REVscene Automotive Forum - 9/11... A BIG FABRICATION?

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - 9/11... A BIG FABRICATION? (https://www.revscene.net/forums/607881-9-11-big-fabrication.html)

i doubt even in 30 years the US would release any secrets/details if something sketchy is going on

too many heartaches on the american psyche of what probably is thebiggest tragedy in US' 21st century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by synchrocone (Post 6847821)

I've served you long enough, your goin down buddy.
Posted via RS Mobile

:lol Bring it, bitch! :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by cressydrift (Post 6847771)

I can not believe 911 is still an issue almost 10 years later. 911 this and that, Americans still talk about it in there campaigns. No one really has a clue about what went down. Like someone has already said, we will never actually know untill 30 years from now. That being said, everything that happened was sketchy at best. Most crimes are investigated on the premise of who stands to gain what. That is the way I look at least.

What did the terrorist stand to gain by killing 2000+ people?
Nothing? I mean, truth be told, the only thing I knew about Afghan was the weed (Pre 911). I cannot imagine they would consider victory by having the worlds most advanced millitary invade there nation. Maybe thats what they wanted?

What did America stand to gain if they staged a fake terrorist attack?
- Oil - From invaded nation Iraq
- Control - From fear mongering the terrorist attack. Look at security pre and post 911.
- Wealth - Most war suppliers are in bed with the government officials. Easier to spend tax payer money when a war is on
- Drugs - Afghanistan is LOADED with drugs, Weed, Hash, Poppy plants
- Insurance money - The twin towers were loaded with asbestos and needed major renovating.
- ETC

A courier driver that picks up from my company was born and raised in Afghanistan. He told me Afghanistan is virgin. Grounds are littered with mineral deposits ie; Gold, Silver, Iron ore... etc. He also said that the news makes the war seem so much worse.

In conclusion, everyone should remember the war between Soviet Union vs Afghanistan. Back then, the CIA trained Afghany militants to fight. The Al Queda. Gave them weapons, money and elite training to fight the power full Soviets. Now, they are fighting against the guys they trained and the weapons they gave them. I do not believe in most of the jargon that said movies (Loose change, Zeigiest...etc) have told us. I believe it is far more deeper, and complicated than some CIA agents planting some thermite, flew fake planes (w.e there theories say) and it was all Bush. Bush is a retarded. I am smarter than Bush, and that is not saying much. All in all the people who have really suffered where the people that died during the attacks, and there poor family members. I wish that out of all of this non-sense the family members at some point get justice. RIP.

Edit* Also RIP to everyone who has died in the conflicts as well.

It's a relatively established fact that, yes, the USA supplied Al Qaeda because they were fighting a guerilla-style war that the US approved of against the Soviets. However, near the end of the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia's arrangement with the Americans to allow US troops into Saudi's soil angered Al Qaeda and saw it as a slight against Muslims. He thought that foreign soldiers there soiled sacred lands. That's where his hatred for the USA (and the west in general) started.

Let's face it; Before the attacks on 9/11, it was easy to gain access to the cockpit of a plane. All you had to do was ask to see and most likely you were allowed to. I had been up front a few times by request, and I know plenty of others that had as well. So, what did Al Qaeda have to gain from attacking the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and, as some believe, the White House)? Simple: The proof that even their strongest enemies were capable of being felled by something as simple as a civilian aircraft. They struck fear into hundreds of millions of people with such relatively simple acts. I don't believe they were looking to gain land, riches and gold by doing so; rather, they simply wanted to do what they did best.

I don't believe that Afghan had much to do with the attacks, other than being the location of Al Qaeda's base. The majority of the alleged attackers in the planes were from Saudi Arabia, after all (although this is one fact that I find a little hard to believe... after all, they had trouble ID'ing the majority of remains from the plane... how did they manage to pinpoint every single terrorist?). That's why the US attacked there first. The subsequent attack on Iraq was something that I believe the USA took advantage of. Sadam Hussein stood against everything Al Qaeda believed in, but I think the USA was hoping the rest of the world would ignore that when they asked the UN (unsuccessfully) for approval to attack Iraq. That war was based on fabricated lies, in my opinion. It had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda attacks, but they simply used it as an excuse.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 6847685)

No most of what Ahmadinejad spews IS bullshit. The holocaust denial just being one glaring example. I just agree with him on this one point that the attack on the World Trade Centre was 'fabricated'.

And yes a lot of Loose Change is refutable, I was simply referring to it as a more complete version of the conspiracy theory vs Zeitgeist. For me though, nothing anyone says is going to refute the fact that all the buildings of the WTC were brought down by controlled demolitions. And that had to be done over many weeks, by 'someone' inside the US. All the other conspiracy points are just a cherry on top, the proof is in watching those buildings not collapse but freefall to the ground. That is WAY beyond the capabilities of cave dwelling terrorists. All their other attacks have been large but basic explosions like the USS Cole or the train in Spain, suicide bombings, IEDs made out of shells that don't even work a lot of the time. But they brought down the WTC.... riiiight.
Posted via RS Mobile

So I want you to explain the controlled demolition. Specifically I want you tell tell me why they used pyrocool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 6847685)

quick question, did you miss the planes slamming into them? going with the assumption that the terrorists simply slammed planes into big buildings, I'd doubt that that knew it would actually bring them down. here's about what their "plan" was:

1) get people into the US
2) get them to learn to fly a plane half-decently
3) steal big planes with big fuel tanks shortly after takeoff
4) slam them into big buildings filled with "western infidels"
5) ???

Holy shit.... how can I use revscene to my advantage?? Hmm... I guess I will quote this thread in my next poli sci essay!!! hahahhaa

if you ever want to know why anything gets done, just follow the money

Quote:

Originally Posted by welfare (Post 6848000)

if you ever want to know why anything gets done, just follow the money

QFT:thumbsup:

half of the worlds jewish population live in north america. total population they are 1/4 of the size of california.
thats pretty small considering the scale of influence they have on the rest of the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 6847975)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lomac (Post 6847896)

:lol Bring it, bitch! :D

It's a relatively established fact that, yes, the USA supplied Al Qaeda because they were fighting a guerilla-style war that the US approved of against the Soviets. However, near the end of the Gulf War, Saudi Arabia's arrangement with the Americans to allow US troops into Saudi's soil angered Al Qaeda and saw it as a slight against Muslims. He thought that foreign soldiers there soiled sacred lands. That's where his hatred for the USA (and the west in general) started.

Let's face it; Before the attacks on 9/11, it was easy to gain access to the cockpit of a plane. All you had to do was ask to see and most likely you were allowed to. I had been up front a few times by request, and I know plenty of others that had as well. So, what did Al Qaeda have to gain from attacking the Twin Towers and Pentagon (and, as some believe, the White House)? Simple: The proof that even their strongest enemies were capable of being felled by something as simple as a civilian aircraft. They struck fear into hundreds of millions of people with such relatively simple acts. I don't believe they were looking to gain land, riches and gold by doing so; rather, they simply wanted to do what they did best.

I don't believe that Afghan had much to do with the attacks, other than being the location of Al Qaeda's base. The majority of the alleged attackers in the planes were from Saudi Arabia, after all (although this is one fact that I find a little hard to believe... after all, they had trouble ID'ing the majority of remains from the plane... how did they manage to pinpoint every single terrorist?). That's why the US attacked there first. The subsequent attack on Iraq was something that I believe the USA took advantage of. Sadam Hussein stood against everything Al Qaeda believed in, but I think the USA was hoping the rest of the world would ignore that when they asked the UN (unsuccessfully) for approval to attack Iraq. That war was based on fabricated lies, in my opinion. It had nothing to do with the Al Qaeda attacks, but they simply used it as an excuse.

I may have been a little recklously hasty a few hours ago, but wow that's pretty original.
Am I supposed to take it for what it is or are you trying say somethibg else. Its OK, you can
take a cheap shot if you'd like.

Wow, what a contribution to the thread.
Posted via RS Mobile

Quote:

Originally Posted by synchrocone (Post 6848260)

lol it was a joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6chr0nic4 (Post 6848211)

Why thank you ;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CRS (Post 6847154)

Well, secret files are released after a certain amount of years. Though we can never truly know just how many secret files are hidden and how many come to light.

For example, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the US had a plan to basically attack itself but make it seem like Cuba did it so that the public would back a war against Cuba.

It has since then been released to the public since it is no longer considered a secret or a matter of national security.

yes, but that's not too relevant to 9/11, since 1) nobody was killed in the case you're talking about, and 2) it didn't even happen

9/11 is far from either of those things
i don't think (if it is fake), the truth will ever see the light of day

i honestly dont think an airplane crashing into the building would make the buildings collapse how they did, especially into complete dust. i dont think they'd all free fall as they did, you would think one side may have gave out. especially with building 7 which claims to have fallen because of a fire. i think it was controlled demoltion imo
who knows what happened well probably never know the truth

Personally I can't wait till 2012 when algore's tidal wave kills us all and I don't have to hear any more 911 theories.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willcls (Post 6846977)

http://images.encyclopediadramatica....flowchart.jpeg

also see
http://images.encyclopediadramatica....flowchart.jpeg

good lord....

cartman knew the truth all along! thats why he hates kyle

Quote:

Originally Posted by underscore (Post 6847975)

Yeah that was the 'Al-Queda' side of the plot. The cover story.

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts, and that the fuel used by commercial airliners does not burn hot enough to melt the heated steel used in the frames of modern buildings - including the WTC. The fuel from the plane also would have all burnt off almost immediately in the explosion, the fires that continued to burn long after were office furniture, walls, carpet, etc etc - those don't burn very hot!! Damage to the structure from the impacts themselves would not have been sufficient enough to collapse the central core of the building allowing the entire structure to collapse.

This is a good video. Watch closely at 1:06 seconds, down the left edge of the left tower. Halfway between the lamp post and the bottom of the fires you'll see a puff of smoke or dust shoot out from the building, that's gotta be about 25-30 floors down from the very bottom of the damage sustained by the airplane. At 1:09 again you'll see a bigger puff of smoke 3/4 of the way down between the bottom of the fires and the lamp post. Like 50 floors down from the impact. Shortly after, the tower collapses:

There's a TON of video of these little explosions happening just before both towers collapse. The official story is that the puffs seen while the building is collapsing is the pancaking of floors and the air being forced out windows etc. In the video above the building isn't collapsing yet. Also, how the tower topples off to the side at the corner where the plane hit is interesting, because all of the weight wouldn't have been focused on the bottom of the building. If anything it would have been a glancing downward blow and yet the entire building is pulverized to DUST. The concrete and steel core evaporates down to the ground floor. There should have been LARGE chunks of the building left, but it was all blown up.

Versus

I'd like someone to explain to me how Tower 7 collapsed in the same way when it wasn't hit by an airplane at all, and was barely damaged from the collapse of the main towers. A large but basic office fire reduced that building to dust and small rubble...... :bullshit:

So the US Govt wants to fake the biggest terrorist plot ever, and to throw everyone off, they use controlled demolition?

Ask yourself if its plausible to collapse the way it did, if everything went right and the stars aligned, could it happen?
People have no problem denying the chances of this happening, but have no problem accepting that life just appeared on our planet via some primordial ooze and chance? yeesh

speaking of conspiracies. why does a 4L of milk at IGA cost almost $1 more than at Safeway, but a pack of bagels at Safeway costs about $1 more than at IGA? dont be fooled people. the truth is out there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 6850069)

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts,
**great big snip**

You still didn't answer my question. Are you afraid to? Can't find the right thing to say?

Why did they pour huge amounts of Pyrocool (the UV absorbing fire fighting foam) onto the WTC rubble? C'mon, all good conspiracy theorists know the answer to this one by heart.

This can all be simplified so easily. Let's ssume the US needed an excuse to go to war and wanted to fake an attack to gain support from the people and the UN.

Why kill 1,000's of your own citizens and destroy billions in property? Not to mention the huge amount of money spent after the fact in insurance claims paid to all the people who died. Finanically, this little "exercise" cost the US an unbelievable amount of money.

All the US had to do was to fabricate a few small terrorist attacks on their own soil of carefully selected targets. A bomb that kills a few school children. A few US soldiers kidnapped and tortured to death. Woman and children executed by "extremists" that snuck into the country. These would all be very easy to fabricate and very easy to cover-up. They would also get the American public so riled up and furious that they'd be demanding revenge.

They could have gained the same support for a fraction of the cost in terms of human and financial losses.

Now what makes more sense: kill thousands of people and cause billions in financial losses, or kill a few dozen with a couple million? Both would serve their purpose to allow the US to retalitate any way they wanted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JD¹³ (Post 6850069)

Now this has all been discussed before obviously but: It's known fact that the towers were designed to withstand airliner impacts,
**great big snip**

Actually, you are both correct and wrong. The towers were constructed to withstand the plans of that era. In other words, the planes that were around when the tower was designed/built. Since then, planes have gotten bigger, stronger and faster. As a result, the towers simply could not stand the impact of planes from our generation.

Think of it this way, imagine that you have some armor designed back in the 1900s facing a modern day gun. Chances are was that the armor will not withstand the damage the modern day gun will cause but would have sustained a weapon from that era instead.