Do you agree, something massive is about to happen ?

stinka · 29 Sep 2009 at 07:26

Evangelion said:
The military action in Afghanistan and Iraq has been amply explained. The military action in Iraq is not unjustified, but the military action in Afghanistan certainly is. There is no suggestion that anyone is taking military action against Iran.

Go on then, please explain why we are in Afghanistan, and dont give the B/S terrorism on the streets of the uk/general terrorism excuse

The world economy has not collapsed; the US dollar is not in any danger of collapsing; the recession is not global (Australia, for example, has completely avoided recession) and unemployment is not rising all over the developed world.

Australia has there problems ffs, and yes, the us dollor is collapsing, and the mere fact that iran are not taking payment for oil in USD, will cause a massive further collapse

semi-pro waster · 29 Sep 2009 at 07:36

Radiation said:
Nice one turning the thread into a 9/11 conspiracy discussion, hasn't it been done to death already?

Yes, repeatedly, and there's no new evidence being advanced from the last time it was done as far as I can see.

Radiation said:
One thing though, does anyone on the forums think conspiracy's are impossible?

Conspiracies can exist, they have done previously and probably always will do but it is worth remembering that the larger a conspiracy is the more difficult it is to keep under control. A major problem I have with most conspiracy theories is that they simultaneously credit the conspirators with enough foresight and power to do improbable acts yet simultaneously so little power and foresight that they can be discovered by some random person on the internet.

dirtydog · 29 Sep 2009 at 08:50

semi-pro waster said:
A major problem I have with most conspiracy theories is that they simultaneously credit the conspirators with enough foresight and power to do improbable acts yet simultaneously so little power and foresight that they can be discovered by some random person on the internet.

Indeed, somehow these novice pilots were able to pull off manoeuvres that many veteran military and commercial pilots have stated would be difficult or impossible to achieve even by the most skilled pilots.

Somehow these Saudis with box cutters were able to get NORAD to suspend its normal air defence system whereby fighters would be automatically scrambled to intercept jets with any sort of problem, like happened with Payne Stewart's learjet.

THAT is the conspiracy theory that YOU and others believe. I agree, it is a very unbelievable conspiracy theory. Why do so many believe it then? I suppose because to believe the US government could have had any kind of foreknowledge or complicity in the 9/11 attacks, that they could have instigated them, or facilitated their being carried out in any way at all, is too horrible to contemplate.

JohnnyG · 29 Sep 2009 at 08:51

lambda said:
A mod has quite obviously changed my post, so I quote myself.

Very funny. Seriously.

Not according to the thread's moderator log. :/

I vote returnee ban time. \o/

Vonhelmet · 29 Sep 2009 at 08:53

dirtydog said:
AcidHell2 believes in conspiracy theories - specifically the conspiracy theory that 9/11 was carried out by a bunch of Saudis with box cutters.

I always find it amusing that people use the term box cutters in a derogatory way, as though they're some sort of joke and not still sharp knives.

Guest2 · 29 Sep 2009 at 08:57

Good job we have a good stable prime minister to see us through the mess!

mrk · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:01

2012 man, 2012!!!!!

oli collett · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:47

dirtydog said:
Except it didn't go into the building, 'it' (whatever it was) disintegrated on impact, leaving the building standing

So quite what are you suggesting did happen to the Pentagon?

You can't claim that one version of the events is a conspiracy theory without having your own theory that is backed up with evidence better than the official line.

[FnG]magnolia · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:51

oli collett said:
So quite what are you suggesting did happen to the Pentagon?

You can't claim that one version of the events is a conspiracy theory without having your own theory that is backed up with evidence better than the official line.

You're not familiar with his line of 'debate' on these forums, are you? Of course he can - he used the smiley ! :rolleyes:

dirtydog · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:56

oli collett said:
So quite what are you suggesting did happen to the Pentagon?

