considered population it was a bigger incident than 9/11. That said terrorist was trained by the CIA to fight against the russians btw, also its not that i doubt that a fanatic arab could conduct the planes hijackings, what i dont believe is that the Twin towers fell because of that given the evidence ive seen, i also dont believe that a plane hit the pentagon for the same reasons. On the economical side you fail to understand that the country economy isnt directly related to their own personal economy, many people profit from warfare, many people profited from the current housing bubble crisis too. And i ask you the same quesiton, is it so hard to believe that a government would sabotage themselves to create the illusion of attack to declare wars and profit and legislate?, especially when it has happened in the past? lusitania killed 128 US CIVILIANS and the US will not go to war due to anything else, as far as it is concerned fuck the other 1872 people or whatever. Soo what hit the pentagon? Multiple reconstructions have showed the damage on it is consistent with a plane, and if it wasn't hit by a plane, where did the plane that hit it go? Was everyone on that plane part of the conspiracy? With the economy, sooo then who exactly planned the demolition and made sure the US gov't was involved and spent millions in order to eventually profit from was in the middle east? Haliburton which lost 25% of it's stock price due to the collapses effect on the economy? Who all is profiting from this conspiracy theory, how did they manage to convince hundreds-thousands to go along with them, and how have the hired construction workers or engineers etc managed to all keep quite over the last 10 years over the fact that they were part of this conspiracy? Also you didn't answer about the fact that tonkin and mexican american war were both started without any american death, just percieved hostility towards america.

1800 briths deaths, if tomorrow there was a terrorist attack that killed thousands and thousands in london, most of its allies would be forced to support a war against the perpetrator, duh wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that

I have no idea what hit the pantagon, how am i supposed to know, as i said, i base my beliefs on evidence unlike you, so i dont know what hit the pentagon or what happened to the passangers, all i know is that an airliner did not hit the pentagon.

The safest building in the world, with hundreds of securities camaras, and this is the best shot of a fucking huge ass plane flying over the city and hitting the pentagon?... right:


Who profits? i already answered that question, read the fucking thread.

Yes the mexican war started with no deaths and the greeks invaded troy over a woman, so?



Could the wars be archieved with less? it is debatable, on that time of peace i doubt they could have, one thing i for sure, they helped A LOT and many things wouldnt have happened without it, like the patriot act for example.

+ Show Spoiler +

That photo was taken by Sam Hollenshead while he was doing freelance work documenting the clean up of 9/11, it is part of his journal titled "WTC recovery", it was taken days after 9/11 during the clean up and recovery phase.

wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that

it was only a reason to enter the war because of the death of american civilians, we don't give a fuck who else died. We entered because 128 civilians died on that ship, not the other thousand or so deaths.

if tomorrow there was a massive terrorist attack in london we wouldn't do shit. During 1940 and 1941 london was practically turned into rubble by the germans killing roughly 43k British civilians, and the US just stood around and went well sucks to be you london.

Really how many security cameras are pointing towards walls and fields at the outside of the pentagon...they are all on the inside

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileentagon_Security_Camera_2.ogv

24 second mark...looks like a plane to me

Still didn't answer what happened to the 184 people on flight 77 if they didn't die in the pentagon attack. Are they just off chilling somewhere? O also the fact that medical examiners were able to find and prove the remains of 179 out of the 184 passengers on the plane in the rubble at the site of the pentagon attack.

anyhow i'm done arguing

Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy!

WTC7 Didn't Collapse in Free Fall (sorry baal)

Molten Steel - Probably my fav link because it just kicks baal's teeth in

On April 06 2011 14:03 palak wrote: + Show Spoiler + That photo was taken by Sam Hollenshead while he was doing freelance work documenting the clean up of 9/11, it is part of his journal titled "WTC recovery", it was taken days after 9/11 during the clean up and recovery phase.

picture taken by james natchwey on sep 11, (clean up was ordered after 2 days):

On April 06 2011 14:17 palak wrote: Show nested quote + wikipedia lists the Lusitana as one of the major causes why the US entered the war, so stop claiming it wasnt unless you provide proof denying that it was only a reason to enter the war because of the death of american civilians, we don't give a fuck who else died. We entered because 128 civilians died on that ship, not the other thousand or so deaths. if tomorrow there was a massive terrorist attack in london we wouldn't do shit. During 1940 and 1941 london was practically turned into rubble by the germans killing roughly 43k British civilians, and the US just stood around and went well sucks to be you london. Really how many security cameras are pointing towards walls and fields at the outside of the pentagon...they are all on the inside http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileentagon_Security_Camera_2.ogv 24 second mark...looks like a plane to me Still didn't answer what happened to the 184 people on flight 77 if they didn't die in the pentagon attack. Are they just off chilling somewhere? O also the fact that medical examiners were able to find and prove the remains of 179 out of the 184 passengers on the plane in the rubble at the site of the pentagon attack.

good pont on the US remaining neutral on WW2 however you are missing the point that its excuses and what you want is the people angry so they spoort you war, its not wether its justified for the governemnt or not, its a simple question of "is it profitable? yes/no, if yes, are people going to agree with it?.

I dont know this for a fact, but i seriously doubt there is only one shitty camera pointing at all the front of the pentagon, prove me wrong plz.

About that video, are you serious? where is the fucking plane, the screenshot i posted is exactly from that vid and its the frame at 24sec, where you cant clearly see absolutely anything besides something small grayish then followed by a fireball.


