# Unanswered 9/11 questions



## money tree (14 August 2006)

1. is it odd that Bush's brother ran the company that did security at the WTC?
2. why did the pilot of flight 77 take part in an air force exercise on Sept 11 2000 which involved his plane being hijacked and flown into the WTC?
3. why were bomb sniffing dogs suddenly banned from the WTC on Sept 5 2001?
4. why do the aircraft registrations show the planes allegedly known as flight 77 & flight 93 as still in service while 2 other planes not in service that day are listed as destroyed?
5. how does a 160ft wingspan fit into a 40ft hole made at the Pentagon?
6. why do the 5 frames released from a parking lot show a grey smoke trial before the pentagon explosion, when AVGAS burns clear?
7. why does an aerial photo of the Pentagon taken Sept 8 2001 show a white line on the Pentagon lawn which ends up being the "jetliner" trajectory?
8. why is there no aircraft wreckage? none where it "hit the lightpoles", none outside the Pentagon, none inside the Pentagon....
9. why does TV footage and firemen eyewitness accounts prove the WTC was imploded by a demolition team?
10. why are 9 of the 19 hijackers alive and well in Saudi Arabia according to the BBC?
11. why was there only 30,000 people in the WTC building on Sept 11 when normally there would be 50,000? 
12. why were there so many put options bought on Boeing, AA & UAC in the days before the attack?
13. why did many Government officials suddenly cancel travel plans on Sept 10?
14. why did one tower collapse "from fire" if there was only a small fire according to the fire team that got up to the 78th floor?
15. why does video footage and phone recordings show detonations other than the plane impacts?
16. why did building 7 collapse?
17. why was the gold below the WTC hastily removed over the 4 days prior to the attack?
18. why did the WTC collapse at freefall speed? 
19. why werent the hijackers on any of the passenger manifests?
20. why was the video footage from the Virginia Dept of Transport confiscated and destroyed when it clearly showed what damaged the Pentagon?
21. why did the Pentagon spend $100m bombproofing the West side ONLY before the attack?


----------



## dr00 (14 August 2006)

there are so many blatantly wrong statements made there :


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2006)

dr00 said:
			
		

> there are so many blatantly wrong statements made there :



 Which ones dr00


----------



## Phoenix (14 August 2006)

I always wondered why building 7 collapsed that day. (It was also a CIA building)  And it never got any real news coverage just a tiny mention.


----------



## AQR (14 August 2006)

money tree said:
			
		

>




I'd like to see any factual evidence supporting your questions.

Geoff.


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

http://www.reopen911.org

http://www.911studies.com


----------



## warney (14 August 2006)

to add to the thin conspiracy theories.....

 The number 11 has become to be a very interesting number. It could be

   a forced coincidence, but in any case, you decide for yourself:

   1) New York City has 11 letters.

   2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.

   3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened the Twin Towers in 1993)    has 11 letters.

   4) George W. Bush has 11 letters.

   This could be a mere coincidence... (Could it be?) .

   Now here is what is interesting...

   1) New York is the State # 11

   2) The first plane crushing against the Twin Towers was flight #11.

   3) Flight # 11 was carrying 92 passengers

   Adding this number give 9+2=11.

   4) Flight # 77 who also hit the towers, was carrying 65 passengers.

   Adding this: 6+5=11.

   5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11.

   Adding this: 9+1+1=11

  6) The date is equal to the emergency number 911.

  Adding this: 9+1+1=11

  Now we have a very upsetting piece..

 1) The total number of victims inside the planes are 254: 2+5+4=11

 2) The day September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year:
   2+5+4=11 

 3) After September 11, there are 111 days more to the end of the year.

 4) The tragedy of 3/11/2004 in Madrid also adds to: 3+1+1+2+4=11.

 5) The tragedy in Madrid happened 911 days after the tragedy of the
 Twin Towers.


 Spooky!!

 Read on.....!

 This is really eerie .

 This is something to think about!


 Since America is typically represented by an Eagle.

 Saddam and Bin Laden should have read up on their Muslim passages...


The following verse is from the Quran, (the Islamic Bible). Quran

(9:11)-- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome
Eagle.

The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout he lands of Allah and

lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced; for

the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah; and there was peace.


 Note the verse number!!!!!


 This bit is really spooky....
 1. Open up a blank Word document.

2. Type in Q33 NY in capitals. (This is the flight number of the 1st

plane to hit the World Trade Center *gate Q33 @ NY (new york)

3. Highlight the Q33 NY

4. Change the font size to 48.

5. Change the actual font to wingdings

Since I got this I used a little licence and came up with these 11

lettered
words or phrases

Adolf Hitler

Antony Blair

Cherie Blair

Fish No Chips

Romford Mkts

West Ham Untd

Rockhampton

Banana Split

Smelly Socks

Feeling Sick

Belly Dancer

Guido Fawkes

Which proves nothing at all, and I am wondering why I wasted my time on

this in the first place. But I bet some of you will try to find 11

lettered
words or phrases.


----------



## rub92me (14 August 2006)

Purlease! Ever heard the phrase: one fool can ask more questions than 100 wise men can answer? I have seen most of these before and all have been or can be 'debunked'. The most difficult to debunk are often the ones that are so wacky to start with that you hardly know where to begin. The moon landing was fake by the way


----------



## warney (14 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> The moon landing was fake by the way



wasnt that around the time when acid taking was rampant? maybe a few of them went to the moon.....?


----------



## dr00 (14 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Which ones dr00




most of them are not questions, they are statements that need to be proven first before they can be explained...

ive had the argument many times on forums <edit>

but just for instance, if you do a bit of research you will find out the hole in the pentagon is very similar in size to that of the fuselage of the jet that "allegedly" hit it. the imact of the wings can be seen on the outside but remember they have nothing like the density of the fuselage to smash holes in buildings. also if you look at pictures of aftermath of other planes hitting the ground or mountains etc you will see the apparent lack of plane-esque debri much the same as the pentagon. there was still plenty of wreckage lying around in the photos of the pentagon to identify the plane.


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

dr00 said:
			
		

> if you do a bit of research you will find out the hole in the pentagon is very similar in size to that of the fuselage of the jet that "allegedly" hit it. the imact of the wings can be seen on the outside but remember they have nothing like the density of the fuselage to smash holes in buildings.




so the 2 SIX TONNE rolls royce engines travelling at 400mph just bounced off the limestone walls & spontaneously combusted did they?

I would have thought the carbon fibre nose of the plane would be more likely to bounce off, or at least leave a few pieces behind

you have to be a COMPLETE MORON to look at the impact made on the WTC towers, and conclude that the tiny hole in the pentagon was made the same way.


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc6.html


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2006)

dr00 said:
			
		

> most of them are not questions, they are statements that need to be proven first before they can be explained...




The official story suffers from the same problem.

So questions become necessary


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2006)

I don't know the truth, I only know there are questions that refuse to be answered.

These people have questions as well... plus a bit of credibility.

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/WhoAreWe.html


----------



## rub92me (14 August 2006)

Of course there are still questions that can not be answered, that's life for you in a nutshell. I don't think they 'refuse' to be answered, just that the evidence isn't there to answer them in some cases. To give it some balance, also look at the evidence that supports that passenger planes went down and hit buildings. I don't think all this was made up and all the people involved got abducted by aliens/secret service to cover it all up, do you?


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> Of course there are still questions that can not be answered, that's life for you in a nutshell. I don't think they 'refuse' to be answered, just that the evidence isn't there to answer them in some cases. To give it some balance, also look at the evidence that supports that passenger planes went down and hit buildings. I don't think all this was made up and all the people involved got abducted by aliens/secret service to cover it all up, do you?




You don't need to go to the more ridiculous theories. This is the normal disinformation tactic used to discredit any enquiry... very disigenuous.

There are legitimate questions that remain unanswered. The tactic to avoid having to answer is satire and ridicule. 

Legitimate answers to legitimate question are what is needed.

Why won't they answer the questions? Why is there resistance to an inquiry?

Let's not get all silly and shrill. If we are going to go through this exercise here, lets be sensible about it.


----------



## bowser (14 August 2006)

The only aspect about 9/11 that I know for sure is: that I will never know the whole truth.

Now I spend my spare time trading/learning and find it's far more profitable


----------



## billhill (14 August 2006)

I saw a doco that examined how the neo republican use fear of an "evil" enemy to control the population. Seeing as the soviet union had collapsed it was pretty convenient that "the terrorists" popped up to spread fear throughout the world. Conspiracy theories aside, it makes you wonder.


----------



## Stan 101 (14 August 2006)

"14. why did one tower collapse "from fire" if there was only a small fire according to the fire team that got up to the 78th floor?"

I can answer this one. The structural construction of the Twin towers was one of steel.  Great in compression, not so in tension is steel. To keep self weight of the building to a minimum (dead load) down, a fire retardant similar to firecheck (fire retardant plasterboard) was used instead of conventional concrete. Fire codes basically state that if there is a fire in room "A" of the building, there must be sufficient measures in place to allow time for escape of occupants from room "B" before it too is engulfed in flames. Follow so far?

Well this fire retardant used in the World Trade buildings is a hell of a lot lighter than concrete and was used in leiu of said heavy material. This saved a motza in structural and on site costs. 

This fire retardant material works well when fixed as per manufacturer's spec. The problem arose when the fuselage of the plane broke through the thin non structural fire retardant and allowed fire to spread to the main support structures. Now planes carry fuel. Some of this fuel entered the buildings, no doubt, and made it hotter I'd care to imagine. The fire spread rapidly and heated the support members that were in compression. Heat + steel in compression = catotrophic failure. Once the upper floors started to to collapse, extra gravity live loads would have been applied to the lower structure. Hence a domino effect on the lower floors.
There could well have been serious reversal of loads on the initial impact of the plane to building forcing compression members into tension and steel stretches just like toffee in tension. I recall a paper on the World Trade Centre. During it's construction, the incorrect bolts were used on the steel framing. Apparently they were all replaced with correct tensile ones. 

Maybe they weren't. Humans are appathetic toward rectification in general, I've found (anecodotally, of course) That may have contributed. But that is getting off the subject.

In a nutshell, a big thing with flammable liquid hit the building, it shook in a way it may or may not have been designed for. The retardant material was disrupted in the impact and allowed hot fire to get into nooks and cranneys that it should never have been allowed to. The fire made the metal hot and saggy and the top of the building started trying to get closer to the ground. The floors below couldn't hold the weight and they inturn fell and on and on.

I think that's number 14 debunked.


cheers,


----------



## wayneL (14 August 2006)

Stan 101 said:
			
		

> "14. why did one tower collapse "from fire" if there was only a small fire according to the fire team that got up to the 78th floor?"
> 
> I can answer this one. The structural construction of the Twin towers was one of steel.  Great in compression, not so in tension is steel. To keep self weight of the building to a minimum (dead load) down, a fire retardant similar to firecheck (fire retardant plasterboard) was used instead of conventional concrete. Fire codes basically state that if there is a fire in room "A" of the building, there must be sufficient measures in place to allow time for escape of occupants from room "B" before it too is engulfed in flames. Follow so far?
> 
> ...




Hi sanguar

I wouldn't say debunked, but thanks for some rational discussion. I believe there are some opposing points to your scenario, but me being no scientist, I don't know whether those point of yours or the opposers to that analysis are valid.

It would be interesting to get some discussion from knowledgable people from both sides of this point.

Cheers


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

no other building IN HISTORY has ever collapsed from fire. Some buildings using a similar tube design burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse.

Thermite was used to weaken the structure. Look at any footage of the event and you can see molten iron gushing out of the building.

99% of the kerosene burnt up in a fireball during impact.

the black smoke indicates a cool fire starved of oxygen.

people were able to walk freely around the crash zone because the fire had moved on quickly.

Thermite was also used to sever the central core in the sub-basement. This is why:

1. there was pools of melted iron 6 weeks after the event
2. infra-red sattelite images show hot spots around 1600 degrees
3. the central core did not protrude 300 ft upwards when the floors "pancaked"

There was a sub-basement explosion 9 SECONDS before the planes hit.......they hoped weakening the base would allow the towers to topple over when the planes impacted.

