9-11 coverup and U2

[Varitek]

noooooooo dont let this thread die!!!!!!

i'll actually have to write my damn paper.

arth where did you go?

 

[U2isthebest]

Varitek, I just emailed you.

 

[Varitek]

 

[Varitek]

^ to the email, not the events of 9/11

 

[U2isthebest]

^ to the email, not the events of 9/11

Yup! I got that one.

 

[Vincent Vega]

And no comment on WTC7's collapse (World Trade Center 7)

btw FBI, CIA, SS and FEMA was located in that building. Along with thosands of cases of fraud.. like for example Enron papers

These damn fucking Germans.

They are really everywhere. I can't believe it.

 

[meegannie]

ArthDent, I think you'd have more of an argument if you posted sources for your claims (legitimate studies with scientific backing) rather than just links to YouTube and Google videos.

 

[Shag On A Rock]

Problem! 'Bono' is not his real name!!!! Scandal upon scandal!!!!

And Earnie Shavers is not the real name of the person stating Bono is not Bonos real name!!!! Its a riddle wrapped in an enigma sprinkled with polonium, Houston !!1!

 

[AussieU2fanman]

Im an engineer and I don't see how an explosion in the BASEMENT (which is what the guy in the north tower is saying) will have any effect on the collapse of the building if the collapse CLEARLY started from the TOP of building and cascaded down. The basement explosion will only help if they were trying take the building down from the bottom. I don't understand what anyone's implying by insisting there was a basement explosion.

Arth, don't tell me your one of those people who believe that the pentagon was hit by a missile and you're one of those 'WHERES THE WRECKAGE HUH?!' people even though it has been explained SOOO MANY TIMES!

 

[Axver]

People, let's be reasonable now. The 11 September 2001 conspiracies are on the INTERNET.

They MUST be true!!!

 

[kimby]

Thanks guys and gals, for the laughs

I wonder what the mods will do to this thread when they wake up!

 

[DaveC]

While I wholeheartedly disagree with the notion that the government was directly involved, or that what we saw isn't actually what happened, I wouldn't reject totally the notion that the government (Clinton & Bush's both) allowed it to happen.

After all, Pearl Harbour was allowed to happen because FDR knew it would give a better pretext for the US to enter the war.

 

[Axver]

I wonder what the mods will do to this thread when they wake up!

Make it the Official FYM "Taking The Piss" Thread and sticky it at the top of the forum for everyone's amusement!

 

[Canadiens1131]

• Of course 9/11 was an inside job, you boobs. Who do you think propped up the Taliban in the 1980s to stave off the spread of communism?

• And as far as a 9/11 cover up, I've had some very smart fellow college students tell me to watch Loose Change. Let me just say, if you honestly base your opinions on a 9/11 cover-up on that piece of shit, you must struggle dealing with day-to-day real life. It's got even more blatant paper-thin half-truths, manipulation, and shoddy editing than a Michael Moore 'edutainment' flick.

Oh, and have we stooped to posting grainy zoomed-in photos of the planes in the air, labeling digital compression artifacts as 'military fuel pods' yet?

 

[AchtungBono]

Everything falls back on 9-11
The staged event to start the ball rolling.

*reads.....* "STAGED event"......

*reads again in disbelief*

I can only hope that I've misunderstood you and that my grey matter is slowly disappearing in my old age.

Did you actually believe 911 was STAGED???? You just cannot be that blind.......or that STUPID.

 

[AchtungBono]

"I think there's about 3 people on earth that actually believe 9-11 was a conspiracy."

Well that is neat. Please educate yourself. A pull neglected to be published by the government found that 48% of the public thought that it was an inside job.

Yeah sure. Bin Laden is a big treath. Funny how a plane could hit the Pentagon after being hijacked for over an hour. Andrews airbase is 5 minutes away. The Pentagon is the worlds most protected building. Even has a missile defence.

Why was it turned off?
Why was a law passed that gave vice and or the president the overall command over when to intercept hijacked planes only months before 9-11, when Norad had it before that?
Why was there being held a drill on 9-11 on hijacked planes and then telling Norad these planes were part of the drill?
Why were none of the important questions of the 9-11 comision never answered. Why did they only spend 600.000 on the comission and 50 million on the Clinton sex allegations?

Comon people wake up!

OMG.......

I seriously hope that you're trying to be funny because otherwise you're scaring the hell out of me just thinking that you might be serious in what you're saying.