I answered the question about what happened to the 184 people, i said i dont know, i dont have evidence supporting anything, so i dont know what happened to them, want me to guess or something?

Baal: "I am not a conspiracy theorists..."
Baal: "The safest building in the world, with hundreds of securities camaras, and this is the best shot of a fucking huge ass plane flying over the city and hitting the pentagon?"

zep if you've done the research you ought to speak for yourself rather than linking to sites 9000 pages long that deal 99% with other issues


honestly that page is formatted fucking terribly, it's ridiculous

On April 06 2011 14:28 Zep wrote: Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy! WTC7 Didn't Collapse in Free Fall (sorry baal) Molten Steel - Probably my fav link because it just kicks baal's teeth in

Please show that 90% mechanical engeneer stat or stup pulling facts out of your fucking ass.

I saw both links, the first one totally misses what i said and focus on debuking the "pulling" thing that i didnt even mention as ive tried not to bring anecdotal evidence into this.

They claim the fires were more intense than the pictures shown, and they show some worse pictures, nothing remotely alarming and nothing that would lead me to believe that the building would come down.

Also they said the collapse time was 18 secons which is only partically true because a part fell before but the main structure fell at nearly free fall speed which is not possible if there are still columns.

The second link totally misses what ive said, i didnt claim that the metal oozing out of the building was molten steel, so you are not refuting anything ive said.

On April 06 2011 14:59 asdf2000 wrote: zep if you've done the research you ought to speak for yourself rather than linking to sites 9000 pages long that deal 99% with other issues honestly that page is formatted fucking terribly, it's ridiculous

Right. I should give my biased opinion rather than point towards a truthful, logical answer. I didn't say I have the answer. I said look at all the evidence. This is the other side of baal's argument that he chooses to ignore.

Yes, the sites layout kinda sucks. However, It has a shit ton of credible material with links to everything it references.

On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive.

Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/

The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war.

more importantly

just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people

those other 2 pics look nothing like what i've seen from pics of demolitions, also all the places arrows are pointing are columns that show absolutely no sign of damage by thermite (which i'm assuming you think is the demolition material used for whatever reason)

the camera only takes a picture every 2 seconds, so yes to me that looks like what a plane is going to look like and there's no way to get a better image, idk wtf u want out of this. Security cameras that only take 1 frame every 2 seconds are only showing grounds at most like 50-60 yards in front of the pentagon angled towards the pentagon walls are not going to catch a plane traveling at 600+ mph. What would be the point of having cameras showing the ground outside of the pentagon anyway? If you are worrying about building security you are going to focus the cameras on the walls of the pentagon not the field in front of it.

Gonna have the logic my dad used on this a while ago, do you know this isn't what it looks like when a 110 story tower built like the wtc is hit by a 767 full of jet fuel? Rebuild the towers, give them the old style fire insulation they had, and re ram some 767's into them, if they fall differently then you guys may have a point. I think purdue is working on a comp program to simulate the collapse, but those programs r so fucking complex to build it will take a while more for it to come out with anything.

Which one of these scenarios make the most sense.

1. Exxon or Fed or whoever wants to go to war in the middle east for profit. So they manipulate the executive branch, control cia investigations, learn exactly when bin laden is planning to attack, they decide fuck it need to make sure the towers are destroyed. So to destroy the towers they choose to use nano-thermite (even though that's never been done before), or they choose to use (whatever else, i've only ever heard conspiracy ppl come up with anything else). They purchase the literally tons of thermite needed to bring down the towers, and manage to hire say 500 workers to go in and place nano-thermite on or inside the steel framing of each wtc. They somehow manage to get the workers to lay explosive on every or nearly every or x amount of floors without any of the tens of thousands of workers who practically lived in the wtc towers to notice at all. Sure they orchestra a "power down" on the floors 50-110 of WTC the weekend before to lay explosives there, but they manage to lay explosives throughout both towers while they were fully operational. Laying the explosives would have taken days-weeks and neither tower was ever fully shut down ever, wtc 2 was shut down for 9/8-9/9 from floors 50+, but all other floors and the entire wtc 1 were both fully operational up until they got hit. But that's no problem for the crew they hired. But this organization decides that isn't enough, they must also bomb the pentagon and bring down wtc 7, so obv they plant explosives in wtc 7. But the pentagon is a whole new issue. They arrange to have the pentagon hit by a(n) ______ which just so happens to be good news for them because terrorists high jack flight 77 (or the group hijacked flight 77 and paid for ppl to keep quite and go away). So whatever it is hits the pentagon leaving identifiable remains of 179 out of the 184 people on board flight 77. They pull all this off, convince the vast majority (66-84%) of the public that it was a terrorist attack and they manage to keep all the explosive engineers and flight 77 passengers completely quite for 10 years so far.


OR

2. Exxon/fed/whoever wants to go to war in the middle east. They see Bin Ladens planned attacks (CIA was fairly certain that bin laden planned to attack the US using airplanes since at least 1998). Since any american civilian death on american soil by a hostile nation/enemy will lead US to war w/ whoever caused it (just like we had everyone responsible for the 1993 attack arrested and pursued world wide). So they make sure the CIA reports are not taken seriously. The group manipulates the government just enough to allow the attacks to occur. Then once the attacks do occur as planned and the collapse of the towers is just icing on the cake.

OR

3. A well meaning administration which is completely inept doesn't take Bin Ladens threats seriously, so they ignore the CIA report titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike Inside The USA" and go about their business of clearing some weeds in texas, reading to school kids, etc. The attacks then occur taking the administration and others by surprise.


