[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24874066]these treads always end in an arguement, hey, if you think about it the terrorist's got us here too, cuz we are argueing about them. [/QUOTE]
But I thought it was the mafia that did this :downs:
[QUOTE=CodeMonkey3;24870357]I'm going to point out that nothing happens unless Congress is behind it and Congress doesn't pass anything unless the PEOPLE want it. We wanted to go to war with Iraq at the time for harboring our enemies, supporting and training them and allegedly having nuclear weapons (This last point is taken out of context quite often, they didn't have nuclear weapons, they had SCUD launchers and missiles capable of using a warhead and Iraq had been attempting to develop nuclear weapons for ten years by this time, which was our probable cause to invade, that the people supported)
I'm not going to talk Politics anymore, it's mostly opinion anyway. I'm a bit better with this WTC stuff since it's all based in the realm of physics and facts.[/QUOTE]
I understand all of that.
The Bush administration played it off like they knew Saddam had WMDs and made WMD a popular term to throw around in the news.
Then when we finally got to Iraq and nothing surfaced, they all avoided directly saying anything even involving the fact that it was all hot air from the beginning.
They just wanted something to be that little extra link as to why we were going from hunting terrorists in Afghanistan to fighting a war in a country we were at war with once before.
My point to the entire post was that i don't understand how people can think that the government pulled the wool over everyone's eyes with 9/11 and murdered a bunch of people, all while hiding this massive 9/11 plan, only to screw up the whole WMD issue, or more recently, keeping some war documents hidden.
It's just unrealistic.
[editline]11:16PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24873531]I'll list them;
[B]International TV networks[/B] - Broadcasting the News
[B]Newspaper Companys[/B] - Spreading the News
[B]Contruction Company's[/B] - Hired by government to find weaknesses in Building
[B]Aero-Scientists[/B] - Specialist's that can name there own price to be hire to investigate.
[B]The Politicians[/B] - Claiming Increased wages to cover "Stress"
[B]People Buying US Company Shares[/B] - Can make massive returns in the future.
[B]Pyrotecknic Specialists[/B] - Investigating also
[B]Film Studios in Hollywood[/B] - They make millions exploiting the Story providing nothing to the victims.
[B]Rival Airlines to the planes that hit towers[/B] - Scared to fly with same airline, Demorilises customers.
[B]100s of TV programmes about 9/11[/B] - making money from sponsors etc...
There are probably many more, but I can't think of atm, Probably cuz it's getting really late or "early" :v:[/QUOTE]
That's a horrible list.
Airlines all lost a shit ton of money.
Not just Delta and US Airlines.
All of them.
Because people didn't want to fly at all.
It wasn't just people saying "Fuck Delta, they let terrorists crash them into buildings, i only trust my life to TWA".
People didn't want to fly at all.
And all of these people making money, still live in a society that is losing money every day because of a struggling economy.
It doesn't make any tactical sense.
It's like blowing up 6 of the 10 wooden beams holding up your house, because you have termites and want them gone.
While it fixes your problem initially, you're still fucked in the long run.
There are better ways to swindle people out of money than to scheme up some massive terrorist attack.
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24874066]
The war in IRAQ was about Oil, Afghanistan war was retaliation from New York and London Terrorist attacks.
[/QUOTE]
I've never seen evidence supporting this claim though it seems to be a fairly widespread idea. Please show me your proof that we are sucking oil from Iraq. Not that it's not totally possible, I mean, We had no business with the middle east till we accidentally struck oil in Saudi Arabia. It's a plausible theory. A helluva lot more logical than the 9/11 theories. I still don't believe it though.
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24874066]
The war in IRAQ was about Oil, Afghanistan war was retaliation from New York and London Terrorist attacks.[/QUOTE]
I can't see how it was about Oil.
America is still paying a pretty hefty price for gas and oil, and that's considering we've been in Iraq for some time now.
Granted we've gone and left Iraq, so who knows now.
Maybe i will try and see if i can't find some info to say one way or the other.
So i've been reading up.
Seems like it [i]could[/i] be over oil, but i'm not convinced.
The best i've found is a Washington Post article that discusses how despite the potential for producing a lot of oil, Iraq isn't squirting out much due to Insurgent strikes against oil lines and refineries, and the fear of any country trying to come in and set up an operation.
Hmmm.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;24808953]giant buildings are sort of unpredictable when they collapse. The building falling down in a slightly different way than you would expect doesn't mean that a government conspiracy is the only possible explanation.[/QUOTE]
But why didn't it leave a huge pile of debris in it's wake? The land looked kind of flat...
Instead of using the Kingdome, we will use WTC 7. This is a more suitable
structure, as suggested above, being a steel-framed skyscraper. The before-collapse
height of WTC 7 was 610 feet14. The initial volume of WTC 7 was 610 “ft x footprint”
where the unit ‘footprint’ is the cross-sectional area of building 7. The after-collapse
volume I estimated to be 70±10 ft x footprint.15 Taking the ratio yields a volumetric
compression given by:
70±10ft×footprnt/610×fottprnt=11.5±1.6%.
Most of the debris from all the collapsed buildings in the WTC complex,
excluding Building 7, collapsed within the sublevels (see reference 13 for the analysis
details).
[url]http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200702/Implausibility-Directed-Energy-Beam-Demolish-WTC-by-Gregory-Jenkins.pdf[/url]
hence the small amount of debris at wtc7
(I forgot to add that the wtc7 had a 5 floor basement)
Progress on proving myself.
I have narrowed it down to one shed the box could be in
[QUOTE=The Vman;24874144]But I thought it was the mafia that did this :downs:[/QUOTE]
:downsbravo:
NO!! Damn your stupid!
I said, [B]What if?[/B]
Everyone knows that the Taliban are responsible, you freakin idiot.
I was saying that conspiracy theory's can be anything that sound plausable.
[B]Offtopic:[/B] Hell of a thing if in 50 years time the Mafia own up to it :v:
[editline]02:39PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;24874331]I've never seen evidence supporting this claim though it seems to be a fairly widespread idea. Please show me your proof that we are sucking oil from Iraq. Not that it's not totally possible, I mean, We had no business with the middle east till we accidentally struck oil in Saudi Arabia. It's a plausible theory. A helluva lot more logical than the 9/11 theories. I still don't believe it though.[/QUOTE]
So you have not read any of the Data on the wikileaks website? that the Pentagon is going crazy about?? It isn't directly said, but basically it says "Stop saddam before he sets fire to his oil fields again."
If you know what the first Iraq war was about it was about western Oil fields being set on fire.
[editline]02:42PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24875867]I can't see how it was about Oil.
America is still paying a pretty hefty price for gas and oil, and that's [/QUOTE]
You call $1.20 hefty for fuel? Jeez thats aprox. £0.77p in UK money.
We have to pay atleast £1.10 a Litre, which is $1.72 in US.
You don't know the meaning of [B]"Hefty Fuel Bill"[/B].
[editline]02:45PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24875867]
Seems like it [i]could[/i] be over oil, but i'm not convinced.
[/QUOTE]
Watch the Film "Greenzone", It's based on a True Story.
Apparently you're far more knowledgeable about the workings of physics and building's properties than anyone else.
No, he's just not as close minded to disregard all the evidence before giving it the benefit of the doubt. A lot of information points in either direction, and I'm not saying either is necessarily true. But the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Oh hey, he's back.
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24881466]No, he's just not as close minded to disregard all the evidence before giving it the benefit of the doubt. A lot of information points in either direction, and I'm not saying either is necessarily true. But the truth is always somewhere in the middle.[/QUOTE]
No, alot of the evidence either points towards Physics or conspiracy theorists. One is mostly infallible, the other is extremely unreliable.
Lets play 'Guess which one is which'.
Mr. Physics does not get offered vast amounts of money to write books or make speeches, to sell DVDs, or from donations. Mr. Physics doesn't choose which information it likes to hear, or only believes what he wants to believe.
Mr. Physics is also a pretty cool guy*
*Mr. Physics is not a real person.