 

[DaveC]

Originally posted by ArthDent
"I think there's about 3 people on earth that actually believe 9-11 was a conspiracy."

Well that is neat. Please educate yourself. A pull neglected to be published by the government found that 48% of the public thought that it was an inside job.

Please give us a link to this poll. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that nearly half the country thinks the government is in on 9/11 to the point that they directly were responsible for the events of the day. Unless it's a blatantly misleading question from a conspiracy-theory organization, I think you made that number up.

Yeah sure. Bin Laden is a big treath. Funny how a plane could hit the Pentagon after being hijacked for over an hour. Andrews airbase is 5 minutes away. The Pentagon is the worlds most protected building. Even has a missile defence.

Why was it turned off?

The Pentagon has a missile defense to shoot down incoming bombers at 50,000 feet, NOT to shoot down a passenger aircraft flying nearly at ground level. There's a reason why missiles are pointed up when fired from the ground.

I'd guess the defense system was turned off (although I doubt it was actually turned off, probably just not on alert) because they had no idea where the plane was actually going or really what was actually happening at that time. Firing cruise missiles at an airliner full of innocent civilians is not a decision taken lightly, let alone when you have no clue where it's headed. If the plane had gone for the Capitol, arming missiles at the Pentagon wouldn't have had much effect. At the same time, nobody knew that plane was going to hit the Pentagon proper until seconds before it actually did. The military is pretty strict about who it shoots missiles at (even in war zones, let alone shooting a SAM at ground level in Washington DC), so to activate and fire at the plane by the time it was evident that it was on its way to the Pentagon was an impossibility.

Why was a law passed that gave vice and or the president the overall command over when to intercept hijacked planes only months before 9-11, when Norad had it before that?

This is something I can't explain and deserves research. Either way, it really doesn't make the task of ordering an aircraft shot down any easier. NORAD might even be quicker on the trigger finger, being made up of actual military members (remember, soldiers are technically an anachronism in peacetime - they depend on war for their survival, ironically - why else do you think wars are most fervently supported by those who go fight them?). I'd say this rule change had absolutely no effect whatsoever until 9/11 actually happened and it had to be put to use, or at least thought about. You're projecting the viewpoint of today on history of the past - a cardinal sin when it comes to arguing a historical idea.

Why was there being held a drill on 9-11 on hijacked planes and then telling Norad these planes were part of the drill?

I'm not 100% sure I understand this, but I think you're insinuating that there was some sort of drill being held at NORAD, and that instead of being reported as actual hijacked aircraft they were reported as being involved in the drill. This is a pretty bold statement, and I've never heard it from anywhere before. You're going to need a source for this one too, in addition to your 48% "pull".

Why were none of the important questions of the 9-11 comision never answered. Why did they only spend 600.000 on the comission and 50 million on the Clinton sex allegations?

I assume by "important questions" you are referring to the questions you are putting forth in regards to a conspiracy. The reason the 9/11 commission did not answer these is because it was outside the scope of the commission. Only $600,000 was spent because that was all that was needed. $50,000,000 was spent on Clinton because a) it involved the (possible) indictment of a sitting President and because Congress was controlled by Republicans at the time. The Clinton sex scandal and 9/11 are two completely different things though and therefore the scope of the investigations will be very different by default. You can't compare them. That's like me wondering why Consumer Reports gave 5 stars to the Toyota Corolla but only 2 stars to the newest Kenmore toaster - two different things, two different criteria to investigate.

Your points are moot. I applaud your standing up for your stance and asking questions - a government that goes unquestioned is a government that abuses its authority - although it's simply not factually tenable based on the evidence we have now to assert that the government was directly involved in 9/11.

 

[Varitek]

Thanks guys and gals, for the laughs

I wonder what the mods will do to this thread when they wake up!

I was so glad it happened when no mods were around. I so enjoy feeding trolls on occasion.

 

[ArthDent]

The problem I face.. Is the the fact that most of you have very little info on that day. Like for instance that a third building collapsed. WTC7. Not just the big towers. And the smiley was because you misunderstood again. You thought I meant the big towers didn't collapse. I mean comon I'm not a big conspiracy idiot! I just think that they were deliberately taken down with controlled demolition.

And by staged I mean that the government was in on it. They staged the event. Not that it didn't happen. You guys are not paying attention!