I hover at about a 2.25 or so, ppl inside the administration and cia def knew the attacks of some type were coming, probably with planes. Many people thought this could give them an opportunity to profit if it did occur, so they kinda let things slip to increase the chances of it occuring with the intention of if this does occur then here's how to profit, if it doesn't occur then oh well we will just find another way into the Middle East. The amount of sheer man power and time and stealth required to pull off number 1 is staggering. As with stuff like the Lusitania I think most instances of "false flag" or what not are situations where the government puts people in a catch 22 to get their way.

Germany either doesn't attack boats like the Lusitania carrying US civilians and therefore allows constant supplies from the US to the allies, or they do attack the boats to cut off the supplies which will then lead the US to war w/ them.

Japan either allows the US to impose massive economic sanctions and movement of the entire pacific fleet to a single base in hawaii which intimidates Japanese commanders and is a semi show of forces, or Japan does attack pearl harbor and weakens the US navy heavily but we then go to war w/ them.

Mexico either doesn't shoot at american troops, or they allow the US army to place more and more people on the american-mexican border and US military men continue to loot mexican property near the boarder (havn't been shown we looted mexican supplies, but it's pretty damn certain we did).

Vietnam either allows US ships to patrol the waters right outside vietnam, cutting off supplies and hurting them economically, or they attack the ships to try and drive them off and free up more shipping lanes.


The gov't makes it so that one way or another they will get the outcome they desire.

On April 06 2011 15:42 traxamillion wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive. Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/ The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war. more importantly just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people

I did say the attacks were necessary, but the tower COLLAPSE was not.

On April 06 2011 15:45 palak wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 15:42 traxamillion wrote:   On April 06 2011 12:48 palak wrote: also the "they needed the buildings to collapse" belief is bullshit mexico allegedly shot at americans so we went to war w/ them lusitania killed 128 americans so we entered a world war gulf of tonkin had 0 casualities and just slight damaged ship and slightly damaged plane, so we went into vietnam for 10 yrs there is no reason that a collapse of the towers was necessary for us to go to war anywhere, we just need any terrorist attack on US home soil and proof it was done by some middle eastern group for us to go to war there. what's so unlikely or unbelievable that a billionaire terrorist follows through on a 20 yr old threat to attack america on home soil and was able to do it due to a lack of security? Also the towers physically collapsing fucked over the US economy pretty bad for a while, if the gov't was behind attack on US soil I don't see why they would do an attack that would fuck over their own economy so badly. Seems very counter productive. Your logic is so flawed that its weird... I know you are good at poker/ The attacks were clearly necessary as before those attacks noone liked bush and noone would have been in support of a war. more importantly just because the economy as a whole takes a hit during a given event doesn't mean that said event can't be hugely profitable for a select group(s) of people I did say the attacks were necessary, but the tower COLLAPSE was not.

guy who owned the buildings probably just wanted more insurance money. lol, who knows with these dirtbags.

read this book bro; enlighten yourself

Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil

Baal says he doesnt know what hit the pentagon, only that it wasnt a plane. Why wouldnt it be a plane? What else moves fast enough to avoid being caught on camera, causes this kind of damage, and bursts into a big ball of bright red fire as a result of jet fuel being on board? We dont use gasoline/jet fuel as an explosive in weapons, because it's not all that explosive. We use c4, semtex, and things of this nature, which do not produce big balls of fire, especially ones that linger on and burn for hours.

also look at the trading on the day before 9/11. I think this is a very telling point.

American Airlines stock was heavily shorted the day before


one +2.5million option was never even picked up; who does that?

shows that people AT LEAST knew

^ http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp

don't know y i'm posting that since u'll just say it was a bad investigation, or the newsletter or investors had knowledge of 9/11 and it wasn't just a coincident cuz those never occur. Also Larry Silverstein bought the wtc towers on July 24th 2001, so clearly he was in on the attack too since that's only 2 months before the attack. Things never just occur randomly and then we put reason and planning/structure behind them because the human brain doesn't like randomness or coincidences, nooo that can't possibly be it.

Edit: Now I'm done arguing. If ppl genuinely think scenario 1 is the most likely way september 11th occurred, then fuck it at this pt there's no actual way to convince them otherwise.

Baal: Let me put this in perspective as to show you how small of a minority you are within the group of individuals with the same or greater knowledge than you have about engineering. Over the last nine years, less than 1500 engineers and architects world wide have signed the 9/11 AE Truth Movement Petition. I've known about that shit for at least 7+ years that I can remember from first hearing about it. I'm 23 years old. If I, as a white, middle class american living in the suburbs (the good life) as a kid first heard about it at age 16 eight years ago, how the fuck has the entire USA not heard about it by now? It's been covered in American news more than Charlie Sheen...But back to my point, 1500 engineers and architects worldwide have signed the petition. in 2009, there were 239k mechanical engineers, 278k civil engineers, and 233k architects in the United States. The AE911Truth Movement has been going on nearly 10 years and they have 1500 professionals in those industries worldwide who believe 9/11 was an inside job. 1500 worldwide, 750K in the United States.You called my bluff, no study has been conducted among professional engineers and architects in the United States that show 90% of them don't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I'd love to see a study among those professionals who do believe it was an inside job. I can't find one. What I was trying to point out and attempting to say is that you are a 10% outlier at worse, but truthfully, it's probably closer to 1%. There is less than a 1% chance that you are correct on this matter baal. Congrats, you and the westboro baptist church got it right...again! The last point i want to make is, if you are as right as you think you are, wouldn't your industry you love and understand feel the same way. Wouldn't the majority of engineers worldwide make a big deal out of everything they know being disproved right in front of them? If i posted contradictory advice on a hi stakes poker forum, I may have valid points from having poker experience, but more often than not, I am wrong. Especially if i am disagreeing with 99% of high stakes pros.

