Australian Politics Forum - the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › Member Run Boards › Fringe › the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp

(Moderator: SadKangaroo)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Send Topic

Print

the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp (Read 18723 times)

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #45 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 7:37am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:57pm:

imperial wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 5:32pm:

sorry, my mistake. it is easy to assume the knowledge of others..

the 'extremists' aparently were drinking in bars and servicing ho's the night before. seems they couldnt wait for the 40 virgins, and considered a hangover as good preperation...

How many pilots over 100 years do you reckon have had a bit of pissup and a good root in LA the night before flying back to Sydney?

Come to think of it, if you were determined to kill yourself by 10AM the next day... Why not a bit a nosh up? Chuck in a bit of whizz as well... why not?

aaahhh yes. 911. just like a flight back to sydney.......

IP Logged

Acid Monkey

Gold Member

Offline

Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #46 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 9:35am

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 7:36am:

ohhhhhh. thats why.....funny...the official yarn said it was because of the fires....?

Haha! One would have to be a fool to accept any official version for anything at face value without first forming their own opinion from their own investigations. But then, I'm sure that you know that already.

Wink

Wink

IP Logged

Lestat

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1403

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #47 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 9:59am

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Perhaps it's because the passport ended up a block away in the initial explosion, while the black boxes stayed put.

haha...yeah, thats sounds really logical. Roll Eyes

Roll Eyes

So we are to believe that passports not only survived the explosion, but also conveniently ended up a block away. But for some unknown reason, the black boxes, which were in the very same explosion for some reason stayed put. And these were destroyed, yet these super passports somehow survived an explosion which brought down two buildings.

FD..thanks for the laugh.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

They are rpetty tough actually.

Makes you wonder why they don't wrap the black boxes with passport plastic. Perhaps then they may have survived the explosion. Grin

Grin

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

They didn't have to melt, only weaken.

Really. There are plenty of engineers with more knowledge and experience then you that disagree.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Which one? Maybe a building fell into it.

Tower 7. No building fell into it, yet it mysteriously collapsed approx. half an hour after the second tower collapsed.

And strangely enough, no other buildings in its vicinity collapsed? Why is that?

IP Logged

Acid Monkey

Gold Member

Offline

Goth Father

Posts: 1064
EU
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #48 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:09am

Lestat wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 9:59am:

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2008 at 8:40pm:

Which one? Maybe a building fell into it.

Tower 7. No building fell into it, yet it mysteriously collapsed approx. half an hour after the second tower collapsed.

And strangely enough, no other buildings in its vicinity collapsed? Why is that?

This map will give people an idea why it's such a conspiracy that WTC 7 fell (especially when other building didn't. One would have thought that WTC 3 would have gone down (being right in between the 2 towers). It did not. Instead WTC 7 collapsed which was a little further away and with WTC 6 shielding it from the collapse.

wtc.JPG (32 KB | 35 )

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49023
At my desk.

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #49 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 10:24am

haha...yeah, thats sounds really logical.

It is logical. A passport is made of paper (and a bit of plastic or something). It is light enough to get blown a long way in an explosion. A block box on the other hand is probably designed to stay with the wreckage.

So we are to believe that passports not only survived the explosion

Why wouldn't they?

but also conveniently ended up a block away

Why wouldn't they?

Makes you wonder why they don't wrap the black boxes with passport plastic. Perhaps then they may have survived the explosion.

It was the heat that destroyed them, not the initial impact.

Really. There are plenty of engineers with more knowledge and experience then you that disagree.

They do not disagree. You just don't understand what they are saying.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

WWW

IP Logged

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #50 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 11:28am

anyone care to humour me and spend 2 minutes reading this..?

Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia. Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).

Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer, which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3 2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).

All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC, until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not? There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter planes are sent up to investigate.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

IP Logged

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #51 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 11:46am

very good article by a mainstream paper by a mainstream politician...below is another excerpt of the same article. the full article can be viewed at the link..the author served as uk environment minister for 6 years......

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August 2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August 10 2002).

The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this myth and junior participation in this project really a proper aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the evidence needed for a radical change of course.

· Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June 2003
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/sep/06/september11.iraq

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #52 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 11:52am

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 11:28am:

anyone care to humour me and spend 2 minutes reading this..?