As an engineer I would be ashamed if I were you. You would know the pancake theory is impossible. The building actually collapses at free fall speed. Eliminating the P theory. There would be some resistance on each floor in order to break it. And speed would loose its momentum. It's natural laws. Also the fire never got hot or big enough to weaking the steal. Jet fuel cannot reach 2000 Fahrenheit in an uncontrolled enviroment. It maxes out at 1200-1500. And then you do not account for fireproofing. It was buildt to withstand several 747 crashes. Why the complete failure of both towers. And then the third 47 story building virtually unharmed collapse!

c'mon people!

 

[Varitek]

Guys who joined this trhead after Arth finally went to bed, please, take an example from those of us who made it 7 pages in our tired delirium and do not respond to ridiculous arguments rationally. The only logical response to irrationality is more irrationality! No need to get your panties in a bunch - as Axver said, take a piss instead!

 

[Varitek]

ooooh he's back just in time for my most boring class!! woooohoooo.

arthdent have you ever read the 9/11 commission report? isn't it funny that an independent body could believe the government lies? and they only got bribed 600,000 for it, unlike ken star who the government paid 50million to unseat bill clinton so they didn't have to assassinate him like they did kennedy.

 

[ArthDent]

The amount of ridicule..

This is what happens when someone dares to stand up and think for themselves. Good luck with the government. And make sure to vote for the NeoNazis that runs america at the next opportunity also. I am not going to keep up this discussion in a serious manner when all facts are commented on without ANY background info at all.

Someone else will have to take on this fight. I get to frustrated fighting the uneducated masses. Believe the disinformation if you like.

I am done!

 

[redhotswami]

I saw this thread first posted last night. I ignored it because I thought it would've been locked by morning. I didn't expect to see it explode into 8 pages!

Arth, you speak a lot about government manipulation, but you say NOTHING about who manipulates the government!!! Come on, dude, get your facts straight!

 

[Varitek]

redhotswami get your facts straight! it's really

 

[redhotswami]

^ You keep my brother out of this!

 

[Axver]

I wasn't going to make a serious contribution, but now I actually think I shall.

Originally posted by ArthDent Someone else will have to take on this fight. I get to frustrated fighting the uneducated masses. Believe the disinformation if you like.

Hmm.

Situation: You have presented a highly controversial theory, and not just any old controversial theory, but a conspiracy theory of the highest order. Multiple intelligent and articulate people have taken such objection to your statements that they have resorted to ridicule to expose how absurd they feel your argument is.

How do you react?

Option 1: You realise you have not satisfactorily responded to their objections, provided sufficient evidence to justify your claims, or adequately presented your case so that it sounds believeable rather than outlandish and illogical. Therefore, you resolve to respond to these objections, present persuasive evidence, and argue your case in a manner that establishes credibility rather than absurdity.
Option 2: You accuse your opponents of being uneducated and disinformed instead of actually addressing them, answering their questions, and engaging their arguments. Then you spit the dummy and storm out.

Now, if I were you, I would have taken option 1. People take option 2 when they're beaten and their case has been shown to be implausible and critically lacking.

 

[DaveC]

The problem I face.. Is the the fact that most of you have very little info on that day. Like for instance that a third building collapsed. WTC7. Not just the big towers. And the smiley was because you misunderstood again. You thought I meant the big towers didn't collapse. I mean comon I'm not a big conspiracy idiot! I just think that they were deliberately taken down with controlled demolition.

I'm well aware that WTC7 fell down. I saw it live on CNN and remember it like it was yesterday. Claiming that we have "very little info" about 9/11 is an implication that since we don't subscribe to your viewpoint, we must be ignorant. This in itself is ignorant.

"I mean comon I'm not a big conspiracy idiot! I just think that they were deliberately taken down with controlled demolition."
- Well, you believe that the government was implicit in committing a crime (high treason and murder on a thousandfold scale, no less). The definition of "conspiracy" is "agreement between two or more natural persons to break the law at some time in the future", according to Wikipedia. By setting bombs in the World Trade Center, as you claim, the person or persons doing so were agreeing to break the law in the future (the "future" being the time when the bombs went off). Your viewpoint fits the legal definition of a conspiracy, so yes, you're a "conspiracy theorist", despite claims to the contrary.

As an engineer I would be ashamed if I were you.

Don't expect a friendly response to this.

You would know the pancake theory is impossible. The building actually collapses at free fall speed. Eliminating the P theory. There would be some resistance on each floor in order to break it. And speed would loose its momentum. It's natural laws.

Not necessarily.

Gravity builds momentum as objects fall. Momentum transfers when an object hits another. The entire buildings didn't collapse at precisely the same time. The upper section (above the impact points) broke off, causing tons of weight to fall on the floor below. The floor below is already weakened by fire (you cannot dispute that) and therefore the momentum being transferred from the falling section would be too much for the supports of the floor below to handle, so down goes the next floor, upon which point the next floor (also weakened) gets hammered by even more weight (and thus, more momentum). On and on it goes until it's not even a matter of whether the building material has been weakened, since half the building's weight is falling straight down - there's no way any building can stop that from happening. That's simply gravity.

Also the fire never got hot or big enough to weaking the steal. Jet fuel cannot reach 2000 Fahrenheit in an uncontrolled enviroment. It maxes out at 1200-1500. And then you do not account for fireproofing. It was buildt to withstand several 747 crashes. Why the complete failure of both towers. And then the third 47 story building virtually unharmed collapse!

Again, according to Wikipedia (not a great source but it'll have to do for now) the maximum burning temperature for jet fuel is 980 degrees Celsius, which is 1796 degrees Fahrenheit. The melting (melting - which is complete liquification) temperature for steel is 2498 degrees Fahrenheit. While I don't know the temperature at which steel weakens per se, I would have to say a fire burning at nearly 1800 degrees (not to mention anything else burning in there which may burn at a higher temperature) is probably enough to affect its integrity to the point where it cannot support thousands of tons of weight. But as I said, I know nothing about the burning and melting/weakening points of various metals. This is a point for someone smarter than I about these things.

As far as "it was built to withstand several 747 crashes", I will again have to ask for a source. If it actually was built to withstand "several" 747 crashes (why the need to withstand several crashes? This is a big assertion that needs backing up), then how would a bomb of the size allegedly used in the WTC be able to take it out, unless it was nuclear? There's no extreme radioactivity around the site to suggest a nuclear weapon was used so this bomb would have to be MASSIVE.

Thirdly, calling WTC 7 "virtually unharmed" is ridiculous. Externally there was no raging inferno but according to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, there was a 10-story gash across 1/3rd of the building and about 1/4 deep inside. WTC 7 was not designed the same as the towers were - each pillar in the building supported an individual 2000 sq. ft. section of floor. Remove just a few of the pillars and that side of the building can't support itself, and down it goes. The gash would have done that trick, plus all the debris slicing through the building as the towers fell would have taken out at least a few more of the pillars.

Finally, if you watch news footage of the WTC7 collapse, you can clearly see the east wall buckle inward in the splitsecond before the rest of the thing comes down. Those would be the aforementioned pillars breaking.

Anything else?

 

[Canadiens1131]

Original poster refuses to pay attention to rational arguments or engage in a reasonable conversation. This thread is the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and repeatedly ramming your head against a brick wall until your brain congeals and leaks out of your ears.

It's a good idea to think for yourself, but the OP is just a fucking idiot

 

[ArthDent]

I wanted a serious discussion. Posting ET and what not and not commenting on what I say is not good enough sorry. I don't want to spend time here just to be ridiculed.

But as a start. Watch the video I posted on WTC7 collapse. This building was virtually unharmed. Two minor fires. And the whole building just implodes on itself. If you think that is a natural collapse well what can I say. Silverstein ( the owner ) even admits to pulling it. What does the official report say? Well it was hardly fire that caused it.. Well THEN WHAT? they even fail to conclude. It just happened! C'mon people. A 47 story building doesn't just collapse like that!

In Madrid in 2005 a scyscraper burned for over 24 hours. Top to bottom. It never collapsed! Reporters were just waiting for it to go down because of 9-11. Everything burned only the steel and concrete were left. Why didn't that one collapse to? And in danger of repeating myself THIS IS WTC7 not the two towers. they were hit by planes yes. No steel Scyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire before or after 9-11 EVER. On that day 3 did!

Silverstein bought the WTC complex for 200 mill USD and insured it for 3.5 billion USD summer of 2001. Nice investment I'd say!

http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html

Watch these videos.

 

[BrownEyedBoy]

Wow, I hadn´t realized how much this dumb thread had grown over night.

That being said ...TROLL.