The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
credit for the link to the site has to go to pandaemonium - interesting stuff!
Page:
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
It's true - 9/11 changed that.
But anyway... Duck if I were you I'd look at what you're saying....
Of course it was symbolic ! That's the whole point of terrorism...
Another large flaw in the theories....why did Bin Laden claim to be responsible, how were the world's governments convinced of the same if it was not true? Why did a Palestinian group claim responsibility then withdraw it?
Many sites point out how easy it is to track airliners in the sky, yet they all go on about these remote controlled ones avoiding detection as they intercept? Are these special stealth airliners (not possible by the way)?
Seriously, theres so much BS and contradiction in these theories I find it hard to believe a person with a brain could take them seriously for a second.
My reasoning - people don't want to believe others could do this to them, because if they admit that then suddenly it's a rather aggressive world out there for Americans, far easier to believe that actually the rest of the world loves you and your own government is the culprit. The theory about the passengers being hidden away also stinks of being unable to accept the deaths - it's right out of a movie whose name escapes me right now - as is the idea of remote controlled planes - and stealth interceptions. The creators of these sites are undoubtedly in steadfast denial at what happened that day - I'd go so far as to say that the creators of those sites, to construct such a complex fantasy, need medical help or counselling.
> now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
It's true - 9/11 changed that.
But anyway... Duck if I were you I'd look at what you're saying....
Of course it was symbolic ! That's the whole point of terrorism...
Another large flaw in the theories....why did Bin Laden claim to be responsible, how were the world's governments convinced of the same if it was not true? Why did a Palestinian group claim responsibility then withdraw it?
Many sites point out how easy it is to track airliners in the sky, yet they all go on about these remote controlled ones avoiding detection as they intercept? Are these special stealth airliners (not possible by the way)?
Seriously, theres so much BS and contradiction in these theories I find it hard to believe a person with a brain could take them seriously for a second.
My reasoning - people don't want to believe others could do this to them, because if they admit that then suddenly it's a rather aggressive world out there for Americans, far easier to believe that actually the rest of the world loves you and your own government is the culprit. The theory about the passengers being hidden away also stinks of being unable to accept the deaths - it's right out of a movie whose name escapes me right now - as is the idea of remote controlled planes - and stealth interceptions. The creators of these sites are undoubtedly in steadfast denial at what happened that day - I'd go so far as to say that the creators of those sites, to construct such a complex fantasy, need medical help or counselling.
El Pinko wrote:
> Your not honestly trying to say, the murderers of 3000, had a
> concience and decided any more than 3000 would be barbaric? I din't
> agree.
The theory: The perpetrators had a conflict of interests. They wanted to make a big spectale of the crashes, that meant doing it in the daytime, when there was good light. But the aim was to destroy the buildings, a largely symbolic act, not to kill people.
So they compromised, striking the towers shortly before most people would get to work, the country was awake, the towers were in daylight, and that was the time where those two conditions could be best met, with minimal (albeit still huge) loss of life.
(Note on that it was symbolic - look at the targets selected: the WTCs, the Pentagon and believed to be Camp David (the plane where the passengers interveined). All of symbolic significance, but the latter 2 definitely not what you'd aim for if you just wanted to rack up the casualties. Hell, the important strategic parts of the pentagon were secure well below ground level, unharmed by the plane attack. I'm sure the perpetrators knew that the plane attack wouldn't cause long term problems for the central operational activities of the pentagon.)
Belldandy wrote:
> I noticed a comment
> earlier by someone about why didn't the terrorists strike when more
> people were in the building? The answer is simple, the place was
> packed, but the emergency services got most of them out up to the
> damaged levels. Those people were largely trapped.
No, all the reports at the time acknowledged that the attack had happened before the majority of people who worked in the WTC would have got to the building. If it had happened at, say, 10pm local time then the building would have been packed with thousands more workers that hadn't got there when the planes actually hit.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Here's a question nobody has thought of.
>
> Okay so a plane didn't crash into the wall of the Pentagon, why is it
> a cover up?
To justify an aggressive foreign policy.
For example: There are already people (who would probably know these things) now saying Bush wanted to go into Iraq before Sept 11 happened, even that he used 9/11 to convince the american people to go into Iraq. Hell, we've all seen that the whitehouse claimed there was evidence Hussein was linked to Al-Queda before the war, then after the war admitting that there was NO such evidence.
Of course, it's still a huge leap to claim the US administration carried out 9/11, but you wanted a possible reason for Why. There it is.
