[PLEASE HELP] Do you buy the Aurora Massacres official story???

[The Noose]

Originally Posted by Cigarillo

Stop making so much damn sense.

Was that......sarcastic?

Coz what i said made purrrfect sense.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

If you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I have said very little about what I suspect actually happened (one reason being, I simply do not know). I am simply being labeled as a conspiracy theorist here as it seems, and having views attributed to me which I never represented.

You are behaving like a conspiracy theorist so you are being treated as such. You are essentially dismissing the generally accepted narrative (involving the massive jet planes that were witnessed hitting the buildings at high speed by thousands and thousands of people) and claiming, for no good reason, to be asking questions. You're not asking questions. You are asserting a position, only you are too cowardly to hazard a guess as to what that position might be. As long as it's vaguely anti-US that'll do for you.

There was the 9/11 commission report, which was commissioned by the US government to investigate. I have read the report, although it's been quite some time. However, the report was far from being exhaustive. However this material, and the general body of information represented by the government to the public, does form at least the rudiments of an official story.

As for the questions, there are multitudes. For example, why did NORAD not respond?

I agree that physics is physics. I am glad to see the info which was presented, although I remain less than convinced when it comes to building 7, for instance.

In short, there needs to be a thorough, independent investigation. That there never has been one alone raises questions, given the magnitude of the event.

The 9/11 commission was an independent review. It is dismissed as being the "official story" by people who don't want reality to be true. There have been dozens of simulations, the NIST report has been available for scrutiny by anyone, it's available online, but conspiracy theorists don't work in a scientific manner. They don't say "what do we know, what does it tell us?" they say "what do we think, what can we cherry pick to support this?"

Originally Posted by Russian Crushin

Lol @ the building collapsed at "freefall"

What does that even mean?

Free-fall speed means the rate at which it would fall were it dropped from the sky with no resistance from the structure below.

Originally Posted by Cigarillo

So it "being hit by another building" is what caused the building to collapse at free fall speed?

Have you EVER seen a controlled demolition? Can you show me ANOTHER example not on 9/11 where a building collapsed at free fall speed due to fire or anything for that matter.

The building did not collapse at "free fall speed". Why are you determined to continue repeating this lie?

Oh I've seen conspiracy theory stuff where they've shown a video and compared it to free-fall speed. The video showed the building collapse in 4 seconds when free-fall would be 3.35 seconds. There was a problem though:

1. They started the timer a full second after the start of the collapse (when the penthouse at the top collapses into the floor below)

2. They stop the time before the building has finished collapsing - the video they use has the bottom of the building obscured by an 18 storey building in the foreground. WTC7 had 50 floors. They stopped the timer after about 60% of the fall. As a result you have a figure vastly different from the one claimed by conspiretards.

Cmon thats WTC 7 thats not some liquor store. One of the strongest most secure structures in the world collpase at free fall speed because a building "hit it". The damn building was designed to withstand PLANE and MISSLE attacks.

The building was not designed to withstand missile attacks. It was designed to withstand accidental aircraft collisions. As in aircraft that have got lost while coming in to land and hit the building. Not fully loaded passenger jets fiilled with fuel and flown deliberately at top speed into the building.

Originally Posted by Cigarillo

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

Why not tell us the significance of this comment?

[Mugicha]

Piggy, I started out in this thread as dismissive and uninterested, but you're really just asserting your own biases in your comments toward me. I'll restate my opinion. In the best case, it happened due to incompetence. Perhaps that is most likely in fact. But, I also leave open the possibility that there were more cynical circumstances, based on what I am aware of, through years of observation.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

Piggy, I started out in this thread as dismissive and uninterested, but you're really just asserting your own biases in your comments toward me. I'll restate my opinion. In the best case, it happened due to incompetence. Perhaps that is most likely in fact. But, I also leave open the possibility that there were more cynical circumstances, based on what I am aware of, through years of observation.

You're suggesting that the deliberate murder by the US government of thousands of its own civilians was "cynical"!? What "years of observations" led you to such a ghastly conclusion?

[Mugicha]

Originally Posted by squealpiggy

You're suggesting that the deliberate murder by the US government of thousands of its own civilians was "cynical"!? What "years of observations" led you to such a ghastly conclusion?

Are you familiar with the Project for a New American Century?

[Mugicha]

Then there was the aborted Operation Northwoods. Have you heard of that?

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

Are you familiar with the Project for a New American Century?

No. I googled it and saw it was a not for profit educational foundation aiming to promote American leadership in the world. Naturally this means that 9/11 was an inside job or something.

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

Then there was the aborted Operation Northwoods. Have you heard of that?

