LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSame subject, thought what people was wondering about the lyrics he said, don't act all bigtime.
Welcome to the RaGEZONE - MMORPG development forums.
This is a discussion on September 11 - A conspiracy :: with poll within the Debate forums, part of the Evolution : RaGEZONE category; You're screwing with me, right? You posted a music video... in a debate thread... that doesn't debate anything, but just ...
You're screwing with me, right? You posted a music video... in a debate thread... that doesn't debate anything, but just raps on it?
I'm afraid "the hood" doesn't have much to do with the more than likely possibility that the US Government (my Government) has wronged its people.
So, please don't post such pointless crap.
Same subject, thought what people was wondering about the lyrics he said, don't act all bigtime.
Of corse it was!!!!! Silly question to ask !!
wheres your proof <.<Originally Posted by 12345FOBEY12345
"All is never lost, but no victory is won without sacrifice" ~RisingKing
yes they had knew about it & the terrorist did it i think?- $te
All it is just America wanting to start another war with some one
and of course they blame the "terrorists"
The notion of a conspiracy theory is beyond absurd.
I won't deny the possibility that government agencies and officials may have concealed certain facts and details about the incident. This is very much possible, and I neither have a problem with it, nor find it unexpected or surprising. The concealment of facts to the general public can often be a matter of national security. For example, the reason why John Edwards could not give details on why it's thought that Bin Laden was responsible is a no brainer: if they had managed to intercept/decrypt/tap terrorist communications, giving this information away would be a grave mistake. Similarly, one can find tons of reasons why media access to information in instances can be restricted (such as might be the case with the Pentagon, if all the BS videos are telling the truth to begin with, which I doubt anyway).
However, to accuse the government of actually performing or planning the attack itself is borderline retardation.
The number of counterarguments is numerous. I will provide a few of those which I can. I can't say I care enough to get into a deep discussion in the topic because quite frankly, I could care less if you understand the extreme illogicality of such a supposition. I also won't argue about the "scientific facts" because, simply put, I am in no position to be able to analyze the research and mathematical analysis done by those that have written anything on the topic to be able to confirm or reject their analysis, nor can I provide any objective opinion on it, since I am not a civil or material engineer, nor is my knowledge of physics or chemistry anywhere near enough. Additionally, I am certain the same applies to everyone else posting in this thread, so unless you hold a degree in civil engineering or architecture AND have created blueprint designs for building skyscrapers, or have similarly helped to construct aircrafts or engines, providing any (quote) "scientific research" only makes you look like a fool since you don't know the basis or have any understanding of what is written there besides that of a layman. With that said, for any conspiracy theory or popular notion, you will always be able to find tons of people, even some knowledgeable in the subject, to present bogus (and some not so bogus) ideas, whether it be for publicity or some other hidden agenda that person is serving. Many people are biased fanatics, so some of these people might truly believe in what they write, while others may simply do it to gain attention (and clearly do a good job at getting it).
Now, on with my points:
First off, if US officials really did desire such an incentive to start war and were stupid enough to kill their own people to achieve this goal, they had many methods of doing so without the need to go so far as to destroy national landmarks and attack one of the nation's largest and most productive cities. Additionally, if we assume for a moment that the twin towers were attacked by the US instead of terrorists, it would be enough that there should be no need of destroying (and then "badly covering up") the Pentagon crash. Additionally, there would be no need in "making up" the 4th crash since it didn't damage anything, as the twin towers would have been enough to merit a reaction alone. Hence, the assumption that it was the US that attacked WTC cannot hold. Additionally, the economic damage and loss resulting in destroying not 1, but 2! of New York Cities largest office space buildings, and the potential lost produce in the resulting lost hours, space, and lives is so enormous to further make the idea ridiculous. They could have easily flew a single plane into a million other targets to produce the same effect and minimize collateral economic damage, which would btw have been much easier to cover up than by crashing 4 planes. Hence, analyzing the situation logically shows that it makes no sense for it to have been done by the US.
Next, there seems to be some sort of extreme disillusion as to who or what our government is. Assuming the "government" was responsible, who would that be? The president and his cabinet? The FBI/CIA/NSA? Congress? The army? It's clear that there is a consensus among theorists that Bush was responsible, but who else was in on this? It would be impossible for Bush to silently plan this with 20 of his closest buddies, because there are tons of messages, communications, and leads intelligence agencies get, follow, and receive with regards to terrorism and national security, and surely even this attack was not out of the blue, or else there would have been extremely strong suspicions going on for sure. So, does that mean that Bush and his cronies faked messages from terrorists, held secret little meetings to discuss their plans, all while avoiding being detected? Also, consider that such an attack would have required years to plan (i.e. before Bush would have taken office). On the other hand, if this "plan" was widely known among ranking officials, then why has there been no leak yet? You people seem to lack the understanding that the "big bad US government" is made of simple commoners, and any of us, if we spent a bit of time in politics could have a shot at a seat in Congress or another official position, and that it's ordinary citizens that make up intelligence, army, and other government agencies. In other words, there is no elitist group of people in the government that can command such an attack. And in order to do so, you would need a sufficient amount of people, such that there surely would have been a leak among them if it was really planned. Also, Bush's presidency, as well as everyone else's government seat, is only temporary. One more year, and Bush is gone. Several years, and everyone else has the possibility of losing their position as well. Would he (as well as everyone else) really jeopardize his and his family's own privacy and rights, and start a pointless war, harm and kill fellow citizens' lives (in 1 year he'll once again be part of the crowd), and help destroy his own country? Although I don't always agree with the decisions made, what I am certain is that all government officials do what they believe is for the benefit of the country, and/or what is beneficial in getting them re-elected (and sadly sometimes officials prefer the latter, which in turn is NOT for the benefit of the country, but that's not what this discussion is about). Attacking and killing it's own citizens does not fall into either of these groups. And considering the large number of people and officials in the country who are opposed to the death penalty and torturing enemy POWs, it would be beyond idiotic to think these same people would support mass murder of their own people. The structure of the US government makes such a conspiracy virtually impossible, and a highly illogical act.
Now, I'll just state a few "facts" about the WTC crashes. I'm ignoring any opinion that thinks that there was no plane, as that is plain stupidity:
Regarding free fall, it seems that you theorists will concede that the building did not completely drop at free fall speed. The fact that there was debris below the highest point of the building's collapse sort of confirms this. The actual time it took for the building to fall is hard to tell due to all the dust. Regardless, by conceding that it wasn't as fast as a controlled demolition already puts doubt on the hypothesis. To argue this theory any further, you (and I) would have to be an engineer in this field, else you're just blowing hot air since you don't really know what is or isn't possible, nor can you defend the view since you don't understand how it was derived. So I will end on that note, and unless you really know what you're talking about, arguing this point does not provide convincing evidence. If, on the other hand, you can find at least 3 experts in this field who have come up with the exact (and I mean really exact) conclusion, with mathematical analysis and arguments included, etc, all of whom published their own research then I would consider this a valid argument. If you only have 1 person's notes, since no one here is capable of verifying the accuracy of the analysis, such "research" is useless (especially since it comes from the internet).
