9/11 was a Hoax? - Do you believe this?

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

Michael 0701 said it best:

I think it's a toss up between who is the bigger idiot, the one who comes up with stuff like this or the one who actually buys into this drivel.

Well said!

People who come up with ka-ka like this and the people who buy into ka-ka like this are NOT necessarily idiots. They may also: be incredibly naive and impressionable, be badly deluded (including willfully self-deluded), have some ulterior motive, be on somebody's payroll, be drunk, be stoned on Lord-knows-what, be some form of bigot/racist with an axe to grind or be just plain NTB (not-too-bright).

(Of course, the above is just what we want you to think...I mean as a Zionist myself, I could get into a lot of trouble for saying what I've just said see, and....HEY! LET GO OF ME! WHY ARE YOU DRAGGING ME AWAY FROM MY COMPU....

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

I do not want to believe any of this article is true but if the information is correct it would raise some interesting questions. it doese bear close resemblence to the stories that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen to cause a surge of patiortism. It also reminds me of the story that alleges that JFK waskilled by members of the government including LBJ nad George Bush sr. i would have to think about it more and ask for more evidince before i would accept it without question.

or it could be just a piece of evil malicious gossip.

I think this sums up my view for the most part.
I'm not saying i believe it, but yes, if some of the information is true then it certainly raises some questions as to what on earth Bush thinks he is doing.

Also, please, rather than just saying "It's rubbish because it sounds absurd", why don't you actualy give some decent arguments against it?

The Pentagon thing is interesting, thanx for the info.. however what about the Cell phone calls? The fact is you *can't* use mobiles from inside a plane, they are shielded, just like cinemas are, so that you don't get signal.... that seems quite strange now that i think about it.

 

[seebs]

Today at 03:27 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #42
The Pentagon thing is interesting, thanx for the info.. however what about the Cell phone calls? The fact is you *can't* use mobiles from inside a plane, they are shielded, just like cinemas are, so that you don't get signal.... that seems quite strange now that i think about it.

No, that's not the "fact". The fact is that they *tell you not to*, because the cell phone can interfere with the plane's systems - theoretically, anyway. I know once accidentally turned my phone on in a plane, and it came up just fine. Keep in mind, cell phones can have a range in *miles*, especially if the view isn't very obstructed.

Note that most cinemas aren't shielded either; that's a relatively new idea, and it's not 100% widespread yet, cool though it might be.

It's all half-considered conspiracy theory nonsense. People make this stuff up, or someone says "what if" and it gets reported as if someone knows it to be true. Snopes probably covers a few of these.

 

[seebs]

Yesterday at 05:34 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #24

I'm not saying i DO believe it, it's just that some of the things are definatly facts.

Only sort of.

Liek the fact that they did know about the "attacks" days before they happened.

Er. Do you have ANY idea what intelligence agencies are dealing with?

They have, at any given time, a few HUNDRED reports of "attacks". These can be anything from some guy calling in to complain about the CIA's mind-control satellites, and asking the government to pay for his tinfoil hat, to reasonable and credible claims. Some of them happen. Some of them don't.

There's a big gap between having one report, buried among thousands, that *MIGHT* be true, and, after the fact, going back and looking at it.

Along wit the fact that they could and should have shot the planes down. Why did they not??

It's actually quite unclear that they had the time to shoot them down. The first hit would have been before anyone was clear on what was going on, and conventional wisdom, before the attacks, was that you "escorted" hijacked planes, but didn't resist them.

Would you, personally, be able to pull the trigger on ~200 innocent people, *before* having seen planes hitting buildings?

"Theoretically possible that they could have been there soon enough" and "realistically possible that they could have done so, and would have known what to do" are very different things.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

Yeah, i know. Thanx for your input mate.

Edit: whoops, u answered that while i was typing

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Of course it was a hoax!
So was the holocaust. I don't know who made up that nonsense about the Germans killing Jews in WW II.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

LOL

 

[Mr.Cheese]

Hehe.

 

[WayneH]

have to admit one thing - was good for a laugh .......

phones can be used - We were recently flying home and the air port was fogged in so our plane was diverted to NY..... spoemone with us used her phone to call home as well as several of us did the same thing - we all used her phone becasue she had nation to nation calling............

I'll only echo many of the other things said about proofs - as well as echo the shooting the planes down.. no way will they shoot down a plane that went missing on radar - not a passenger jet liner..

aqs for saying anything else - not worth the time to comment against this anymore then whats been said

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

Er. Do you have ANY idea what intelligence agencies are dealing with?

They have, at any given time, a few HUNDRED reports of "attacks". These can be anything from some guy calling in to complain about the CIA's mind-control satellites, and asking the government to pay for his tinfoil hat, to reasonable and credible claims. Some of them happen. Some of them don't.

There's a big gap between having one report, buried among thousands, that *MIGHT* be true, and, after the fact, going back and looking at it.

I know, but they still knew about it. So what if they have about 100 reports at any given time? How many people do they have working for them??! Quite a few hundred you'd think..
I'd guess that this kind of report would be a high priority issue to deal with, out of the 100. Since they did get more than one report from more than one source, and planes being flown into the WTC is not exactly a minor detail, AND they know it was possible before they got those reports.

I really don't know, i'm hardly an expert on the American Defence Agencies.
The above story does seem very extreme, and obviously you have to read it with a critical mind... it does make me think though.
I really don't think that *any* Government is inclined to tell the public about *most* of what goes on behind the scenes... even things that may concern us! The have the power to keep anything secret from us, so why wouldn't they? Bush isn't perfect, neither is Blair...

 

[Michael0701]

"have to admit one thing - was good for a laugh ....... "

It was kinda hard for me to laugh about, I lost a friend in tower #2, Officer John Skala, a hero in the true sense of the word, he gave his own life to save others.

 

[WayneH]

Michael - Sorry for the loss - I didn't mean a laugh in the sense that things that happened were funny in any way shape or form... They were not.... like its been said - everyone was touched by someone that died...... not only did someone that worked in our Rec Council die there - a Company I used to work for had 3 or 4 floors near the top.............

What was meant was a laugh in the sarcastic way - to how could anyone believe such a thing and so on......... believe Me - I do not think what happened was a laughing matter in a funny sense......... God Bless you - and yes there were many true HEROs that day..........

 

[JesusServant]

I don't believe anything that the OP says except the fact that our government knew something was going to happen. Of course they knew it was coming, but there wasn't much they could do about it. They didn't know when or who and without that, you don't have much hope of stopping it.

 

[tamtam92]

I must admit I'm undecided... because in our wourld everyone is lying. I believe the two towers collapsed, that the pentagon was shot, that there's a war in Iraq, ... But I don't know much more... i'm totally puzzled. No way to check the facts.
I've seen photos showing there couldn't have been a crash on a pentagon... but who says they're real ?
Now I'm skeptical about everything...

The only thing I know is I don't believe any politician now, neither Bush nor Chirac nor Blair nor Hussein nor Putin (!) nor Shroeder etc etc ...

 

[seebs]

Today at 11:23 AM tamtam92 said this in Post #54

I must admit I'm undecided... because in our wourld everyone is lying. I believe the two towers collapsed, that the pentagon was shot, that there's a war in Iraq, ... But I don't know much more... i'm totally puzzled. No way to check the facts.
I've seen photos showing there couldn't have been a crash on a pentagon... but who says they're real ?
Now I'm skeptical about everything...

The only thing I know is I don't believe any politician now, neither Bush nor Chirac nor Blair nor Hussein nor Putin (!) nor Shroeder etc etc ...

The photos don't show there "couldn't have been a crash". They show that the people doing the site don't know much about jet crashes.

 

[seebs]

Today at 09:16 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #50
I know, but they still knew about it. So what if they have about 100 reports at any given time? How many people do they have working for them??! Quite a few hundred you'd think..

They didn't *know* about it. They had a *report* about it, which may have been wrong in substantial details, and no particular reason to believe that report to be true.

I'd guess that this kind of report would be a high priority issue to deal with, out of the 100. Since they did get more than one report from more than one source, and planes being flown into the WTC is not exactly a minor detail, AND they know it was possible before they got those reports.

I just don't think you have a clear understanding of what intelligence agencies have to do.

Let's see if we can create an analogy.

Let's sit you down at a desk. On the desk, we will place 500 pieces of paper. Each of these pieces of paper contains a simple cryptogram; just a substitution cypher. You can easily decode one in perhaps five or ten minutes. Each of these pieces of paper contains one statement which may be either true or false. There is a single set of true statements which are consistent, and form one of those logic puzzles full of stuff like "the man in the green house does not live next to the German", and "the woman in the red house drives the Ferarri".

You have one day. Can you tell me who lives in what house, and what car they drive?

"The information did exist" and "we knew it to be true" are not the same thing, and there are many, many, other credible reports to deal with at any given time. They can't just evacuate every building they think MIGHT be in danger.

I guess, you're acting as though they had a detailed plan of the attack, time, date, names of people involved, and a confirmation that this exact story was the true one. It ain't that easy. When we say they "knew" what would happen, it's more like saying that Chamberlain "knew" what would happen if people appeased Germany. He'd been told that there would be a war, and that it would be worse, but he'd also been told many, many, other things, and he didn't have any special foreknowledge of which ones were real.

I really don't know, i'm hardly an expert on the American Defence Agencies.
The above story does seem very extreme, and obviously you have to read it with a critical mind... it does make me think though.
I really don't think that *any* Government is inclined to tell the public about *most* of what goes on behind the scenes... even things that may concern us! The have the power to keep anything secret from us, so why wouldn't they? Bush isn't perfect, neither is Blair...

The main thing keping secrets from being kept very well is the sheer number of people involved in most of them.

 

[humanimal]

Yesterday at 11:09 PM S Walch said this in Post #16

Just because someone says their a christian doesn't mean they are.

If he was a christian would he have gone to war so quick?

I know I wouldn't - and I know none of the people at my church wouldn't.

Quick????

12 years.

You were 4 when this started...

 

[Bodidily]

I'm with the majority on this one.. That article is rubbish. You never heard of conspiracy theorists? Guys that sit and make up this garbage cos they have nothing better to do with their lives. The Internet is a place for these idiots to spread their lies quickly and easily.

Did Neil Armstrong really land on the moon or was that staged too?
Was one of The Beetles (i forget which, Ringo i think) really killed early in their career and had a "double" for all appearances after that? With all proceeding album covers and lyrics giving little clues as to his death?

There are many more stories like this, i only gave 2 examples. But who are you going to believe? Your nations goverment, independant news corperations and so on, or the idiots that waste their lives scraping around in the dirt to find the slightest thing to back up their mad ramblings?

 

[Bodidily]

If he was a christian would he have gone to war so quick?

I know I wouldn't - and I know none of the people at my church wouldn't.

Actually ste... I go to "your church" (surely it's God's?) and i agree with the war and would have finished sadaam off the first time round... not waited 12 years.

 

[S Walch]

Today at 08:41 PM Bodidily said this in Post #59



Actually ste... I go to "your church" (surely it's God's?) and i agree with the war and would have finished sadaam off the first time round... not waited 12 years.

Oh I agree that he should've finished Saddam off the first time round - and I hope that they can this time.

BUT - I do wish there was another way they might've tried first before rushing into this war - instead of not allowing the inspectors the time they said they needed to be sure.

Sorry - I'll change that to the "church I go to".

I'll pop this question into the thread:

Would this war still have had to have gone through if Saddam had been finished off 12 years ago?

Or would we have found ourselves in a bigger war that was started by somebody who filled Saddam's shoes?