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24878301]
If you know what the first Iraq war was about it was about western Oil fields being set on fire.
[/QUOTE]
The Iraqis didn't set the oil wells on fire until they retreated from Kuwait. The Gulf War was about protecting our Allies (Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) from Iraq taking them over and controlling a very large percentage of the worlds oil supply making them unbelievably rich(something like +90%) Once we started kicking their ass back to Iraq, they set the oil wells on fire to destroy them for Kuwait as to do as much damage as possible to the country as they left. They wanted the oil for themselves, we never invaded because they were burning our oil supplies, that was an afterthought. (Though you could say we invaded because the threat that they could take over Saudi Arabia which supplies us with a lot of our oil.)
[QUOTE=JohnStamosFan;24875867]I can't see how it was about Oil.
America is still paying a pretty hefty price for gas and oil, and that's considering we've been in Iraq for some time now.
Granted we've gone and left Iraq, so who knows now.
Maybe i will try and see if i can't find some info to say one way or the other.
So i've been reading up.
Seems like it [i]could[/i] be over oil, but i'm not convinced.
The best i've found is a Washington Post article that discusses how despite the potential for producing a lot of oil, Iraq isn't squirting out much due to Insurgent strikes against oil lines and refineries, and the fear of any country trying to come in and set up an operation.
Hmmm.[/QUOTE]
its called faking scarcity
they have the oil but they just want to make it seem that they dont
[QUOTE=MrEndangered;24882715]One is mostly infallible, the other is extremely unreliable.[/QUOTE]
Let me guess. Your [I]opinion[/I] is the infallible one? :downs:
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24873251]:downswords:[/QUOTE]
[b]cite your shit[/b] or get the fuck out
just reread your "theory"
[quote]PEOPLE IN IRAQ ARE TOO STUPID TO FLY PLANES (what I don't know is they went to flight school in America before they hijacked the planes[url=http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=complete_911_timeline_alleged_hijackers__flight_training&timeline=complete_911_timeline][¹][/url][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks][²][/url])[/quote]
see how I [b]used goddamn motherfucking citations[/b]
:wtc:7?
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24878301]
You call $1.20 hefty for fuel? Jeez thats aprox. £0.77p in UK money.
We have to pay atleast £1.10 a Litre, which is $1.72 in US.
You don't know the meaning of [B]"Hefty Fuel Bill"[/B].
[/QUOTE]
[img]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080816/democrats-energy/images/9b2287ad-de69-4dbd-836b-1a7af58ce2c7.jpg[/img]
[editline]04:29PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;24882922]its called faking scarcity
they have the oil but they just want to make it seem that they dont[/QUOTE]
cite
[editline]04:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24883236]Let me guess. Your [I]opinion[/I] is the infallible one? :downs:[/QUOTE]
physics is all opinion and none of that "laws of the universe" crap
[QUOTE=VeoSeo24;24808478] Also in the complex were WTC buildings 3, 4, 5 and 6. These buildings were found still standing, although heavily damaged and covered in immense amounts of debris.[/QUOTE]
3 WTC wasn't standing, it was destroyed.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/WTC1.jpg/800px-WTC1.jpg[/IMG]
That used to be a 22 story building.
Also, because 4, 5, and 6 WTC were so short and had such a big floor plan they didn't fully collapse, but they did suffer partial collapse.
4 WTC, used to be triple the size.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/4-Wtc-photo.jpg/672px-4-Wtc-photo.jpg[/IMG]
5 WTC, the best conditioned building on the site after the attacks. This building was much farther from WTC 1&2 than 7 was, and yet it still sustained major damage, along with a partial collapse.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5-wtc-photo.jpg[/url]
6 WTC, also showing a partial collapse.
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/6-wtc-photo.jpg/794px-6-wtc-photo.jpg[/IMG]
I'm convinced terrorists did 9/11 and my proof is that it isn't exposed on WikiLeaks and that the US can't even contain the collateral damage video, let alone cover something up.
[QUOTE=ep9832;24885684]3 WTC wasn't standing, it was destroyed.