Belldandy wrote:
> At the
> most basic level 9/11 forced the Bush administration to act contrary
> to how it had sold itself in the elections - Bush was an isolationist
> and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not
> increasing it.
As above, there's a lot to suggest that he wanted to go into Iraq.
Also, in 'normal' foreign affairs, he's continued to spurn the international community.
Backed out of Kyoto, won't sign up to the anti-landmines treaty, spurns the UN for war backing, uses technicalities to get out of obligations under the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Illegal steel tarriffs to isolate the US economy.
Cutting international obligations and involvement all over the place.
> Your not honestly trying to say, the murderers of 3000, had a
> concience and decided any more than 3000 would be barbaric? I din't
> agree.
The theory: The perpetrators had a conflict of interests. They wanted to make a big spectale of the crashes, that meant doing it in the daytime, when there was good light. But the aim was to destroy the buildings, a largely symbolic act, not to kill people.
So they compromised, striking the towers shortly before most people would get to work, the country was awake, the towers were in daylight, and that was the time where those two conditions could be best met, with minimal (albeit still huge) loss of life.
(Note on that it was symbolic - look at the targets selected: the WTCs, the Pentagon and believed to be Camp David (the plane where the passengers interveined). All of symbolic significance, but the latter 2 definitely not what you'd aim for if you just wanted to rack up the casualties. Hell, the important strategic parts of the pentagon were secure well below ground level, unharmed by the plane attack. I'm sure the perpetrators knew that the plane attack wouldn't cause long term problems for the central operational activities of the pentagon.)
Belldandy wrote:
> I noticed a comment
> earlier by someone about why didn't the terrorists strike when more
> people were in the building? The answer is simple, the place was
> packed, but the emergency services got most of them out up to the
> damaged levels. Those people were largely trapped.
No, all the reports at the time acknowledged that the attack had happened before the majority of people who worked in the WTC would have got to the building. If it had happened at, say, 10pm local time then the building would have been packed with thousands more workers that hadn't got there when the planes actually hit.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Here's a question nobody has thought of.
>
> Okay so a plane didn't crash into the wall of the Pentagon, why is it
> a cover up?
To justify an aggressive foreign policy.
For example: There are already people (who would probably know these things) now saying Bush wanted to go into Iraq before Sept 11 happened, even that he used 9/11 to convince the american people to go into Iraq. Hell, we've all seen that the whitehouse claimed there was evidence Hussein was linked to Al-Queda before the war, then after the war admitting that there was NO such evidence.
Of course, it's still a huge leap to claim the US administration carried out 9/11, but you wanted a possible reason for Why. There it is.
Belldandy wrote:
> At the
> most basic level 9/11 forced the Bush administration to act contrary
> to how it had sold itself in the elections - Bush was an isolationist
> and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not
> increasing it.
As above, there's a lot to suggest that he wanted to go into Iraq.
Also, in 'normal' foreign affairs, he's continued to spurn the international community.
Backed out of Kyoto, won't sign up to the anti-landmines treaty, spurns the UN for war backing, uses technicalities to get out of obligations under the Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. Illegal steel tarriffs to isolate the US economy.
Cutting international obligations and involvement all over the place.
Belldandy wrote:
> Bush was an isolationist
> and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not
> increasing it.
now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
> Bush was an isolationist
> and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not
> increasing it.
now that I find nigh on impossible to believe.
And they'll be in that thing in Seattle, and the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Statue of Liberty...Big Ben, House of Parliament (it's clearly a global conspiracy with the shadowy forces of the New World Order intent on making the UK a mere state of the USA...)
AS I said before, conspiracy theories are okay when they are sensible and there is reasonable doubt - 9/11 is not that situation. At the most basic level 9/11 forced the Bush administration to act contrary to how it had sold itself in the elections - Bush was an isolationist and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not increasing it.
AS I said before, conspiracy theories are okay when they are sensible and there is reasonable doubt - 9/11 is not that situation. At the most basic level 9/11 forced the Bush administration to act contrary to how it had sold itself in the elections - Bush was an isolationist and was all for lessening the role of the US in world affairs, not increasing it.
meh
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Putting the whole conspiracy theory about missiles and F16's and
> whatever else to one side for a minute.
>
> Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that
> website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said,
> charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so
> that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made
> to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum
> loss
> of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal
> loss of life?
Hmmm, so we can expect the same explosive charges to be in buildings like the empire state? If not, why not?
(jesus, COME ON. buildings are not built containing explosives)
> Putting the whole conspiracy theory about missiles and F16's and
> whatever else to one side for a minute.
>
> Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that
> website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said,
> charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so
> that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made
> to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum
> loss
> of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal
> loss of life?