FIRE DID NOT CAUSE THE COLLAPSE


----------



## Stan 101 (14 August 2006)

Hi Wayne, the only reason I say debunked is for the following reasons. Looking back I should maybe have used the words "probable and plausable."

1. A plane or something of great mass did hit the twin towers. I think even the theorists don't discount that.
2. Question 14 asked why did the tower collapse due to a small fire. I've seen the footage of that fireball. That is not what one would class as small.
3. Having passed passed this theory of mine to my colleagues, their response was basically the same as mine; extremely plausible and most probable. Some of these people work directly with the correction and modification of several Australian Standards in the construction industry.

I'd certainly like to hear some more rational conversation on the subject.
BTW, the Twin Towers is a magnificant example of why not to use steel frames in homes. It bends like licorice when heated.


cheers,


----------



## Stan 101 (14 August 2006)

*"Some buildings using a similar tube design burned for over 24 hours and did not collapse."*
Can you name a building, please? Can you also please state what these buildings was hit by with the force and penetration of a jet liner? Let's compare apples with apples. That's the scientific way. You can't compare a building on fire to a building that had a monumental impact that clearly would have damaged any fire rating it once had.

*"you can see molten iron gushing out of the building." * 
How can you be sure it is molten iron?

*"99% of the kerosene burnt up in a fireball during impact." * 
Can you state your source for this information, plase? A second opinion of an authority would be great, too.


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

I think you should do your own research.

try looking at slowed down footage of the attacks, after you have studied controlled demolition techniques.

I will know you have, because you will be able to tell me the odd smell people named after the Pentagon attack.

I dont get paid for convincing you of the truth. If you want to be ignorant and believe whatever big brother says, fine.


----------



## Stan 101 (14 August 2006)

i'll be ignorant if you can't state your "sources".


----------



## money tree (14 August 2006)

Ive pasted my sources

you were just too ignorant to click the links and read/view the stuff


----------



## Julia (14 August 2006)

Moneytree

I'd like to know if I'm actually understanding you correctly.

Are you, without all the various side accusations, basically suggesting that the USA government purposefully engineered the events of 11 September for their own nefarious purposes?  Presumably to subjgate the population with a view to making them willing to accept the subsequent attack on Afghanistan and later on Iraq?

Julia


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 August 2006)

money tree said:
			
		

> 9. why does TV footage and firemen eyewitness accounts prove the WTC was imploded by a demolition team?




ummmm........correct me if I'm wrong but if TV footage and firemen eyewitness accounts prove the WTC was imploded by a demolition team then.............it would already be proven that a demolition team imploded the WTC and we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

You might be a little loose with the use of your term "prove" Moneytree.

Working my way down the list. 

Regards

Duckman


----------



## Kauri (14 August 2006)

Money Tree...
And hopefully this might answer some of your questions on the Pentagon

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html


----------



## dr00 (15 August 2006)

moneytree if you approached the subject with an open mind and looked as hard for arguments on one side as you did the other you would realise that it is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely the US gov had anything to do with it. its the internet, you can find things to support ANY argument.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

dr00 said:
			
		

> moneytree if you approached the subject with an open mind and looked as hard for arguments on one side as you did the other you would realise that it is, to put it mildly, highly unlikely the US gov had anything to do with it. its the internet, you can find things to support ANY argument.




Of course the exact same arguement can be applied to the opposing arguement.

In my experience, governments are rarely truthful, and any and all utterances should be regarded with extreme suspicion.

Governments have used agent provocatuers for centuries and there is no reason to doubt that modern ones would not do so as well.

An open mind needs to be kept all round.

Cheers


----------



## money tree (15 August 2006)

these are the facts of the case and they are indisputeable:

1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it. 
2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong
3. The U.S LIED and deceived the world about WMD's in Iraq
4. Too many people knew about the attacks in advance
5. There were many unexplained explosions on Sept 11, resulting in major damage to at least 2 other buildings not hit by aircraft or debri, and damage to the lower levels of both towers
6. The 4 flights hijacked were the only 4 planes that day with below 20% capacity. All other flights had at least 70% capacity
7. There are over 100 cameras filming the exterior of the Pentagon.
8. The claimed path of the plane into the Pentagon is impossible
9. The damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a commercial plane
10. Video footage from news cameras shows "squibs", molten iron, black smoke, and a lack of raging flames. It also shows floors exploding 30 stories BELOW the demolition wave.
11. The hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. The U.S did not invade Saudi Arabia.
12.  9 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive
13. steel buildings do not collapse
14. debri from the towers was found in New Jersey. Only explosives could get it there
15. the alleged pilots could not fly a Cessna competantly let alone a 747
16. it was impossible to navigate and hit targets without the aid of air traffic control
17. the Pentagon has missile defense system
18. the part of the pentagon hit was the strongest, mostly vacant part and the pilot went out of his way to hit that side
19. you would think that having 2 planes already hit buildings, and that there were rumours of planes heading for Washington, that the public would be paying close attention to planes in a restricted airspace at low altitude. But nobody saw or filmed a thing.
20. the towers were incredibily strong. yet we are suppose to believe they crumbled under their own weight which they had supported for 30 years?
21. the force of a strong wind is more than the impact of a commercial plane
22. all evidence was destroyed
23. very little was spent on investigating the cause
24. the towers were designed to take this sort of impact
25. the U.S was friends with Bin laden in previous years


----------



## nizar (15 August 2006)

money tree said:
			
		

> these are the facts of the case and they are indisputeable:
> 
> 1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it.
> 2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong
> ...





All good and valid points their moneytree.... except no.6??

How do u know about the airline capacity?

Number 11 is G-O-L-D; i wish somebody would like say that on TV or something

The US wanted an excuse to bomb Iraq; so bush can finish wat his dad started; and so 9/11 fell into place...


----------



## dr00 (15 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Of course the exact same arguement can be applied to the opposing arguement.
> 
> In my experience, governments are rarely truthful, and any and all utterances should be regarded with extreme suspicion.
> 
> ...




i believe in the saying 'do unto others as you would have done unto you' and would like 'done unto me' the principle of innocent until proven guilty.


----------



## moXJO (15 August 2006)

Here’s a little more on why the buildings collapsed: http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

Here’s a site that deals with the structure of metal. (interactive flash thingy)And what happens when you apply heat or force. 
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/metal.html# 

There was investigation after investigation into what happened.If these theories were true evidence would have came out.This is not a case of everyone was looking the other way thousands of people died.Its not something that would be able to be kept quiet(especially in the U.S of A).Solid evidence would be unearthed.

There is a lot off the last list that can be discredited and by eyewitness accounts.Where did you get half of this information and did you check the background of your own statements.Or just get it off the one conspiracy theory site.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2006)

There are two basic problem with most conspiracy theories

1. They involve lots of people who have to keep a secret. Fortunately that is a human weakness. 
Any conspiracy involving more than 20 people is doomed to fail.

2. They involve deep thinking involving amazing detail and need to be pulled off flawlessly. Anyone who has ever been in any human project of any magnitude including the building industry, government etc. can only be amazed at the incompetance of many people. Gee, if George Bush could organise this then why can't he successfully conduct anything else?

I find the latest 9/11 conspiracy laughable.

I also find it laughable that the country that landed the man on the moon has the most doubters that they didn't. That there was a space ship crash attended by hundreds of people. JFK etc. 

Even so called facts like the dangerous Bermuda triangle is a complete furphy.
It is actually among the safest seas in the world and the ship that got lost was quite small and in a storm (not clear skys). 

The are plenty of known facts about the corruption, dishonesty and incompetance of the existing US (and our) government that should be talked about by their populace rather than crackpot conspiracy theorys. 

If there is a conspiracy theory that is true then it is that the government encourages them to keep the populace from thinking about the main game.

The fact that many people can be so easily distracted by such things is an
inditement to their wisdom and the ability of the human race to process facts.

A brief overview of the "facts".

1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it. 
No they were paper mache models we saw on TV.

2. 80 tonnes of aircraft crashed into each tower and they barely moved because they were so strong. True, does the person who wrote this undestand physics 101, what do you expect?

3. The U.S LIED and deceived the world about WMD's in Iraq
So, relevance?

4. Too many people knew about the attacks in advance
Good old conspiracys involving thousands of people always work. Just silly.

5. There were many unexplained explosions on Sept 11, resulting in major damage to at least 2 other buildings not hit by aircraft or debri, and damage to the lower levels of both towers

No easily explained by engineers (I am one), people don't want to listen.

6. The 4 flights hijacked were the only 4 planes that day with below 20% capacity. All other flights had at least 70% capacity

Proof???

7. There are over 100 cameras filming the exterior of the Pentagon.

So??

8. The claimed path of the plane into the Pentagon is impossible

Says who??

9. The damage at the Pentagon is inconsistent with a commercial plane

I thought you said it didn't happen?

10. Video footage from news cameras shows "squibs", molten iron, black smoke, and a lack of raging flames. It also shows floors exploding 30 stories BELOW the demolition wave.

The news cameras that show it didn't happen?

11. The hijackers were Saudi. Bin Laden was Saudi. The U.S did not invade Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia are an ally duh! Politics 101 need here!

12. 9 of the 19 alleged hijackers are still alive

Proof??

13. steel buildings do not collapse

Just a rubbish statement. Check the next earthquake or fire.

14. debri from the towers was found in New Jersey. Only explosives could get it there

Yawn

15. the alleged pilots could not fly a Cessna competantly let alone a 747

They didn't have to land the plane. I have flown planes and can tell you that anyone can point them with the modern controls. These guys had lessons, they would have easily done what they did.

16. it was impossible to navigate and hit targets without the aid of air traffic control

Gee, how do fighter pilots do it then, how did we do it is WW11. Rubbish

17. the Pentagon has missile defense system

Patriot missiles presumambly, they worked well in Israel did they not (they didn't work at all, it was just gov propaganda)

18. the part of the pentagon hit was the strongest, mostly vacant part and the pilot went out of his way to hit that side 

Rubbish, there was no stongest side.

19. you would think that having 2 planes already hit buildings, and that there were rumours of planes heading for Washington, that the public would be paying close attention to planes in a restricted airspace at low altitude. But nobody saw or filmed a thing.

Says who?

20. the towers were incredibily strong. yet we are suppose to believe they crumbled under their own weight which they had supported for 30 years?

It was not the weight it was the fire fed by aviation fuel destroying the integrity of the steel beams.

21. the force of a strong wind is more than the impact of a commercial plane

Puch a person, same as a strong wind, see any difference? Physics 101 again.

22. all evidence was destroyed

Rubbish.

23. very little was spent on investigating the cause

Rubbish.

24. the towers were designed to take this sort of impact

Yes, but not with fully loaded avaition fuel tanks.

25. the U.S was friends with Bin laden in previous years

Yes, Bush is still friends with the family. Bushs family also were friends with the Nazis. Nice family, just the sort I would want to elect.


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

sorry guys,some of you will think this is off topic,but I notice a lot of important sounding sites to do with the conspriracy theories on 9/11,as though that alone can lend these theories credibility.

So lets take the hijab or burqua or essentially muslim women told to cover up so muslim men dont find them so attractive that they will rape them on the spot.If you look throughthe internet or books you will find a lot of important sounding titled morons who will explain the wearing of this oppresive and offensive to humanity garb,yet at the end of the day,you have to think,do men really behave like that and should it be men changing their behaviour as opposed to women and how they dress?

Now,there`s a conspiracy

So 9/11 falls in that category for me,al qeda,told the world that they did,we know the names of the people who did ,where the hell is the conspiracy?
just asking?


----------



## moXJO (15 August 2006)

Of course keeping an open mind on the subject 
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 August 2006)

I have always thought the buildings collapsing was an odd moment. 

I saw a documentary on the conspiracy and some answers I await.


----------



## Kauri (15 August 2006)

I heard that ELVIS was on one of the planes.....


----------



## Ageo (15 August 2006)

bowser said:
			
		

> The only aspect about 9/11 that I know for sure is: that I will never know the whole truth.
> 
> Now I spend my spare time trading/learning and find it's far more profitable





Thats exactly where i stand.