So it was Muslim extremists then?
Often government committees set up for disaster response are complacent, incompetent or both (particularly when an incompetent President appoint incompetent mates to key roles), but that doesn't mean they intended for the disaster to occur. Check out the shambolic Hurricane Katrina response.
Quote:

The House of Representatives Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina
From the Committee's Executive Summary :

"The Secretary Department of Homeland Security should have designated the Principal Federal Official on Saturday, two days prior to landfall, from the roster of PFOs who had successfully completed the required training, unlike then FEMA Director Michael Brown. Considerable confusion was caused by the Secretary’s PFO decisions."
"DHS and FEMA lacked adequate trained and experienced staff for the Katrina response."
"The readiness of FEMA’s national emergency response teams was inadequate and reduced the effectiveness of the federal response."
"Long-standing weaknesses and the magnitude of the disaster overwhelmed FEMA’s ability to provide emergency shelter and temporary housing."
"FEMA logistics and contracting systems did not support a targeted, massive, and sustained provision of commodities."
"Before Katrina, FEMA suffered from a lack of sufficiently trained procurement professionals."

The President when he arrived five days after Katrina from his ranch in Texas made a point of praising Mike Brown (a close friend of the President) for his efforts asserting Mike was ‘doing one heck of a job’ and that ‘no one could have predicted the breach of the levees’. But they did. Experts on hurricanes anticipated it and told the President in a video conference before the storm hit.

FEMA’s New Orleans head, Marty Bahamonde called it systematic failure at all levels of government. He continually sent Brown emails telling him that they were running out of food and water, that many would not survive the night and that the situation was past critical. Brown finally replied ‘Thanks for the update. Anyting specific I need to do or tweak?”

Michael Chertoff the Homeland Security Secretary (another friend of the President) said that the hurricane had inconveniently come during a ‘second stage review’ of disaster planning and FEMA lacked the ‘skill set’ for ‘preparedness’.

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #53 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:00pm

we arent discussing katrina....

BYW. did you read ; the plot thickens...

Quote:

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #54 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:18pm

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:00pm:

we arent discussing katrina....

BYW. did you read ; the plot thickens...

Quote:

A report from the commission on America's national interests in July 2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was dependent on access to cheap gas.

Katrina was a natural disaster, the response to which was botched by complacency and incompetence. It may be more 'fun' to imagine that the inappropriate response to 9/11 was part of the plot hatched by a secret society, the Jews or aliens, but in the end it more probably boils down to complacency and a "lacking of the ‘skill set’ for ‘preparedness’ ".

How is there a necessary link between Afghanistan and the oil pipeline and 9/11? If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan (given also that the US had been hunting Bin Laden prior to 9/11 and tracked him to Afghanistan), then you may have an arguable point. But it is a non sequitur to infer that the Bush Administration engineered 9/11 because they wanted a pipeline through Afghanistan.

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #55 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:24pm

[quote] If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan quote]

obviously you didnt read the article. it was a UK minister that suggested this.....READ THE ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!

how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff? or isnt a UK environment minister of 6 years good enough for you to at least consider his opinion????

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #56 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:27pm

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:24pm:

[quote] If you are suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan quote]

obviously you didnt read the article. it was a UK minister that suggested this.....READ THE ARTICLE !!!!!!!!!

how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff? or isnt a UK environment minister of 6 years good enough for you to at least consider his opinion????

But what do YOU think? Or are you the "UK minister"? Are YOU suggesting that the Bush Administration exploited 9/11 to invade Afghanistan?

How can we see eye to eye if you don't have an opinion?

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

imperial

Senior Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 268

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #57 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:34pm

you are right...

george bush is a great leader. he must be. you agree with everything he says..

muslims threw kids overboard...

there were WMD..

all iraqis who fight americans in iraq are terrorists..

the russians started the war in georgia...

GW is the whole truth....

no use me and you debating these points.

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49023
At my desk.

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #58 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:39pm

how can we ever see eye to eye if you refuse to read relevant stuff?

Actually, that would require you to give your opinion, rather than giving a news article as a substitute for your opinion. If you can't even form your own opinion, what benefit are others supposed to expect from reading all the literature you link to?

It is naive to expect people to agree with you merely because they read the same articles.

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

WWW

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

male

Re: the top 40 reasons to doubt the official 911 consp
Reply #59 - Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:40pm

imperial wrote on Aug 18^th, 2008 at 12:34pm:

you are right...

george bush is a great leader. he must be. you agree with everything he says..

muslims threw kids overboard...

there were WMD..

all iraqis who fight americans in iraq are terrorists..

the russians started the war in georgia...

GW is the whole truth....

no use me and you debating these points.

Show me a post where I have asserted the above. I asked you for your opinion and you replied with a tantrum. Do you even have an opinion?

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge