The truth and other lies...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kaldarasha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
People like you are the reason nothing gets done about anything. You're too busy making up imaginary problems in a fake reality so you can apply nonsolutions to them instead of actually helping people in the real world. The terrorists won that day, and you're not helping.
Click to expand...
I do not see anyway why believing that it was the government with help of planes means you are helping people while denying the planes makes you a bad person. We are just having different opinions that is all. And I seriously do not know what Shard's position is as he explains in his first post that the steel tower could not collapse according to the official version and said multiple times that he expects the government to be involved.


There are only 3 footages that were broadcast live on nbc, fox and cnn. All of those have terrible mistakes in them like the nose coming out on fox. Thus I dont believe in planes, that simple. All amateur footage was published much later than the official stuff.
 
Last edited:
Well we've also got someone in this thread (Huell) who personally saw the planes crash. I simply don't see how you can flat out discount that.

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether the planes were crashed by terrorists or the government, or whether there were bombs in the buildings to assist the planes, or any of that. I do not have enough information to speak reliably on these subjects. However, between Huell in this thread, and other people I personally know who saw it, the idea of no planes just doesn't make sense to me.
 
I find discussions such as this very interesting, because the ramifications of each outcome (whether the attack was from terrorists or just a cover up) are so large. For over ten years I just accepted the fact that terrorists flew planes into the twin towers and dismissed all other conspiracies as crazy anti-american propaganda. But over the last few years I have had my share of doubts and they are as follows:

1. I'm no expert in demolition, physics, or architecture, but the way the trade centers collapse does not look right to me. In my mind I picture that if a plane struck the building and was strong enough to actually destroy a side of the building and the fires were hot enough to weaken the beams on the other side, wouldn't the building lean toward its weaker side when it collapsed? What I am asking is, wouldn't the "top" portion of the building fall a bit to the side of the base instead of coming straight down?

2. The planes in those videos show no effect of the tower on the plane. Knowing basic physics (newton's third law force pairs), the plane exerted as much force on the building as the building did on the plane. Knowing how fragile planes are and that even a very slightly rough landing can rip the tails of planes, I would expect that when the plane strikes the building for the plane to accelerate (in the opposite direction of motion) and crumple on impact. Instead, it remains intact as it enters and shows little or no acceleration (in the opposite direction of motion). This leads me to believe the videos are either fake or that the "planes" weren't really planes.

3. There's no doubt in my mind that something struck the buildings, as people report seeing something hit them (most of them say it was a quiet, small plane or a missile). But I do recall many crazy conspiracy theorists saying that they were JASSMs. Is there any weight to this argument? I remember watching some (old) live footage and the people calling in were saying they thought it sounded like a missile and such.

4. The plane entry holes were drastically different in shape from the ones that hit the WTCs to the one that hit the pentagon. It could be something simple but I find it odd.

5. Our (america's) government stood a lot to gain by this incident regardless of whether they did it or not. They gained immense power over the people (patriot act, TSA, etc.), had justifications to invade countries that had nothing to do with it (Iraq), and probably other ways to benefit than I know of.

6. The investigation was undeniably and intentionally botched. One of the most significant investigations of the last 40 years of american history or more and it was handled so poorly that you almost have to try to be doing a bad job to do it so poorly.


If I had to go with my gut feeling, I would say that the government (or better put, the people in charge of it) stood to gain something from taking out the WTC and also used it to further other agendas as well with a many birds with one stone type of mentality. Unless someone can say where I'm wrong (it probably isn't hard to do since I'm not right all that often) I think that JASSMs or something similar struck the towers, were aided by bombs within the buildings, and covered up with botched investigations and labeling skeptics as crazy theorists.
 
That's my version, too and for the same reasons. On the witnesses, the part where people claim seeing a quiet, small plane is pretty hard to argue with for someone trying to defend the presence of passenger flights on 9/11. How likely is it that only a single person mistakes a roaring coloss like a boeing which is flying unusually close to him at high speed for something that is smaller than it is? The opposite would make sense but not this.

@Covarr I do not want to offend anyone but I generally stopped giving too much on this. No matter what people argue about suddenly all arguments are invalid because someone saw everything with his own eyes and more exact than any official report. Especially on 9/11, how many people were at the wtc during the impact? A few thousands? I must have met every single one of them.

Again not calling anyone a liar but it is no prove to me either if someone appears and saw everything, that always happens.
 
Last edited:
I usually endorse Squall's philosophy!

Squall: "Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views."
 
I usually endorse Squall's philosophy!