Ah yes, Operation Northwoods. The top secret plan to commit acts of terrorism and blame them on Castro. What was that terrorist attack they did again? Oh yes, that's right, they never did any. Because the plan was stupid. It was an idea never put into place.

Tell me again what this has to do with 9/11? Oh that's right, you think that because a stupid plan was scrapped in the 60s that must mean the whole thing was on a backburner just waiting to be used to justify a war with Iraq.

It also has nothing to do with this discussion which was about the physics of the collapse.

This is why I don't have anytime for conspiracy theorists. They can't stick to the subject, ever.

"The towers fell at freefall speeds!"

No they didn't.

"Yes but no plane hit building 7!"

Loads of debris did, and the principle cause of collapse was a catastrophic fire.

"I have out of context quotes from firefighters saying it sounded like bombs!"

People have a limited lexicon when it comes to describing things. 'sounded like bombs' is an analogy for 'it made a loud bang'.

"Yes but OPERATION NORTHWOODS!"

If you have an opinion on what happens, share it. If you don't then get one, preferably one backed up by actual evidence. If you're not interested in that then you can kindly fuck off with your "something shady" bullshit.

[Mugicha]

Well, I'm glad you are knowledgeable of Operation Northwoods, which I characterized as "abortive", e.g. it never was put into operation.

It is interesting that you have never heard of the Project for a New American Century, though.

This was basically a neo-concervative thinktank-ish organization. They published a manifesto in 2000. The manifesto included the signatures of a who's who of neo-conservative pundits and political insiders, including many of the future cabinet occupants of the Bush Jr. administration.

Here is a link to their website, since your google search turned up so fruitless.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here is a link to the manifesto.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Among other things, one of the controversial aspects is that they stated the need for, and I quote, "a new Pearl Harbor."

It's 2am here, and I'm not going to go into much more detail, other than to say that this document has been analyzed by many commentators and scholars. If you are interested, do a google for something like 'project for a new american century new pearl harbor', and I'm sure you will find enough commentaries to give you a little bit of reading material.

You asked, and I answered. Do the google if you want, or else feel free to not.

[Mugicha]

For the list of participants, scroll to the last page of the document. Names like Paul Wolfowitz, I. Lewis [Scooter] Libby, William [Billy] Kristol, Dov Zakheim, and many others are found.

[squealpiggy]

Originally Posted by Nodogoshi

Well, I'm glad you are knowledgeable of Operation Northwoods, which I characterized as "abortive", e.g. it never was put into operation.

It is interesting that you have never heard of the Project for a New American Century, though.

This was basically a neo-concervative thinktank-ish organization. They published a manifesto of over 90 in 2000. The manifesto included the signatures of a who's who of neo-conservative pundits and political insiders, including many of the future cabinet occupants of the Bush Jr. administration.

Here is a link to their website, since your google search turned up so fruitless.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Here is a link to the manifesto.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf

Among other things, one of the controversial aspects is that they stated the need for, and I quote, "a new Pearl Harbor."

You read the manifesto of course. Right? So you'll note when reading it that the manifesto does not state the "need for" a new Pearl Harbour? Right? You did know that it doesn't say or suggest such a thing? Because you read it of course.

It took me two seconds of searching to find the relevant section, page 51, in a chapter about the transformation of the military to meet the requirements of the future. It states:

the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions. A decision to suspend or terminate aircraft carrier production, as recommended by this report and as justified by the clear direction of military technology, will cause great upheaval.


In no way could this be construed as neocons suggesting that a new Pearl Harbour was needed or desirable or planned for. That is unless you're willing to lie to dupes in order to continue promoting your silly and fantastical view of the world. Yep, you were duped. Because you had all the links available but YOU NEVER BOTHERED TO CHECK THEM.

I have a good track record against creationists, conspiracy theorists, alt-med-loons and the like and the main reason for that is that every time I am confronted with something that sounds odd I check the source. Usually it sounds wrong because it is wrong.

It's 2am here, and I'm not going to go into much more detail, other than to say that this document has been analyzed by many commentators and scholars.

Oh, scholars! Well if it has been analysed by scholars then the argument is over. You never find bias or wackiness among scholars. If a scholar says it then it's basically true!

If you are interested, do a google for something like 'project for a new american century new pearl harbor', and I'm sure you will find enough commentaries to give you a little bit of reading material.

I don't need to see stupid commentaries by stupid conspiracy theorists about things. I already know what conclusions they will draw. I have the source right here, you linked it. And guess what: It doesn't say what you or your scholars claim it does. So somebody is either lying or they're a lousy scholar.

You asked, and I answered. Do the google if you want, or else feel free to not.

Actually I asked you what questions you had that were unanswered by the common narrative. You ignored that and started talking about how it was shady and Operation Northwood.

Typical and boring.