Anyone want to discuss possible military involvement in 9/11 or even prior involvement to 9/11 because that is the only real conspiracy theory that should be being talked about and yet it never has.

did u even read what you linked there? it basically said the trading on the 6th was super sketch

then quoted some random explanation of 1 person putting 95% of the calls with zero evidence.

and also look just look and think about that "explanation" for a second. would be very convenient and mbn for that guy. just like a training exercise about hijacked planes the same day as the attacks.

and zep there are obviously other reasons more people wouldn't have signed that petition. ducy

This thread makes me sad. We are supposed to be the smartest species on earth, yet so many are brainwashed and retarded, unable to think critically, just repeating officials' statements. Just the way they like it. Enough 9/11 stuff, it's old, everyone already has an opinion, nobody has gotten smarter, let's shift the thread back on course, alright?
FEMA Camps it is.
In the next paragraph I will draw you a picture of several facts. You have to connect the dots and come up with a reasonable theory on what these law changes and preparations are made for. Can you do that please? Its especially important for Americans to see this. Remember, these are all hard facts, undisputable. Just try to put them in context of what is the Government preparing for and why.










pay close attention here!

You just be really bored in life to require the excitement of doomsday scenarios to occupy your time.

If someone told me there was a good chance I am wanted dead and presents me with evidence I would be damn interested to look into them before I make up my mind. Because, in the worst case - I am dead. In the best case - I've lost some of my spare time. Ignorance is bliss.

On April 05 2011 20:19 Baal wrote: I dont feel like going into detail of why 911 is an obvious demolition...

If only this were true.

On April 05 2011 20:44 Baal wrote: I am not a conspiracy theorists despise what some idiots want to think, im a rationalist and i believe what the evidence and logic dictates me and i try not to be biased and keep emotion out of it

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

given that fema is supposed to handle disaster response isn't it possible these camps are just to house people in response to disasters?

They are in the whole of USA, these projects are built with hundreds of billions of your dollars. It has to be based on either some very serious threat or it may be related to the promoted by Obama - prevention detention. Basically, if military thinks you pose a future threat given your profile or looks or actions (anything), you are going to be put in one of these camps. As Obama said in one of the videos i posted 20 mins ago - it's fine if you stay in detention one, five or even 10 years before you are called for trial or released. Yes, these words came from the mouth of President Obama. Would you comment on that in relation to the massive hundred-billion project for building FEMA Camps?

Baal, I recall you saying that anyone that isn't at least open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is a moron. Does that mean you think James Randi is a moron? I thought you liked him.

On April 06 2011 17:39 D_smart_S wrote: This thread makes me sad. We are supposed to be the smartest species on earth, yet so many are brainwashed and retarded, unable to think critically, just repeating officials' statements.

Sorry but what have you been doing other than regurgitating shit you've seen on stupid youtube clips?

Here's a thread you might find interesting: http://www.liquidpoker.net/poker-forum/760502/500,000_coffins...html

You're so good at thinking critically and coming up with your own stuff that you create the same thread as somebody else and the exact same thread that thousands of other people have created on other forums across the internet.

On April 06 2011 18:36 D_smart_S wrote: They are in the whole of USA, these projects are built with hundreds of billions of your dollars.

Do you even know how much money that is? Are you willing to admit that you just pulled that figure out of your ass? I'd rather "repeat official statements" than just make stuff up.

so you really out of everything I said you are debunking me with its not hundreds of billions. Well, fine, its several hundred millions. Is that better? What about my punctuaction?
The fact many people have made similar threads is because they are trying to warn Americans. Even MTV have one or two 'ads' when they try to warn the public. But its subtle, of course, since the conflict of interest that arises. You do realise that MTV has a huge audience and putting these clips is actually pretty frightening. It's not like the director has decided to be joking with WW2 and jews and all that. People are trying to warn Americans. That's all. You can mock me now but very soon you would know what those warnings were for.

On April 06 2011 17:39 D_smart_S wrote: + Show Spoiler + This thread makes me sad. We are supposed to be the smartest species on earth, yet so many are brainwashed and retarded, unable to think critically, just repeating officials' statements. Just the way they like it. Enough 9/11 stuff, it's old, everyone already has an opinion, nobody has gotten smarter, let's shift the thread back on course, alright? FEMA Camps it is. In the next paragraph I will draw you a picture of several facts. You have to connect the dots and come up with a reasonable theory on what these law changes and preparations are made for. Can you do that please? Its especially important for Americans to see this. Remember, these are all hard facts, undisputable. Just try to put them in context of what is the Government preparing for and why. pay close attention here!

You do know that last video is from the onion, a joke news site, right?

On April 06 2011 20:57 D_smart_S wrote: so you really out of everything I said you are debunking me with its not hundreds of billions. Well, fine, its several hundred millions. Is that better? What about my punctuaction?

Well it's kind of hard to debunk what you're saying because all you're saying are a few vague things followed by "hence martial law is imminent."

Let's take for example one of your videos. The video with Bill Gates talking about global warmining. Do you care to elaborate on what that video is alleging? It's essentially saying that Bill Gates is using a nice chunk of his personal fortune to try to sterilize Africans so that the human population is reduced and there are less CO2 emissions. How can you post this in a serious manner when the concept is so incredibly stupid. Do you think sterilizing Africans is going to effect CO2 emissions? You and I put together probably have a bigger carbon footprint than an entire village in Africa. Even if it did make a difference, what would he gain from it? He will be dead before global warming could possibly effect his life in any negative way. He has no personal benefit from this. So he is just going to use his time, effort, and personal fortune to sterilize Africans just for the hell of it? He is a philanthropist that has given away BILLIONS to charity but in your distorted view of the world he is evil. Good lord..

edit: btw just to inform you of what Gates meant by vaccines and healthcare leading to lower population..

It's no secret that the countries with the lowest population growth are developed nations. Some European countries even have a negative population growth, or they would without immigration. People in developing nations have more kids. Part of that reason is because healthcare is bad and you don't know how long your kid is going to live so you might as well have several in case they die. Offspring are needed to help support the family as well as support the parents when they get old because nobody wants to die alone, and as was said, there are no good nursing homes to support them because health care is bad. This is a very basic concept in political science, and how someone can overlook it to mean that Bill Gates wants to sterilize Africans is so ridiculous it's funny.

On April 06 2011 17:39 D_smart_S wrote: This thread makes me sad. We are supposed to be the smartest species on earth, yet so many are brainwashed and retarded, unable to think critically, just repeating officials' statements. Just the way they like it.

LOL, has to be one of the biggest trolls. You are right that many people are brainwashed and retarded, however, you are actually describing yourself. The threads you start show a clear indication of below primate level intelligence. The elaborate scams and conspiracies you are able to believe are truly impressive. Your complete ignorance on so many topics also is laughable. I'm going to have to check how many threads I missed between this and your cancer one. Last time it was the conspiracy that all scientists/researchers (which is several million) in the life sciences are in on a ploy to prevent anticancer/antiviral drugs from reaching the population. Now this.

I also fail to understand why you care if the U.S. is going to kill their citizens since you aren't American. I'm guessing you're worried Bill Gates is harboring a grudge against Bulgaria and will show up with his advanced human destruction technology and wipe you and all of Africa off the map. That way he can "prevent" serious global warming for future generations of Americans that survive the mass killing planned by Obama.

On April 06 2011 20:16 blackjacki2 wrote: Baal, I recall you saying that anyone that isn't at least open to the idea that 9/11 was an inside job is a moron. Does that mean you think James Randi is a moron? I thought you liked him.

No, im a huge fan of James Randi *deleted opinion on james randy, see next post**deleted opinion on james randy, see next post* ive argued with people open to the possibility that it was an inside job, those discussions are worth having, i am open to change my mind if i am presented with enough evidence.

For example in this thread i was shown that cut beam pic was post-clean up, in a previous thread i was shown a turbine in the pentagon rubble, first was a hard rebuttal to a claim (that i later posted additional pics) and the second one puzzles me tbh, but taking those into consideration i still believe the other side of the story has much more convincing evidence.

Palak and others wont consider its possible that it was a conspiracy, they dont believe governments would do something like that to them, despise history teaching them the opposite (Lusitana as mentioned before).

He even mentioned a "good intentioned government" which shows his level of naivety

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread147115/pg1

Thats i link about James Randi and 911 and i agree totally with it, thinking back James Randi is a rationalist in the matters of spirituality and misticism, i havent seen a really logical well founded logic from him on the government/society issues, unlike other people i admire like Hicks, Molyneux, Carlin or even stanhope.

So im guessing my conclusion on this matter, considering how Randi instantly dismisses any theory without much thought into it is that James Randi like most people is just part of the Stockholm syndrome and is not as critical of his surroundings as much as he thinks he is.

I think people should really make an effort to break their paradigms in the way they see things, they so quickly toss me in the "conspiracy theorists" category, despise the fact that i was the first to disprove these FEMA coffins thing, unlike most of you, i am in the search for evidence to make a conclusions, i dont look for evidence to support my previous ideas.

I dont have a way to know this for sure, if you want my opinion is because it arises less questioning, many would be in stronger disbelief of explosives planed in the building with security staff watching over it, also i think its a much better way to spread panic, a calculated demolition isnt as good to spread fear than random flights being hijacked and used as missiles that can target anywhere, any time, people start to wonder where they could hit, and if their plane might be hijacked, just see at TSA and see how afraid people of flights that that they are tolerating having their kids strip searched and their boobs squeezed by strangers.

Well honestly this seems like the weakest links in the theory of controlled demolition. Capturing several airplanes is quite difficult and makes the whole operation twice the more dangerous. I mean there's so much that can go wrong in flying planes into the buildings: what if another one had missed (and hitting 30 meters wide building with a plane is ridiculously hard feat)? What if people on flight would have attacked the terrorists like they did on one flight? Then they couldn't have blown it up at all, and they would have had to gather the explosives away without anyone noticing.

WTC was almost bombed once already (90s that is), so it would have been perfectly credible that terrorists succeeded in something they failed once before. I mean airplanes hitting a tower has never been done and the first reaction of many experienced pilots was "that cannot be done, no way", whereas bombing down buildings seems way more credible.