Some people ask "where did the buildings fall?" and "why was it such a clean fall?" and "how come building 7 dropped too?" First off, regarding the BBC report, since the news program doesn't show the time at any moment, it's pointless to take for granted the lame conspiracy theorist's video. More importantly is, how can we know that HE KNEW the correct time the video was shot? Anyway, no point in talking about the video, if you want to be gullible and believe, feel free. Regarding the "care" with which WTC was "demolished,"it wasn't just the twin towers + WTC 7 that got destroyed. All 7 WTC buildings were destroyed (damaged beyond repair), as well as a church, and a Deutshe Bank building. Not so clean after all then, eh?
Most importantly is that there was no charges seen or heard being detonated. Now, I don't know how many people realize this, but unlike silencers for guns, you can't silence explosions. As the other guy on the earlier pages posted a video of what a controlled demolition really sounds like, and there are plenty of videos (even 1 in this thread) showing one of the towers fall, it's clear that no such explosions can be heard. Just because 10 people come out and make up a story about how they were 5 feet away from the building and heard explosions doesn't mean a thing, all they want is attention. Considering that the distance of the video capturer in both videos is similar, and that the tower is much taller, you would expect to hear the explosions if they actually existed, but you can't hear anything. Additionally, before you can blow up a building, you need to actually rig the building with them! Which means you would need an entire team to spend weeks doing this. When did this happen, and how come no one saw??? How many people would be willing to insert explosives, knowing they're to kill thousands of people? And if they didn't know what they were for before, how come no one has come forward that they were part of the team? The answer is simple: it never happened! Go read about demolition on Wikipedia, they drill explosives into selected columns on floors. How come no one heard drilling? Put up one photo of someone inserting explosives into the WTC walls and I will take your side!
Lastly, seems like mostly everyone concedes that it wasn't necessary for the steel to melt, and that there were temperatures enough to weaken the steel by 50%. Keep in mind that the buildings didn't drop in 5 minutes, but in ~1 and ~1.5 hours. Since I am no civil engineer, I can't tell you whether or not it's possible for the building to drop with this condition, but neither can you. So unless you can find several independent sources, with mathematical justification, arriving at the same conclusion, it's pointless to argue that it's possible/impossible. However, I can say with my layman guessing that I would consider the idea feasible.
Some of you guys call those of us that don't believe any of this conspiracy nonsense as being sheep and ignorant, and blind followers of the media and the government. Everyone here seems to justify their belief of a conspiracy with the belief that people (like those in the government) would lie, cheat, and deceive others for power, fame, profit and gain. I agree with this belief 100%. Only you people fail to realize that it's not us who are being deceived by the government and media, it's you people who believe in this conspiracy nonsense that are being deceived. The creator of the WTC conspiracy video sold thousands of copies, and made plenty of money, and surely plenty of others "in the business" have done the same. They could care less about spreading BS, as long as they make some money and get some attention. The more ridiculous the theory or analysis, the better. Surely there are some failed engineers that will write their own analysis and theory, in this case the more "scientific" the better too, because then it'll appear as though they have some credibility. Only problem is since they all want distinction, they all make up their own ideas, hence why you never can find the same "researched" theory or conclusion twice. And if you think rationally, who does it make more sense to believe? Someone who already has money, fame, and power? Or some 25-year-old, low/middle-class, failed loser, wannabe-movie-director nobody, along with a select few failed engineers, all who want to make a name for themselves? I don't know what it is, whether it's youth and gullibility, hatred for the media/government, or the desire to have a "unique" and "different" point of view which makes you folks believe in this nonsense, but if you really tried to think about it rationally, you should be able to see who are the ones being tricked.
For those that think Bush attacked his own country, just so he can follow up with an invasion in Iraq, just so he can get oil, that's plain stupid. First off, it's not his oil and it won't be his oil, and he's not doing it for the interest of the country because (1) he won't be president for long, so not much of an incentive, and (2) it would be hypocritical since he had to kill people in his own country to achieve this, and Iraq is not and won't be an American colony. Sure, maybe Bush is an opportunist, getting Cheney's Halliburton into Iraq. But to go so far as choose to kill his own people as a precursor to this? Come on.... Not to mention that, since such an operation would require tons of people, surely most of them had nothing to gain, so why would they go along with it?
Also, consider that you are accusing Mr. G. W. Bush of premeditated mass murder. The same little clown that vetoed a bill which would have allowed government funding for stem-cell research on aborted embryos, because it goes against his personal beliefs. Yet killing thousands of people is fine? Where's the logic?
As for talking about the Iraq war in general, that's another topic.
Anyway, if you actually managed to read this whole thing and you still can say with a straight face that the US government was responsible for those attacks, there is no point in arguing since it's clear you lack any ability for rational thought.
Iraq
Look through it... don't say America wanted to get into a war or wants to be in it... according to the polls, most Americans dislike the war and do not want the USA to be involved in it. Now as for bush wanting to get into war... that u can talk all you want... we all know he wanted to be in it. <.<
"All is never lost, but no victory is won without sacrifice" ~RisingKing
So were is your source? By source i mean were did you copy and paste from 8 post noob -.-
Magnum, look up "1993 WTC Bombing". Our government was responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. I've already linked several websites in relation to this on this website. It is commonly accepted fact to be as such.
If they have done it before, how can you find it "absurd" that they would do it again?
You promised to link your sources. Instead, you merely ranted throughout the entirety of your post, without anything to support your statements. You have claimed that you are not a specialist in any given field that would allow you to comment on another's scientific article, yet, here you are trying to make your own scientific article. Your unsubstantiated claims are no good here, magnum29.
Giz, magnum29, don't even try to argue with each other. You both posted pointlessly without anything to reinforce your arguments... if they were even present (Giz).
Placed plane wreckages, cameras all pointed to the pentagon all failed.... a man stil typing at hes dest while the plane was inside the building 5 feet away from him.... uuh... what do u think it is... a joke? -_-
"It is there but you cant see it" is a motto of a nice asshole like Mister i like to burn people for my ow satisfaction George Bush junior.... And i dont wanna know what Mister Senior does... since hes stil in uuh... lawl charge?
O pappi pappi lemme rule lemme rule...
frigin Bush family...
Last edited by dRoseMirakel; 13-03-08 at 10:54 PM. Reason: Extras cuz of anger
Sources and references are only needed when stating facts which are not common knowledge. As such, I haven't written any facts which weren't common knowledge, so therefore references are not needed. My argument was based off simple logical deduction. No science involved.
And I never promised to provide sources since I knew that I wouldn't need sources. Logical thought and analysis doesn't need sources.