[IMG_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/WTC1.jpg/800px-WTC1.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
That used to be a 22 story building.
Also, because 4, 5, and 6 WTC were so short and had such a big floor plan they didn't fully collapse, but they did suffer partial collapse.
4 WTC, used to be triple the size.
[IMG_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/48/4-Wtc-photo.jpg/672px-4-Wtc-photo.jpg[/IMG_thumb]
5 WTC, the best conditioned building on the site after the attacks. This building was much farther from WTC 1&2 than 7 was, and yet it still sustained major damage, along with a partial collapse.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:5-wtc-photo.jpg[/url]
6 WTC, also showing a partial collapse.
[IMG_thumb]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/16/6-wtc-photo.jpg/794px-6-wtc-photo.jpg[/IMG_thumb][/QUOTE]
look a citation :pcgaming:
[QUOTE=cccritical;24885420][IMG]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080816/democrats-energy/images/9b2287ad-de69-4dbd-836b-1a7af58ce2c7.jpg[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
You do know multiple liters make up a gallon right?
[QUOTE=Dragon Master;24871318][IMG]http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/7274/wtc7wtc6.jpg[/IMG]
[B]I just highlighted something looking suspisous, why were the 2 buildings labeled "WTC" flattened when there were buildings that are closer and were unscaved?[/B][/QUOTE]
I'd like to introduce you to a theory of mine...I call it [B]"The Third Dimension."[/B] My theory is that the world does NOT lie flat like a piece of paper, but, in fact, there ARE gaps between objects. But since photographs only come in 2 dimensions, it can sometimes be hard to see the gap between objects...
[QUOTE=ShukaidoX;24886501]You do know multiple liters make up a gallon right?[/QUOTE]
and?
and good job ignoring your "physics is opinion" argument
[QUOTE=lolnubs;24876116]But why didn't it leave a huge pile of debris in it's wake? The land looked kind of flat...[/QUOTE]
The WTC towers had basements several floors deep, including a subway station. Most of the debris fell into the basement during the collapse, and the rest is either visible in the photos, or in some cases, pulverized into dust.
[QUOTE=Ridge;24886513]I'd like to introduce you to a theory of mine...I call it [B]"The Third Dimension."[/B] My theory is that the world does NOT lie flat like a piece of paper, but, in fact, there ARE gaps between objects. But since photographs only come in 2 dimensions, it can sometimes be hard to see the gap between objects...[/QUOTE]
I think someone already pointed out it was damaged, but the dumbass conspiracy theorist didn't realize (or maybe they did) that the damaged part was the other side of the building
[QUOTE=cccritical;24886527]and?
and good job ignoring your "physics is opinion" argument[/QUOTE]
I was ignoring the stupidity of your comment but I guess I'll address it. There is physics backing up both sides, E.G. EVIDENCE. It's not biased to one side of the argument moreso than the other. The fact that you are arguing 'Herp derp my argument is like the laws of gravity, infallible' is what I was criticizing.
Something interesting to note is that the OP is getting a lot more agreement than he would have on FP 2 years ago. I wonder why FPers are more likely to accept conspiracy theories (at least ones about 9/11). Maybe because there's more young users now, who weren't around when these conspiracy theories were being spread and debunked a lot more?
What do you guys think?
[QUOTE=TH89;24886634]Something interesting to note is that the OP is getting a lot more agreement than he would have on FP 2 years ago. I wonder why FPers are more likely to accept conspiracy theories (at least ones about 9/11). Maybe because there's more young users now, who weren't around when these conspiracy theories were being spread and debunked a lot more?
What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
hipsters
[QUOTE=TH89;24886634]Something interesting to note is that the OP is getting a lot more agreement than he would have on FP 2 years ago. I wonder why FPers are more likely to accept conspiracy theories (at least ones about 9/11). Maybe because there's more young users now, who weren't around when these conspiracy theories were being spread and debunked a lot more?
What do you guys think?[/QUOTE]
My personal opinion is everyone in the U.S. is starting to get fed up with the bullshit we've dealt with in our government and this is just one aspect of that bubbling to the surface.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.