• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rich Man's Trick

Childlike Empress said:
You failed to point out the remains of the large jetliner you maintain penetrated the Pentagon in the videos you want us to believe you watched with an open eye.

I feel insulted by your expressed chutzpah, bro.
Click to expand...
Is that what you want? You need pictures of the aircraft? You've seen them, they were inside. There is also photos from the FBI investigation files that show burnt bodies.

How much more do you need?

Does this help?

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/10/clamorosa-fotografia-inedita-dal.html
 
Last edited:
JSanderO said:
As such... I find that 9/11 makes "sense" as blowback... Western policies and activities created the response we call 9/11. It was a push back.. a sort of insurrection by the oppressed... It was the people who the powers that be identified as a threat.. an enemy.. because they MADE them into one.... which conspired to do 9/11. Isn't rebellion and push back or blow back inevitable at some point? How much oppression can anyone or group take?
Click to expand...

The blowback theory is not quite as nutty as the inside job theory, but it's far from sane. Remember, both Ward Churchill and Reverend Wright endorsed blowback (aka chickens coming home to roost).

Osama's fatwa against the United States did not mention exploitation of resources or people; it said not a word about slavery, wage or otherwise. The three reasons listed (in order):

1. The stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
2. The sanctions regime against Iraq.
3. US support for Israel.

You can argue that 2 and 3 are blowback for oppression. The obvious problem is that none of the hijackers and none of the major leaders of al Qaeda were Iraqi or Palestinian, while a large number of both were Saudi nationals.

Looked at with a critical eye, the obvious conclusion is that 1 was the main reason for the 9-11 (and embassy) attacks, and the reason that rankled was not oppression but religious fundamentalism. The presence of US troops on sacred soil was seen as offensive to Allah.

It is also hard to argue that a lot of the guys involved in the planning and operation of the 9-11 attacks were truly oppressed. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire contractor, al-Zawahiri was a surgeon as was his father, Atta was the son of a lawyer, Ziad Jarrah was born into a wealthy family.

As for the video, holy crap 3.5 hours? No way.
 
ozeco41 said:
My position unchanged for years. I think that there are many aspects of the socio political situation that have not been adequately addressed.
AND one big factor - possibly the biggest - is that the truth movement had been its own worst enemy.
Pursuing silly claims for CD. The AE911 strategy the most obvious and a dead set recipe for a political loss. "This looks like CD THEREFORE we demand a New Investigation". Anyone trying a political influence move would be well advised to NEVER feed the politicians with an easy way out. Especially when the issue will not be popular.

There never has been the slightest case for CD claims and most politicians being pressured for a new investigation are bound to look at the supporting argument, seek reasonable advice, identify the nonsense of CD and drop the issue.

Then you resort to false generalisations which are a common procedural fault in truther claims. You say "is almost as good as understanding that the official story is bogus." and you put that nonsense on par with "understanding that the event was exploited". Give us a break. At the least drop the false global claim to make it appear that you are partially rational "[some/many/a lot/a few] of the findings of the official story are wrong."
The instant you resort to global or exclusive claims (most/many/lots of ;) ) intelligent readers will switch off.

And you do yourself further disservice by quoting me THEN making this false GLOBAL assertion with the inference that it includes me: I have not relied on official stories or official reasoning since my second week on the Internet - late Nov. 2007. Many do - I don't and it is a deliberate long term choice.

No comment needed on the remaining two issues:
Click to expand...

1. Absolutely. They appear to be, in places such as this, not to be topics of discussion that the majority of members like to discuss that much. Those very same members who don't want to discuss it then find it weird that other members ask questions and are directed by curiosities, such as, Knowing What Actually Happened. Let alone the basic human fact that we look for answers because uncertainty, particularly in complex events, is not very enjoyable.

2. A high percentage of them have, yes.

3. Absolutely. It is another area where a lot of discussion is not wanted here by and large by the majority of regulars in this forum. Once a lie has been established, the Benefit of the Doubt bestowed upon the government just takes a step back and reasserts itself.

4. That's good to hear. I wish that mentality was universal among your peers on your side of the fence though.
 
Brainster said:
The blowback theory is not quite as nutty as the inside job theory, but it's far from sane. Remember, both Ward Churchill and Reverend Wright endorsed blowback (aka chickens coming home to roost).

Osama's fatwa against the United States did not mention exploitation of resources or people; it said not a word about slavery, wage or otherwise. The three reasons listed (in order):

1. The stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
2. The sanctions regime against Iraq.3. US support for Israel.
You can argue that 2 and 3 are blowback for oppression. The obvious problem is that none of the hijackers and none of the major leaders of al Qaeda were Iraqi or Palestinian, while a large number of both were Saudi nationals.

Looked at with a critical eye, the obvious conclusion is that 1 was the main reason for the 9-11 (and embassy) attacks, and the reason that rankled was not oppression but religious fundamentalism. The presence of US troops on sacred soil was seen as offensive to Allah.

It is also hard to argue that a lot of the guys involved in the planning and operation of the 9-11 attacks were truly oppressed. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire contractor, al-Zawahiri was a surgeon as was his father, Atta was the son of a lawyer, Ziad Jarrah was born into a wealthy family.

As for the video, holy crap 3.5 hours? No way.
Click to expand...

That is clear as day blowback for U.S. Foreign Policy. I understand why governments tend to refuse to officially acknowledge that blowback is a common element in the world, but what I don't understand is why adults fall for that line of "thinking". Perhaps a lack of empathy? The no-blowback theory is torpedoed by inserting oneself into the shoes of those who are angry I.e. introducing empathy. One can make it a more personal example, like the analogy I've used on people on the Internet and in real life who subscribe to the no-blowback theory.

I live in Michigan, just a few hours away from Canada. If the U.S. was attacked by Canada, be it as a retaliation or the initiation of hostilities, and friends and family I very much care about were killed as a result of Canadian bombs, I would be driven to take up arms against Canada. There is no justification the Canadians could come up with, real or imagined, that would sate my hatred for them and a desire to wage armed conflict upon them. I wouldn't care if it was in their geopolitical interest or in the interest of their self-defense. They bomb my friends and family and they're counting me on their enemy list from thereon in. Other people are the same way. Bombs or bullets from someone has killed people they loved. Anger and hatred ensue. Basic human nature.

The Arab world has watched as U.S. money and arms have gone to Israel and scores of Palestinians have died from the use of U.S. aid. This obviously upsets people. Why would anyone think otherwise? Then we have U.S. sanctions on Iraq. Lots of people, including a whole bunch of kids, died as a result. People remember the "it was worth it" line from Madeline Albright. Why wouldn't these facts upset people?
 
Childlike Empress said:
You failed to point out the remains of the large jetliner you maintain penetrated the Pentagon in the videos you want us to believe you watched with an open eye.

I feel insulted by your expressed chutzpah, bro.
Click to expand...

lolz, those videos (that show debris all over the lawn) also have xray vision to show the vast majority of the plane in the building?

Solid analysis by a fan of Craig and Aldo.
 
I began this thread because I don't see 9/11 as black and white... at least in terms of the response / performance of the US gov... the MIC and the national security state. It appears to me that part of the story was that the gov and the media did not look into the causes of the attack... "they hate us because of our freedoms" Oh really??? Maybe they hate us because of something we did? And if hate is too strong... and slamming planes into buildings will not solve their problems... why do people do such insane things?

I think the truth movement refuses to accept the very real nature of terrorism... it exists and it is a tool of the weaker used against the stronger. Western policies have given birth to terrorism.

Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 only made things worse.. The US polices need to change... or be reviewed. Why are we so aggressive around the world?

We didn't have to do 9/11... we pissed off enough people such that sooner or later they would do it on their own. And the sad thing is our MIC was cool with it because they got more money weapons systems and wars to fight.
 
Jango said:
1. Absolutely. They appear to be, in places such as this, not to be topics of discussion that the majority of members like to discuss that much. Those very same members who don't want to discuss it then find it weird that other members ask questions and are directed by curiosities, such as, Knowing What Actually Happened. Let alone the basic human fact that we look for answers because uncertainty, particularly in complex events, is not very enjoyable.
Click to expand...
my main interest area in 9/11 is WTC collapses - fits my career expertise - civil/structural engineer and qualified as military engineer including demolition. My main purpose is explaining WTC collapses to those who lack the engineering/physics expertise. I'm not much into winning arguments.

I have long divided the 9/11 events into "Technical domain" - e.g. "why did it collapse?" and "Was it CD?" and "Socio/political domain" - the who did or caused what - behavioural aspects. The two are IMO separable. Simply put "Was there CD?" is a technical question independent of who planned CD, who bought the devices, who placed them and who pushed the big red tit. (That is the simple version - I can finesse it if ever necessary.)

My big disappointment in the technical arena is the lack of interest in explaining the last few remaining complicated bits. Those include the suite of "arguments" related to the Twin Towers collapse initiation stage and the issues of axial impact of falling top bits of columns on their bottom bits. A nonsensical assumption. Never happened. And result of the misdirections arising from Bazant and Zhou's 2001/2 "Limit Case" argument. PLUS other erroneous extensions of it by Bazant and many others. T Szamboti's "Missing Jolt" arguably the most prominent faulty claim arising from that wrong starting assumption. I'm very much in the minority calling that lot "errors". Never did "Modesty 101" at Uni. :o

Jango said:
2. A high percentage of them have, yes.
Click to expand...
Noted.
Jango said:
3. Absolutely. It is another area where a lot of discussion is not wanted here by and large by the majority of regulars in this forum. Once a lie has been established, the Benefit of the Doubt bestowed upon the government just takes a step back and reasserts itself.
Click to expand...
Objectivity not a strong point for either "side" especially these days. The demography on forums was not polarised that way back in my early days 2007 on. Now it is strongly two way polarised either "black" or "white". When I started posting it was four way demographics and a lot of shades of grey between the extremes. The terms "truther" and "debunker" were not in use then - they presume polarisation into extreme camps positions.
Jango said:
4. That's good to hear. I wish that mentality was universal among your peers on your side of the fence though.
Click to expand...
So do I. The playing field is far from level and I have little time for poor argument from either side.
 
JSanderO said:
Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 only made things worse.. The US polices need to change... or be reviewed. Why are we so aggressive around the world?
Click to expand...

Why has there been fighting in the middle east for thousands of years? Should we just keep to ourselves or do we have world wide interests?

Why is this in 9/11 conspiracies?
 
Brainster said:
The blowback theory is not quite as nutty as the inside job theory, but it's far from sane. Remember, both Ward Churchill and Reverend Wright endorsed blowback (aka chickens coming home to roost).

Osama's fatwa against the United States did not mention exploitation of resources or people; it said not a word about slavery, wage or otherwise. The three reasons listed (in order):

1. The stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
2. The sanctions regime against Iraq.
3. US support for Israel.

You can argue that 2 and 3 are blowback for oppression. The obvious problem is that none of the hijackers and none of the major leaders of al Qaeda were Iraqi or Palestinian, while a large number of both were Saudi nationals.

Looked at with a critical eye, the obvious conclusion is that 1 was the main reason for the 9-11 (and embassy) attacks, and the reason that rankled was not oppression but religious fundamentalism. The presence of US troops on sacred soil was seen as offensive to Allah.

It is also hard to argue that a lot of the guys involved in the planning and operation of the 9-11 attacks were truly oppressed. Bin Laden was the son of a billionaire contractor, al-Zawahiri was a surgeon as was his father, Atta was the son of a lawyer, Ziad Jarrah was born into a wealthy family.

As for the video, holy crap 3.5 hours? No way.
Click to expand...

Blowback is simply an unexpected "violent" response to us actions abroad... It can be supporting Israel who oppresses Palestinians, or any policy which pisses of people in those countries.

The actual hijackers were obviously crazy... and recruited because they thought they would be famous or whatever stupid reason crazy people do crazy things... People are manipulated... thousands in the US sign up to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan... manipulated just the same.

These people are power freaks and use people... they are no personally oppressed... just fanatics and power freaks... like the Pope in a way...
 
JSanderO said:
I began this thread because I don't see 9/11 as black and white... at least in terms of the response / performance of the US gov... the MIC and the national security state. It appears to me that part of the story was that the gov and the media did not look into the causes of the attack... "they hate us because of our freedoms" Oh really??? Maybe they hate us because of something we did? And if hate is too strong... and slamming planes into buildings will not solve their problems... why do people do such insane things?

I think the truth movement refuses to accept the very real nature of terrorism... it exists and it is a tool of the weaker used against the stronger. Western policies have given birth to terrorism.
Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 only made things worse.. The US polices need to change... or be reviewed. Why are we so aggressive around the world?
We didn't have to do 9/11... we pissed off enough people such that sooner or later they would do it on their own. And the sad thing is our MIC was cool with it because they got more money weapons systems and wars to fight.
Click to expand...

1. Some maybe do, while others see that the security services have an unusual and uncomfortable relationship with terrorists. Look how many the F.B.I. has entrapped in terrorists plots. An informant pitches the idea and suggests doing something and where to get the supplies to do what they want, and when the dupes go to collect, here comes the SWAT teams to nab 'em. The high profile attacks from the last three decades starting with the '93 WTC bombing up to the Boston Marathon bombing all have the same reports of the security services either interacting with the soon to be terrorist or knowing about the soon to be terrorist. But there have been a lot of terrorist attacks against the U.S. where those conditions did not exist. The Fuerzas Armadas de Liberación Nacional Puertorriqueña (FALN) are an example of that. They caught the F.B.I. flatfooted and carried out several legitimate surprise terrorist attacks.

2. It is broader than that -- government has given rise to terrorism is more applicable.

3. U.S. primacy, businesses, trade, resource acquisition and allies require defending.

4. Another coincidence.
 
Jango said:
The high profile attacks from the last three decades starting with the '93 WTC bombing up to the Boston Marathon bombing all have the same reports of the security services either interacting with the soon to be terrorist or knowing about the soon to be terrorist.
Click to expand...

This is where you bring this to the thread in conspiracy theories and make your case.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256876

I can't wait.................

Bring it on......:)
 
Jango said:
... The high profile attacks from the last three decades starting with the '93 WTC bombing up to the Boston Marathon bombing all have the same reports of the security services either interacting with the soon to be terrorist or knowing about the soon to be terrorist. ...
Click to expand...
What a load of BS. Did you make the mistake of watching the OP video, it is a complete BS. Did you get infected by the video
 
Childlike Empress said:
With all due respect, I say you are in deep denial about the actual facts. What happens when a large passenger plane flies full speed against a wall we just have had to witness with the germanwings tragedy. None of this was seen on the Pentagon lawn. "Conspiracists" this or that, the story is over.
Click to expand...
911 truth followers don't understand physics; is that due to political bias. Physics debunks the lie about 77. Plus the videos show parts, just like germanwings. 911 truth followers might need glasses, they fail to see thousands of aircraft parts on the Pentagon lawn.

The germanwing impact was equal to 587 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy... less energy, bigger parts.

Flight 77 impact equal to 1215 pounds of TNT in kinetic energy... smaller part, more destruction.

Simple physics debunks the lie of no Flight 77. Radar helps, as does finding the FDR in the Pentagon, which entered the Pentagon though a hole the fuselage made because the landing gear are super strong, guess you don't understand aircraft and crash science. USC offers a course, you could learn.

What lies in the video inspired the posting of lies about 77?
 
JSanderO said:
I began this thread because I don't see 9/11 as black and white... at least in terms of the response / performance of the US gov... the MIC and the national security state. It appears to me that part of the story was that the gov and the media did not look into the causes of the attack... "they hate us because of our freedoms" Oh really??? Maybe they hate us because of something we did? And if hate is too strong... and slamming planes into buildings will not solve their problems... why do people do such insane things?
I think the truth movement refuses to accept the very real nature of terrorism... it exists and it is a tool of the weaker used against the stronger. Western policies have given birth to terrorism.

Attacking Afghanistan and Iraq post 9/11 only made things worse.. The US polices need to change... or be reviewed. Why are we so aggressive around the world?

We didn't have to do 9/11... we pissed off enough people such that sooner or later they would do it on their own. And the sad thing is our MIC was cool with it because they got more money weapons systems and wars to fight.
Click to expand...

72 virgins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom