quote:

Originally posted by WayWord Hey, all I'm doing is trying to pass around some information. This sort of thing should make national news, but the corporate-controlled mainstream media decided to start black-balling these kinds of stories

this story made the rounds on the morning news shows the day before yesterday.

it was on both Foxnews.com and MSNBC.com as well.

hell, you said it yourself ABC and AOL picked it up.

i can Google two dozen different network affiliates posting this story on their sites right now.

are you trying to sound edgy by making the cliched reference "corporate-controlled mainstream media"?

i guess for you throothers theres no distinction between networks not relly giving two shits and black-balled suppression?

quote:

Originally posted by WayWord (or a former Italian president for that matter).

wrong. just goes to show you'll believe anything you find on prisonplanet. there's a thing called CONTEXT mate, and cossiga wasn't saying anything remotely supportive of your arguments, indeed he was mocking people just like you on the italian left.

get a clue.

___________________

^^^Didn't Trancer already bring up the "Italian President" argument in another one of the 9-11 threads recently?

___________________
The thing about money? It makes you do things that you don't want to do

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco ^^^Didn't Trancer already bring up the "Italian President" argument in another one of the 9-11 threads recently?

its been posted/referred to at least 3 times, because they take prisonplanet et al's word for it, without taking their time to search for the "truth" and the other side of the argument.

911 deniers are the epitome of intellectual dishonesty at play.

___________________

You know what annoys me about conspiracies is the fact that governments never have to answer any of the concerns or issues raised by the conspiracies. They are almost self destructing as people automatically insist that the official government line is obviously correct, and any attempts to deviate from the "consensus" is the work of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiraloons, and is dismissed, crucially, not by the government or the accused, but ordinary members of the public who become sick and tired of these theories!

Nobody can deny there are some unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Some of them are valid, some not so. Some, like the topic of this thread, and other issues involving "evidence" of an inside job, for me, fall into the "not so valid" category. For a start, lets think about this logically - everybody in the world saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, some live while it was happening. That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble.

But what pisses me off is that these unnecessary conspiracy theories distract from what I consider crucial questions that need to be answered surrounding 9/11. One key issue for me is the role of Saudi Arabia. We know there is a connection but certain details were blacked out and remain classified. The obvious conclusion is that the information would alter people's perception of the country and put American business interests there in jepordy. But more than that, it gives us a crucial insite into the war on terror. My country suffered at the hands of Islamist terrorists and if the US has any information that might help us defend against this threat in future, they should share it with their allies.

But there is no pressure on the US government to open up about these valid questions surrounding 9/11 because they all get thrown into the same category as "troofer conspiracy theories" and simply ignored by the government who's position is bolstered by people who immediately attack anyone who continues to question these events.

I would like to see the government answer ALL questions surrounding 9/11 so we can out these theories and questions to bed once and for all, but while people automatically write off any attempt to investigate these questions they government doesn't need to deny accusations because there are enough members of the public doing that on their behalf anyway...

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley You know what annoys me about conspiracies is the fact that governments never have to answer any of the concerns or issues raised by the conspiracies. They are almost self destructing as people automatically insist that the official government line is obviously correct, and any attempts to deviate from the "consensus" is the work of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiraloons, and is dismissed, crucially, not by the government or the accused, but ordinary members of the public who become sick and tired of these theories! Nobody can deny there are some unanswered questions surrounding the events of 9/11. Some of them are valid, some not so. Some, like the topic of this thread, and other issues involving "evidence" of an inside job, for me, fall into the "not so valid" category. For a start, lets think about this logically - everybody in the world saw two planes hit the Twin Towers, some live while it was happening. That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble. But what pisses me off is that these unnecessary conspiracy theories distract from what I consider crucial questions that need to be answered surrounding 9/11. One key issue for me is the role of Saudi Arabia. We know there is a connection but certain details were blacked out and remain classified. The obvious conclusion is that the information would alter people's perception of the country and put American business interests there in jepordy. But more than that, it gives us a crucial insite into the war on terror. My country suffered at the hands of Islamist terrorists and if the US has any information that might help us defend against this threat in future, they should share it with their allies. But there is no pressure on the US government to open up about these valid questions surrounding 9/11 because they all get thrown into the same category as "troofer conspiracy theories" and simply ignored by the government who's position is bolstered by people who immediately attack anyone who continues to question these events. I would like to see the government answer ALL questions surrounding 9/11 so we can out these theories and questions to bed once and for all, but while people automatically write off any attempt to investigate these questions they government doesn't need to deny accusations because there are enough members of the public doing that on their behalf anyway...

yeah, i pretty much agree. any real issues become invisible in the midst of some of the more outlandish statements and assumptions. the truther movement has twisted so many "facts" that anything legitimate they do uncover is summarily ignored. i do find the irony somewhat amusing though

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley That's all that was needed for America to pursue the neoconservative foreign policy it did after 9/11. The Towers did not need to fall and the Pentagon did not need to be hit. Those two planes were all that were needed. Sure they might have had more information about the attacks than they let on, but it simply was not necessary for the Towers to crumble.

i'm in no way a troother but i think thats just your opinion based on how you actually feel about neoconservative foreign policy having watched it for the last 6 years.

if just one plane hit the towers and only 250 people died and somehow the tower managed to remain intact as opposed to what actually happened, Bush wouldn't have had the emotional capital in Congress to get what he wanted regarding Saddam. there's just no way.

public sentiment would have chalked it up to just our "periodic terrorist attack" that we had been witness to the prior decades i.e random hi-jackings and plane bombings, '93 WTC bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole except just a little more dramatic and closer to home.

we would have had causus belli for action in Afghanistan, maybe even regime change there but certainly not complete restructuring of DoD, intelligence services, Homeland Security Dept beaurocracy monster, Patriot Act, Saddam WMD's at the UN. there would be a very good chance none of that shit would have materialized. hell, Bush would have probably not been re-elected in 2004. who knows?

i think we've forgotten just how devastating 9/11 was to this country. i agree that the towers didn't need to fall but they did. however, you just can't separate that one aspect from the total magnitude of what happened that day to make a point about what we did following that day to make sure it would never happen again.

Last edited by Q5echo on Feb-06-2008 at 12:28

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i'm in no way a troother but i think thats just your opinion based on how you actually feel about neoconservative foreign policy having watched it for the last 6 years.

Not sure I quite understand what you're getting at here?

quote:

if just one plane hit the towers and only 250 people died and somehow the tower managed to remain intact as opposed to what actually happened, Bush wouldn't have had the emotional capital in Congress to get what he wanted regarding Saddam. there's just no way.

I completely disagree. Even if it were only 250 people, that is still a huge amount and (crucially) the public would have demanded action (especially considering the means of the attack). But on top of that, I think you fatality estimate is way too low. IIRC, most of the people below where the planes hit managed to get out of the building. The ones that lost their lives were trapped above the level of the strike, and would therefore more than likely have burned to death had the building not collapsed, resulting in similar levels of fatalities

quote:

public sentiment would have chalked it up to just our "periodic terrorist attack" that we had been witness to the prior decades i.e random hi-jackings and plane bombings, '93 WTC bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole except just a little more dramatic and closer to home.

Ok well you're saying that based on your (completely unfounded) assumption that only 250 people would have died. Even going along with that it's still a massive blow and simply pales in comparison to the 93 attack (which only killed 6 people). America simply has no experience of major terrorist attacks on its home soil. The sheer audacity of flying two passenger airliners into major skyscrapers in the no.1 city in America would have a completely different phsycological effect on the public than attacks on US interests abroad or mere hijackings.

You may argue, for whatever reason, that had the Towers not collapsed the government would not have been able to pursue the neoconservative plan, but as I've pointed out above, I honestly do not think the outcome would have been any different (in all aspects) had the towers not collapsed....

quote:

Originally posted by George Smiley Not sure I quite understand what you're getting at here?

what i'm saying is i think you're letting how you've felt about neoconservative foriegn policy all these years affect your reasoning.

quote:

I completely disagree. Even if it were only 250 people, that is still a huge amount and (crucially) the public would have demanded action (especially considering the means of the attack).

"demand action"? like regime change in Iraq? c'mon dude be serious.

quote:

But on top of that, I think you fatality estimate is way too low. IIRC, most of the people below where the planes hit managed to get out of the building. The ones that lost their lives were trapped above the level of the strike, and would therefore more than likely have burned to death had the building not collapsed, resulting in similar levels of fatalities

it's just a for instance. an example i made to make a point.

nevermind.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo what i'm saying is i think you're letting how you've felt about neoconservative foriegn policy all these years affect your reasoning.

It still doesn't make sense? How can my feelings towards neoconservative foreign policy have affected my opinions on how 9/11 has been used as a pretext for the Afghan and Iraq Wars? They WERE used as a pretext, I think that's pretty conclusive (how many people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 again? Remind me...)

quote:

"demand action"? like regime change in Iraq? c'mon dude be serious.

Yet there was a great support for the Iraq War because it was billed as part of the war on terror (and that is a FACT). "Demand action" may be a bit strong, but that can easily be substituted for "favourable to action" which, sa far as the government is concerned, allows for the same course of action

quote:

it's just a for instance. an example i made to make a point.

Well in that case it's a bad example that doesn't work!

In the matter of WTC7, i read a journal article a while ago which outlined the design fault that triggered the collapse, this building like many others was changed mid construction, as such some on site engineering was done to accomodate the new change, this change required some large load transfer trusses to be installed to carry the load from the penthouse which was now no longer centered on the building. these trusses were desinged to take a "cantilevered" load and transfer it to the core column structure. This truss failed causing the penthouse to collapse through the roof, which in turn, pulled the rest of the structure with it.

if you take a giant steel ball (lets say 1000000 tonnes just for dramatic effect) this ball is suspended from a frame with two connections. if one fails, the ball will most likely pull the other half of the frame down with it. Why? because strucutral connections are usually designed to be independant and redundant for most cases. ie if one joint fails, the other joint should be able to hold its load. The only problem with this is that when you have a failure that causes a large load shift or mass shift, the joints that remained intact are now subject to dynamic loads that they were not designed to carry.

The concept that it was imploded is not only impractical, but completely un founded.

-Im going to dig through my box full of CSCE and ASCE journals and ill find a source link..... this is all from memory right now.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I have 3 hobbies: gaming, DJing & correcting maladjusted fools on the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN Yeah, I’d like to know what horrible, scarring incident in your childhood turned you into such an ignorant, intellectual-hating philistine?