Squall: "Right and wrong are not what separate us and our enemies. It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us. Both sides blame one another. There's no good or bad side. Just 2 sides holding different views."
Click to expand...
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
 
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
Click to expand...
Oh but the world has limited resources right? That means it is good that those thousands of kids were dealt with, otherwise there would greater harm to everyone else. It's for the greater good right? I mean, we as a species can't reach our population limit lest it crash and many more people die. So then it makes sense to profit while doing the world a service by reducing the population. Humanely of course.  8)

/sarcasm
 
But life it's not so easy and of course, it's much more dark and sinister. We're not talking about a battlefield, we are talking about the social elite of the world, a few bigwigs that doesn't care to cause the death of thousands of kids in some forgotten country in Africa just for increase it's patrimony in a few more million bucks. That is BAD, that is WRONG. Those how have the power to stop the war and hunger won't do anything because they get big profit of that. They are the ones who should be dead. I could say a lot of examples, and in the most of them, US government and millionaires would have much to do with it, but won't do it, because I don't want to offtopic this thread.
Click to expand...
This might sound yet wrong to you, but how would the world look like if these kids wouldn't die?
In the '60 came up a question 'What do happen with the world if the population of the world grow with the same tendency as now?'.
The solution was a biological weapon researched under the codename MK Naomi (yes that's why the nurse in MGS is called Naomi), better known as HIV or AIDS. In Biology in school we had lessons about how insecticide do work, and I thought 'Jesus, HIV do work in a similar way'. It does not matter if HIV is created by man or not, fact is without it the world has been collapsed years ago, because of overpopulating. I don't wont say it is fine. I have a HIV case in my near family. But some times everyone should step a few meters (or inches) a way from the picture and see at the whole construction to get a understanding what is going on in the world.
In other words: I don't like the 'solution', but there has to be one. There is surely a better way, but sadly the people who had the power to decide over it, have chosen to retain their power.  :'(

And to be honest life is that easy:
It's our different standpoints, our perspectives that separate us.
Click to expand...
Moral is unnatural being, it's a product of the ideology we life in. Why should be the Islam be wrong and the Catholics right? Why is believe in nothing else as the hard facts of science better as any religion? People do act out of the same motivations in whole world, but the plenty ideas of moral does given it different directions. Peace is an illusion as long we do not share the same moral (have you seen the film 'Hero' or played MGS3?).
I personally like the idea of The Boss:
"... But the Earth itself has no boundaries. No East, No West, No Cold War. And the irony of it is, the United States and the Soviet Union are spending billions on their space programs and the missile race only to arrive at the same conclusion. In the 21st century everyone will be able to see that we are all just inhabitants of a little celestial body called Earth. A world without communism and capitalism... that is the world I wanted to see. But reality continued to betray me."
Click to expand...
 
About 0.4% of the world's population is supposed to be infected with HIV. I don't think this prevented the world from being overrun. ;)
 
Yes and there are also people which are immune to it. But who says that it is the only biological weapon? And I guess there are plenty of other possibilities to let people die. But it is an example of how pervert mankind can be...
 
The solution was a biological weapon researched under the codename MK Naomi (yes that's why the nurse in MGS is called Naomi), better known as HIV or AIDS.
Click to expand...
I know AIDS is a synthetic virus. As well as Ebola. They give profit to one of the biggest mafias in the world, the WHO. But that's not the topic, and don't think they were created for world population control, but as a racial bioweapon.

In other words: I don't like the 'solution', but there has to be one. There is surely a better way, but sadly the people who had the power to decide over it, have chosen to retain their power.  :'(
Click to expand...
The solution, then, is to exterminate the people?(but not any kind of people ah, only the POOR people) Yeah, like rats.

Anyway, what I said has nothing to do with overpopulation, I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about this energetic war, where USA invades every country he wants under the propaganda of "potential terrorism" or "alleged possession of nuclear weapons", just because they "suffered" an attack. Well, not always, sometimes they also invades countries because they are "defenders of freedom", and they remove dictatorial regimes. Hmmm... I wonder where were they at the end of WWII, when Franco ruled in Spain and Stalin wanted to remove him. Oh, I forgot, they was interested in Franco because he was a fascist and Spain had a communist history. For me, it smells like double standards.

Sorry Kaldarasha, but I cannot agree with you, life is not that easy, we're like sheeps in a pen, we do know nothing because they fool us everytime, everywhere. Our society is corrupted to the core, that's for sure, and those who are supposed to fight for our interests, act against us and laugh at our faces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top