1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

911 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by conundrum, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595


    But is there any documented proof that the Nazi's killed 1000's of their own people, blew up famous landmarks and blamed it on the Jews?
     
  2. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Would you like to respond to Treefrog and Curio's posts? :)
     
  3. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    Here's a long wiki article about it (which I haven't read).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
     
  4. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    What are they - I don't live here.
     
  5. Sleepy

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 7,394

    Location: Leicestershire

    It states that a communist burned down the Reichstag, so the Nazis blaming the commies isn't propoganda per se.
     
  6. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    I don't understand what you mean.
     
  7. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595


    You ought to read it because its another one of those 'The Nazi's might have been involved" theories or on the other hand it was a piece of luck for them that this nutter did it etc.
    So in a nutshell Van der Lubbe did it, might have had help and confessed to it (the 2nd time under torture).

    I do read everything that is linked.
     
  8. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595


    What are they?
     
  9. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    What are what? The posts? Scroll up and you'll see them.
     
  10. Davey_Pitch

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Oct 17, 2002

    Posts: 17,916

    Location: Liverpool, UK

    The ones on this very page quoting you. Don't tell me you don't know what he's on about.
     
  11. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    Because theres nothing there.
    Everything that you and others have come out with is so far fetched.

    So are you saying that at about 9am on 9/11 in front of 1000's of people the USA fired a rocket at the Pentagon?
    Do you realise how stupid this sounds?

    We won't go into the Twin Towers because I don't know whether you believe they were drones, USA pilots in real planes, planes with rockets fired just before they hit, real terrorists in real planes but bombs were set off at exactly the same time etc. Theres so many theories - which one is right?

    None of them.
     
  12. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    If they can't uncover the truth then the truth must be what happened.
    If it looks like dog poo, smells like dog poo, tastes like dog poo then it must be dog poo.
    Unless you prove to me that its cat poo then I'm not biting ( :D )

    Project Northwood wasn't found by investigators as far as I know. It came into the public domain and the nutter who thought it up was sacked. No case here - move along.

    Edit -

    The previously secret document was originally made public on November 18, 1997 by the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Review Board[1], a U.S. federal agency overseeing the release of government records related to John F. Kennedy's assassination.[2][3] A total of about 1500 pages of once-secret military records covering 1962 to 1964 were concomitantly declassified by said Review Board.

    It would be a brilliant idea 4 years later to execute such an attack wouldn't it?
    That would call for some seriously dumb politicians.
    Perhaps if the reports had been found in 2003 then it might have meant something.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2006
  13. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,890

    Location: Brit in the USA

    How do you know the truth hasn't been uncovered? Because the US government says so? :confused: Would you jump off a cliff if they asked you to? :p
    There are plenty of credible people with engineering/physics backgrounds who question what happened on 9/11 - it's not just a bunch of spotty X-Files nerds with too much time on their hands. For example...

    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html

    But the White House is full of nutters now. Also, I'm willing to bet that every government since time began has, at some point, lied to its people in order to push its own agenda - and the vast majority of people will just accept what they're told by politicians and the media. Those that don't are branded nutters.

    How many people have heard of Project Northwoods?
     
  14. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    I am not frustrated by the idea of a conspiracy. And, for the most part, I am not frustrated that such a conspiracy theory remains in vogue in some quarters. The proof of conspiracy presented, however, is another story. And in most cases the arguments in support of the conclusive value of the evidence presented rely more upon the fact that the government is motivated to hide things than actually to prove that a conspiracy involving the Govt was fact.
     
  15. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Is that your best argument to convince me that I'm wrong? :incredulous:
    I think that to assign everything to chance, circumstance, oversight, or plain bad luck is far-fetched.
    Oh dear. I said it was one of the possible explanations. Now go back and actually read my post.
    I know exactly how it sounds to me - my first reaction was incredulity.
    I don't know what the real story is either. But I find the official story to fit the facts as known less well than alternate theories.
    Hehe - I notice that you include "real terrorists in real planes" (the official story) as one of the theories that is wrong though.

    Edit:
    Just as an exercise, assuming you were the person in charge of disaster management at the Pentagon on September 11th '01: where on the list of priorities would you put collecting the security videos from the gas station and the Sheraton hotel? What tasks would you place immediately before and after this job?

    You say you want to be proved wrong? Okay then, assuming the official story to be correct and that these videos will therefore show a Boeing 767 in American Airlines colours flying into the Pentagon, why were the security tapes siezed within 10 minutes of the explosion? And why has the DoD refused to release them to public view.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2006
  16. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    1 - So what is your best argument because you haven't got one. Incredulous.
    Terrorists > hijack 4 planes > 3 hit their targets > one may have got shot down.

    2 - Read my post, I said "real terrorists in real planes but bombs were set off at exactly the same time".
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2006
  17. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Are you saying that "so what?" is my best argument there? Or are you asking what my best argument is? Or is that a reply to:
    tf: I'd be interested to know what in particular so convinced you of this.
    dm:Because there's nothing there.
    Everything that you and others have come out with is so far fetched.
    tf: Is that your best argument to convince me that I'm wrong? :incredulous:
    Oops, my bad :o
     
  18. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    Show me something I haven't seen that will convince me that the USA attacked itself.
     
  19. Spud21

    Mobster

    Joined: Nov 11, 2002

    Posts: 4,551

    Location: Bristol

    I can't say i think the US carried out the attack or actively took part in them in any way, they couldn't do it, too many people are involved, too many people know what is going on for it to be adaquetly covered up, the US govt can only in theory undertake very small scale and cheap actions of this kind.

    E.g the Kennedy assasination could be a conspiracy as all it would have take would have been 3-4 people to know at most, a CIA agent with a backup the top bod at the CIA and one of the govt secretaries, you can do that, and one fall guy, who doesn't really know whats going on.

    Even with certain sections of the intelligence community working alone to do certain things, around the Cuban missile crisis the CIA were doing some seriously dodgy stuff, to try and start a war, including attempting to send planes over areas to deliberately get shot at.

    During the cold war as a whole there were many things going in in the intelligence community that were happening without the knowledge of the executive, the massive, massive overstating of Russian nuclear capabilities, was done by intelligence not being entirely turthful to the Government.

    In theory because of this it could be possible for parts of the US infastrcture of power to carry out 9/11.

    However would be impossible for the Us government to undertake, for a start too many people woul know about it for it to be deemed safe to hide, then you have the small problem of cost, where exactly is the money to rig up the two towers with explosives going to come from ? Someone is going to have to go before congress and lie about something to get the money, then congress is going to get suspicious when this money dissapears out of where it should be.

    Then you have the scale of the op, generally illegal ops are kept small and low personell, as things can and frequently do go wrong, take our two SAS guys who got caught in Iraq not that long ago, i bet what they were doing or going to do was about as legal as eating babies, but some randoms came along and whatever they were doing was blown. This sort of thing frequently happens, but as the ops are small scale and low key they can either fight their way out or get round it by pretending to be doing something wholy legal until they are extracted. Are you trying to tell me that a load of people hiding explosives around the WTC wouldn't get noticed by someone ? An illegal op of that scale would not work, it would get found out, most likely by complete accident but it would still get found out.


    However where there could be some kind of conspiracy is that parts of the US intelligence community knew full well about the attacks but saw fit to further their own agenda by not relaying this info, the CIA has been known in the past to be less than truthful to the executive to further their aims in the past so it's not impossible.

    The dabate will rage on for a very long time as to if certain sections of the govt knew about the impending attacks but nobody will proove anything beyond all doubt, just like nobody will ever really know if certain parts of the Us govt really did know about pearl harbour and sent their carriers out conviniently on iirc unscheduled manouvers when they knew that the japanese would not be able to gather any more intel until the actual bombing. Mabye it was just luck that they sent out their carriers, mabye it wasn't, if there was something dodgy i can bet that those few that do know will take their secrets to the grave and we will never truly know.
     
  20. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Could you list what you have seen please? Then I'll know what not to suggest. And also to watch to see whether it changes my opinion.
    And what sort of thing would you consider convincing anyway? Also, why should I try to convince you of that when I don't believe that that is what happened.

    And rather than continually throwing out one contentious assertion after another, how about you trying to back up your viewpoint and demolish my arguments? Without using "But they just wouldn't ...".