I believe that you would yourself admit that airplanes are not so much better in spreading fear that it would be worth all the hassle? I mean bombs can hit anywhere anytime, airplanes can only hit tall towers. And planes have been hijacked by terrorists for at least 50 years, yet that has not caused any decline in the amount of flying customers. Also getting an excuse for stricter security at airports hardly seems a good reason either: I mean you can justify stricter search policys by any terrorist attack it would be perfectly legit to start super strict securities at airports because of a terrorist bomb attack in NY.

I mentioned "good intentioned government" as something that some people believe, not myself. I said in the very next sentence I didn't believe that.

randi on 9/11 http://www.myspace.com/prezbyter/blog/513485265 randi doesn't accept 9/11 conspiracy theories for the same reason as everyone else. The man power and time required to plant explosives throughout wtc 1,2,& 7 without anyone noticing or coming forward. Is so staggeringly impossible that an organization couldn't pull it off. How the hell do you plant explosives on the framing of at least 70 floors of an office building which has people in it 24/7 without anyone noticing or hearing or thinking anything suspicious. We consider the government could plot to kill US civilians, but this is conspiracy is so damned elaborate it's ridiculous. At least things like the JFK assassination conspiracy theories could be maintained to a small group of 10 or so people, 9/11 theories required multiple hundreds if not thousands over the course of multiple weeks.

Also Michael Schemer and skeptic magazine on 9/11 http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/06-09-11/

You've been shown a picture of a jet turbine in the pentagon rubble, and medical examiners found the remains of 64 passengers from flight 77 (earlier i had said 179/189...that was total people killed) http://www.dcmilitary.com/dcmilitary_archives/stories/112901/12279-1.shtml

Cameras catching an object flying at speeds roughly 545 mph, plane wreckage all around the pentagon crash site, dna from passengers of flight 77 in the pentagon crash site, people on flight 77 calling their families telling them that the plane had been hijacked by terrorists, no other conceivable object could hit the pentagon (even you admit this)...but noooo whatever hit pentagon was something other then flight 77 cuz that would make to much sense.

On April 07 2011 01:32 palak wrote: I mentioned "good intentioned government" as something that some people believe, not myself. I said in the very next sentence I didn't believe that. randi on 9/11 http://www.myspace.com/prezbyter/blog/513485265 randi doesn't accept 9/11 conspiracy theories for the same reason as everyone else. The man power and time required to plant explosives throughout wtc 1,2,& 7 without anyone noticing or coming forward. Is so staggeringly impossible that an organization couldn't pull it off. How the hell do you plant explosives on the framing of at least 70 floors of an office building which has people in it 24/7 without anyone noticing or hearing or thinking anything suspicious.

umm, it's not staggeringly impossible at all. firstly, you wouldn't need to put explosives on all 70 floors, nor even close to all the floors.

secondly, it wouldn't require that much manpower. how can you claim it would take that much manpower, what's the basis for that? why couldn't it be done by a handful of individuals?

thirdly, there were multiple evacuations and complete shutdowns of the WTT in the weeks before they collapsed. if you won't research that yourself or just take my word for it maybe i'll prove it. actually here, besides evacuations, there was a 26 hour power down the week before the collapse of the towers

http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html

that's of course if this interview is legitimate. id assume it is, but i don't know that for sure and I can't prove it.

now i don't know if the towers collapsed because of demolition (though i definitely suspect at least WTC7 did). all I am replying to here is about "what is possible".




also to note in a random coincidence is that g.w. bush's younger brother was on the board of directors for a company that ran security in the WTTs during that time frame.




anyways for them to do it they would have to use very powerful explosives, but there seemed to be evidence of very powerful explosives after the collapse. then again i don't really know what kind of aftereffects the collapse of such a huge building has.

So I'm not well versed on 9/11 conspiracy theory. But what I don't understand is all these theories about blowing up the towers. I'm not saying that it is completely impossible, but if the US was behind the attack why isn't the major conspiracy that they simply orchestrated the plane crashes. I mean planes obviously crashed into the building, and it appears that this planning is required in the tower blowing up theories as well. I find it much easier to believe simple theories like this, timing/orchestrating the planes would have been hard enough to plan and keep secret. I find it harder to believe all these additional steps (Note: I realize there are some conflicting views over whether the buildings would have collapsed from the planes).

On April 07 2011 02:29 akevin87 wrote: So I'm not well versed on 9/11 conspiracy theory. But what I don't understand is all these theories about blowing up the towers. I'm not saying that it is completely impossible, but if the US was behind the attack why isn't the major conspiracy that they simply orchestrated the plane crashes. I mean planes obviously crashed into the building, and it appears that this planning is required in the tower blowing up theories as well. I find it much easier to believe simple theories like this, timing/orchestrating the planes would have been hard enough to plan and keep secret. I find it harder to believe all these additional steps (Note: I realize there are some conflicting views over whether the buildings would have collapsed from the planes).

I think the reason the demolition theory is so prevalent is that there is evidence of demolition in videos/pictures/behavior of the structures. And also that jet fuel shouldn't melt through all that steel.


I think that this website sums up the demolition view pretty well:

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc5.htm

^ the buildings undeniably start their collapse from the point of impact from the airplanes, this was on the 77th and 93rd floors respectively, the buildings then cascade down with each floor collapsing as the previous floor hits it. Also some of the flashes 9/11 truthers claim came from explosives are occuring on floors just a level or two down from where the planes hit, so explosives had to be at least that high up.