You can't claim that one version of the events is a conspiracy theory without having your own theory that is backed up with evidence better than the official line.

The US govt. are the ones claiming it is a conspiracy

I don't claim to have a definitive version of exactly what did occur on that day. I do think that there should be a new inquiry held, a proper one this time, to establish the true facts for the sake of those who died, their families and friends, and to make sure nothing like this ever happens again.

dirtydog · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:57

[FnG]magnolia;14985786 said:
You're not familiar with his line of 'debate' on these forums, are you? Of course he can - he used the smiley !

Don't be hating on the smileys

Tefal · 29 Sep 2009 at 09:58

So dd you just going to ignore that passports survive crashes then?

Tefal said:
happens fairly often

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8151327.stm

there you go about 5 seconds into the video.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/15/iran.plane.crash/index.html

Plane was totally destroyed on impact.

quite a few passports survived.

Or are Iran in on this too?

[FnG]magnolia · 29 Sep 2009 at 10:05

dirtydog said:
Don't be hating on the smileys

It's not the smileys that I'm hating on

Stag · 29 Sep 2009 at 11:35

As much as I usually disagree with dirtydog (love you babe

), in this instance he has a point. The official story is full of holes and coincidences, that make you question any conclusions they purport.

As well as other points already mentioned, the building 7 collapse, the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon and refusal to release any further video brings up huge questions IMO.

A lot of the alternative theories are serious paranoid delusions, but they do raise some interesting questions that are not answered by the official story.

Sankari · 29 Sep 2009 at 12:29

stinka said:
Go on then, please explain why we are in Afghanistan, and dont give the B/S terrorism on the streets of the uk/general terrorism excuse

The USA invaded Afghanistan with the stated aim of attacking Al Qaeda and removing the Taliban from power. Other nations have since joined the offensive, with the primary aim being to ensure the security of the new Afghan government and the eradication of the Taliban. The war has UN support.

If you don't accept those reasons, please tell me why.

Australia has there problems ffs

Yes, she does. Can you name six? I'm betting that you can't even reach two.

and yes, the us dollor is collapsing, and the mere fact that iran are not taking payment for oil in USD, will cause a massive further collapse

Where is your evidence that the US dollar is collapsing? Yes, the Euro might be set to replace the dollar as preferred oil currency, but that's not the same as a US currency collapse, nor will it necessarily lead to one.

Stay off the meth, dude.

Sankari · 29 Sep 2009 at 12:47

Stag said:
As much as I usually disagree with dirtydog (love you babe ), in this instance he has a point. The official story is full of holes and coincidences, that make you question any conclusions they purport.

What holes and coincidences?

As well as other points already mentioned, the building 7 collapse

You mean the collapse of a burning building which was struck by debris from other burning, collapsing buildings? Nothing mysterious about that.

the lack of wreckage at the Pentagon

What do you mean by "lack of wreckage at the Pentagon"? Here's your damn wreckage!

Piece of fuselage:

Engine parts:

Wheel:

Landing gear strut:

They also found the black box flight recorders. A domestic plane hit the Pentagon. Case closed.

and refusal to release any further video brings up huge questions IMO.

What refusal to release any further video? What video? Who's refusing to release it? Where's your evidence?

dirtydog · 29 Sep 2009 at 12:52

Evangelion said:
What refusal to release any further video? What video? Who's refusing to release it? Where's your evidence?

Video of the Pentagon being hit. We know other videos exist and that the authorities are refusing to release them.

Basher · 29 Sep 2009 at 13:00

dirtydog said:
Video of the Pentagon being hit. We know other videos exist and that the authorities are refusing to release them.

Do we? Source?

JBuk · 29 Sep 2009 at 13:01

Basher said:
Do we? Source?

Of course we do, a man on the interent told us so it must be true

dirtydog · 29 Sep 2009 at 13:07

Basher said:
Do we? Source?

I didn't realise this was in dispute, the authorities don't make any secret of having more videos.