To true, I'm sure this debate will go one longer then the moon landings!
9/11 anti-conspiracy videos/sites?
- Thread starter blix
- Start date
To true, I'm sure this debate will go one longer then the moon landings!
The main problem is that people think there are two contrasting camps from which they have to choose:
Camp A: Muslim terrorists hijacked low security internal US flights and then flew the planes into 3 high profile buildings. There was nothing that could be done to stop this.
Camp B: The US government created a "False Flag" terror event which was made to appear that Muslim terrorists had hijacked planes and flown them into 3 high profile buildings. The twin towers were also rigged with explosives to bring them down and as Building 7 also played a part in the attack it was destroyed to cover their tracks. What hit the pentagon is a mystery and could have possibly been a cruise missile.
Why are people so eager to join one of these two camps when the actual documented evidence clearly points to something entirely different:
Camp C (the only credible camp): Muslim terrorists who were well known to the authorities hijacked low security internal US flights and then flew the planes into 3 high profile buildings. There was ample warnings from foreign and domestic sources and even direct presidential briefings waring of an impending attack from Osama bin Laden. Government agencies either ignored or were blocked from making further investigations and this failure to act resulted in nearly 3000 unnecessary deaths. The White House did it's best to try and prevent an investigation into the attacks scared it would uncover their negligence. Once a commission was formed it did not have access to all of the information and members of it spoke out saying that the investigation had been a sham. Not one person at any level of government was held accountable and the links to foreign government agencies who appeared to have a hand in the attack were quietly brushed off.
I can show you evidence for everything in Camp C, while Camps A and B can easily be proven untrue.
Camp A: Muslim terrorists hijacked low security internal US flights and then flew the planes into 3 high profile buildings. There was nothing that could be done to stop this.
Camp B: The US government created a "False Flag" terror event which was made to appear that Muslim terrorists had hijacked planes and flown them into 3 high profile buildings. The twin towers were also rigged with explosives to bring them down and as Building 7 also played a part in the attack it was destroyed to cover their tracks. What hit the pentagon is a mystery and could have possibly been a cruise missile.
Why are people so eager to join one of these two camps when the actual documented evidence clearly points to something entirely different:
Camp C (the only credible camp): Muslim terrorists who were well known to the authorities hijacked low security internal US flights and then flew the planes into 3 high profile buildings. There was ample warnings from foreign and domestic sources and even direct presidential briefings waring of an impending attack from Osama bin Laden. Government agencies either ignored or were blocked from making further investigations and this failure to act resulted in nearly 3000 unnecessary deaths. The White House did it's best to try and prevent an investigation into the attacks scared it would uncover their negligence. Once a commission was formed it did not have access to all of the information and members of it spoke out saying that the investigation had been a sham. Not one person at any level of government was held accountable and the links to foreign government agencies who appeared to have a hand in the attack were quietly brushed off.
I can show you evidence for everything in Camp C, while Camps A and B can easily be proven untrue.
Last edited:
That's pretty much what I'd believe. I wouldn't even be surprised if the government were encouraging the conspiracy theories since these theorists are their very best defence they could wish for against being found out
It's not a matter of belief, everything in Camp C is documented fact, the problem is however that the narrow minded brainwashed Loose Change brigade have totally steamrollered over all of this information. So now any time you question what happened in a credible mannor your instantly stuck into Camp B with the nutters and offered a tin foil hat.
I certainly don't believe the government propogate the conspiracy theory, but it's certainly managed to marginalise the clear obstruction and coverup by the White House, so they are probably quietly smiling.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I don't think so, simply saying that the US Government might have been negligent in their actions (they almost certainly were) doesn't automatically get you labelled a crackpot, saying that the towers fell faster than freefall or that the US Government wired the towers with explosives is just about a dead on certainty to.
How much the Government could have done is possibly a matter for debate as someone determined with nothing to lose is difficult to guard against indefinitely.
I totally agree, in the case of 7/7 for example it would have been very difficult to stop what happened. However 9/11 is a totally different story, every man and his dog knew who these people were.
Last edited:
Caporegime
I can't believe it was orchestrated by the Government. Think of how many people would have to be involved and kept quiet. If I was one of those involved in the planning, there's no way on earth I would have kept my trap shut, even if I knew I was going to die for speaking out. If it was planned, people would have blabbed by now.
Caporegime
Isnt it something that will never really be resolved. All of the conspiracy programs have their experts that say one thing and then the anti-conspiracy people have their own experts to debunk the others. One must be wrong but which one. Plenty of you seem to to immediately believe that the experts on your side are the right ones. Who knows. All im pretty sure of is that America is capable of nearly anything. Throughout history they have proved this.
They are the biggest bunch of hippocritical ***** ever to have graced the earth. How can a country chastise china for its human rights record and take the high ground whilst they run Guantanamo bay.
They impose their wills on other countries through the use of threats and bullying.
And to the people who claim that they didnt go into Iraq for the oil can you please explain why. Is it because saddam hussain was a bad man and terrorised his people. Since when has america cared about anyone but itself. And how many other places in the world need liberating more than Iraq did.
I am open to an answers people may have to these points. If im wrong please tell me in a factual fashion as opposed to "if you think this they you are crazy cos im right"
They are the biggest bunch of hippocritical ***** ever to have graced the earth. How can a country chastise china for its human rights record and take the high ground whilst they run Guantanamo bay.
They impose their wills on other countries through the use of threats and bullying.
And to the people who claim that they didnt go into Iraq for the oil can you please explain why. Is it because saddam hussain was a bad man and terrorised his people. Since when has america cared about anyone but itself. And how many other places in the world need liberating more than Iraq did.
I am open to an answers people may have to these points. If im wrong please tell me in a factual fashion as opposed to "if you think this they you are crazy cos im right"
Caporegime
I don't believe they went to Iraq to sort out Saddam Hussein. Under that belief, they would have to go and sort out Iran and North Korea too.
Man of Honour
Put it this way, if they went into Iraq just for oil then it's been quite a spectacularly unrewarding event since oil prices have risen so much. That doesn't mean it might not have been a consideration. Once the WMD excuse had been debunked the reasoning became that it was to rid the Iraqi people of a bad man.
I'd query why it has to be a sole reason (such as oil) though?
Alternatively you could look at it that they've learned a lesson in Iraq or simply that it doesn't make any sense to start another campaign when you are still committed heavily in another region.
Rilot said ”What's easier to belive and simpler?
1 - Some Muslim extremists steal some planes and fly them in to some buildings to cause chaos in the west.
2 - The US government stages a plot to destroy it's own infrastructure in order to justify war with Iraq and secure oil reserves. The plot includes a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought.”
Number 3 is simpler and easier to believe in some ways. The US government stages a plot to destroy its own infrastructure in order to justify a war. The US government has had old plans like this in the past so it’s not farfetched to find out they have updated planes. The plot doesn’t include a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought. It covers a small group who have inside security details making it easier to steal the planes over some random Muslim extremists. A small rouge group in the US government paid some extremists and gave them security details to make the job easy. After all it was planed at a time to cause maximum damage but low death, before everyone arrives at work. While extremists would choose a time for maximum death. Not to mention all the strange threads on the internet about what would happen if planes crashed into the towers days and weeks before it did.
Rilot said “People who belive this crap are completely, and utterly STUPID. There is this thing called EVIDENCE and scientific methodology that none of these so called "proofs" ever seem to apply.
If someone comes to me with some certifiable evidence that it was a conspiracy (and I don't mean circumstantial evidence) then I will listen.”
People who believe in what they are told just because they cannot find any hardcore certifiable evidence to disagree are just as utterly STUPID as the people who blindly believe all the conspiracy theories. The whole point of a conspiracy theory is if the event is pulled off there is no certifiable evidence to prove it’s real. Covers ups happen all the time and the good ones people never know about with the not so good ones people have suspicions but no circumstantial evidence.
Doing what you’re doing and not listening when there is no circumstantial evidence just makes it easier for people to do the real cover ups. If it was a decent cover up there wouldnt be any certifiable evidence. I am not saying it is a cover up but blindly saying its not as there is no certifiable evidence is silly.
1 - Some Muslim extremists steal some planes and fly them in to some buildings to cause chaos in the west.
2 - The US government stages a plot to destroy it's own infrastructure in order to justify war with Iraq and secure oil reserves. The plot includes a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought.”
Number 3 is simpler and easier to believe in some ways. The US government stages a plot to destroy its own infrastructure in order to justify a war. The US government has had old plans like this in the past so it’s not farfetched to find out they have updated planes. The plot doesn’t include a cover up on a massive scale with nearly every public official in on it and ever eye-witness bought. It covers a small group who have inside security details making it easier to steal the planes over some random Muslim extremists. A small rouge group in the US government paid some extremists and gave them security details to make the job easy. After all it was planed at a time to cause maximum damage but low death, before everyone arrives at work. While extremists would choose a time for maximum death. Not to mention all the strange threads on the internet about what would happen if planes crashed into the towers days and weeks before it did.
Rilot said “People who belive this crap are completely, and utterly STUPID. There is this thing called EVIDENCE and scientific methodology that none of these so called "proofs" ever seem to apply.
If someone comes to me with some certifiable evidence that it was a conspiracy (and I don't mean circumstantial evidence) then I will listen.”
People who believe in what they are told just because they cannot find any hardcore certifiable evidence to disagree are just as utterly STUPID as the people who blindly believe all the conspiracy theories. The whole point of a conspiracy theory is if the event is pulled off there is no certifiable evidence to prove it’s real. Covers ups happen all the time and the good ones people never know about with the not so good ones people have suspicions but no circumstantial evidence.
Doing what you’re doing and not listening when there is no circumstantial evidence just makes it easier for people to do the real cover ups. If it was a decent cover up there wouldnt be any certifiable evidence. I am not saying it is a cover up but blindly saying its not as there is no certifiable evidence is silly.
If you read the PNAC document you will see the invasion was an objective of the Bush administration before they were even in power. People say that the oil thing hasn't worked out for them, but how do you not know this is a long term stratergy that had no intention of reeping instant rewards? PNAC was a 100 year plan after all.
Anyway the PNAC document is proof enough for me that oil was a major factor.
Anyway the PNAC document is proof enough for me that oil was a major factor.
Last edited:
Commissario
I'm sure I speak for the majority of people in this thread when I say that I think you are a complete and utter fool, an easily led idiot with no more intelligence than a concussed bee.
You appear to have made the mistake of believing that I care about majority opinion, or, indeed, your opinion.
Given that this thread has descended into the realm of personal insults, I think I'll be unsubscribing at this point.
Which only works if the PNAC document was true and if the PNAC was anything more than just another Washington DC pressure group.
Maybe of interest to some, lots of theories etc. Been reading stuff on here for a few days and tbh a lot in this day and age goes un answered.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/ this is not a link to anything that would be considered competitors to anything OcUK btw
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/ this is not a link to anything that would be considered competitors to anything OcUK btw
Well we can rip 99% of conspiracy theorys claims ot shreds in a few seconds. The rest there have been proper research into including state of *** art computer simulates and large stage trails of the collapses and how they worked.
The ignorance and idiocy in this thread is astonishing. It's shows how hick so many people are.
as for who ever said the towers fell at free fall. No they didn't not even close.
What I mean is that it all only fits in to place if the original source material is true. If the PNAC document you are refering to is not one of their public ones and has been "uncovered" then you need to question the validity of it. Who is presenting you with the information? Might they have an agenda? Are they a trustworthy source? All the questions anyone should ask of any information supplied to them.