(October 20, 2013 at 12:05 am)Rayaan Wrote:

(October 19, 2013 at 6:43 pm)Chas Wrote: So this forum has a conspiracy wacko as an Administrator?

Wow. Just wow.

Just because I believe that 9/11 is a conspiracy doesn't mean that I'm a conspiracy wacko.

You also believe that all UFO sightings a conspiracy (and so do I), but does that necessarily mean that you're a "conspiracy wacko"?
And does that necessarily mean that you are wrong for believing that it's a conspiracy?

Of course, the answer is no.

No, I don't believe 'UFO sightings' is a conspiracy. Where do you get that?

I think you are motivated to discount that 9/11 was a religio-political motivated attack. The evidence is all there, but you don't want it to be true.

You already have irrational beliefs, you just add another.

"God didn't tell those people to do it. But the flood was totally legit."

Religion is a conspiracy theory.

The first time I encountered anyone that was talking about things amiss during 9/11 was right after I left the military in '03.

I was trying to find a job and went down to visit my aunt in Austin. My aunt knows a lot of people you wouldn't expect her to know. My sister-in-law once said that she was like Forest Gump in that one sense. She knew Charlie Wilson back in the day and talked about him after that movie came out about him "Charlie Wilson's War". She was also friends with Ann Richards back when she was governor of Texas.

Anyway, my aunt arranged a dinner with some guy who was a pretty important man in the silicon chip world. This guy had pretty impressive pull. He actually got me a direct interview with the bigwigs at AMD just by making a phone call. And it was rather unnerving because the people at AMD pulled me right back into their head offices and were asking me how I knew this guy. They seemed really concerned with my relationship with him and were asking me all these questions about him. I was thinking, "Holy shit, who was that dude?"

When my aunt and I went out to eat with him he was really troubled about what happened on 9/11 and kept saying that things didn't add up. Acted rather agitated.

But 9/11 was chaotic as hell. You guys should have seen the Atlantic fleet at Norfolk get underway. It was pandemonium. I think anything as big as that, coupled with how badly the US government dropped the ball in both predicting it and responding to the beginning of that day, was going to inevitably produce conspiracies.

And that's something that everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, has to admit no matter what your personal views are.

We can all agree, I think, that no matter what really happened about 9/11 that there was going to be conspiracy theories about it. A lot of them. It's inescapable.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/...d-herring/

Quote:For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.

“We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.”

Rayaan:

On the issue of Susan Lindauer, do you care to comment on the fact that she has presented no hard evidence that she ever actually worked for the CIA, and that twice she has been found not mentally fit to stand trial. If a key witness to these supposed vans filled with explosives is actually a crazy person / liar, then it kinda puts a dent in your theory.

In all of this debate, the question shouldn't be *would* the US government, or parts of it, try to pull off a giant conspiracy; it's whether they actually did. Yes, there was negligence and "conveniences" that came as a result. Also, yeah, in my opinion, our government generally plays games with us. I am definitely of the opinion that they would have something to do with a giant conspiracy if it fit their needs. In fact, we've seen government conspiracies galore lately... with real proof.

The question here is *did* the US government, or parts of it, conspire to 9/11. I don't know. I guess maybe it could be, but I haven't seen anything, other than your average conspiracy rhetoric, to make me really even care. At this point, it doesn't matter anyway. It's twelve years later, and 9/11 changed the world, and there's no going back no matter what happened.

Honestly, my biggest problem is the lack of whistleblowers (and of the one that exists, the lack of evidence she actually ever worked for the CIA). To believe any of the conspiracy, you have to belief that out of the thousands of people involved, either none of then have ever come forward with actual evidence they were involved, or they were all killed afterwards (and if that is the case, why haven't their families started asking questions?).

In an age where whistleblowing is becoming more popular, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

(October 17, 2013 at 8:15 pm)Rayaan Wrote: I know a lot of this was already discussed in 9/11's mother thread, but I wanted to put the following videos in a separate thread because I want more people to see them and I personally find them very compelling in support of the claim that bombs were implanted inside the buildings. And of course, then I would like to know what your opinions are on the eyewitness accounts provided therein.

Rayaan, with all due respect. You may be a mod here, but you are an idiot if you believe that 9/11 was an "inside job", and an even bigger one if you believe that explosives were planted prior to the jets hitting 1/2 WTC.

I've considered this conspiracy before. And I'm well on record as saying that I do not believe Martin Bryant killed anyone on 28/04/1996, and I'm annoyed that more people are not concerned about the possible conspiracy and the certain miscarriage of justice. See my post here. Andrew MacGregor and others found their way there, which proves to me that they do care about the truth.

Your first video talks about an explosion, nobody is claiming that explosions didn't take place. Of course they did, but they were triggered by the fire and structural damage of the jets hitting the towers, and they were not triggered by bombs.

In the second video the guy is obviously talking about the explosion of the 2nd plane hitting the south tower.

Now if your question is did the USA have intelligence that an attack was about to take place, the answer is absolutely. Nobody would disagree with this. But were they behind the attacks themselves? Of course not.

Now, the guy in the video estimated 10 minutes between the explosions. There was actually 17 minutes between the north and the south towers being hit - 17 minutes, so are you sure you want to take his account as gospel truth?

---

(October 22, 2013 at 1:55 am)Tiberius Wrote: Honestly, my biggest problem is the lack of whistleblowers (and of the one that exists, the lack of evidence she actually ever worked for the CIA). To believe any of the conspiracy, you have to belief that out of the thousands of people involved, either none of then have ever come forward with actual evidence they were involved, or they were all killed afterwards (and if that is the case, why haven't their families started asking questions?).

In an age where whistleblowing is becoming more popular, that just doesn't make much sense to me.

The biggest problem IMHO is 7 WTC, which was not hit by a plane. There was no reason to CD it according to the conspiracy theory, and there was no way to know in advance what structural damage it might sustain from the hits to 1/2 WTC.

(October 20, 2013 at 8:42 am)Chas Wrote: No, I don't believe 'UFO sightings' is a conspiracy. Where do you get that?

So, you believe that people claiming to see UFOs and aliens are actually telling the truth? You think that UFOs are real?

You either believe UFOs are (a) real or (b) fake/deception/lies, which is what I meant by "conspiracy".

Maybe you just didn't understand the context of my sentence, but I hope it's clear now.

(October 20, 2013 at 8:42 am)Chas Wrote: I think you are motivated to discount that 9/11 was a religio-political motivated attack. The evidence is all there, but you don't want it to be true.

Not really, because as I said before (on the second page of this thread):

Quote:I used to believe that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated by some Muslims extremists/terrorists as well (for the first 10 years after the 9/11) and that didn't really affect my perception of Muslims in general nor about Islam because I know for a fact that such an action is not supported by our religion at all. However, it was only after I started to research on this subject about 2 years ago that I began to realize that a lot of things about the 9/11 suggest that it was actually an inside job. I don't claim to know that for sure, but the conspiracy theory makes a lot more sense to me.

That's all.

(October 20, 2013 at 9:20 am)Rahul Wrote: We can all agree, I think, that no matter what really happened about 9/11 that there was going to be conspiracy theories about it. A lot of them. It's inescapable.

Also:

We can all agree that no matter what really happened about 9/11 that there was going to be conspiracy deniers about it. A lot of them. It's inescapable.

I mean, so what? Is that really proving anything?

(October 21, 2013 at 1:07 am)Minimalist Wrote: http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2009/08/...d-herring/

Quote:For the most part there is a a great deal of proof out there that the “red/grey chips” that Jones et al based their paper on, are in fact a rust inhibiting primer paint with a Kaolinite base.

“We can also say that because Kaolinite is present and that it is embedded in a Carbon based matrix with Rhomboidal Fe2O3 that a more likely explanation for the red material is paint.”

I don't buy that, Min.

I think scientists are smart enough to be able to at least differentiate between thermite and red paint; the two have very different physical properties.

Aractus, I've already typed out my responses to two other members (Creed of Heresy and Tiberius) and I will post them in the next couple of replies, and those are pretty much the same things I would have wrote to you also in response to some of your comments.

So, just read the next couple of replies and then you might get a better understanding of my arguments for the conspiracy theory of 9/11.


The juicer parts are yet to come.