----------



## Bulltrader (15 August 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> 1. there is no evidence whatsoever that a plane hit the Pentagon. The Government told us what happened and some believed it.
> No they were paper mache models we saw on TV.




I don't ever recall seeing on TV footage of a plane hitting the pentagon


----------



## Happy (15 August 2006)

Few still photographs were shown on TV from security camera.

I suppose lack of footage of Pentagon building might be caused by restriction made on filming the building, which was probably classified as sensitive infrastructure.


----------



## money tree (15 August 2006)

So there were these pilots right....and they failed their accreditation on a Cessna.....but somehow managed to fly a 767 3 inches off the ground @ 400mph, without being fired on by the Pentagon missile defence, without being seen by motorists or caught on the numerous video cameras, without wake turbulence damaging anything, without touching a light pole or 2 overpasses it would of had to of flown though, without the Pentagon lawn being scorched or even scratched, or the 6ft high rolls of cable in front of the impact site being scorched / moved, and flies a 160ft plane into a 40 ft hole.   

He then survives the crash, turns invisible, and removes all the bodies / engines / luggage / fuselage in a matter of seconds. He is even thoughtful enough to remove any trace of blood.   

thats one amazing pilot!

Experienced 767 pilots says its impossible to fly a plane that low because of the cushion effect. Plus, it would have been impossible for the wingtips or engines to not graze the earth.

The U.S gov released some "evidence" it said didnt exist earlier. It shows a grey smoke trail following whatever hit, which was flying perfectly horizontally a few inches above the ground. Thats weird because jet engines dont produce grey smoke, or any visible smoke. They also showed photos of light poles which popped out of the ground.....but if these were hit by the plane, why werent they bent? Why wasnt there pieces of plane debri?

Why did the pilot not just aim for the centre ring? Why didnt the Pentagon defence system initiate?

now if you still believe the official explanation, I have some land on mars to sell.

So whats the truth?

The Pentagon had just spent $100m renovating the West wing. They installed bulletproof glass and reinforced walls & ceilings. The area was 90% vacant at the time. As proof or work being done, you can see the rolls of cable in photos.

This "attack" was a test of:

1. the missile defence system
2. the structural safety of the building
3. emergency response

Damage and loss of life was kept minimal.

The damage was caused by a missile, fired from a military helicopter at close range. Eyewitness accounts confirm this. Thats why there is no debri, no scorching of the lawn, a visible grey smoke trail & a small hole which goes through 9ft of steel reinforced concrete.


----------



## Happy (15 August 2006)

If all is true, we have win win situation.

Terror people claimed victory and defence system was successfully tested too.


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

money tree said:
			
		

> So there were these pilots right....and they failed their accreditation on a Cessna.....but somehow managed to fly a 767 3 inches off the ground @ 400mph, without being fired on by the Pentagon missile defence, without being seen by motorists or caught on the numerous video cameras, without wake turbulence damaging anything, without touching a light pole or 2 overpasses it would of had to of flown though, without the Pentagon lawn being scorched or even scratched, or the 6ft high rolls of cable in front of the impact site being scorched / moved, and flies a 160ft plane into a 40 ft hole.
> 
> He then survives the crash, turns invisible, and removes all the bodies / engines / luggage / fuselage in a matter of seconds. He is even thoughtful enough to remove any trace of blood.
> 
> ...




So evil America tested it`s own weapons on it`s own people,wouldn`t it have made more sense to test all this,say,on an enemy? Oh thats right that would never have worked because America has already stuffed up all it`s enemies.
You guys are in need of a trip to maybe a good old muslim country,where you`ll fit right in with the madras type of education that teaches nine year old boys that if a bit of skin shows on the body of a girl than she can be raped. Go visit any one of those countries,maybe if the Americans are in a good mood they`ll evacuate you after a short stay,wouldn`t want you not to get the full lesson,now would we?


----------



## rub92me (15 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> You don't need to go to the more ridiculous theories. This is the normal disinformation tactic used to discredit any enquiry... very disigenuous.
> 
> There are legitimate questions that remain unanswered. The tactic to avoid having to answer is satire and ridicule.
> 
> ...



Hold your horses, Wayne (let's not be silly and shrill). I am merely pointing out that some of the questions/accusations are patently absurd, and I countered that with an equally absurd alternative. Again, a lot of these questions have been answered/refuted. It is just that even when a perfectly rational answer is provided, the conspiracy theorists will prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit their theory. It is disingenuos to pretend that they (whoever 'they' are) are refusing to answer any question. I agree a lot of legitimate questions are still out there and should be answered, but let's not go overboard shall we?


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2006)

Moneytree, start reading some respectable sources.

Think about it.
What happened to the plane and passengers then? 

How many people would need to know this, e.g. pentagon staff, airline, crew, passengers, government officials, air traffic controllers, aircraft crash inspectors etc and are you saying that everyone would be craven enough not to blurt the truth? Just so they could get a helicopter to try some missiles out???

Perhaps the plane did not crash into the centre of the Pentagon due to the fact the pilots weren't that good? 

And did you see the President when the attacks occurred. He looked a rabbit in a spotlight. No idea.

Come on!

Come on!


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> Hold your horses, Wayne (let's not be silly and shrill). I am merely pointing out that some of the questions/accusations are patently absurd, and I countered that with an equally absurd alternative. Again, a lot of these questions have been answered/refuted. It is just that even when a perfectly rational answer is provided, the conspiracy theorists will prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit their theory. It is disingenuos to pretend that they (whoever 'they' are) are refusing to answer any question. I agree a lot of legitimate questions are still out there and should be answered, but let's not go overboard shall we?




Rub,

Nice try at the flip tactic, well short of successful though  .

However I do agree, many conspiricy theorists will ignore evidence and stick to the theory.

There are certainly many 911 theorists in this category. But it applies to both sides. The official story just doesn't cut it and those who stick steadfastly to it are equally absurd.

It could all be resolved if the US government would hold a proper enquiry. To date, many times more money has been spent on investigating Clintons amourous escapades than on 911.

Until that time, people will be deeply suspicious and they have every right to be.

Cheers


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> a lot of these questions have been answered/refuted. It is just that even when a perfectly rational answer is provided, the conspiracy theorists will prefer to ignore it because it doesn't fit their theory. It is disingenuos to pretend that they (whoever 'they' are) are refusing to answer any question. I agree a lot of legitimate questions are still out there and should be answered, but let's not go overboard shall we?




I agree 100%.
There was a great documentary about why the buildings fell. It was on ABC and involved the designers and other structural engineers. Conspiracy theorists just get a buzz out of ignoring the facts and making their own half assed assumptions lacking any credibility to educated people.


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

Knobby,don`t be so harsh on these conspiracy theorists,all the people you mentioned have been taken to an isolated island much like that bloody island on Lost,the president didn`t know because that`s a conspiracy within a conspiracy,after all if he were to be questioned much better for him to know nothing,so he could continue his presidency and they could continue with their island experiment,these people would after all need a layer of friendly co-conspirators so as to keep going.


----------



## Knobby22 (15 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Knobby,don`t be so harsh on these conspiracy theorists,all the people you mentioned have been taken to an isolated island much like that bloody island on Lost,the president didn`t know because that`s a conspiracy within a conspiracy,after all if he were to be questioned much better for him to know nothing,so he could continue his presidency and they could continue with their island experiment,these people would after all need a layer of friendly co-conspirators so as to keep going.




Of course you are right, visual.  
That's where the conspiracy is taking place to create super soldiers!


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> Of course you are right, visual.
> That's where the conspiracy is taking place to create super soldiers!




Well,see I was thinking of a new society,much like the one in that movie by M.Knight Shyamalan,The Village,dont like the idea of more soldiers,but this is a conspiracy theory i suppose,


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

Satire is the refuge of the ignoramus.

I've tried to keep this balanced, any more ridicule from either side will be deleted. Reasoned arguement only please.


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Satire is the refuge of the ignoramus.
> 
> I've tried to keep this balanced, any more ridicule from either side will be deleted. Reasoned arguement only please.




Wayne,you are discussing something that some people don`t even think happened,or happened in the way that it was witnessed around the world,with pictures and all,surely in a free society which you feel we can only enjoy for a while longer ,we should all be free to take whatever angle we want on this subject,what you are proposing is ,your way or the freeway,not very free is it?


----------



## Duckman#72 (15 August 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> I agree 100%.
> There was a great documentary about why the buildings fell. It was on ABC and involved the designers and other structural engineers. Conspiracy theorists just get a buzz out of ignoring the facts and making their own half assed assumptions lacking any credibility to educated people.




Yes I saw that doco and it was very,very good. Straight to the point, factual and from memory it even hinted at how Bin Laden had studied engineering and architecture and could have been well aware of how to exploit the weakness in the structure. 

The design flaw was well known before 9/11 and the documentary went on to say that very few buildings were built like it as a result.

As for a strong wind having the same force as a commercial plane hitting the building? I am not an engineer but.........that seems absurd. What will do the most damage - 100km per hour wind hitting my upstairs window or a golf ball hitting my window at 100km per hour?


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,you are discussing something that some people don`t even think happened,or happened in the way that it was witnessed around the world,with pictures and all,surely in a free society which you feel we can only enjoy for a while longer ,we should all be free to take whatever angle we want on this subject,what you are proposing is ,your way or the freeway,not very free is it?




Not at all Visual. If you care to read what I wrote, you will see any reasoned comment is welcomed.

A good example is Duckmans comment above. It is his opinion, rationally stated.


----------



## money tree (15 August 2006)

perhaps the sceptics can provide some explanations?

how does a plane with a 160ft wingspan make a 40ft hole?

where is the plane?

what caused a 30m / 9 story crater in building 6?

how did Silverman get building 7 demolished in 5 mins flat when it takes weeks to set up a building demolition?


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

FYI

mod·er·a·tor   Audio pronunciation of "moderator" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (md-rtr)
n.

   1. One that moderates, as:
         1. One that arbitrates or mediates.
         2. One who presides over a meeting, forum, or debate.

Sometimes it's a tough line to walk, being both a contributer and moderator. For this thread, I will cease to be a contributer and will act only in a moderator capacity.

I will respect both sides of the debate and request that respect is shown to any reasoned argument. 

Cheers


----------



## billhill (15 August 2006)

After the blatant corruption and lies the current US administration has demonstrated relative to WMDs and the iraq war nothing would surprise me. 9/11 was the spark the neoconservatives needed to initiate their 30 year old plan to control the middle east and hence the worlds oil. Whether it was an act by the US government or terrorist i don't think we'll ever truly know. Stupid thing is if the US had of waited a couple of years they would have found a middle eastern country with even more oil that is acually developing WMDs and aids terrorism. Iran. They may have even had UN backing for an invasion. Their timing was all wrong.


----------



## Dan_ (15 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> FYI
> I will cease to be a contributer and will act only in a moderator capacity.
> Cheers




Wayne,

You have always conducted your duties to the highest standard. Can't you do both? this thread is interesting and your input would be appreciated.


----------



## visual (15 August 2006)

Knobby22 said:
			
		

> Moneytree, start reading some respectable sources.
> 
> Think about it.
> What happened to the plane and passengers then?
> ...




Wayne,Knobby asked a good question,and I answered I felt credibly,on post 51 ,why?because my conspiracy isn`t so far flung that it can`t be true,after all it`s often said that whatever hollywod comes up with,real life always outguns it.And this is about a conspiracy,


Synonyms:   cabal, complot, confederacy, connivance, countermine, counterplot, covin, disloyalty, fix, frame*, game, hookup*, intrigue, league, machination, perfidy, plot, practice, put-up job*, scheme, sedition, treacherousness, treachery, treason, trick, trickery 

I know how you love the dictonary so I looked it up,
disloyalty,fix,perfidy put up job threachery,all good words for how I truly feel.


----------



## wayneL (15 August 2006)

LOL

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/grenade.htm


----------



## visual (30 August 2006)

Apparently this will answer all the unanswered questions

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

Nope,

Though it does have some good points, many of the debunkings have been... debunked.


----------



## wayneL (30 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Nope,
> 
> Though it does have some good points, many of the debunkings have been... debunked.



http://911review.com/pm/markup/


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 August 2006)

Trouble with capitalism is corruption.  So tempting (and profitable) for inspectors to turn blind eye when checking
a) steel reinforcement in columns that collapsed in earthquakes in USA and Kobe
b) steel reinforcement in the concrete bunkers over nuclear powerplants meant to make them plane-crash-proof (fortunately not tested as yet)
c) fireproofing of the structural members of WTC - documented even before the 9/11 incident.


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 August 2006)

Have found this thread an interesting read. Probably like most people, I happened to see 9/11 live on tv, watched the docs on the reasons the trade centre collapsed etc.

On the flip side, their was no holocaust, stalin didn't mass purge his own people,pol pot was just educating his citizens etc. Lots of people believed this,whole nations in fact under a dictatorship, fuelled with mis-information/propaganda.These events did happen affected millions,their families and for generations to come. Conspiracy theorists have views on the aforementioned, ignorant and repulsive to the memory of the victims.

Thousands of people died in 9/11 including our own citizens. Events on that day covered by a democratic dogged media of free countries. Sure the media can be twisted/manipulated but not in an event of the 9/11 magnitude. If their was a sleeping "Conspiracy" it would of come out for sure!. 

Moneytree, maybe you should hang out with the Iraqi media guy who said no troops were in Iraq, whilst the retard was getting shot at with troops clearly visable in the background of the Bagdad hotel. Then again, maybe in one of these countries you would get gassed or tortured for expressing the absurd views you so freely spout in a democratic country.

I for one am grateful for what generations before me have afforded. I am also grateful for what is going on in the world arena at the moment, I dont want to hop on a plane, train, work in a high rise etc that is targeted by some martyr of a bent ideolgy.Sure Bush isn't the brightest of sparks & howards a gopher, but whats the alternative the spineless UN. If a few countries get democracy, the terrorists know we are going to have a go at them and the bonus of some OIL, well its worth a bash. If 9/11 was the seed for all this at least it forced us out of the ostrich approach, appeesment never works (look at Hitler) and Saddam was pretty much another Hitler.


Sure 9/11 happened pretty much exactly as reported. Maybe their were some mitigating suss circumstances, minor ones at best. It was a devasting event that deserved a proportionate response on Al Quaida, who incedently put their hand up as the perportrators.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> who incedently put their hand up as the perportrators.




Free',

On a topic as serious as this, satire should be left out of the discussion, it is most disingenuous.

As to the statement above, OBL also vehemently denied involvement.

http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=SCH20060601&articleId=2555


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Free',
> 
> On a topic as serious as this, satire should be left out of the discussion, it is most disingenuous.
> 
> ...




Apologies for the Satire!

I guess my point is O.K. 9/11 happened and pretty much in the way reported.

Could it have been prevented or can we avoid future such events. Well thats proving difficult as it would!, considering the scope of what has to be covered to eliminate a small number of crew in a large system of targets.

If we have learnt antything from past historical events, doing nothing is a recipe for disaster especially with fanatical individuals.

It is a serious topic Wayne, deserving of more than 'conspiracy theories' on which was a truly tragic event, 9/11. I for one don't want to get blown up and if I had a relative involved in 9/11, I would like this to have been the catalyst for helping prevent further such events in the future. I also would have been persistent in finding out the facts behind 9/11 and making it public if their was a "conspiracy". What do you think these people would think of this thread?

Quote from Your Article:
nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act.
Not a concurrent quote with his past behaviour. I wouldn't believe a word of Bin Laden, his organisation or other rabid crew of the like (Sadam etc). Your web links look as suss as, a bit like a "NEXUS" mag. How about a thread to a reputable source is a bit like comparing the British Medical Journal to Swami Buudgies medical cure for Cancer. Come on Wayne.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Nope,
Though it does have some good points, many of the debunkings have been... debunked.



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> http://911review.com/pm/markup/






Is it possible that these debunkers are working along side ,these liars.

For ease of grouping I posted her site,rather than many pastings

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1316


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Is it possible that these debunkers are working along side ,these liars.
> 
> For ease of grouping I posted her site,rather than many pastings
> 
> http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1316




Visual,

That link has nothing to do with 911. Is your point that of purposeful misinformation?

If it is, then yes, absolutely. There is much misinformation from all viewpoints. Misinformation is a prime tool of propaganda  and is extensively used by both government and the 911 movement.

That is why we should only consider quality evidence... from both sides, and why we should shun, satire, ridicule, stonewalling and outright speculation.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Wayne,
9/11 happened yet some people on this thread don`t believe that it happened as was reported or that the people who claimed responsability for it ,did!
She has exsposed the lies reported as facts by many in the media and I think at least we should consider that perhaps the conspiracy theorists are leading us up a garden path.Do you consider that misinformation?

For example the missile attack on the ambulance,isnt that the same as doubting that the plane went trough the pentagon building.


At the very least these type of articles should make us question their motivation,such as the site that you up claiming that the facts had been disclaimed or debunked.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> 9/11 happened yet some people on this thread don`t believe that it happened as was reported or that the people who claimed responsability for it ,did!
> She has exsposed the lies reported as facts by many in the media and I think at least we should consider that perhaps the conspiracy theorists are leading us up a garden path.Do you consider that misinformation?
> 
> For example the missile attack on the ambulance,isnt that the same as doubting that the plane went trough the pentagon building.




Re Lebonon War: All reporting seems to be pusing a particular barrow. This happens in wars. The lesson is treat all reporting with suspicion.

What is obvious is that 99% of people cannot leave aside their pre-conceptions and personal prejudices. Hence the extreme polarisation of views. I maintain my assertion that there are no white hats in the middle east.

Re 911: Remarkably, a similar situation exists. Folks line up with what they "want" to believe and filter out unwanted evidence. 

Much of the 911 movement is hysterical nonsense.

The official story is not the full truth.

These two statements are irrevocably true.

*somewhere* in between is a truth deserving of further investigation, investigation the government refuses to entertain. Why?

We may pull in all sorts of links, opinions, speculation, arguements, satire, ridicule etc. But in the end, the questions just won't go away. People can try to ignore them, but they are still there.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

These aren`t views being reported,these are lies,side by side they don`t stack up.
So I`m asking why the flaggelation particularly against America or Istrael.

Why is the media not reporting with the same zeal ,when the hoaxs are exposed.

Seems to me the bloggers are doing a darn better job than the reporters,they seem to be exposing the facts,wheres the media is reporting opinions,

Why this propoganda about how the west or particularly America is setting up these incidents,such as 9/11.Seems to me that the governments are investigating in order to satisfy people ,yet as soon as thats done out comes the opposing view not necessarily based on facts or even reliable experts.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> So I`m asking why the flaggelation particularly against America or Istrael.




Notwithstanding that the US and Israel enjoy far more support than critisism in the MSM-

America (as representing US UK and Aus vicariously): Because of the gargantuan hypocrisy. Talks one thing; does another. America wears a white hat, with a black bandana hidden beneath. Because they are part of our greater western culture, and we the people can possibly exert some influense over our governments. Because we the people need to reclaim the good and proper agenda of our society and not let it be hijacked by facism again. Because of our governments unquestioning support for Israel and its system of oppression and _ipso facto_ apartheid in the occupied territories

Israel: Because of the above mentioned apartheid. Because Zionism (note: not Judaism) is a negative influense in the world. People who are capable of embracing the history and actions of zionism in its entirety recognise that. In fact there is a great body of Judaism that rejects Zionism. Because the destruction of Lebanon was totally unjustified and a war crime against a civilian population.

Is that enough or would you like me to go on?

Anyway we're off topic. Take this to the other thread if you want to go on.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Because the destruction of Lebanon was totally unjustified and a war crime against a civilian population.
> 
> Is that enough or would you like me to go on?
> 
> Anyway we're off topic. Take this to the other thread if you want to go on.




Lebanon started the war,it was not destroyed,the Christian part was untouched except for a couple of incidences which were explained,one was the truck that was mistaken for a missile launcher.Also hizbollah sympathisers were reported as placing flags on top of Christian school which had to be removed ,at the insistence of parents who feared that they would become targets.
The civilians were fighters without uniforms,the dead civilians ,that is children were used by the fighters as shields,even the UN representative aknowledge that.Engel,can`t remember is other name.

At the end of the day if what you say is true,why the lies and the set up photos,why do these people fight with lies and and missiles surely with all the money that it takes to buy missiles they could achieve more with diplomacy,and that type of pressure.After all they seem to be experts in media manipulation or are they scared of being found out as not having a basis for their grievances.It`s not as if this war achieved anymore than all the other wars they`ve engaged in.
Even Nasrahall admitted that this war was a mistake and had he known that Israel response was going to be so devastating he would`nt have ordered the kidnapping of the two soldiers in the first place.


If you want to take this to the other thread you`ll have to do it,you know my computer limitations,


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

So 2 captured soldiers warrant hundreds of dead, including women and children. thousands upon thousands of homes and most of the lebanese infrastructure destroyed?

Capturing the soldiers was not a smart move, but does that not strike you as a tad lop-sided?


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> So 2 captured soldiers warrant hundreds of dead, including women and children. thousands upon thousands of homes and most of the lebanese infrastructure destroyed?
> 
> Capturing the soldiers was not a smart move, but does that not strike you as a tad lop-sided?




Isreal also got hit by hundred of missiles sometimes in a day,yet most of their casualties were soldiers,the missiles were landing in populated areas targetting civilians yet hardly any casualties,do you wonder why?

The women and children were used as shields ,how do you know that is not true?They were exposed chasing good looking children corpses for heavens sake,so they could use them in yet more propoganda against Israel.They had no respect for the children even when they were dead.

The infrastructure was damaged so they could stop Iran and Syria replenishing the missiles,what were they supposed to do,leave the airport and bridge intact to make that job easier?

All of Lebanon infastructure was not destroyed,and the thousands of homes destroyed were the responsability of the terrorists,they were using them as launching pads for the missiles.It is widely accepted even by the UN that this is what happened,even the UN observers that were targetted were being used as cover,these people ,actually morons have no respect for anyone including women and children.
Do I think that Israel over-reacted actually no!
Isreal repeatedly warned the people who wanted to get out to get out yet they stayed or were forced to stay,if you sympathise with terorrists than unfortunately that is the price you pay.
Having said all that do we really know that as many as that were killed,how do you know it`s not another bit of misrepresentation.The same woman was photographed over and over in destroyed homes,just how many homes did she have?Or do they think that we think that all muslim women look the same,even down to the same scars.Look it up Wayne it`s on the link I put up earlier.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Isreal also got hit by hundred of missiles sometimes in a day,yet most of their casualties were soldiers,the missiles were landing in populated areas targetting civilians yet hardly any casualties,do you wonder why?
> 
> The women and children were used as shields ,how do you know that is not true?They were exposed chasing good looking children corpses for heavens sake,so they could use them in yet more propoganda against Israel.They had no respect for the children even when they were dead.
> 
> ...




So you are quite prepared to accept the Israeli propaganda without question?

Why is it unacceptable for Lebanon to recieve armaments from Syria/Iran, yet it is quite OK for Israel to accept substantially more and more lethal armaments from the US?

Does that not seem biased?


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> So you are quite prepared to accept the Israeli propaganda without question?




No,the question is ,why are you prepared to accept the terrorist propoganda,so easily?

They were exposed using photogenic dead children for sympathy!The series of photos does`nt lie,and at the end of the photo shoot the leader of this mob on this particular occasion went home,to be interviewed by a french reporter all this is on the record.

Sure there two sides to every story,but the photos clearly shows him choosing dead children to use for the photo that he knew would break our hearts,the dead children were there ,he was in various poses that then we saw in our papers,representing himself as either the father or a family member.

Maybe like the ambulance that was hit by a missile but miracularly did`nt explode into smithereens we were`nt supposed to see this ,but we did .

Heres the series of photos I was referring to.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2006/08/qana-directors-cut.html


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> No,the question is ,why are you prepared to accept the terrorist propoganda,so easily?
> 
> They were exposed using photogenic dead children for sympathy!The series of photos does`nt lie,and at the end of the photo shoot the leader of this mob on this particular occasion went home,to be interviewed by a french reporter all this is on the record.
> 
> ...




I don't accept any propaganda whether hezbollah or Israeli or US or Oz. Hezbollah was caught out. Shame on them. I'm not here to defend Hezbollah.