How can you think that planting explosives on multiple levels of framing of a sky scraper doesn't could be done by only a handful of individuals. We are talking planning of the demolition, removing of dry wall/insulation, transporting and planting thousands of lbs of explosives, reinsulating and dry walling, and doing this all quickly so that no one in the buildings would have noticed and doing it on at least 70 floors. How the hell is that possible without hundreds of people. The king dome required " 4,450 pounds of dynamite placed in 5,905 carefully sited holes and 21.6 miles (34.8 km) of detonation cord inserted over a period of four months" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc. ) and volume wise it was much smaller then the world trade center towers.

The 36 hours black out is only of WTC 2 and only from the 50th floor up, the bottom 50 floors of WTC 2 and every floor of WTC 1 were 100% operational during that time period. So even if explosives were planted on floors 51-92 of WTC 2 during that 36 hr time period (a miraculously fast planting of explosives), it still doesn't explain how no one on the bottom 50 floors of WTC 2 or anyone on any floor of WTC 1 ever noticed walls being demolished, explosives being planted, and walls being rebuilt. Not a single security camera or security guard ever noticing anything suspicious. Keep in mind these buildings were often occupied nearly 24/7.

Marvin Bush was not on the board of directors for security during that time frame, he retired in 2000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_P._Bush


Question for Baal, what are these Mexican ship sinkings you keep referring to and what war were they during? I tried googling for them but I can't find any information on anything about them.

i see you're right, he stopped being on board of directors in 2000. w/e, that doesn't really change anything, especially if it would require a much longer time frame like you say. either way it's a pretty weird coincidence.

I am sure there were plenty of rooms that were private.

if they blew up the WTT I doubt they were using dynamite. anyways i don't really know the logistics of it i suppose it might be extremely difficult. but that doesn't make me think it's that improbable anyways.

It's all speculation, I don't know. But it doesn't sound that infeasible to me, given the potential rewards for certain parties (and rewards were certainly had in the following years).


WTC7, though. Absolute joke. Completely ignored by the media.

The claims that WTC7 collapsed due to fires seems ridiculous to me. But what do I know, I am no expert. I can only go by what I read and what makes sense to me.

When I read that "pretty much no steel structure ever collapses due to fire" it seems like that's some heavy evidence to support the demolition theory. Then I read about a thousand coincidences and smoking guns. Some are bullshit, and some don't seem to be. I read about NORAD stand down, I read about repeated lies by the media. I read about warnings to top officials not to fly on 9/11. I read about insurance collected from the WTT collapses, I read about gold that comes up missing post collapse and no one questions it. I read about confiscated videos and tapes that are then never released. I read about revealing quotes from top officials. I read about the official list of hijackers and how UTTERLY FULL OF SHIT it is. I see how we go into the middle east but never catch osama bin laden, yet we can get plenty of interviews/videos from him right? I read about stock movements just prior to 9/11. The list goes on and on man


So yeah, it's just speculation. I admit what I don't know. But I also try to use my brain about who benefited from what and how many unanswered questions there are.

Im not sure i believe the official 9/11 story. I think its bullshit

I also believe JFK was an inside job... haha ! :D

On April 06 2011 14:28 Zep wrote: Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy! WTC7 Didn't Collapse in Free Fall (sorry baal) Molten Steel - Probably my fav link because it just kicks baal's teeth in

Well, im pretty sure believing in the official story disagrees with over 90% of the mechanical engineers in Iran too. Why is that relevant ?

I mean, if a mechanical engineer goes out and says his honest opinion he might get fired in U.S right ?

On April 07 2011 03:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Im not sure i believe the official 9/11 story. I think its bullshit I also believe JFK was an inside job... haha ! :D

i honestly believed that absolutely everyone knew the JFK assasination was an inside job, is there a poll on this?

I watched a documentary about the magic bullet, and based on this documentary (if its not falsified) im well over 95% sure JFK was an inside job.

But a lot of people have probably not even heard about the magic bullet or let alone this documentary so in a poll a lot of people would probably vote "no" due to lack of information or desinformation from history books.

On April 07 2011 06:59 VanDerMeyde wrote: I watched a documentary about the magic bullet, and based on this documentary (if its not falsified) im well over 95% sure JFK was an inside job. But a lot of people have probably not even heard about the magic bullet or let alone this documentary so in a poll a lot of people would probably vote "no" due to lack of information or desinformation from history books.

yeah, the JFK official story is the most retarded of all. I think i saw somewhere that 60% of Americans think it's an inside job, but i'm not sure about it. The thing that people don't think about is why. Why would someone kill JFK? Go and find his last speeches. What did he try to talk about. Who wanted him dead? How is that connected to 9/11? You see, it's not like the Government is good for a whole decade and suddenly decides to kill some of its people. You don't go to the supermarket and just decide to kill someone on the way there. There is enormous planning going on, there is a reason and most importantly - there is an agenda that is followed for a lot of years. There is a final objective. Go find what it is, that's the important stuff. Who are the killers, who are pulling the strings. There is a root of all evil. Obama is just a god damn puppet, he would be the one to take the blame years later. Black guy takes the blame, you know. The Council on Foreign Relations is where you should be looking at.
P.S.: palak, when you are put in one of those camps, please know that you are there because of your small brain. Don't forget to take some pictures.

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed."

guys, he was talking about communism there? I mean yeah, only reference to communism is in the beginning of the speech, but I thought it was obvious by the context?

Also it was not his last speech, but held in 1961. It certainly is not secret by any means, you can find full transcript here http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Re...Newspaper-Publishers-Association.aspx

I kinda find it telling of the general credibility of whole conspiracy scene that the previous poster quoted a silly sensational youtubevideo instead of the actual speech, which anyone can find in minutes using google.

unfuckingbelievable
Communism? U gotta be shitting me! Now the speech is about Communism... my faith in human intellect is diminishing rapidly.

"And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

He is talking about a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that is not in sight. "covert means", "subvresion instead of elections", "infiltration instead of invasion". Conspiracy that has gone as far as having tremendous influence in "military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations". What he describes is nothing like Communism. He is saying "we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy". Not in America, around the world. Please don't make JFK ashamed in his grave. He was the last true President of the United States and he wanted warn his people, that's all. He said it himself - his words shouldn't be interpreted, they are as clear as they can get. Guys, this is the clearest evidence that something is wrong in the USA. JFK spoke and died. Please, don't be blind.

On April 07 2011 06:08 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On April 07 2011 03:15 VanDerMeyde wrote: Im not sure i believe the official 9/11 story. I think its bullshit I also believe JFK was an inside job... haha ! :D i honestly believed that absolutely everyone knew the JFK assasination was an inside job, is there a poll on this?

between 75% (gallup 03) and 66 (fox 03) think oswald did not act alone. But here's the list of people who that conspirators think are responsible.

1. One other random gunman with no relation to anyone but oswald
2. Business man Clay Shaw
3. Federal reserve
4 3 hobos with some relation to someone
5 CIA
6. Military industrial complex
7. Secret service
8. Cuban exiles
9. The mafia
10. LBJ
11. Soviet Union
12. Israel
13 Fidel Castro

EDit: note, this question isn't for who was responsible, the question is simply did Oswald Act alone yes or no (gallup), was their a conspiracy to kill JFK yes or no (Fox). If you broke it up by something like "Who was responsible for the JFK assassination conspiracy" I'm pretty sure the largest plurality would be the CIA by a pretty wide margin, it might even be the majority.

On April 07 2011 03:59 VanDerMeyde wrote: Show nested quote + On April 06 2011 14:28 Zep wrote: Baal you purposefully avoid certain evidence regarding 9/11 to make the conclusions that you make. So glad the site debunking 9/11 exists. But you seriously look at 25% of the puzzle and you think you've solved it. Look at the entire scope of what you're saying. Don't just support evidence that concludes what you want to hear. Stop being an investigative journalist with a story to write and start being a scientist who uses evidence to draw up conclusion. You disagree with over 90% of mechanical engineers in the united states. I'm not saying that 10% shouldn't have been enough to start an investigation, but it does mean that you are probably wrong. Anyways here are 2 direct links to the debunking 9/11 site that have pages and pages and pages of info that crush your conspiracy theories, read and enjoy! WTC7 Didn't Collapse in Free Fall (sorry baal) Molten Steel - Probably my fav link because it just kicks baal's teeth in Well, im pretty sure believing in the official story disagrees with over 90% of the mechanical engineers in Iran too. Why is that relevant ? I mean, if a mechanical engineer goes out and says his honest opinion he might get fired in U.S right ?

Can't be fired legally. A person in US can not be fired due to beliefs.

If a person came out and said they thought 9/11 was a conspiracy and then could prove they were fired due to prejudice from that belief they could/would file a wrongful termination lawsuit against their former employee and would be paid all the money they should have been paid if they were still working plus "emotional damanges" which could easily total in the millions.

Also say that 15% of mechanial engineers, architechs, and civil engineers think it was a conspiracy but are to scared they will lose their jobs...that would still only make it 16% of those professions think it was a cover up.

EDIT: asdf links to

I read about NORAD stand down, I read about repeated lies by the media. I read about warnings to top officials not to fly on 9/11. I read about insurance collected from the WTT collapses, I read about gold that comes up missing post collapse and no one questions it. I read about confiscated videos and tapes that are then never released. I read about revealing quotes from top officials. I read about the official list of hijackers and how UTTERLY FULL OF SHIT it is. I see how we go into the middle east but never catch osama bin laden, yet we can get plenty of interviews/videos from him right? I read about stock movements just prior to 9/11. The list goes on and on man

?

Baal answer that Mexican ship sinking question, I really wanna know what war and when..there's gotta be a wiki on it.

He is talking about a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that is not in sight. "covert means", "subvresion instead of elections", "infiltration instead of invasion". Conspiracy that has gone as far as having tremendous influence in "military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations". What he describes is nothing like Communism. He is saying "we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy". Not in America, around the world. Please don't make JFK ashamed in his grave. He was the last true President of the United States and he wanted warn his people, that's all. He said it himself - his words shouldn't be interpreted, they are as clear as they can get. Guys, this is the clearest evidence that something is wrong in the USA. JFK spoke and died. Please, don't be bli

Could you please read the whole speech in context?


I know that what he says is insane in context of communism, but people had a tendency to be insane about communism in that day and age in the USA. Communism indeed was viewed to use infiltrators (and the Soviet Union of course did too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alger_Hiss). Communism certainly was a world wide movement with third of the worlds population living under self-described (not actual obv) communist rule. Around the world the communists supposedly worked to take over (or of course they really did work for a socialist revolution, it just was not a conspiracy of the kind fantasied by US propaganda), like in Vietnam or European countries.

Also notice that he is holding the speech on the purpose of asking the journalists to impose self-censorship on US policies. That hardly sounds like a last great President who goes at war with hidden conspiracy.

It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations."

Seems a standard 70s description of the Soviet Union?