PDA

View Full Version : Vandaler's 2008 - 9/11 Conspiracy Thread



Vandaler
June 20th, 2008, 04:09 PM
Every year since 2004, come around this time, I challenge a whole discussion board on the subject of 9/11 Conspiracies. I guess it's my way to deal with an incident that still haunts me in many respects. Setting the facts straight over this, as much then it's possible is important in light of all the noise and disinformation that still surround this event even today, so many years later.

While I can't prevent anyone from helping me, I request a special indulgence to let me fight this one out on my own. I hope this is not a transgression of ODN Policy, if there is another way to accommodate this thread better, I ask the mods to please take the appropriate action.

So, all you Thruth-movement-inside-jobbers and other "RonPaulites" of various shape and sizes; you have total reign over which angle you want to approach this. You have carte blanche to select your favorite arguments. If you do not wish to debate, but have questions on certain aspects, or if you want to play devils advocate please go ahead also.

I will go silent in this thread September 10th at night.

Wolf Myth
June 20th, 2008, 09:45 PM
I am not an "inside job" nut, but I do think it's possible that Bush and company knew the attacks were coming very soon and they let it happen so they could go to war. I can't prove it, but I think that's about the limit of Bush's "involvement" in the attacks. Other than that, I have examined and re-examined the evidence for about five years now and see no evidence pointing to detonated buildings, remote controlled planes, faked phone calls, or any such nonsense. We were attacked. And it's inevitable it will happen again, either by foreigners or by our own fellow Americans.

Vandaler
June 21st, 2008, 02:26 AM
Thanks for your views Wolf Myth.

We both know that the current and previous Administration were aware of very serious threats and we know it did happen. So really if you don't offer any specific evidence for them to having let it happen for a reason or another, we really are measuring your cynicism in regards to the powers that be. I don't share that cynicism, but that's about all I can say.

Have a nice weekend.

Snoop
June 23rd, 2008, 07:25 PM
It was the new world order - not Bin Laden: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJmDTnfZr6c&feature=related

Zhavric
June 24th, 2008, 02:03 PM
I remember cnn.com doing an article on either Chenney or Rumsfeld slipped up and implied (in public) that the plane that crashed in PA was shot down...


Yup. It was Rumsfeld. Here is the article. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/27/rumsfeld.flt93/)

This tells me the government is not being honest with us. Think about this for a moment. Let's pretend that the PA crash happened exactly as advertised. It just crashed. No one shot it down. If that's true, why on Earth would Rumsfeld slip up like that? How would that even get into his head? It would be like me saying, "On Sunday, when I was at church, I happened to run into one of my buddies and we..."

Vandaler
June 24th, 2008, 04:20 PM
Rumsfeld slipped up and implied (in public) that the plane that crashed in PA was shot down...

How would that even get into his head?

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/x6Xoxaf1Al0&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/x6Xoxaf1Al0&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


And I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face (pause to read the transcript or cheat sheet) if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten -- indeed the word "terrorized" is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.

It's a misstatement, no matter how you look at it. The sentence does not make sense, so it has to be. He likely meant "brought down", or something similar.

The video clearly shows him reading from a transcript, so the question of what he was thinking is irrelevant. It was a prepared statement which he miscommunicated.

Wolf Myth
June 25th, 2008, 05:10 AM
This tells me the government is not being honest with us. Think about this for a moment. Let's pretend that the PA crash happened exactly as advertised. It just crashed. No one shot it down. If that's true, why on Earth would Rumsfeld slip up like that? How would that even get into his head? It would be like me saying, "On Sunday, when I was at church, I happened to run into one of my buddies and we..."
I think Rummy misspoke. It was three years after 9/11 and Rummy is not exactly a spring chicken. This is hardly proof of a conspiracy.

I think he was the same person that referred to the Pentagon plane as a "missile". Conspiracy nuts jumped all over this as hard proof that an actual missile hit the Pentagon. But what he meant was the plane acted as a missile when it crashed into the building, which fits the definition of a missile perfectly.

Vandaler
August 21st, 2008, 12:51 PM
Bump,

Just a few more weeks before I close myself from this broadside exposure. (See OP)

cds69
August 21st, 2008, 04:53 PM
I'm almost relieved to see that this thread is almost devoid of any hint of someone who believes this crap.

Logic dictates that there is no possible way any of these popular theories could have a grain of truth to them.

Even if we assume (which I do not) that there are a few high ranking people in the government are capable of this, there's no way to accept the following:


Somehow dozens of willing participants were able to infiltrate, under the noses of the thousands of workers, the twin towers and tear out and drill hundreds of holes in the weight bearing columns of these buildings to insert explosive charges without detection.

Since the Pentagon was allegedly hit by a missile and not a plane, the government planted scores of witnesses around the immediate area to say they witnessed a plane hit the pentagon.

The Pentagon plane, had to be secreted away and it and it's passengers disposed of. These passengers included family members of Bush Administration personnel.


Another thing that flies in the face of logic is the fact the the conspirators, when considering all the options available to them to stage an attack on the US, chose a plan so wrought with what would have been to them, extreme logistical challenges and small windows of success.

Wolf Myth
August 22nd, 2008, 05:14 AM
Here's yesterday's story about how WTC7 collapsed due to fire. Of course, we all knew that anyway...

NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse (http://www.physorg.com/news138546437.html)


The fall of the 47-story World Trade Center building 7 (WTC 7) in New York City late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001, was primarily due to fires, the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announced today following an extensive, three-year scientific and technical building and fire safety investigation. This was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building, the agency stated as it released for public comment its WTC investigation report and 13 recommendations for improving building and fire safety.

Vandaler
August 22nd, 2008, 05:25 AM
This is finally out uh.... Thanks for the info.

Wolf Myth
August 22nd, 2008, 06:47 AM
If the U.S. governent were going to concoct a terrorist attack for reasons to go to war with whoever, they wouldn't need to put on such an elaborate and risky show. All they would have to do is fly one or two planes into WTC and it'd be a done deal. They wouldn't have to rig all the buildings with explosives. Even if the buildings stood tall, we'd still be behind the President to go after the vermin that did this. They wouldn't need to fly a missile into the Pentagon and then somehow convinced all those hundreds of people driving on the freeway that they saw a plane. They wouldn't have to shoot down Flight 93 or take it to an undisclosed area for whatever reason. I say just one passenger plane into the middle of WTC1 would suffice for grounds to invade Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq (however indirectly related to the event).