Hmmm, so we can expect the same explosive charges to be in buildings like the empire state? If not, why not?
(jesus, COME ON. buildings are not built containing explosives)
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> Putting the whole conspiracy theory about missiles and F16's and
> whatever else to one side for a minute.
>
> Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that
> website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said,
> charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so
> that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made
> to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum loss
> of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal
> loss of life?
Because, in that situation, there is no possible way that could have happened! Tens of thousands of tons of concrete cannot just leap around in the air. It collapses, it collapses down ! As it was the time between the impacts and the collapses gave the emergency services time to evacuate thousands of people - I noticed a comment earlier by someone about why didn't the terrorists strike when more people were in the building? The answer is simple, the place was packed, but the emergency services got most of them out up to the damaged levels. Those people were largely trapped.
> It makes sense really, no-one would ever admit to that, it would be
> highly classified, but you can see the humanitarian reasons behind
> it.
It makes no sense whatsoever - it wouldn't be classified because it wasn't a government building and no one imagined this ever happening...
Christ, get a brain people....
> Putting the whole conspiracy theory about missiles and F16's and
> whatever else to one side for a minute.
>
> Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that
> website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said,
> charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so
> that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made
> to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum loss
> of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal
> loss of life?
Because, in that situation, there is no possible way that could have happened! Tens of thousands of tons of concrete cannot just leap around in the air. It collapses, it collapses down ! As it was the time between the impacts and the collapses gave the emergency services time to evacuate thousands of people - I noticed a comment earlier by someone about why didn't the terrorists strike when more people were in the building? The answer is simple, the place was packed, but the emergency services got most of them out up to the damaged levels. Those people were largely trapped.
> It makes sense really, no-one would ever admit to that, it would be
> highly classified, but you can see the humanitarian reasons behind
> it.
It makes no sense whatsoever - it wouldn't be classified because it wasn't a government building and no one imagined this ever happening...
Christ, get a brain people....
Here's a question nobody has thought of.
Okay so a plane didn't crash into the wall of the Pentagon, why is it a cover up?
I'm usually open-minded but on this case it seems quite clear to me that this was a terrorist attack that caused severe damage and death to thousands and pointless theories on internet sites to nobody the world of good.
I do feel however that after the attacks the US governement used the situation to scaremonger people like back in the 60's with Communism and give them the excuse to invade countries but thats a different issue. This is a pointless debate.
Okay so a plane didn't crash into the wall of the Pentagon, why is it a cover up?
I'm usually open-minded but on this case it seems quite clear to me that this was a terrorist attack that caused severe damage and death to thousands and pointless theories on internet sites to nobody the world of good.
I do feel however that after the attacks the US governement used the situation to scaremonger people like back in the 60's with Communism and give them the excuse to invade countries but thats a different issue. This is a pointless debate.
Putting the whole conspiracy theory about missiles and F16's and whatever else to one side for a minute.
Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said, charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum loss of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal loss of life?
If those buildings did fall over, there is no telling how many more thousand would have died - someone may have made the decision that the people inside were expendable if it meant they could stop the buildings from falling, and the charges set off to 'safely' drop the buildings.
It makes sense really, no-one would ever admit to that, it would be highly classified, but you can see the humanitarian reasons behind it.
Following on slightly from what wookiee says, and what is on that website - do you think it is at all possible, that as they said, charges were put into the twin towers, purely as a precaution, so that if they were in danger of toppling, the decision could be made to 'safely' drop the buildings (by safely I mean causing minimum loss of life), and stop them from falling like trees, causing collossal loss of life?
If those buildings did fall over, there is no telling how many more thousand would have died - someone may have made the decision that the people inside were expendable if it meant they could stop the buildings from falling, and the charges set off to 'safely' drop the buildings.
It makes sense really, no-one would ever admit to that, it would be highly classified, but you can see the humanitarian reasons behind it.
Blank wrote:
> Belldandy wrote:
> No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable
> websites
>
> No, but you are taking at face value what is told to you by
> officials.
Not true, I'm taking into account what I saw that day, and information from many many books published since that day, as well many documentaries I have seen, combined with what I know. Crucially I'm not using websites to back any of it up.
> Belldandy wrote:
> No, I'm not taking the word of flawed, contradictory, unaccountable
> websites
>
> No, but you are taking at face value what is told to you by
> officials.
Not true, I'm taking into account what I saw that day, and information from many many books published since that day, as well many documentaries I have seen, combined with what I know. Crucially I'm not using websites to back any of it up.
Page: