Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
All the evidence suggests he wasnt responsible.
he's still alive, isn't he?
responsible. the people who crashed the planes were.
somebody did it and I don't think it was an 'inside' job but we'll never ever know sadly
or the american government "allowed" it to happen.
until i realised it was ridiculous.
the us government capitalised on it, but could not have allowed it to happen.
of people who would have to be in on the conspiracy .... it's implausible that it could be kept secret
....that's what they thought you'd think. Aaaaaaaaah
i used to argue with this mate of mine about iraq and if i mentioned al-zarqawi he'd say 'well, you've discredit yourself there - zarqawi is a US fabrication'
occam's razor innit.
but its true.
at the number of internet einsteins who genuinely believe every member of the Bush administration is mentally subnormal.
Stupid joke. I apologise.
I wasn't sure if you were serious.
Just sort of typing the first thing that came into my head. As you do...
you are wrong.
Fits perfectly together, and would blow your little mind.
p.s whats wrong with loose change ?
p.p.s I genuinly do have a theory that I believe to be correct, I wasnt joking.
it involves one big, fat, rich guy, that isnt george W bush.
is that it draws false conclusions, and, more importantly, lies. a lot. it makes big lies. not little half truths. it actually out and out says things which are 100% contrary to fact; the comments about there not being any photos of large wreckage from the pentagon crash site and the one about no buildings being destroyed by fire in the last however many years spring to mind as immediate examples; those things simply are not true. comically, it also makes suggestions that are just ridiculous; theres a classic one where he talks about how rumsfeld was 'conveniently' on the other side of the pentagon to the crash site... it doesnt mention that theres a very good reason for this; his office is on the other side of the building. generally, its a very misleading video; it obscures the truth in places, lies in others, and makes faulty conclusions in others which if you actually think about them for a while, really are not true.
there are several very good guides to it on the internet that go through it and point out the misinformation step by step, referencing sources that actually, well, exist and are grounded in reality. which is a step up from loose change.
they knew they'd get more publicity the more outrageous they went so they came up with the most ridiculous stories, then find one little detail that might back it up and use that as evidence, im unsure over whether the loose change guys actually believe most of what they said.
it's a self-inflicted wound, self-inflicted wound, self-inflicted wound
yeah sing it baby
actually report Lord Lucan and Elvis flying the Loch Ness monster into the Pentagon. The wreckage on the site is consistent with an impact from a large prehistoric reptile when viewed on digitally enhanced YouTube footage.
People can't actually post their own clips. Everything you watch on there is acted out by Jewish reptilian overlords under numerous layers of makeup.
at the moon landing set.
I think the Queen's in on it as well... being a lizard an' all
It says so on my profile. I'm amazed nobody's found me yet.
that BBC2 thing in it? the loose change guy just looked like a fool.
anyone making sarcastic comments about conspiracy theories is actually being made to do it.
by asking what was wrong with it.
what is your amazing conspiracy theory? im genuinely fascinated to hear it.
ive seen it but i knew not to take it completely seriously, as with all of these theories. I was just wanted to know the exact misinformation in the film.
Monbiot is almost right, but hes a boring writer.
In fact, he's also involved in my conspiracy theory.
My conspiracy theory is so great that even im not in on the conspiracy.
this is a joke thread, yes(_)?
I wanted to get a reaction from the politicians amongst us.
But also, my conspiracy theory is so monuemental and epic in scope, that im gonna make it into a screenplay and get mega-rich.
purely for its ridiculous irrelevance.
is the buildings falling down.
i know there is meant to be an explaination with the steel losing half it's strength, but why are there so few example of building falling down like that why did those ones. This especially applies to the other WT7 tower. I've heard it said that WT7 fell beacause it caught on fire and that the other tower dropped lots of heavey debris on it. but in the same side of the agrument, the twin towers must have fallen straight down because of simple graviational physics, so none of the heavey debris should have reached WT7?
also there are images of thermite reactions as the buildings fall, which is very suspicious, and the fires raged much hotter longer than you would have expected. the heat expecially is contentious, because temperatures above 1400 degrees centigrade were measured in the rubble, yet nothing should have been able to trigger that sort of heat.
it's full of factual errors.
people lap it up
thought that documentary focussed on completely implausible suggestions.
I have my own ideas, and yes_ I would like to see that as a screenplay, but to just blame it on Osama is just too easy.
I know we're all made to think that the US government are too stupid to carry out such atrocities, which may be true, but really, who do you think is more capable, the US government or some pissed off muslims in a cave somewhere?
I personally think that the US government let it happen, rather than causing it. I personally believe that the US and UK governments both have their hands tied by the banks, stock markets and various corporations.
I base that on the complete lack of transparency when it comes to company ownership and shareholder dealings
Even when he clearly has the funds and the training network in place to carry out such an attack, and has claimed responsibility for it?
"we're all made to think that the US government are too stupid to carry out such atrocities"
Are we? I'm not made to think that at all. Anyone who thinks the US government is "stupid" has a child's understanding of the world. The problem with the "Yanks did it to themselves" argument is not one of logistical and strategic capability.
whether they "let" it happen (in the way that Roosevelt (allegedly) allowed the Pearl Harbor attack to go ahead to win public support for the US entering WWII)... or whether they just didn't believe anyone could pull it off, so ignored the threat.
that the US government and FBI etc were just massively incompetent, look at what happened after Katrina for another example of massive incompetence running right through the government.
Also with any other attacks which have happened before, theres usually a point where the thing could have been prevented but human error or negligence means these are the times when they actually get carried out.
1) it is not a conspiracy, AQ did do it
2) It is perfectly plausible that the US is incompetant, warnings and alerts are regularly ignored, the UK spectacularly ignored a warning from the captain of hms endurance about argentina and the falklands the year previous to the argentinian move on them.......this was on an actual documentary broadcast by the bbc before the argentinians occuption.
3) what exactly is this suggestion about explosive devices being put into the towers pre airstikes?.....I suspect it is nonsense
evactuated for an "emergency" drill a few weeks before the incident.
The owner dude took out a 2 billion dollar insurance policy the week before the incident, specifically covering acts of terrorism.
but thats just what loose change told me.
Anyway, my conspiracy that the world is effectively run by one guy is the best.
"the UK spectacularly ignored a warning from the captain of hms endurance about argentina and the falklands the year previous to the argentinian move on them"
Yes, this was ignored, but not due to incompetence. The Thatcher government were flagging in the polls and NEEDED the Falklands War to be re-elected. I would go as far as to say the Tory government actually inflamed the situation to make war more likely.
And it worked. Everyone got their union jacks out and voted Tory at the next election...
is no-one's ever given me a plausible motive for killing over 3,000 people. Sure the "War on Terror" has obviously been profitable to some but I believe that a conspiracy theory is silly simply 'cos it's a needlessly elaborate plan with too many risks involved (both in terms of the plan going wrong and in terms of being caught out). Even if it was in someone's interests to kill 3,000 people and making it look like terrorism then there are much more sensible ways of doing it that are more efficient and risk-free ways of doing it.
Realisitically all the evidence suggests that some men did hijack the planes and die in the subsequent crashes (this is born out by accounts from the victims to their loved ones, who obviously wouldn't have been lying). If they did not do this for religious reasons, why would they give up their lives? It's not as if a financial reward could compensate for being dead. Plus why would the US government sub-contract such an important part of this conspiracy when it'd be far easier and more reliable to just cause a big explosion themselves and have done with it.
Whilst I do not doubt some used what happened on 9/11 for their own ends, the conspiracy theories make no sense. And, in terms of the unanswered questions, it's pretty obvious the CIA doesn't tell the media everything (for security reasons as much as anything) so I dare say there' things that just aren't on public knowledge.
I'm not sure to what extent I beleive Bin Laden was directly involved in the attacks - I've heard some suggest that Al Quaeda isn't a coherent movement but a group of dispirate individuals with shared interests - but I do believe that Al Quaeda (in whatever form they exist) were the people who caused the explosions.
I think part of the problem is that many on the left-wing of the political spectrum (whcih I am myself btw so this isn't meant as a condemnation of left-wing politics) seem to feel a need to believe that America is the cause of all evil in the world and find it difficult to reconcile the facts that
a) bad stuff happens that America does not carry out of have a hand in
b) just 'cos someone is anti-American does not imply they're in any way 'good' people.
I kind of agree but
this might be some kind of motive
as for using hijacked planes rather than a bomb; the whole symbolism of a secret hidden enemy that can turn apparently benign objects into battle weapons has enormous potency and potential when it comes to subjugating the people
the symbolism of using those benign objects to take out the Pentagon and twin towers has obvious 'attacking the cornerstones of America' connotations (and a little less obvious masonic ones too if you wish to go down that route) that would signify and lead to a kind of modern American patriotism that hadn't been seen since Reagan, primarily because of a lack of a visible common enemy
As for that enemy being Bin Laden...
there is just NO WAY I can balance the concept of an administration saying on the one hand that they had no prior knowledge and on the other hand identifying the culprit with a couple of hours - it just doesn't make any reasonable sense. One or more of these statements has to be a lie.
i don't think there si mmuch grouds for a consiracy, but,
1) the sub contracting is easy to set up, especially for the government, but even for a terrorist network who are capable of hiijaking a number of planes simultaniously.
2) if a government was going to do such a thing, they would need to kill such an amount of people in order to make it seem so dramatic to everyone, people die in minor terrorist sctivity every day, but it doesn't change the world.
3) america is not always the evil for lefties, but the majority of events or actions that are well publicised, involve the west and one of the most influential and rigt wing countries is the US, so they are bound to get a lot of stick for it.
i have seen and read a lot of other sources for it, and not seen loose change, ergo i don't think that's true.
anyway i think having seen many 24's, we can all safely say it was terrorists in cahoots with some other business people and some other stuff as well also too.
Please be more specific about why you think he didn't do 9/11.
Heliotrope, your tone is patronising and ridiculous. You may have your reasons for sticking to your views, but you don't need to look down your nose at people.
I used to be on yes_'s side, but the reality is probably somewhere in the middle, and the truth is we will never know the full facts because some of them will be suppressed for the entire length of our lifetimes. Certainly the extremely emotive nature of the whole thing was seized upon by the US administration to justify all sorts of nonsense afterwards.
in the same way as i look down my nose at people who wholeheardetly swallow every daily mail editorial, for a good reason. it takes very little time to quickly realise that what the documentary says is not true.
i genuinely wondered if it was a joke thread. given the screenplay comments and the non-comittal comments on what his super theory actually was, i feel that was a justified response.
9/11 WAS a conspiracy - it's an undeniable fact
I loathe the misuse of that term
people sometimes use the word 'conspiracy' to imply that EVERY SINGLE THING was deliberate - this cannot have been the case. Some factors in a conspiracy, even most factors, can be accidental or unplanned.
as I'm sure you know, a conspiracy is anything that involves two or more people plotting to do something - they don't even have to carry it out for it to be a conspiracy
however, it has become a phrase used to immediately dismiss any alternative to the official theory and has its historical roots in denying anything other than the 'lone gunmen' theory in the case of the JFK assassination
I make a point of this obvious fact in order to shine a light on something perhaps a little less obvious - namely that the front line of the war on terror in the hearts and minds of the west is a standardisation and manipulation of thought based on a standardisation and manipulation of language
the number of times since 9/11 that I've heard the phrases 'but the reality is probably somewhere in the middle' or 'the truth is we will never know the full facts' makes me feel slightly nauseated
I honestly think that - whoever was directly responsible for the attacks - the whole episode was and still is used as a mass-brainwashing exercise
and maybe that was the ultimate motive:
why build robots when you can program the people?
'lone gunmen' - I mean gunman* obviously
but I did also make the point you just made about emotional manipulation.
Any 'official account' is a conspiracy because the editing of said account is always planned.
you did make that point - but you made the point that this was done in the aftermath
to me it looked like it was done immediately - meaning that it wasn't a slow and sluggish waking up to the fact that 9/11 could be used to further some agendae but rather it had all the hallmarks of being planned for such an exercise
or quite a long while afterwards doesn't change a thing - it was still done afterwards.
something has to actually happen before you can start using it to manipulate minds.
if you wish to manipulate minds you have to make things happen
I am certainly extremely uneasy about the whole thing and I think sneering dismissal of doubters of the official account is, to be honest, a strange attitude: after all, I notice that the proponents of said dismissive view on this thread have had to resort to sarcastic asides to make their point, rather than fact, which seemed to come as a later consideration.
it does annoy me when people sneer at each other in place of debate, but it appears it was happening on BOTH sides. apologies to heliotrope for being quite harsh - also his big factual post about loose change came about 10 mins BEFORE the 'joke thread' stuff started coming out, so I'm flat wrong here. whoops.
you read too much into my use of the word 'afterwards' - i certainly didn't make the point that the US were at all slow to realise the impact of 9/11. at the time i thought their warmongering tactics were precipitous in the extreme. they were very quick, perhaps too quick, to raise the issue of revenge.
plus they were suspiciously quick to flag up the perpetrator(s) despite 'no prior knowledge'
it would only take a matter of hours for government advisors to formulate a strategy, they knew they couldnt sit on this, they had to retaliate immediately and with force. it doesnt matter whether they knew who had done it, they just pick the most likely candidate(or easiest to act against) regardless of evidence.