Lindos Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Assuming the BBC aren't in on it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beakerzoid Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Best rebuttal of Lose Change EVER -----> http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons (Warning....contains strong language) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angle20 Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Do keep up! It was exposed as a load of rubbish on that "Conspiracy" programme on BBC2 the other week. It is commendable that BBC2 has given an airing to this -and other - conspiracy topics. Discussing 9/11 conspiracies today is a bit like how discussion of Lady Chatterley's Lover must have been in 1960. It's impossible to cover the ground satisfactorily in an hour long programme as some of the individual topics within 9/11 probably need an hour in order to explore them in depth. The programme did come up with one or two rebuttals: such as the distance between the lake and the crash site in Pennsylvania, but on the other hand it lamely glossed over issues such as the failure to launch interceptions. Given the long list of circumstantially implausible things concerning 9/11 I remain a sceptic, taking a 'LIHOP plus' view (LIHOP = let it happen on purpose). My take on it is that: (1) there was an Al Qaeda plot to fly planes into the Twin Towers; (2) the American authorities knew about this beforehand but decided to let it happen (as a sort of new Pearl Harbour to launch a 'New American Century' of aggression against Arab and other states which do not bend to Washington's will, and to gain public acceptance for increased surveillance and loss of civil liberties within western countries); (3) in addition to letting it happen the American government decided to sex it up a bit. The Twin Towers were rigged with explosives in order to bring about a visually dramatic collapse: a propaganda photo opportunity (bearing in mind that the towers were nearing a stage where, because of asbestos problems which it was not financially viable to remedy, they would need to demolished anyway). The other two 'attacks' - flights 77 and 93 were staged add-ons. It's impossible to look at the detail of the Pentagon attack and take it seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Oh No! Here we go again! Have a search through this forum and you will see that every one of the silly conspiracies can even be dealt with by the people of Sheffield, let alone the brains of the entire world. The programme the other day DID deal with the problems in launching intercepting aircraft in a wholly convincing and accurate way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Does any one if a recent update has been recieved about this? We seem to have been so sidetracked by the Iraq war that we have forgotten what started it to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 I suppose the Americans didnt land on the moon either? When will people realise,that when anything happens,the conspiacy theorists are sharpening the knives before the dust has settled. We all saw the footage,the subsequent pics of the hijackers boarding the plane,the recordings of the people who were phoning home. get a grip on reality,do you really think that the US government would kill 3000 people?And did the Australian government kill all those in Bali?The same for the Spanish in Madrid? I realise Bush is complete fruitcake,but would he really resort to murder? people see what they want to see,and im afraid you are blind! Anyone who has taken the time to research 9/11 will tell you that it was about money and plenty of it. did you know that the twin towers were actually filled with asbestos and had been condemed to come down?did you also know that many offices as a result were empty. did you also know they were sold only months before 9/11 then double insured against terrorist attacks,the insurance has now payed out billions. did you know building 7 was never hit but came down in the same fashion as the towers? this building had had some floors blast proofed and its own air supply put in, in the run up to 9/11 dont you think that its very strange that the terrorists decided to hit the only empty part of the pentagon with a dissapearing 757? Dont you also think that its the only part of the pentagon that was nearing completion on strenthening work. You might also find it strange to learn that the bush family and the binladen family were in buisness together for many years. some of the buisnesses they controlled were...Demolition,and weapons factories. And as for the recorded phone calls what codswallop,a bloke on an answering machine who left a message for his mum saying,"its me NAME your son" as if! Bush actually lost the election,it was only his brother jeb that conjured the figures and then a u turn I could go on ,i say look and you will see,if you dont want to see thats your choice but atleast make informed statments not crap your repeating from corperate tv. You saw exactly what they wanted you to see. The word "sheep comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 There were many people on here saying that it was in fact an attack by hijacked aircraft. Some of these same people are now slagging off Tony Blair for attacking the countries where these people came from. What is the true situation here? Does any one know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 There were many people on here saying that it was in fact an attack by hijacked aircraft. Some of these same people are now slagging off Tony Blair for attacking the countries where these people came from. Wrong, not a single one of the hijackers came from either Afghanistan or Iraq. Of course Al Qaeda was obviously based in Afghanistan and being given shelter by the Taliban regime (and I personally supported invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban for that reason). Far from being an ally of Al Qaeda Saddam, who was a secular leader, was an avowed enemy of it and was completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
High5 Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 We are all but pawns in this game of life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted June 22, 2007 Share Posted June 22, 2007 Wrong, not a single one of the hijackers came from either Afghanistan or Iraq. Of course Al Qaeda was obviously based in Afghanistan and being given shelter by the Taliban regime (and I personally supported invading Afghanistan and taking out the Taliban for that reason). Far from being an ally of Al Qaeda Saddam, who was a secular leader, was an avowed enemy of it and was completely uninvolved in the 9/11 attacks. The reason for the attack on Iraq seems to have been lost in the mists of time. Given the vastness of the desert and Saddam's evil, can anyone ever be sure he did not have the weapons he was accused of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.