It does not remove the fact that Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon... not just Hezbollah... they attacked the WHOLE country, north to south east to west... with US made missiles from US made warplanes.

I'm questioning the Israeli actions.

Do you think the response was proportional? The international community, in general, does not think so.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> So you are quite prepared to accept the Israeli propaganda without question?
> 
> Why is it unacceptable for Lebanon to recieve armaments from Syria/Iran, yet it is quite OK for Israel to accept substantially more and more lethal armaments from the US?
> 
> Does that not seem biased?




Wayne are you comparing iran and syria with America?
A place that requires 4 male witnesses to a rape or the woman gets stoned?
So exactly what type of human right were you expecting again?
Time for bed I think.Obviously this has been a waste of time,but I could`nt sleep anyway.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I don't accept any propaganda whether hezbollah or Israeli or US or Oz. Hezbollah was caught out. Shame on them. I'm not here to defend Hezbollah.
> 
> It does not remove the fact that Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon... not just Hezbollah... they attacked the WHOLE country, north to south east to west... with US made missiles from US made warplanes.
> 
> ...




Wayne,what are you on about,north and south.
I see you spent oh what not even a heart beat being horrified by their behaviour,got caught out you say,oh then thats all right ,carry on

Even the Saudi did`nt think this war was wrong.Egypt did`nt either,who are you talking about


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne are you comparing iran and syria with America?
> A place that requires 4 male witnesses to a rape or the woman gets stoned?
> So exactly what type of human right were you expecting again?
> Time for bed I think.Obviously this has been a waste of time,but I could`nt sleep anyway.




I'm sure the Native Americans or African Americans (to be ever so PC) would love to discuss such issues with you. I will abstain.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> I see you spent oh what not even a heart beat being horrified by their behaviour,got caught out you say,oh then thats all right ,carry on




Don't you dare interpret my views in such a manner. Thats very disingenuous.

I am horrified by any innocent life destroyed, Lebanese, Israeli, Iraqi American Australian... anyone.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I'm sure the Native Americans or African Americans (to be ever so PC) would love to discuss such issues with you. I will abstain.




Wayne ,now you are being churlish,abstain all you like,I`m sure the African Americans or the Indians will be happy,

You hate America but rely on their system to earn a crust,surely you are supporting a society you despise,well until they get it right,that is, perhaps you should show you disgust by boycotting their markets,but then it will cost you money,and a way of making money that you understand and learning another market or relying on a much smaller market would be a pain ,right?
So it`s all about money,with you as well.
Good night.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Don't you dare interpret my views in such a manner. Thats very disingenuous.
> 
> I am horrified by any innocent life destroyed, Lebanese, Israeli, Iraqi American Australian... anyone.




You have spent hours on this thread,but those photos just got,an oh they got caught out!and then you carried on with your hate of America.Disingenious not me mate,been there,Wayne,I even have the scars to prove it,discuss honestly don`t try and reeducate me.I`ve had enough education to last me a life time and more.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne ,now you are being churlish,abstain all you like,I`m sure the African Americans or the Indians will be happy,
> 
> You hate America but rely on their system to earn a crust,surely you are supporting a society you despise,well until they get it right,that is, perhaps you should show you disgust by boycotting their markets,but then it will cost you money,and a way of making money that you understand and learning another market or relying on a much smaller market would be a pain ,right?
> So it`s all about money,with you as well.
> Good night.




I am conflicted on that point, I must admit.

But to be clear.

I am disgusted by the US governent.

I am disgusted by some Americans.

I am in awe of some Americans. Some Americans are magnificent and my admiration is profound.

But then again I am disgusted by most every other western government at the moment as well. So for the moment I am happy to do my bit in helping the Oz balance of trade. In effect I am an exporter as I bring in foreign cash. Surely that counts for something.

Btw. The US is a consumer of Iranian oil, so go figure.

Interesting you feel you must cast aspersions on my charactar because you disagree with my politics. hmmmm


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> You have spent hours on this thread,but those photos just got,an oh they got caught out!and then you carried on with your hate of America.Disingenious not me mate,been there,Wayne,I even have the scars to prove it,discuss honestly don`t try and reeducate me.I`ve had enough education to last me a life time and more.




Visual,

You seem angry. Is it something I said?


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

Well Visual apparantly has left me to figure out the cast of charactars in this particular conflagration (pun intended)

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/index.htm

LOLOL


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> I am conflicted on that point, I must admit.
> 
> But to be clear.
> I am disgusted by the US governent.




Why are you disgusted with the US Government Wayne? Would you prefer them to have remained in their 'Isolation Policy' pre WW2. I for one accept that due to the US involvement post this period, has directly enabled the democracy we in Australia and Europe now enjoy (although the UK stood alone in such a crucial defining moment).

The issues we face as a global economy/world today, although starkly different from History,distinct paralels can be drawn and if anything we should not repeat our past mistakes.By doing nothing is like doing what Chamberlain did with Hitler.

In regard to Israel Wayne, Israel is landlocked and surrounded by the Arab countries. These countries don't want Israel their, infact they want them totally annhilated and to simply not exist. I by no means consider myself to be a racist but the facts are what they are. The majority of countries around Israel are led by fanatical leaders leading the fanatical mass of no-brainers. Sure Israel has armed themselves to the teeth and they take pre-emptive actions against their neighbours to guarantee their own national security. What action should they take against suicide bombers & armed fanatics that live amongst citizens and have no regimented armed forces. If that was us imagine the tension Israel's feel surrounded by this and the potential of some of these Arab countries gaining Nuclear Weapons in your backyard.

In todays world we do live in a global economy and issues affect us all. Iran affects us right now, if they obtain Nuclear enrichment the possabilities in the middle east could become chronic.

I don't appreciate or condone much of the socities of Arab countries. Whoever what they do on their own soil, to their own people is their own business. If their activities affect my way of life or their own people want to uprise out of suppresion and need a hand then I would expect the UN to stand up to the plate. The sad reality is that the UN dosent and stuffs around with its own internal politics when swift decisive action is needed at times. If the US and a handful of others will step up, well so be it because thats better than the alternative.

I wonder Wayne, if the crap really hit the fan and affected your way of life in Geraldton, wear would you stand. Would you continue to appese with rhetoric, theories and wish washy ideolgy whilst a fanatic straps a bomb to your butt!.

I admit your entitled to your views and opinions in a country like Oz, certainly this freedom wasn't afforded to you without past sacrifies of strong willed real Aussies.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Don't you dare interpret my views in such a manner. Thats very disingenuous.




Wayne on post 90 and 91 you make some immature comments.
But here looks like I got under your skin,afraid that what I said is right.
A person who admires Americans even some of them,would`nt betray them or their past sacrifices ,sacrifices that now allow you to lead a life that you clearly don`t appreciate.
Wayne you`ll now be on my ignore list.Have a good life.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne on post 90 and 91 you make some immature comments.
> But here looks like I got under your skin,afraid that what I said is right.
> A person who admires Americans even some of them,would`nt betray them or their past sacrifices ,sacrifices that now allow you to lead a life that you clearly don`t appreciate.
> Wayne you`ll now be on my ignore list.Have a good life.




Visual,

Your argument style lacks logic. You cannot claim points you clearly have not scored. You allow anger to take over from rational thought. You did not get under my skin. You made claims about my character and I called you on it. Here you have done it again. I take particular exception to the above comment.

Are you incapable of debating the points? This is obvious as you have gone _ad hominem_.

Making scurilous claims you cannot know are true is contemptable. Please withdraw your comment above and debate me on the issues if you are capable.


----------



## rub92me (31 August 2006)

I knew this one was going to end in tears. But imo Wayne in this particular thread you haven't been shying away from the odd 'ad hominems' either, calling people's arguments and opinions disingeneous, etc. Just my


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Visual,
> 
> Your argument style lacks logic. You cannot claim points you clearly have not scored. You allow anger to take over from rational thought. You did not get under my skin. You made claims about my character and I called you on it. Here you have done it again. I take particular exception to the above comment.
> 
> ...




Wayne,
re-read your comment and tell me you have`nt made a personal attack,
from what I gather I`m incapable,illogical,and unable to sustain an argument therefore quick to anger,presumably because of all of the above.
You withdraw first.
And thanks Rub,as he said ,I`m also disingenous.
Not personal!
You have run this argument as though everything you believe is fact,wheres I`ve been reading both sides of the story ,and making my judgement accordingly.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> It does not remove the fact that Israel blew the crap out of Lebanon... not just Hezbollah... they attacked the WHOLE country, north to south east to west... with US made missiles from US made warplanes.
> 
> I'm questioning the Israeli actions.
> 
> Do you think the response was proportional? The international community, in general, does not think so.




Looked up Disingenous,which I take means false.
 Function: adjective
: lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING 

Yet clearly what you claim isn`t true.
You can question Israel actions,all you like.But Lebanon is not bombed from top to bottom or left to right.


Because I know you love dictionaries,and will probably quibble the meaning I attributed to the word,heres the proper usage.

USAGE NOTE   The meaning of disingenuous has been shifting about lately, as if people were unsure of its proper meaning. Generally, it means “insincere” and often seems to be a synonym of cynical or calculating. Not surprisingly, the word is used often in political contexts, as in It is both insensitive and disingenuous for the White House to describe its aid package and the proposal to eliminate the federal payment as “tough love.” This use of the word is accepted by 94 percent of the Usage Panel. Most Panelists also accept the extended meaning relating to less reproachable behavior. Fully 88 percent accept disingenuous with the meaning “playfully insincere, faux-naÃ¯f,” as in the example “I don't have a clue about late Beethoven!” he said. The remark seemed disingenuous, coming from one of the world's foremost concert pianists. Sometimes disingenuous is used as a synonym for naive, as if the dis– prefix functioned as an intensive (as it does in certain words like disannul) rather than as a negative element. This usage does not find much admiration among Panelists, however. Seventy-five percent do not accept it in the phrase a disingenuous tourist who falls prey to stereotypical con artists.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

rub92me said:
			
		

> I knew this one was going to end in tears. But imo Wayne in this particular thread you haven't been shying away from the odd 'ad hominems' either, calling people's arguments and opinions disingeneous, etc. Just my




How about adding some content then, rather than sniping from the sidelines.


----------



## dutchie (31 August 2006)

Interesting (I hope) documentary on the ABC at 9.20pm tonight.

"The Falling Man"   (photo of a man jumping from one of the towers)

Irrespective of the discussions to date I feel sorry for all the victims of hate (on both sides) and in this instance for the state of mind that man was in -  to think that his only option was to jump from the building to certain death.

Dutchie


----------



## Rafa (31 August 2006)

I noticed the Ambulance was used as an example of Lebanese propaganda... apparently, the theory goes, that it wasn't bombed, it was stage managed!

Visual, it looks like you weren't the only one who thought this was false. Even Alexander Downer made a speech disparaging the attack on the ambulance as false... 

Alas, he, like you, relies on GOOGLE get information... and we all know the internet has articles that prove and disprove everything... 

this is from today's Australian (editorial)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20308892-7583,00.html



> That the truth is not always easy to discern must be better appreciated by Mr Downer following his embrace of the Lebanese ambulance incident, as presented by internet site http://www.zombietime.com. In his speech to PANPA, Mr Downer said the incident, in which it was claimed Israel had deliberately bombed a Red Cross ambulance, did not stand up to even the most rudimentary scrutiny. Mr Downer said that after closer study of the images of the damage to the ambulance, it was beyond serious dispute that this episode has all the makings of a hoax. His source? A pro-Israel website that specialises in posting pictures of student protests, naked bicycle riders and historic pictures of the prophet Mohammed. In a lengthy posting, the website puts forward its own conspiracy theory and claims the incident never took place.
> 
> This newspaper (The Australian) was aware of the website claims but, rather than accept them at face value, dispatched reporter Martin Chulov to review the evidence and reinterview those involved. In his report in the Media section today, Chulov stands by the original account and says damage to the ambulance is consistent with the original claims of attack. We have done what a good newspaper should, done the leg work and reported the facts. Mr Downer may himself have fallen for the propaganda trick he is keen to warn against.
> 
> ...





Visual, I think you need to check your sources out and please, for the millionth time... DO NOT BELEIVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!!!

And please, just because you happen to agree with the views in that particular article form that conclusion that it must be true!

The Ambulance WAS bombed by Israel... If a News Ltd paper like the Australian can categorically say that, then i think even you should stop and listen.

Everything you see on TV, read on the Internet is propaganda from one side or the other...


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Looked up Disingenous,which I take means false.
> Function: adjective
> : lacking in candor; also : giving a false appearance of simple frankness : CALCULATING
> 
> ...




Yes I have fallen for this shifting meaning.

My bad. Thank you for pointing it out.



> Yet clearly what you claim isn`t true.
> You can question Israel actions,all you like.But Lebanon is not bombed from top to bottom or left to right.




Yes it was. It wasn't just the south that was bombed. Everywhere was bombed.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,
> re-read your comment and tell me you have`nt made a personal attack,
> from what I gather I`m incapable,illogical,and unable to sustain an argument therefore quick to anger,presumably because of all of the above.
> You withdraw first.
> ...




OK I'm big enough to cop the ad hominem criticism.

But if you look carefully. Most of my posts are questions, rather than statement of fact. Whereas in fact, it is you who has been caught using erroneous information and stating it as fact (the ambulance)

My point about 911 remains a series of questions that require answers. Nowhere have I stated a definitive view of who is responsible or precisly what happened. There is way too much misinformation about.

I strongly hold that the official version is demostrabley a fabrication, or a massive cover up. I want answers and so to a lot of people.

Re Lebanon: I have consistently said there are no white hats. I cannot be more balanced than that. My point has always been that Israel is cut from the same cloth as Hezbollah. Both are terrorists. The fact that one is now a recognised state does not justify terrorism even if our sycophantic politicians have been instructed to believe so.

Sure be critical of Lebanon and Hezbollah. But by any standard of fairness and decency, we must apply the same standards to Israel.

That is my point.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Wayne,you are not satisfied with the findings on 9/11 because you don`t trust America,you have made this claim before,yes?

The abulance is a hoax ,a missile hits an ambulance yet it`s not blown to smithereens,how come whole buildings are reduced to ruin with supposedly the same missiles?

Rafa hiszbollah has been caught out many times,in one of my links they are clearly shown shopping for photogenic corpses so they can shock us all into thinking that they are the victims.

That I read at least two journalists have had to resign thanks to the bloggers who have been able to disprove their stories.

Journalists who write the stories that you are relying on are symphatetic to hizbollah,of course they are sticking to their stories,however if you read the original story with the confirmation ,details important details are changed.

At the end of the day hizbollah are terorrists, Israel isn`t ,regardless of how much some people might dislike it`s existence.

I am trying to balance these claims with stories available to all,sure theres two sides to every story,but I don`t believe that America would bomb her own people and I don`t believe that parents would choose to keep their children in a war zone,unless they are prepared to sacrifice them,or unless they are forced to keep them there.

If you truly want to get both sides you can read the same stuff I read,why believe only what you want to believe, by the way I haven`t had to google these links I have read them in major Australian newspapers,again availble to all.

 Reading the same story from different perspectives helps me to decipher what eventually makes sense.And thats why I find unwavering points of view debatable.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Wayne,you are not satisfied with the findings on 9/11 because you don`t trust America,you have made this claim before,yes?




I am not satisfied with the 911 findings because they do not logically stack up. I do not trust any government. Governments have consistently demonstrated their capacity to lie, from statistical numbers, children overboard, election promises, implementation of GST etc etc etc etc



			
				visual said:
			
		

> The abulance is a hoax ,a missile hits an ambulance yet it`s not blown to smithereens,how come whole buildings are reduced to ruin with supposedly the same missiles?
> 
> Rafa hiszbollah has been caught out many times,in one of my links they are clearly shown shopping for photogenic corpses so they can shock us all into thinking that they are the victims.
> 
> That I read at least two journalists have had to resign thanks to the bloggers who have been able to disprove their stories.




I don't know the full details of this incident so am not qualified to comment. It is irellevant however, because all sides indulge in propaganda. Hezbollah is no exception, Israel is no exception. It is one incident amongst a million.



			
				visual said:
			
		

> Journalists who write the stories that you are relying on are symphatetic to hizbollah,of course they are sticking to their stories,however if you read the original story with the confirmation ,details important details are changed.




A stunning conclusion. If you recall, I posted websites sympathetic to both sides. www.aljazeera.com and www.debka.com I read both viewpoints, I don't rely on one viewpoint at all. I will thank you not to reach conclusions for which you have no evidence/



			
				visual said:
			
		

> At the end of the day hizbollah are terorrists, Israel isn`t ,regardless of how much some people might dislike it`s existence.




I profoundly disagree that Israel is not a terrorist state. Israel was founded upon terrorism. Begin even proudley embraced terrorism and claimed to be the original terrorist. Do your history.



			
				visual said:
			
		

> I am trying to balance these claims with stories available to all,sure theres two sides to every story,but I don`t believe that America would bomb her own people and I don`t believe that parents would choose to keep their children in a war zone,unless they are prepared to sacrifice them,or unless they are forced to keep them there.




Is this a belief based upon ALL available facts, or simply what is comfortable for you to believe?



			
				visual said:
			
		

> If you truly want to get both sides you can read the same stuff I read,why believe only what you want to believe, by the way I haven`t had to google these links I have read them in major Australian newspapers,again availble to all.




You are getting a very narrow world view from the major dailies. The ownership of these are concentrated in only a few hands. I'm sure the German public trusted their major news sources in 1933-39.

I'm sure various other present day populations trust their majors dailies... such as Iran, Belarus, and Venezuala



			
				visual said:
			
		

> Reading the same story from different perspectives helps me to decipher what eventually makes sense.And thats why I find unwavering points of view debatable.




In the end you have been unable to answer one of my questions about the topic at hand. That says a lot to me.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

FYI

A look at Zionist terrorism in the ME

http://www.wrmea.com/jews_for_justice/terrorism.html

Cheers


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Wayne,once again with the personal assumptions.
That somehow falls short of your own intellect.

You keep comparing free nations with dictatorships,you and I might disagree but neither of us is in danger of losing our heads.

Our politicians as much as we dislike them and with good cause get elected freely,iran for example relies on the religious leaders to give the ok,as to who can run,hence whats his face getting elected .

Young people knew that who ever got elected was not going to represent them and made the mistake of not voting.They felt the choice they had was no choice at all and got sidetracked,

Israel is a terorrist nation,and there again thats your opinion many people don`t agree,even Egypt recognices it.

As for believeing what is comfortable to me how do you draw your conclusions ,by what makes you feel comfortable!Yes!

I watch documentaries and I read exstensively but once again you doubt that because I disagree with you.

For example recently I learned that that mosque that is considered the 3rd holiest site in islam,only became the 3rd holiest yesterday!by that I mean not very long ago,I found that out by researching why they thought it was so important to them.

I don`t know why we both have agree with each other.


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Israel is a terorrist nation,and there again thats your opinion many people don`t agree,even Egypt recognices it.




Political expediency

Read the link I posted


----------



## wayneL (31 August 2006)

:band


----------



## Rafa (31 August 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Journalists who write the stories that you are relying on are symphatetic to hizbollah,of course they are sticking to their stories,




The editor of The Australian certainly isn't an Hizbollah sympathiser!!! If he is reading this he would tear his hair out!

But he is willing to look at the facts when they are present.

There is a lot of fiction circulating on the Internet.... You can't judge one story to be more authentic than another just because you happen to agree with it.


----------



## tarnor (31 August 2006)

I've given this topic a fair looksie, downloaded about 60 gig of documentaries in the last 2 years, a large portion of this has been related to the american empire.. cbf debating it if anyone is really interested ill mail them some dvds..
__________________

As for lebanon this is an awesome clip where galloway shreds a sky reporter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Wdwk1dp-uU


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> The editor of The Australian certainly isn't an Hizbollah sympathiser!!! If he is reading this he would tear his hair out!
> 
> But he is willing to look at the facts when they are present.
> 
> There is a lot of fiction circulating on the Internet.... You can't judge one story to be more authentic than another just because you happen to agree with it.




Rafa,you speak with certainty,how do you know?


----------



## Julia (31 August 2006)

Visual

Could I ask you to just take several steps back, remove yourself from the present heated argument, and simply say why you feel so convinced that you should take the side of the Israelis?

That's the first question.

The second is regarding the establishment of Israel after the end of WWII in what was essentially Palestine's own territory.  I wonder how you would feel if, given there might in the future be some global conflict resulting in some nation being essentially "homeless".  Let's say this would not have occurred as a result of any misdeeds of the nation concerned.  So the United Nations (if they were able to get their thoughts together which is another question entirely) decides that the people of said nation should henceforth make their home on the east coast of Australia.  Those of us living in the designated area in Australia have no say in this.

Are we going to feel ever so slightly resentful at being intruded upon by a group of people with whom we have nothing in common and indeed whose culture, traditions and religion are in conflict with our own?  Isn't this situation likely to breed ill-will on both sides?

Julia


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> The editor of The Australian certainly isn't an Hizbollah sympathiser!!! If he is reading this he would tear his hair out!
> 
> But he is willing to look at the facts when they are present.
> 
> There is a lot of fiction circulating on the Internet.... You can't judge one story to be more authentic than another just because you happen to agree with it.




 Rafa,this is what I`m talking about,why change the details of the story,if he in fact got it right in the first place,
from a columinst ,Herald sun

The Australian is going after Foreign Minister Alexander Downer for saying the story of Israel firing a rocket through the roof of a Lebanese ambulance was a hoax. 

Today its Beirut reporter Martin Chulov checks again with his original source. This is Chulov’s story today: 


Ambulance driver Qassem Shalim was closing the doors of the ambulance when the vehicle was hit. ``I am sure the missile was fired from a drone. The blue light was flashing on our roof, the red cross was clear and there was a light on the Lebanese Red Cross flag above me. Everything I said happened did happen,’’ he told The Australian in Beirut. 

Everything he said happened did happen? 

But this is how Shalim described the event in Chulov’s original story on July 26: 


One of the Israeli rockets pierced the centre of the large red cross marked on the roof of one of the ambulances, as if it was used as a target… 

The convoy was struck by two rockets fired from an Apache helicopter, just before midnight, severely injuring all six people on board… 

In another ward, Qasin Shalin, the driver of the first ambulance, and the only one of six people to have escaped with light injuries, sat upright in bed, surrounded by the orange-clad men of Lebanon’s Red Cross, who have come to be known as the country’s bravest civil servants… 

Mr Shalin was spared more serious injuries by the armoured vest he was wearing and the driver’s canopy that protected him from a direct hit. 

He remembers nothing after the flash and bang of the missile then the crunch of the crash as his ambulance veered off road. 

A helicoptor has become a drone. The man at the wheel becomes the man at the back of the ambulance. A moving ambulance becomes a stationary one. 

And still no explanation how a rocket fired through the roof of his ambulance leaves a neatly machined hole right where the ventilation cover used to be, and then ... vanishes. No scorch marks. No sign of an explosion. No hole in the floor. 

Nor does Shalin explain how the injuries he suffered on his face, requiring huge bandages, left not a scab or scar when he was filmed six days later with his face uncovered. Very odd. 

UPDATE. Tony Eastley does no better when he tries on the ABC’s AM program to explain the inexplicable to Alexander Downer: 

It may have been like some, much of the ordinance, it didn’t actually explode when it pierced the vehicle. So you still stand by what you said?


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Visual
> 
> Could I ask you to just take several steps back, remove yourself from the present heated argument, and simply say why you feel so convinced that you should take the side of the Israelis?
> 
> ...




Julia,
so many articles have been shown to at least be misleading or outright hoaxes.Wether Israel is right or wrong is not the point,but why the misleading information certainty to do with this story.Why can we not accept the fact that a lot of what we are seeing is in fact not facts as they happened.

To me this type of behaviour says more about the people who are spreading this type of information than about anything else.


----------



## visual (31 August 2006)

Julia,the second part of your question I have to get to later.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Visual,

You might detect a certain apathy about the staged "photo opportunities".

Why?

Because it is just a normal thing during a war for the beligerents to stage manage the information that is released. They all do it.

It it right? Of course not! But it happens all the time. Most of what you know as "history" about previous wars is pure bunkum. The victors version of the story, glorified for their own benefit.

However your outrage is misplaced and does not negate in any way the number of civilians who were killed or had their homes destroyed.

Try to keep in mind the big picture, rather than getting caught up in propaganda.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

The view Of Amnesty International

http://www.amnesty.org/


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Here is a map of air strikes reported up until 22 July (about halfway through the conflict)

As is plain, they are all over the whole country


----------



## LPA (1 September 2006)

Okay I really really don't want to get started on this whole 9/11 conspiracy thing....there were certainly many unanswered questions to do with that day, but not many of the ones put forward here are worth asking as they are almost all myths.

Just thought I would point out something REALLY EASY TO CHECK:

Verse 9:11 of the Quran states:

"But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge."

nothing to do with eagles, nothing to do with sons of Arabia, nothing to do with the WTC...

Also it's worth checking the wikipedia on the 9/11 conspiracies, they provide many answers to a lot of the most common questions - a little bit of simple research goes a long way.

Some of the questions that do need to be answered involve FEMA and their movements....but that's another bag of cats I don't want to put my hand in at the moment because I really can't be bothered.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 September 2006)

Since this is the 9?11 thread and not Israel, lets keep it on topic.

Wayne watch these videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyzSSnNUWnE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsn4JA450iA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-BRjSWxLg&mode=related&search=
this one has a tune to it listen to the lyrics carefully

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTEeYuDCOk0&mode=related&search=
The panel questions and answers are enlightening


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> Since this is the 9?11 thread and not Israel, lets keep it on topic.
> 
> Wayne watch these videos:
> 
> ...




Good videos

Great song... not my prefered genre mind you, but the lyrics are truly Dylanesque


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 September 2006)

Some more:

this one is weird: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UngjIRQ2kXs&NR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ej6qKk5l8cA&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXKPtvfGGyY&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgFibjRFfvU&mode=related&search=


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (1 September 2006)

Last two:
look at the nose of the aircraft.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4ARQ6anxEA&search=wtc 911

Building 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaFxx88qRxs&search=wtc 911


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

Man I gotta go listen to some nice music


----------



## tarnor (1 September 2006)

I haven't heard any explanations that even remotely refute the 911 eyewitness video..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAAj544e1cc

first 13 minutes are pretty boring. but when the towers come down the audio is captured of all the explosions..

Not sure if its accurate but i heard that about 40k was spent investigating 911 with the commision and 40m on clintons sex life


----------



## Knobby22 (1 September 2006)

Did anyone watch the falling man documentary (BBC) on ABC last night or do we only get our news sources from reliable completely sane people on the internet?


----------



## dutchie (1 September 2006)

G'day Knobby22

I watched that doco. Very thought provoking as to the mental state of all those people trapped. Phone conversations with your loved ones knowing you are about to die.

It was interesting to see the reaction of the public as to the non publication of the picture and also whether the families of victims wanted to know whether or not the falling man should be identified or not.

Had to think about what would I do in the same circumstances - is it bravery and positive or what?

Sad.

Cheers 

Dutchie


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Visual
> 
> Could I ask you to just take several steps back, remove yourself from the present heated argument, and simply say why you feel so convinced that you should take the side of the Israelis?
> 
> ...




Julia,
after much consideration I`ve decided not to answer your question,it would simply take too much time to answer with any degree of certainty and knowledge.And I`ve already spent way too much time on this issue.Sorry


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Visual,
> 
> You might detect a certain apathy about the staged "photo opportunities".
> 
> ...




Wayne,they all do it?so history is gone and past?no wonder it keeps repeating itself.

Civilians killed,without showing too much disrespect to the dead,then you are  saying that the lebanese truly are a stupid people,bombs are falling so they stay underneath it`s path to be blown away? are you serious,
On the other hand the Israelis didn`t underestimate the effect of the missiles and took cover,that is what in fact you are saying ,thats the only way I can interpret what you are saying.
Anyway your map how can you be so certain that it`s accurate,reuters were caught out with a doctore photo showing way more smoke than there actually was ,they wanted to paint a picture that did`nt exist.In the end disasters don`t need PR.They speak for themselves.
And as I said to Julia,this is taking too much of my time,bye


----------



## Dan_ (1 September 2006)

A few of the 911 doco's I've watched recently 

Loose Change 2nd Edition (Some very good information here imo)
In Plane Sight (A tad dry but a lot of back-story and history on why (in their opinion) 911 is a cover up)
Martial Law (Some interesting information on the bush family background but some sections are really beat up and really stretch the story)
Road to Tyranny (pretty basic overview and some bias)
911 (the two Naudet brothers doco)  

Whilst all claim to be "unbiased" and leave you to "make your own decision" (excluding the Naudet bros) each has it's own element of persuasive argumentation towards their own opinion (what story doesn’t?)

However if you are interested in watching a documentary and havent seen many (or any of the above) I would recommended Loose Change 2nd edition as the one to watch, it’s developed and narrated by a young guy (can't remember his name) it is very well presented and deals with a lot of factual evidence. For example it measures the melting point for steel in the buildings against recorded temperatures of burning aviation fuel and clearly highlights that the steel can withstand this type of heat for many hours (in some cases days) 

Any one else seen this doco and want to share their feedback?


----------



## Rafa (1 September 2006)

> Ambulance driver Qassem Shalim was closing the doors of the ambulance when the vehicle was hit. ``I am sure the missile was fired from a drone. The blue light was flashing on our roof, the red cross was clear and there was a light on the Lebanese Red Cross flag above me. Everything I said happened did happen,’’ he told The Australian in Beirut.
> 
> ...
> 
> It may have been like some, much of the ordinance, it didn’t actually explode when it pierced the vehicle. So you still stand by what you said?




So are you saying that was a Hezbollah drone that attacked the Ambulance??? Does it really matter if it was a Israeli helicopter or a Israeli controlled drone???




> then you are saying that the Lebanese truly are a stupid people, bombs are falling so they stay underneath it’s path to be blown away? are you serious,





Are you serious Vis? Every Israeli house has bomb shelters in built, and every city has missile warning sirens, giving people ample time to get to the bomb shelters or flee into neighbouring areas... 

Plus, if you need to flee, you need reliable cars and fuel... and a bridge to cross the river!!! 

And what about all these unexploded cluster bombs that were dropped indiscriminately in the last three days of the war... Hezbollah dropped them too eh???

Goodbye Vis.


PS: for the record, Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, and i have always advocated its dismembering. The best way to do this is to get it at its source (iran / syria) and by being on the side of the common folk of Lebanon and helping humanitarianly, at the grassroots, not bombing them to smithereens, which only further drives them into the arms of Hezbollah! 

Anyone who thinks this war can be won by force is deluded... There are billions of muslims, and only a small % are extremist. Yet, some of the actions by the west in the last few years, is actually driving the moderates towards the extremist at a rate even the most fundamentalist of clerics can only dream off...


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Julia,
> after much consideration I`ve decided not to answer your question,it would simply take too much time to answer with any degree of certainty and knowledge.And I`ve already spent way too much time on this issue.Sorry




Julia,having said all that,I could`nt shake the feeling that I had taken the easy way out of a very difficult question.
So I googled Palestine,I think I`ve found a reliable site,don`t know how it can be be pulled to pieces,but I`m sure some people will dispute what this site says.Anyway I`m posting it here,after reading a bit of it,your question can`t be answered by me because your question doesn`t even come close to even being hypothetically similar.(Does that make sense?)

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Modern History

I clicked on this heading,as I felt that a summary was better,time wise anyway,cheers
A Brief History of Israel and Palestine and the Conflict


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

Rafa said:
			
		

> So are you saying that was a Hezbollah drone that attacked the Ambulance??? Does it really matter if it was a Israeli helicopter or a Israeli controlled drone???
> 
> Are you serious Vis? Every Israeli house has bomb shelters in built, and every city has missile warning sirens, giving people ample time to get to the bomb shelters or flee into neighbouring areas...
> 
> ...




Rafa when you read the news,are you looking for facts or fantasy to be reviewed to suit the unbelievers,so this story is reported one way people start to question the reported facts,he then changes the facts and you ask 
does it matter?
Absolutely,it matters,he is reporting facts,facts are facts they don`t change.
As for the lebanese inability to flee,didnt stop the people who got evacuated to different parts of the world,also blowing up bridges doesn`t stop people from moving,sure it might make taking the fridge a little hard,but moving bodies is a little easier.Not everyone who flees these type of situations relies on cars.
Of course the Israelis have bomb shelters,they know they need them,why don`t the lebanese build the same?oh thats right lack of money,so seeing that they are supported by syria and iran you`d think that protecting the people would be a priority,seeing that they have learned how Israel reacts when this type of behaviour is displayed.But no,they send them missiles and now they are giving money so that they can help in the rebuilding,what are the chances that this time the shelters will be built,seeing that their aim hasn`t changed,


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3296917,00.html

Rafa,do you think we can take his word.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2006)

visual said:
			
		

> Julia,having said all that,I could`nt shake the feeling that I had taken the easy way out of a very difficult question.
> So I googled Palestine,I think I`ve found a reliable site,don`t know how it can be be pulled to pieces,but I`m sure some people will dispute what this site says.Anyway I`m posting it here,after reading a bit of it,your question can`t be answered by me because your question doesn`t even come close to even being hypothetically similar.(Does that make sense?)
> 
> http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Modern History
> ...



Visual

My original question 1 did not relate to who reported what etc, but rather asked for your own reasons as to why you are obviously so supportive of Israel and so condemning of the Lebanese and the Palestinians.  Perhaps you are attached to the Jewish faith and that would be an explanation?  We all have reasons for forming conclusions and opinions and I'm just asking for yours regarding your fierce support of Israel.

Re the second question, I don't need some potted history lesson on the establishment of Israel etc.  I was just wanting to know how you might feel if another nation ousted you from your home and general environment?
Surely not such a hard question?

Julia


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Visual
> 
> My original question 1 did not relate to who reported what etc, but rather asked for your own reasons as to why you are obviously so supportive of Israel and so condemning of the Lebanese and the Palestinians.  Perhaps you are attached to the Jewish faith and that would be an explanation?  We all have reasons for forming conclusions and opinions and I'm just asking for yours regarding your fierce support of Israel.
> 
> ...




Julia the palestinians never had a home and were always a nomadic wandering mob not really acknowleded by their fellow Arabs.

The spoils of WW2 for the allies was Palestine. Considering what happened to the JEWS in the holocaust and the action of Europe in appeasing Hitler, what would you have considered just?

Incidently pretty much every country has snatched land in war/hostility, England did it with Australia from the aborigines (killed most of them off in Tassie as well).

The Israelis fought off the Arabs in the Yon Kippur war, held their own ground and snatched some new stuff for buffer zones.

Much of the Arab nations have not gotten over this. The fact is they cannot oppose Israel militarily and have resorted to their terrorist activities since the 60s.

Some one on this thread said Israel invented Terrorism, what a pile of rubbish. 

Nations that are not effective militarily or do not wish to invade a country resort to the use of rabid individuals as terrorists to inflict harm.Why do you think Hizzbolah are in the South next to Israel, to terrorize and why is the Leboneze Army not in the South. Why has Lebonan got an active Militia policing its Southern Border?


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> Visual
> 
> My original question 1 did not relate to who reported what etc, but rather asked for your own reasons as to why you are obviously so supportive of Israel and so condemning of the Lebanese and the Palestinians.  Perhaps you are attached to the Jewish faith and that would be an explanation?  We all have reasons for forming conclusions and opinions and I'm just asking for yours regarding your fierce support of Israel.
> 
> ...




Julia,
perhaps I misunderstood your question,I`ll try again,
I hate social injustice I hate inequality,sexual and social,No I`m not Jewish,should that really matter?
In this instance  hisbollah has been shown to have repeatedly lied,I`m of course relying on the media to tell me that,in many instances they have painted a pretty logical picture,I`m mystified as to what other bench mark I should be able to use to decide truth from fantasy.

As for the potted history lesson,in the world we live in these things would be negotiated,would I like someone to come and live in my territory and kick me out,this did not happen in Palestine and it`s not likely to happen here.

This Palestinian view may be popularly accepted but many more nations were involved initially before it got to be seen in such black and white way.


Would I like it,no.
Would I stay and be manipulated by politicians,no.
Would I endanger my childrens future and their lives,no


----------



## visual (1 September 2006)

Julia,did you ever wonder how arafat was able to access such world standard health care,and how he was able to pay for it?and why he did`nt expect the same for his people?
After he died his wife and the inner circle were even fighting about HIS money,surely someone with that kind of money should`ve used it for the benefit of his dispossed people,why was his wife and inner circle fighting over it?And once the media lost interest in that story,what actually happened to it,he was rumoured to be worth billions.True or not,we never did find out.Or did I miss something.


----------



## anon (1 September 2006)

So after all of the above arguments what conclusion did the forum members come to? Did the muslim fanatics blow the Twin Towers up, or was it done by the George Bush-CIA Inc.?

I've given it a simple test and my conclusion was that CIA was guilty, not of blowing the towers up but of not preventing them from being blown up by the muslim fanatics.

The test was based on the American Culture of taking legal action for any and every occasion that they think they can win, and thereby get huge financial rewards. 9/11 wasn't just any occasion. It was The Occasion which will be remembered for ever. Some three thousand people were killed and enormous financial losses were suffered by the occupiers and by those who dealt with them. If ever there was a case for a huge number of very expensive law suits against the U.S. Government - this would have been it. That is, if there was a shred of evidence connecting CIA or George Bush to it. It's almost five years now since the big event, and there have not been any legal action against the U.S. Government in relation to the huge loss of life and for the huge financial losses resulting from the 9/11 event.

Proof is in lack of proof, lack of any credible evidence against the CIA conspiracy theory. On the contrary, there is a lot of real evidence linking muslim extremists to this crime of the century. But even intelligent people will believe what they want to believe as we have seen on this thread.

anon


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

I think everybodies position is quite clear on the Lebanon/Zion issue.

Now as this thread is about 911, let's get back on topic, if anyone has anything to add.

Cheers


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> So after all of the above arguments what conclusion did the forum members come to? Did the muslim fanatics blow the Twin Towers up, or was it done by the George Bush-CIA Inc.?
> 
> I've given it a simple test and my conclusion was that CIA was guilty, not of blowing the towers up but of not preventing them from being blown up by the muslim fanatics.
> 
> ...





anon

There is (or was) a 7 billion dollar class action suit against Dubya et al. It was never reported in the MSM (surprise surprise surprise)


Let me try to find some references to it.


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

wayneL said:
			
		

> anon
> 
> There is (or was) a 7 billion dollar class action suit against Dubya et al. It was never reported in the MSM (surprise surprise surprise)
> 
> ...




http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/06.21A.pitt.watchtower.htm

Alex Jones interview with Stanley Hilton (the lawyer)
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/audio/091004hilton.mp3

The suit apparently has been dismissed! Not on the basis of any evidence or lack thereof, but on the principle of "sovereign immunity"  

Basically, a President can do whatever the hell he likes and not be held accountable  

http://www.atsnn.com/story/111717.html


----------



## anon (1 September 2006)

Why wasn't Richard Nixon told about it?

anon


----------



## wayneL (1 September 2006)

anon said:
			
		

> Why wasn't Richard Nixon told about it?
> 
> anon




Lol

Times have changed.


----------



## Julia (1 September 2006)

Freeballinginawetsuit said:
			
		

> Julia the palestinians never had a home and were always a nomadic wandering mob not really acknowleded by their fellow Arabs.
> 
> The spoils of WW2 for the allies was Palestine. Considering what happened to the JEWS in the holocaust and the action of Europe in appeasing Hitler, what would you have considered just?
> 
> ...




So are you saying that the country of Palestine simply didn't exist at the end of WWII?

Julia


----------



## Freeballinginawetsuit (1 September 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> So are you saying that the country of Palestine simply didn't exist at the end of WWII?
> 
> Julia




No, I am saying that they are in the same boat they were back then. 
A dis-organised rabble.They rely on aid support from western countries and military support from arab states. As a nation they do bugger all and always have.

As for the rest, its in my previous post. They were ripe to have their land taken. The Nazi's took it, the Pom's and Aussies took it back, the Israel's took it and the Palestinians stood by and watched it all.

At least the Italians swap sides to the next best option, the French talk well although they gave up quick and the Germans and Japanese learnt from their loss and gave up arms.

What have the Palestinians done, devious terrorist activities for 30 years. If they showed a serious attempt at intergration and democracy and being able to govern their country, I might think differently.


----------



## Happy (8 September 2006)

> From ABC,  September 8, 2006
> Video shows Twin Towers attack preparations
> 
> The Arab television channel Al-Jazeera has broadcast a video which it says shows Osama bin Laden and suicide candidates of Al Qaeda preparing the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States.
> ...





Trying not to deviate from main theme of this thread only appropriate comment would be – more unanswered questions?


----------



## Julia (8 September 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Trying not to deviate from main theme of this thread only appropriate comment would be – more unanswered questions?




So will we now have the conspiracy theorists declaring that GWB had a chat with Osama and jacked up the whole thing?

Julia


----------



## Happy (8 September 2006)

If Money Tree’s original post is correct, then this is inevitable conclusion isn’t it?


----------



## wayneL (8 September 2006)

Happy said:
			
		

> Trying not to deviate from main theme of this thread only appropriate comment would be – more unanswered questions?




Well................. Yes. I have a few, but have not finished evaluating this new development.

Chief among them is: The two guys who read out martyrdom statements wre not on the passenger lists of any of the planes. Why?

There are still dozens of questions...lets ignore some of the preposterous claims... there are still dozens of things that don't add up... and emit an unpleasant smell.


----------



## Jay-684 (10 September 2006)

interesting show on TV last night 11:00-12:00 aimed at proving the 9/11 incidents were a set up by the US

most of the show was about the pentagon, with small bits on the WTC

interesting, but I dont know enough to make an informed decision.


----------



## swingstar (10 September 2006)

Dan_ said:
			
		

> However if you are interested in watching a documentary and havent seen many (or any of the above) I would recommended Loose Change 2nd edition as the one to watch, it’s developed and narrated by a young guy (can't remember his name) it is very well presented and deals with a lot of factual evidence. For example it measures the melting point for steel in the buildings against recorded temperatures of burning aviation fuel and clearly highlights that the steel can withstand this type of heat for many hours (in some cases days)




Check out the links at the bottom of this page:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Funny reading as well.


----------



## imaginator (10 September 2006)

Building 7 was said by the govt official statement that it collapsed because of fire. Yet it was recorded it only had small isolated fires in a few different floors. ANd no modern tower which has reinforced steel ever collapesed under fire in history. Even examples shown where fire burned the entire middle section of a tower where only the steel remains, after 18 hours of burning, the tower still stands!

And the engineers are saying it is impossible that fire could bring down those towers, it was clearly explosives/detonators (as in a demolition job).

Even the owner of Building 7 in an interview said "the chief fireman called me on the phone and said he is going to 'pull it'" (demolish it). So why does the official statement still say Bldg 7 was brought down by fire? And putting detonators in a building takes days of work, and how did they manage to linkt he building floor by floor with explosives when it was in fire, unless it was planted way before 9-11?
Even many firemen said there were secondary devices in the 2 towers, as isolated lower levels and the reception level was blown out (from within), but the 9-11 panel didnt release any of the firemen's statements.


----------



## Knobby22 (10 September 2006)

imaginator said:
			
		

> And the engineers are saying it is impossible that fire could bring down those towers, it was clearly explosives/detonators (as in a demolition job).




This was treated earlier in the thread. It clearly wasn't.
The engineers know precisely how the tower failed and they were aware of its weaknesses before the incident occurred. Beware of believing anything you read on the net without checking facts. 

Refer attached from an educated  source.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml


----------



## Happy (14 September 2006)

> From ABC,  September 14, 2006
> Syria sees chance to improve ties with US after attack
> 
> Syria suggested that its efforts in foiling a brazen daylight attack on the US embassy in Damascus could pave the way for an improvement in tense relations between the two nations.
> ...




From above quote suspicious mind can pick up something to fuel conspiracy theory.



> Syria suggested that its efforts in foiling a brazen daylight attack on the US embassy in Damascus could pave the way for an improvement in tense relations between the two nations.





Using the same way of sceptic approach, somebody could say what a coincidence? Could this be staged?

Of course bit off tract, but same approach.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 September 2006)

Syria is terrified of the US who could easily conquer the little country.
It is also very scared of Iran who believe the government should not be securlist nationalist Arab state  but should be part of it's Islam religous state, don't forget Syria was an ally of Iraq who was also a secularist arab state. 

Syria is trying to appease two elephants on its back fence at the same time.
If the US moved out of Iraq, then Syria will be next on the hit list for Iran.


----------



## money tree (2 November 2006)

Julia said:
			
		

> So will we now have the conspiracy theorists declaring that GWB had a chat with Osama and jacked up the whole thing?
> 
> Julia




Are you suggesting the U.S government and Osama have never made deals?

The U.S gov supplied Osama with all kinds of weapons during the 80's to defend Afghanistan against the ruskies in an attempt to stabilise the middle east. So is it possible they made another deal? of course:

http://crashy.zoto.com/user/image_d...21978419bf76-_CAT.0/date_uploaded-desc/120-30


----------



## Kimosabi (27 July 2007)

Well I thought this thread needs re-invigorating while the Ponzi Scheme called World Financial Markets and FIAT Currency's Scam starts unravelling before our eyes.

I have my own opinions as to what is going on in our world, the important thing for everyone else is to *do your own research*...

The key to all of this research is *FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!*

Anyway, what this thread is missing was some of the Major 9/11 Videos that have been produced. So here are some of the best I have come across to date:

*ZEITGEIST*, *The* *Movie*



> This one links Christianity, 9/11 and the Federal Reserve. If your Christian you might be offended by Part 1, Sources ==> http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/sources.htm



http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5547481422995115331


*They Want Your Soul*



> Good follow on from Zeitgeist




http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=209842906347732903


*THE* *TRUTH* & *LIES* *OF* *9*/*11*



> This is a great video. Links, CIA to Drugs, Wall Street, etc and also goes into the background events of 9/11




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145


*Terrorstorm Final Cut*



> Covers in detail the proven history of government sponsored terrorism, and focuses on the 7/7 London bombings and 9/11




http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183


*Loose Change 2nd Edition Recut*

http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501


*The Ultimate Con*



> This has no narration or conjecture, only news footage and interviews to tell *the* story




http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-751298171535560228


*Some good Federal Reserve/IRS Videos*


*America: Freedom to Fascism*



> Determined to find the law that requires American citizens to pay income tax, producer Aaron Russo ("The Rose," "Trading Places") set out on a journey to find the evidence. This film which is neither left, nor right-wing is a startling examination of government. It exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America since 1913 when the Federal Reserve system was fraudulently created. Through interviews with U.S.
> 
> Congressmen, a former IRS Commissioner, former IRS and FBI agents and tax attorneys and authors, Russo connects the dots between money creation, federal income tax, and the national identity card which becomes law in May 2008. This ID card will use Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips which are essentially homing devices used to track people. This film shows in great detail and undeniable facts that America is moving headlong into a fascist police state. Wake up!




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173


*Monopoly Men (Federal Reserve Fraud)* 



> The Federal Reserve, or the Fed as it is lovingly called, may be one of the most mysterious entities in modern American government. Created during Wilson's presidency to protect the economy in times of financial turmoil, its real business remains to be discovered. During the Wilson presidency, the U.S. government sanctions the creation of the Federal Reserve. Thought by many to be a government organization maintained to provide financial accountability in the event of a domestic depression, the actual business of the Fed is shrouded in secrecy.




http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7065177340464808778


----------



## metric (5 April 2009)

> Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
> Tags: 911
> Webmaster's Commentary:
> Folks, this is a major story and will be totally ignored by ABCNNBBCBS.
> ...




below link. to scientific analysis by an independent, repected lab...

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM


----------