If I really did make any unsubstantiated scientific claims which are not common knowledge, please quote them and I will be sure to provide you with references. But seems more to me like you have nothing to reply with, so the only thing you can say is "where are your sources?" instead of addressing any of the points made, none of which require sources in the first place.
If you are unaware of when Bush took office, how the election process works, or how to obtain a seat in government, then that's not my problem. But that sort of stuff is referred to as common knowledge. If you're not aware that 9 buildings were destroyed as a result of the incident, read it on Wikipedia or anywhere else, or come to NYC and I'll show you. If you're unaware that 4 planes went down, then read it on a million websites. Do you want sources for when I say "no one heard drilling in the weeks before the WTC attacks?" Asking for such a source is illogical, instead you should be providing me with a source (more like multiple reliable ones) saying that people did indeed hear drilling.
As for looking up the 1993 bombing, I did look it up on Wikipedia. There wasn't a single mention of any conspiracy theories related to it, or any allegation that the US government was or could have been involved (unlike the case for 9/11 and JFK assasination). The only thing that was mentioned was the possibility of FBI foreknowledge, which is far from the same thing. If it were, as you say, a commonly accepted fact, then I would expect to see something on Wikipedia, but there isn't a single word about it. Additionally, you're the first person I've ever heard saying that the US was responsible for it, and after reading all that was written on Wiki about it, I find it highly unlikely, 100x more unlikely than WTC, that the gov was responsible. So how is that "common knowledge" if less than 1% of people think the same? Wikipedia is an unbiased resource with no government affiliation, so if any substantial number of people really did have such a belief, I would expect to see it there.
There are some people who think life is a conspiracy theory, so it doesn't surprise me that there'll be some conspiracy fanatics ranting on about how the US was responsible for that bombing as well. That doesn't make their rants true.
Another thing you ask is that "if the US government did it once, why can't they do it again?" Aside from the fact that, as I pointed out, your theory is as a whole not accepted by most people, it is also flawed in another way. As I mentioned in the first post, there is no single entity as the "US government." In the 8 years between those two events, the president has changed, his cabinet has changed, and certainly many other people in congress, other official positions, and members of government agencies have changed. Therefore, the US government back then is largely not the same US government in 2001. So in the same way that saying "If Bob killed someone, then maybe John killed someone too" sounds ridiculous, so too does your supposition (despite the fact that your initial assumption is most certainly anyway).
If you mean the US is responsible for the attack because they gave these same terrorists training and funding (as described here: 1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) then you are grossly twisting the facts, since you are connecting unrelated intentions with unpredictable consequences. The US might have been indirectly responsible, but there is a huge leap in logic to say it's their fault, or that they planned it.
[youtubevid]Sm73wOuPL60[/youtubevid]
-Anon
[QUOTE=magnum29;3194153]Sources and references are only needed when stating facts which are not common knowledge. As such, I haven't written any facts which weren't common knowledge, so therefore references are not needed. My argument was based off simple logical deduction. No science involved.
Wrong. If I say "Zordon from Mighty Morphing Power Rangers Is Real, and He's God, he loves to act to cheer up mankind's children!", and don't link anything to back up what I say... it's rather obvious that I would be full of shit, in such a theoretical situation. You must always support your argument with an amorally involved group/individual's research, when you cannot remain objective and amoral yourself. If you had said common truth that everyone accepts, you wouldn't even be having this debate with us. And simple logical deduction based on ones dreams or imagination is by no means logical.
And I never promised to provide sources since I knew that I wouldn't need sources. Logical thought and analysis doesn't need sources.
You mean, "My imagination doesn't need sources," right? I'm sorry if that offends you, but since you haven't enforced any of your arguments and have called me, and a number of others ignorant, I can see you aren't here to debate. You are here to pull off a "Peart", and flame everybody who does not agree with your beliefs without a convincing argument of supporting evidence.
If I really did make any unsubstantiated scientific claims which are not common knowledge, please quote them and I will be sure to provide you with references. But seems more to me like you have nothing to reply with, so the only thing you can say is "where are your sources?" instead of addressing any of the points made, none of which require sources in the first place.
I said you had made unsubstantiated claims, don't insert words into my mouth, please, by trying to specify scientific claims. You brought science in by dissing the scientists and engineers discussing the free fall speed of the Trade Towers. You made unsubstantiated claims when you said you were right and we were wrong based on your feeling it to be so. The Russians felt justified in massacring Jewish people in the early 1900's, and before then... but they weren't in the right, now were they? Forgive such a crude analogy, but it takes such measures to beat sense into those who would call anybody different from themselves names (are you racist, by chance?).
If you are unaware of when Bush took office, how the election process works, or how to obtain a seat in government, then that's not my problem. But that sort of stuff is referred to as common knowledge. If you're not aware that 9 buildings were destroyed as a result of the incident, read it on Wikipedia or anywhere else, or come to NYC and I'll show you. If you're unaware that 4 planes went down, then read it on a million websites. Do you want sources for when I say "no one heard drilling in the weeks before the WTC attacks?" Asking for such a source is illogical, instead you should be providing me with a source (more like multiple reliable ones) saying that people did indeed hear drilling.
... I want you to provide me an audio track of the very first clapping the clap-on clap-off light maker had made when he came up with his idea. Only then will I believe clap-on and clap-off lights can exist. You are doing the exact same thing to me, so don't even try to complain, as it will be the ultimatum of hypocrisy to do so.
As for looking up the 1993 bombing, I did look it up on Wikipedia. There wasn't a single mention of any conspiracy theories related to it, or any allegation that the US government was or could have been involved (unlike the case for 9/11 and JFK assasination). The only thing that was mentioned was the possibility of FBI foreknowledge, which is far from the same thing. If it were, as you say, a commonly accepted fact, then I would expect to see something on Wikipedia, but there isn't a single word about it. Additionally, you're the first person I've ever heard saying that the US was responsible for it, and after reading all that was written on Wiki about it, I find it highly unlikely, 100x more unlikely than WTC, that the gov was responsible. So how is that "common knowledge" if less than 1% of people think the same? Wikipedia is an unbiased resource with no government affiliation, so if any substantial number of people really did have such a belief, I would expect to see it there.
[color=red]1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Legal responsibility
The victims are suing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for damages connected to the bombings. A decision was handed down in 2006, assigning liability for the bombings to the Port Authority. The decision declared that the agency was 68 percent responsible for the bombing, and the terrorists bore only 32 percent of the responsibility. In January 2008, the Port Authority asked a five-judge panel of Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan to throw out the decision, describing the jury
The notion of a conspiracy theory is beyond absurd.
No need to make an attempt at discrediting every opinion which differs from yours. This is a debate thread, not a bigotry thread.
Global warming is a debate thread. Who would make a better president is a debate thread. This is a joke thread. And I'll be honest, the more time I spend posting on it, the bigger of a clown I'm starting to feel like for wasting my time.
I won't deny the possibility that government agencies and officials may have concealed certain facts and details about the incident. This is very much possible, and I neither have a problem with it, nor find it unexpected or surprising. The concealment of facts to the general public can often be a matter of national security. For example, the reason why John Edwards could not give details on why it's thought that Bin Laden was responsible is a no brainer: if they had managed to intercept/decrypt/tap terrorist communications, giving this information away would be a grave mistake. Similarly, one can find tons of reasons why media access to information in instances can be restricted (such as might be the case with the Pentagon, if all the BS videos are telling the truth to begin with, which I doubt anyway).
Call the Federal Bureau of Investigations, their HQ at the J. Edgar Hoover Building. They refuse to acknowledge the "confession" tape, and say there is no strong evidence connecting any terrorist organizations to the 9/11 attacks. I don't need to reinforce that, you can call them and ask them yourself. Although they will probably pressure you to setup a meeting, rather than let you phone a guy to speak to right away, you'll get the same answer. If our Intelligence agencies won't acknowledge the claims of our politicians, then I think our politicians have some 'splainin to do. ^^
It looks like you don't quite understand the formality of how the legal system works. Assuming your article source is true, there is an understandable explanation. I skimmed through the article which you linked to. In order to charge someone for a crime, you either need a clean confession and/or evidence. I suppose just a confession is not enough in certain cases such as this (he could be covering for someone else, especially since he's got a price on his head as it is). Although you might think otherwise, it's not necessarily easy to prove that someone else directly ordered another person to do something. However, (as an example) if you can capture that person's letters, authenticate them, catch co-conspirators, interogate them and get answers out of them, and catch Bin Laden himself, and hear what he has to say, only then can you really get unquestionable proof that someone is guilty of a crime. The legal system does not permit double jeopardy, that is, putting someone on trial twice for the same thing. And to convict someone, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, before indicting someone, you need to have plenty of hard proof and evidence (that is, in physical form), else you put them on trial, let them walk, and that's the end of it. In addition, it's work that someone has to do to organize all the proof, etc. For someone like Bin Laden, who if found dead or alive is of little significance, since he already has a 200-death charge on his head, getting a 9/11 charge is not really necessary. It's more important to find and capture him first anyway, since at that point getting enough evidence against him would be a much simpler task, and hence being able to easily charge him. Note that in his FBI page is says that he is a suspect in other terrorist acts. But if the US kill him instead of capturing him altogether, which I have a feeling the vast majority of people would actually prefer, then gathering all that info would be a waste of time to begin with.
Anyway, you can simply read this: 2004 Osama bin Laden video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Sure looks like Bin Laden to me. On the very bottom, it does indeed say that some internationally speculate about the authenticity, but that is not proof that it's not him, not by a long shot. And if you read Bin Laden's wiki page, it says the FBI (and the gov of UK) claims to have "irrefutable" evidence of his involvement. Anyway, regardless of whether or not he confessed or not (since his confession could be false anyway), this has little do with alleging that the US is responsible.
Also, the video you linked to attempts to say that John Edwards' reluctance to give up his source is a part of the conspiracy plot, when in reality it's more like him withholding classified information so that the terrorists would not know where we obtain our information.
However, to accuse the government of actually performing or planning the attack itself is borderline retardation.
Don't flame, that is against the rules. Search up the 1993 WTC Tower incident. A legal court of law declared, in 2006, that the FBI was sixty-eight percent responsible for that incident, for building the bomb, and knowingly allowing to be placed in the Tower One basement, and detonated. That is common fact. They have done it before, so don't bring such pretentious bullshit here.
The victims needed to sue someone for liability so that they can get money for their injuries. Obviously since the victims won't get any money from the terrorists, they'll try to put as much liability on someone else. You are twisting facts and turning them into fiction. The courts said that the Port Authority is 68% responsible for the bombing, not the FBI ^^. You can be sure that part of their legal arguments were that there wasn't enough security, maybe that poor structural maintenance resulted in unnecessary injuries, and that the Port Authority is liable because they could not stop the terrorists in time, etc etc. Hence, the liability and blame here is for the injuries, not for planning the attacks. Regardless, as you yourself quoted in your previous response, "the Port Authority asked a five-judge panel of Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan to throw out the decision, describing the jury’s verdict as 'bizarre.'" Hardly proof that the FBI is responsible, specifically since they weren't even part of the lawsuit.
The number of counterarguments is numerous. I will provide a few of those which I can. I can't say I care enough to get into a deep discussion in the topic because quite frankly, I could care less if you understand the extreme illogicality of such a supposition. I also won't argue about the "scientific facts" because, simply put, I am in no position to be able to analyze the research and mathematical analysis done by those that have written anything on the topic to be able to confirm or reject their analysis, nor can I provide any objective opinion on it, since I am not a civil or material engineer, nor is my knowledge of physics or chemistry anywhere near enough. Additionally, I am certain the same applies to everyone else posting in this thread, so unless you hold a degree in civil engineering or architecture AND have created blueprint designs for building skyscrapers, or have similarly helped to construct aircrafts or engines, providing any (quote) "scientific research" only makes you look like a fool since you don't know the basis or have any understanding of what is written there besides that of a layman. With that said, for any conspiracy theory or popular notion, you will always be able to find tons of people, even some knowledgeable in the subject, to present bogus (and some not so bogus) ideas, whether it be for publicity or some other hidden agenda that person is serving. Many people are biased fanatics, so some of these people might truly believe in what they write, while others may simply do it to gain attention (and clearly do a good job at getting it).
You call us fools for relying on the word of prestigious scientists and engineers? You call us fools for desiring to know the truth? You say you won't talk about science? You claim we are all ignorant and that we are fanatics?
No, I call you smart for relying on prestigious scientists and engineers. I call you fools for relying on clowns that only want to make a name for themselves (we have our very own clown posting in this thread: CB_Brooklyn). Sadly for your argument, the prestigious ones aren't the ones who support conspiracy theory claims.
Now, on with my points:
First off, if US officials really did desire such an incentive to start war and were stupid enough to kill their own people to achieve this goal, they had many methods of doing so without the need to go so far as to destroy national landmarks and attack one of the nation's largest and most productive cities. Additionally, if we assume for a moment that the twin towers were attacked by the US instead of terrorists, it would be enough that there should be no need of destroying (and then "badly covering up") the Pentagon crash. Additionally, there would be no need in "making up" the 4th crash since it didn't damage anything, as the twin towers would have been enough to merit a reaction alone. Hence, the assumption that it was the US that attacked WTC cannot hold. Additionally, the economic damage and loss resulting in destroying not 1, but 2! of New York Cities largest office space buildings, and the potential lost produce in the resulting lost hours, space, and lives is so enormous to further make the idea ridiculous. They could have easily flew a single plane into a million other targets to produce the same effect and minimize collateral economic damage, which would btw have been much easier to cover up than by crashing 4 planes. Hence, analyzing the situation logically shows that it makes no sense for it to have been done by the US.
Okay, why do you think the Government would attack a national monument, that millions of people will see in the news, and will get fired up over? You're kidding, right... you're asking why the Government would use such an effective method if they desired to start a war? Maybe because human beings are opportunistic creatures (myself included), and would gladly kill a small percentage of a single city's population to rile a nation up to the point of jingos marching forth & declaring war, and the private contracting from said-war more than made up for the loss of the towers, and construction of the Sears Tower, in their eyes? If they ran a plane into a farm field, nobody would give a shit. They'd call them murder-suicides, or airplane malfunctions, instead of a terrorist attack. Of course they are going to wipe out a large target, with lots of publicity.
My point here was that, if it was their doing, it was beyond excessive. There are other targets they could have picked (in a major city) which would have had less consequential damage and would still produced a similar reaction, farms not being one of them. A lot of conspiracy theories revolve around the "secrecy" of the Pentagon incident. However, when anyone says 9/11, nobody really even thinks about the Pentagon in the first place, nor the PA crash. Hence, since these other 2 hijackings are so minor compared to the Twin Towers, and so "suspicious" when it comes to conspiracy theories, they were entirely unnecessary. Which begs the question, why would the government destroy it's own property unnecessarily (Pentagon), and harm it's own cover up by doing so? Illogical.
Next, there seems to be some sort of extreme disillusion as to who or what our government is. Assuming the "government" was responsible, who would that be? The president and his cabinet? The FBI/CIA/NSA? Congress? The army? It's clear that there is a consensus among theorists that Bush was responsible, but who else was in on this? It would be impossible for Bush to silently plan this with 20 of his closest buddies, because there are tons of messages, communications, and leads intelligence agencies get, follow, and receive with regards to terrorism and national security, and surely even this attack was not out of the blue, or else there would have been extremely strong suspicions going on for sure. So, does that mean that Bush and his cronies faked messages from terrorists, held secret little meetings to discuss their plans, all while avoiding being detected? Also, consider that such an attack would have required years to plan (i.e. before Bush would have taken office). On the other hand, if this "plan" was widely known among ranking officials, then why has there been no leak yet? You people seem to lack the understanding that the "big bad US government" is made of simple commoners, and any of us, if we spent a bit of time in politics could have a shot at a seat in Congress or another official position, and that it's ordinary citizens that make up intelligence, army, and other government agencies. In other words, there is no elitist group of people in the government that can command such an attack. And in order to do so, you would need a sufficient amount of people, such that there surely would have been a leak among them if it was really planned. Also, Bush's presidency, as well as everyone else's government seat, is only temporary. One more year, and Bush is gone. Several years, and everyone else has the possibility of losing their position as well. Would he (as well as everyone else) really jeopardize his and his family's own privacy and rights, and start a pointless war, harm and kill fellow citizens' lives (in 1 year he'll once again be part of the crowd), and help destroy his own country? Although I don't always agree with the decisions made, what I am certain is that all government officials do what they believe is for the benefit of the country, and/or what is beneficial in getting them re-elected (and sadly sometimes officials prefer the latter, which in turn is NOT for the benefit of the country, but that's not what this discussion is about). Attacking and killing it's own citizens does not fall into either of these groups. And considering the large number of people and officials in the country who are opposed to the death penalty and torturing enemy POWs, it would be beyond idiotic to think these same people would support mass murder of their own people. The structure of the US government makes such a conspiracy virtually impossible, and a highly illogical act.
The Executive Office controls the CIA, FBI, and other sub-branches under it. President Bush and Vice President Cheney give the orders throughout the Executive branch. It isn't too hard to tell that the judicial branch lacks its power it once held (see sixteenth amendment, overturned two Supreme Court rulings, effectively disabling the Supreme Court's supreme authority, and undoing the checks & balances of the Government).
I'm sure they are against torturing people, and killing them... I mean, I wonder what the Patriot Act gives them authority to do. And I wonder what they have been doing at Guantanamo Bay. Oh well. :D
My point here was that these agencies are ENORMOUS. Despite the fact that Bush is the head of the executive branch of government, his power is not absolute. The US is not a dictatorship. The government killing its own people is illegal. Article 2 of the constitution gives the LEGISLATIVE branch (not Judicial) the power to impeach the president (sorry I'm not going to give you my references, you'll need to find this on your own). Reasons for impeachment include Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors. I think mass murder counts as one of those. Due to the size of all these agencies, and the fact that most of them would have nothing to gain from this action, it's hard for me or anyone that possesses logical thought to believe that ordinary citizens of these agencies, some of whom were surely directly or indirectly victims of the attack, would all go along with this for no reason.
And I didn't say that all of them are against torturing (I, for one, am not against it), but I said that a lot of other people are, and surely some of the supposed people that would needed to have been involved are included. Ignoring the fact that mass murder is roughly infinitely times more severe than torturing terrorists, how come no one spoke out against Mr Dictator Bush who ordered these people to plan the bombings? Is it because they're afraid to speak out against the dictator who's dictator for only 4/8 years? Meanwhile, every comedian in existence makes fun of Bush, how come they're not afraid? Illogical.
Now, I'll just state a few "facts" about the WTC crashes. I'm ignoring any opinion that thinks that there was no plane, as that is plain stupidity:
Debate thread... not flame-others thread...
Regarding free fall, it seems that you theorists will concede that the building did not completely drop at free fall speed. The fact that there was debris below the highest point of the building's collapse sort of confirms this. The actual time it took for the building to fall is hard to tell due to all the dust. Regardless, by conceding that it wasn't as fast as a controlled demolition already puts doubt on the hypothesis. To argue this theory any further, you (and I) would have to be an engineer in this field, else you're just blowing hot air since you don't really know what is or isn't possible, nor can you defend the view since you don't understand how it was derived. So I will end on that note, and unless you really know what you're talking about, arguing this point does not provide convincing evidence. If, on the other hand, you can find at least 3 experts in this field who have come up with the exact (and I mean really exact) conclusion, with mathematical analysis and arguments included, etc, all of whom published their own research then I would consider this a valid argument. If you only have 1 person's notes, since no one here is capable of verifying the accuracy of the analysis, such "research" is useless (especially since it comes from the internet).
Hahahah. Name three experts who come up with the exact, and I mean exact, same choice of wording for describing gravity and the mathematical formulas behind them. I already know you can't find three unique individuals with any degree of prestige, as nobody thinks alike to such a degree. Don't demand the impossible from people. I could easily find a dozen experts who will support the theory of explosives having been used in the towers. And I can find a legion of experts who will testify to the "Bin Laden" in the confession tape being an impostor.
Gravity is taught in high school physics. Anyone who understands basic algebra will comprehend and understand its derivation. If in doubt, anyone can perform their own experiments (as many of us high school grads have done in school, maybe you haven't gotten to that point yet?). My main point is, since you don't understand the rationale and proofs done by any so-called experts which you use to back up another group of so-called experts (more like wannabe anarchists/investigator/directors) investigations, unless you can find several unrelated people to arrive at the same (or similar) conclusion of why a certain hypothesis is what really happened, then the research you provide is useless. In writing the NIST report, there were surely many experts, and Popular Mechanics website has more experts who all arrive at the same or similar conclusions. So yes, you can find many experts that all agree on the "media" version, yet at most 1 person who will back up a single conspiracy version.
I never said the Bin Laden confession is true, although to me it definitely looks like him. But his confession, or lack thereof, doesn't prove anything. If he didn't confess, that doesn't mean he wasn't responsible. And if he did confess, that doesn't mean he was responsible. Neither of these cases have anything to do with alleging that the US had any involvement in it either.
Some people ask "where did the buildings fall?" and "why was it such a clean fall?" and "how come building 7 dropped too?" First off, regarding the BBC report, since the news program doesn't show the time at any moment, it's pointless to take for granted the lame conspiracy theorist's video. More importantly is, how can we know that HE KNEW the correct time the video was shot? Anyway, no point in talking about the video, if you want to be gullible and believe, feel free. Regarding the "care" with which WTC was "demolished,"it wasn't just the twin towers + WTC 7 that got destroyed. All 7 WTC buildings were destroyed (damaged beyond repair), as well as a church, and a Deutshe Bank building. Not so clean after all then, eh?
Wow, for some of the tallest buildings in New York, they sure did a low amount of damage, and experienced a rather non-messy fall, most of the mess coming from dust rather than debris.
Low amount? Two buildings destroying a third and damaging 6 others beyond repair doesn't seem too low. I'm sure other buildings close by received some damage also. Of course, I don't know for certain, but I don't think that if 7 others can be damaged beyond repair, that everything else a few feet away was left shiny new either. Either way, I'm in no position to say whether it's a lot or little, and neither are you, but I would think that a controlled demolition would be intended to not damage nearby structures.
Most importantly is that there was no charges seen or heard being detonated. Now, I don't know how many people realize this, but unlike silencers for guns, you can't silence explosions. As the other guy on the earlier pages posted a video of what a controlled demolition really sounds like, and there are plenty of videos (even 1 in this thread) showing one of the towers fall, it's clear that no such explosions can be heard. Just because 10 people come out and make up a story about how they were 5 feet away from the building and heard explosions doesn't mean a thing, all they want is attention. Considering that the distance of the video capturer in both videos is similar, and that the tower is much taller, you would expect to hear the explosions if they actually existed, but you can't hear anything. Additionally, before you can blow up a building, you need to actually rig the building with them! Which means you would need an entire team to spend weeks doing this. When did this happen, and how come no one saw??? How many people would be willing to insert explosives, knowing they're to kill thousands of people? And if they didn't know what they were for before, how come no one has come forward that they were part of the team? The answer is simple: it never happened! Go read about demolition on Wikipedia, they drill explosives into selected columns on floors. How come no one heard drilling? Put up one photo of someone inserting explosives into the WTC walls and I will take your side!
You want a photo of a person actively inserting explosives...? Give me a photo of a person actively inventing the clap-on clap-off light.
In 1993, after the terror-attack orchestrated by the FBI (and this is public knowledge, mind you... real public knowledge, that even the FBI will confess to, and has been criminally convicted for, not your pretentious shit), they reconstructed the WTC towers to be more resistant to heat & explosions. They had a perfect opportunity to implant anything they desired at that time.
Sorry, your argumentative skills are strongly lacking. But if it really means you'll show me someone putting bombs into the walls, I can show you a picture of myself re-inventing clap-on clap-off since it's such a simple invention. My point here was that there is absolutely none, zero, zilch, nada proof that there were any explosions. You can't see flashing of explosions in any videos. You can't hear any explosions in any videos. You can't see anyone placing bombs in any pictures or videos. You can't find any confessions from anyone who had ever seen anyone else placing bombs inside, nor has anyone confessed to placing them themselves. You can't find anyone saying that they heard late night drilling of the WTC. You don't hear about anyone finding remains from explosives in the WTC cleanup, nor pictures. Nothing. No proof = no argument = no case. If there really were bombs there, one would expect all of these sources to be available, but as it is none of them exist.
You're like a broken record player, keep playing the same cheesy tune over and over. How hard is it for you to accept already that it wasn't the FBI who was responsible for the attacks? Terrorists planned it. The quote you yourself provide helps validate this. The poor victims want money from the Port Authority to cover damages. The civil court (note, civil court, not criminal) found the Port Authority 68% liable for the attacks, which to the Port Authority sounds bizarre, so they are appealing (meaning the decision isn't even final). FBI has nothing to do with it. I would love to see a confession, so if they have one, please give me a reference, but don't waste your entire life getting/finding one. You claim that the WTC towers were reconstructed to be more resistant. I would like to see where your reference for this information is too. And who would order them to place bombs at that time? George Bush, all the way from Texas, 7 years before running for President, knew that he would win the 2000 election and knew he would order people to fly airplanes into WTC, while simultaneously setting off the bombs he wants inserted then, knowing that with this done he'll be able to invade Iraq and swim in their oil? Or Dick Cheney, who just lost his governmental position? Not just illogical, ridiculous.
Lastly, seems like mostly everyone concedes that it wasn't necessary for the steel to melt, and that there were temperatures enough to weaken the steel by 50%. Keep in mind that the buildings didn't drop in 5 minutes, but in ~1 and ~1.5 hours. Since I am no civil engineer, I can't tell you whether or not it's possible for the building to drop with this condition, but neither can you. So unless you can find several independent sources, with mathematical justification, arriving at the same conclusion, it's pointless to argue that it's possible/impossible. However, I can say with my layman guessing that I would consider the idea feasible.
We've already linked such sources. You are calling us ignorant in your blatant acts of bigotry, saying our arguments don't count because they don't agree with your beliefs. (reminds me of this one "Peart" guy who was banned, eventually, for flaming & the such... similar to what you're doing now).
I already said that your sources don't count, not because they disagree with what I believe, but (1) because they are not mathematical (I want real math, formulas, solutions, integrals, derivatives, architectural blue prints, etc), and (2) because it's only from a single moron. Find me 3 other independent morons, err, researchers** who can provide the math and a similar conclusion and I will consider your argument valid and accept it. The only way that anyone can come up with a real hypothesis of the incident is to do all this math anyway; anything else is just guesswork. As it is, all your providing is a few spare hours of internet typing from some fanatical loser who either hates the government, is partially insane, or likes to laugh at conspiracy theorists, so he wants to boost their morale.
Another problem with any sources you might provide is this: you give me a source insisting something should have happened one way. I give you a source saying something should have happened another way, or that your way is impossible. And then, since neither of us are able to analyze either persons arguments, because (1) they don't show their work, and (2) our knowledge of the subject is insufficient, it makes both the sources, and any discussion revolving around them, pointless and useless.
Some of you guys call those of us that don't believe any of this conspiracy nonsense as being sheep and ignorant, and blind followers of the media and the government. Everyone here seems to justify their belief of a conspiracy with the belief that people (like those in the government) would lie, cheat, and deceive others for power, fame, profit and gain. I agree with this belief 100%. Only you people fail to realize that it's not us who are being deceived by the government and media, it's you people who believe in this conspiracy nonsense that are being deceived. The creator of the WTC conspiracy video sold thousands of copies, and made plenty of money, and surely plenty of others "in the business" have done the same. They could care less about spreading BS, as long as they make some money and get some attention. The more ridiculous the theory or analysis, the better. Surely there are some failed engineers that will write their own analysis and theory, in this case the more "scientific" the better too, because then it'll appear as though they have some credibility. Only problem is since they all want distinction, they all make up their own ideas, hence why you never can find the same "researched" theory or conclusion twice. And if you think rationally, who does it make more sense to believe? Someone who already has money, fame, and power? Or some 25-year-old, low/middle-class, failed loser, wannabe-movie-director nobody, along with a select few failed engineers, all who want to make a name for themselves? I don't know what it is, whether it's youth and gullibility, hatred for the media/government, or the desire to have a "unique" and "different" point of view which makes you folks believe in this nonsense, but if you really tried to think about it rationally, you should be able to see who are the ones being tricked.
Those video makers haven't profited nearly as much as George W. Bush, and a number of others. You should see how much money he has invested in oil, from before 9/11, and how much he's made as a result of inflating oil prices due to the issues in the middle east (caused by our Government). By your own belief of human opportunistic behavior dictating motive and reason, you have actually further incriminated the US Government...
Point is, video makers do it only for profit. And since they're doing it only for profit, they don't care about lying right to your face if it means an extra penny in their pocket (especially since they didn't have a lot of pennies to begin with). And you are willing to buy it. Bush does not control the price of oil. Bush does not control the economy. The economy controls the price of oil. People control the economy. World affairs do have an effect on oil, but Bush does not and cannot control this, nor what effect it will have. Go read before making false arguments and claims: Oil price increases since 2003 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I never said I think government officials are saints. People are indeed opportunists, and some gov officials are worse than others. But killing large numbers of its own citizens is out of the question.
For those that think Bush attacked his own country, just so he can follow up with an invasion in Iraq, just so he can get oil, that's plain stupid. First off, it's not his oil and it won't be his oil, and he's not doing it for the interest of the country because (1) he won't be president for long, so not much of an incentive, and (2) it would be hypocritical since he had to kill people in his own country to achieve this, and Iraq is not and won't be an American colony. Sure, maybe Bush is an opportunist, getting Cheney's Halliburton into Iraq. But to go so far as choose to kill his own people as a precursor to this? Come on.... Not to mention that, since such an operation would require tons of people, surely most of them had nothing to gain, so why would they go along with it?
How is it hypocritical for a politician to do such a thing? He has never behaved like Al Gore, expression some great love for his environment and fellow man. Lack of incentive...? Isn't money and a problem that will generate wealth through private contracting and inflation for tens of years to come enough of an incentive, for a man who is apart of the profiteering group? Go ahead and look at Project MKULTRA, what did they have to gain by doing that? Something less than what is to be gained by the 9/11 catastrophe... that's what. There wasn't any war profiteering to be done with Project MKULTRA. Look at the World Wars, a group of bankers and super-elite businessmen made trillions by war profiteering (American bankers & businessmen, mind you), via supplying Germany and other Axis powers. John D. Rockefeller, if you take inflation to today's monetary value, had made over one-trillion dollars during the World Wars. It also happened during the Revolutionary War for America, and the Civil War. It isn't a new concept.
You are taking my words out of context. First off, you keep going on about how his hands are full of oil. As I said previously, the Iraq oil is not, and never will be, his. He doesn't have some company or goons there digging oil and sending back barrels to his home in Texas. Go read his bio on Wikipedia to find out where he really got most of his wealth from (hint: it's not even oil). My point on hypocrisy was that he didn't invade Iraq so that the US, as a country (since I repeat once more, it's not Bush's oil), would have easy access to oil, because that would imply that he wants to do a great service to the people of the country, whereas the hypocrisy is that killing people of his country is not doing them a great service. Events of the past once again have nothing to do with anything happening now, more specifically because in 50 years, you can be certain that 99.9% of the government has changed since then. And I'm certain you've got some of the facts wrong, but I can't be bothered to correct you on them since they are irrelevant anyway. What happened before happened before, what happens now happens now. Different people, different culture, different choices.
Also, consider that you are accusing Mr. G. W. Bush of premeditated mass murder. The same little clown that vetoed a bill which would have allowed government funding for stem-cell research on aborted embryos, because it goes against his personal beliefs. Yet killing thousands of people is fine? Where's the logic?
Where was the logic in the Holy Crusades? Where was the logic in the Catholic Church supporting and helping the "evil Nazis"? Where was the logic in Paul Hill and James Kopp killing doctors, to save lives? You are making one massive logical fallacy right now, magnum29. You can't presume people to remain adamant in their behaviors and actions based on something they have said, or done, once upon a time in their lives.
Fine, I'll give you this partially. However, the difference between these events is only several years, not "once upon a time in their lives." And although you are right that just because 1 day you think one way, doesn't mean you won't think differently the next, but in this case I find it highly improbable that Christian boy GW has such radical changes in his view of people and the world in such short time frames.
As for talking about the Iraq war in general, that's another topic.
Anyway, if you actually managed to read this whole thing and you still can say with a straight face that the US government was responsible for those attacks, there is no point in arguing since it's clear you lack any ability for rational thought.
I can say that the United States Government is responsible with a straight face, still, because you haven't made an argument. You have merely flamed and called others ignorant thus far.
---POST 2---
Sources and references are only needed when stating facts which are not common knowledge. As such, I haven't written any facts which weren't common knowledge, so therefore references are not needed. My argument was based off simple logical deduction. No science involved.
Wrong. If I say "Zordon from Mighty Morphing Power Rangers Is Real, and He's God, he loves to act to cheer up mankind's children!", and don't link anything to back up what I say... it's rather obvious that I would be full of shit, in such a theoretical situation. You must always support your argument with an amorally involved group/individual's research, when you cannot remain objective and amoral yourself. If you had said common truth that everyone accepts, you wouldn't even be having this debate with us. And simple logical deduction based on ones dreams or imagination is by no means logical.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference#Academic_writing : "In academic literature, a reference is a previously published written work within academic publishing which has been used as a source for theory or claims referred to which are used in the text." I didn't use any outside theories, all opinions are my own. Any claims I made are common knowledge or readily available to be read in a million places (e.g. Wiki). I didn't use any references, hence I have no references to cite.
And I never promised to provide sources since I knew that I wouldn't need sources. Logical thought and analysis doesn't need sources.
You mean, "My imagination doesn't need sources," right? I'm sorry if that offends you, but since you haven't enforced any of your arguments and have called me, and a number of others ignorant, I can see you aren't here to debate. You are here to pull off a "Peart", and flame everybody who does not agree with your beliefs without a convincing argument of supporting evidence.
To some extent you are right, I'm not here to debate. In part it's because this isn't a debate topic (despite the forum that this thread was posted). It's more of a "wake up to reality" thread, in which most participants seem to be asleep, and I'm hoping to come to their rescue. And as I said, the argument is based off logic. There is a deduction (the conspiracy theory) which is based off of some false premises (conspiracy movies, websites, "research"). If I can assume some of these premises to be true, and then logically deduce that some of the premises in part or in whole contradict one another, or that they produce a false deduction, then the deduction (and hence the conspiracy theory) can be nullified. Therefore there does not necessarily have to be a need for more premises (that is, other research) in order to prove the theory as false. Unfortunately, in order to acheive my goal, it requires that the readers (that means you and others who believe these conspiracies) can follow along with my argument and logical deductions. I have my fingers crossed.
If I really did make any unsubstantiated scientific claims which are not common knowledge, please quote them and I will be sure to provide you with references. But seems more to me like you have nothing to reply with, so the only thing you can say is "where are your sources?" instead of addressing any of the points made, none of which require sources in the first place.
I said you had made unsubstantiated claims, don't insert words into my mouth, please, by trying to specify scientific claims. You brought science in by dissing the scientists and engineers discussing the free fall speed of the Trade Towers. You made unsubstantiated claims when you said you were right and we were wrong based on your feeling it to be so. The Russians felt justified in massacring Jewish people in the early 1900's, and before then... but they weren't in the right, now were they? Forgive such a crude analogy, but it takes such measures to beat sense into those who would call anybody different from themselves names (are you racist, by chance?).
For the most part, the only things that need to be substantiated are scientific and engineering claims, things which most people don't know and won't understand. What else needs substantiation?
If you are unaware of when Bush took office, how the election process works, or how to obtain a seat in government, then that's not my problem. But that sort of stuff is referred to as common knowledge. If you're not aware that 9 buildings were destroyed as a result of the incident, read it on Wikipedia or anywhere else, or come to NYC and I'll show you. If you're unaware that 4 planes went down, then read it on a million websites. Do you want sources for when I say "no one heard drilling in the weeks before the WTC attacks?" Asking for such a source is illogical, instead you should be providing me with a source (more like multiple reliable ones) saying that people did indeed hear drilling.
... I want you to provide me an audio track of the very first clapping the clap-on clap-off light maker had made when he came up with his idea. Only then will I believe clap-on and clap-off lights can exist. You are doing the exact same thing to me, so don't even try to complain, as it will be the ultimatum of hypocrisy to do so.
That was more of a satirical comment on you requesting me to provide sources for things which don't require sources. Regardless, as I've written above, there is ZERO evidence in support of the physical existence of explosions. Meaning any claim pro-explosions would require some evidence for their (physical) existence first, as you can't argue against something if it's only an illusion. People don't write articles about how they didn't do/hear/see something. They write articles about things existing, not not-existing.
As for looking up the 1993 bombing, I did look it up on Wikipedia. There wasn't a single mention of any conspiracy theories related to it, or any allegation that the US government was or could have been involved (unlike the case for 9/11 and JFK assasination). The only thing that was mentioned was the possibility of FBI foreknowledge, which is far from the same thing. If it were, as you say, a commonly accepted fact, then I would expect to see something on Wikipedia, but there isn't a single word about it. Additionally, you're the first person I've ever heard saying that the US was responsible for it, and after reading all that was written on Wiki about it, I find it highly unlikely, 100x more unlikely than WTC, that the gov was responsible. So how is that "common knowledge" if less than 1% of people think the same? Wikipedia is an unbiased resource with no government affiliation, so if any substantial number of people really did have such a belief, I would expect to see it there.
1993 World Trade Center bombing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Legal responsibility: The victims are suing the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for damages connected to the bombings. A decision was handed down in 2006, assigning liability for the bombings to the Port Authority. The decision declared that the agency was 68 percent responsible for the bombing, and the terrorists bore only 32 percent of the responsibility. In January 2008, the Port Authority asked a five-judge panel of Appellate Division of State Supreme Court in Manhattan to throw out the decision, describing the jury’s verdict as "bizarre".[20]"
If I walk by your house/property, and I trip on the pavement while walking by and break my arm as a result, I can sue you and claim that you are liable because you did not have smooth pavement, and that it's your fault that I broke my arm. And I will win this case. Welcome to the American legal system. In the 1993 bombing, surely the victims blame Port Authority (which is not the same as the FBI!) for liability because they did not protect them from the injuries/bombings. That doesn't mean they were the cause for the attack itself. And once again, your accusation of the FBI is unfounded.
There are some people who think life is a conspiracy theory, so it doesn't surprise me that there'll be some conspiracy fanatics ranting on about how the US was responsible for that bombing as well. That doesn't make their rants true.
Please stop flaming, already?
Another thing you ask is that "if the US government did it once, why can't they do it again?" Aside from the fact that, as I pointed out, your theory is as a whole not accepted by most people, it is also flawed in another way. As I mentioned in the first post, there is no single entity as the "US government." In the 8 years between those two events, the president has changed, his cabinet has changed, and certainly many other people in congress, other official positions, and members of government agencies have changed. Therefore, the US government back then is largely not the same US government in 2001. So in the same way that saying "If Bob killed someone, then maybe John killed someone too" sounds ridiculous, so too does your supposition (despite the fact that your initial assumption is most certainly anyway).
You are making very poor analogies, magnum29...
The President at the time was Bill Clinton. Al Gore was the Vice President at the time (1993). Two terms later, President Bush was in office. The constitution hadn't been revolutionized over those eight years, we didn't experience a civil war, so it hadn't changed all that radically as you might believe.
The Constitution has not changed, fine, but the Constitution doesn't make decisions. People make decisions. Presidents make decisions. Meaning EVEN IF the FBI really was the cause, if a lot of the positions changed hands, it's no longer the same people making decisions. Therefore, it's not the same type of decisions being made. So although a bit crude indeed, my analogy still stands.
I have this horrifying feeling that you are Peart, after having read your "arguments" (if you would call them that) very thoroughly. You use the exact same tactic as him, and call us ignorant, saying we cannot be right because we do not believe what you believe...
My apologies. I call you ignorant because deep down I know that I'm right. This isn't a discussion of opinions (where I'll never call another person ignorant for having a different view), but a discussion of facts. Facts are either right or wrong, and it bothers me when people deny the facts. I don't claim I know all, in fact I started my first post saying that there is plenty I don't know. However, simply analyzing the situation can show the truth, and the main cause of people accepting conspiracy theories is due to misconceptions of what and who the US government is. When I say ignorant, I hope that some of you can analyze the situation and yourselves objectively instead of subjectively, and won't take offense at it.
Posting Permissions
