Damn! Even dogs helped get Bin Laden!
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Damn! Even dogs helped get Bin Laden!
What a wicked photo!
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
Damn! Even dogs helped get Bin Laden!
What a wicked photo![/quote]
Scroll down and click all the pages. Some good dog-in-action pics.
‘Would your zeal to uphold their political affliation rights still hold if they were (hypothetically made up name) “the support jihad end crusader/zionist/infidel ambitions party” ? or would the leaks then be “usefull intelligence” on “enemies of the state” if they were terrorists intsead of facists.’
- Depends. If they were plotting mass murder, certainly. If they were just spreading evil propaganda and not breaking the law then they have a right to their privacy.
‘Living in the real world for some people is getting bombed, occupied, starved to death, and massacred by so called civillised countries and then being told that your country is the one that is uncivilised.’
- I am unaware of any Western democracy deliberately ‘bombing’ anyone other than terrorists nor ‘starv(ing anyone) to death’. On the contrary, Western democracies and their tax payers are the ones who provide aid to less fortunate and free countries so they can eat food and have hospitals and such. Even countries whose populations, by and large, wish to exterminate/enslave us.
'If realpolick is as you describe then it should be no suprise when it bites you on the ass and when you have to eat your own shit that it doesn’t taste very nice.
Your own armchair must be worn out by now.’
- It doesn’t come as any surprise. You see people are very stupid, by and large. That’s why it comes back to bite them. If FDR hadn’t thought Stalin was a ‘man of his word’ who would ‘not annex anything’ we would not have had any ‘blowback’(i.e. Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and cold/proxy wars) for example.
NOTE: I have no idea how to break up quotes and add my own comments in between sections of them, hence the single quotes and hyphens.
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Johny23 wrote:
To all who think that 9/11 wasn’t inside job please explain how 2 planes made 3 buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) collapse. And not just regularly collapse, BUT collapse in their own footprint in nearly free fall speed. Mentioning that official explanation report that said that burning jet fuel somehow made all columns collapse simultaneously is just plain stupid. And burning jet fuel doesn’t even reach the melting point of steel![/quote]
I thought it was said that there were detonators to bring down the buildings. Why would you NOT want a “controlled demolition” so the buildings could fall straight down as opposed to topple over and destroy surrounding buildings? Meaning, why would you think their free fall qualifies the incident as a conspiracy?
Give me a break. People love to circle jerk over this shit.
Let me guess, you watched the Loose Change video?[/quote]
as far as im aware, nobody from the government explained the way the buildings fall as a controlled demolition. in fact, i dont believe they offered an explanation for building 7 at all. buildings 1 and 2 were explained as the planes causing it. and even if it WAS a controlled demolition, how would security allow terrorists into 3 separate buildings, and a rig them up with enough explosives to topple them perfectly?
also, why did they find no plane wreckage at the pentagon? impossible. and how did they not scramble a single jet to intercept any of these planes that were so far off course?
it’s all a bit fishy. im not saying there were not terrorists involved, but i dont think these conspiracy theories are too wacky. the US, with all its intelligence, military power, and considering its the biggest target for terrorism in the world, did an unbelievably poor job of defending against such an unsophisticated attack.
[quote]SeanParent wrote:
The only part of the conspiracy theories that really get me about 9/11 are the photos/videos of the pentagon. The ones that show the Pentagon wall falling…to me what I don’t understand is that one single plane can take down one of the WTCs(which I believe) but for some odd reason one single plane can’t take out one side of the pentagon?
[/quote]
A quick look at the shape of each building should give you the answer as to why this is the case.
WTC = tall thin
Pentagon = short flat
In both cases, the plane makes a relatively small hole and starts a fire.
In the WTC, the steel support structures get weakened from the heat and buckle under the weight of the many floors above. The building then collapses under the weight.
In the Pentagon, there isn’t a lot of weight above where the plane hit, and most of the building wasn’t either directly above or below the impact. Therefore: no collapse and only a small hole.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]SeanParent wrote:
The only part of the conspiracy theories that really get me about 9/11 are the photos/videos of the pentagon. The ones that show the Pentagon wall falling…to me what I don’t understand is that one single plane can take down one of the WTCs(which I believe) but for some odd reason one single plane can’t take out one side of the pentagon?
[/quote]
A quick look at the shape of each building should give you the answer as to why this is the case.
WTC = tall thin
Pentagon = short flat
In both cases, the plane makes a relatively small hole and starts a fire.
In the WTC, the steel support structures get weakened from the heat and buckle under the weight of the many floors above. The building then collapses under the weight.
In the Pentagon, there isn’t a lot of weight above where the plane hit, and most of the building wasn’t either directly above or below the impact. Therefore: no collapse and only a small hole.[/quote]
Makes sense.
What I wonder is, why all footage of the crash was confiscated. These are the small things that rile the conspiracies theorists.
[quote]AdamC wrote:
[quote]PonceDeLeon wrote:
[quote]Johny23 wrote:
To all who think that 9/11 wasn’t inside job please explain how 2 planes made 3 buildings (WTC 1, 2 and 7) collapse. And not just regularly collapse, BUT collapse in their own footprint in nearly free fall speed. Mentioning that official explanation report that said that burning jet fuel somehow made all columns collapse simultaneously is just plain stupid. And burning jet fuel doesn’t even reach the melting point of steel![/quote]
I thought it was said that there were detonators to bring down the buildings. Why would you NOT want a “controlled demolition” so the buildings could fall straight down as opposed to topple over and destroy surrounding buildings? Meaning, why would you think their free fall qualifies the incident as a conspiracy?
Give me a break. People love to circle jerk over this shit.
Let me guess, you watched the Loose Change video?[/quote]
as far as im aware, nobody from the government explained the way the buildings fall as a controlled demolition. in fact, i dont believe they offered an explanation for building 7 at all. buildings 1 and 2 were explained as the planes causing it. and even if it WAS a controlled demolition, how would security allow terrorists into 3 separate buildings, and a rig them up with enough explosives to topple them perfectly?
also, why did they find no plane wreckage at the pentagon? impossible. and how did they not scramble a single jet to intercept any of these planes that were so far off course?
it’s all a bit fishy. im not saying there were not terrorists involved, but i dont think these conspiracy theories are too wacky. the US, with all its intelligence, military power, and considering its the biggest target for terrorism in the world, did an unbelievably poor job of defending against such an unsophisticated attack.
[/quote]
If it was a conspiracy, why bother with building 7 at all? That didn’t exactly add to the ferver that people were feeling.
Planes were scrambled… just not in time.
- In the USA (and I suspect just about every country) planes aren’t allowed to go past mach 1 without specific permission.
- planes typically don’t carry real missiles unless there is a reason like an exercise or testing. They would have to be armed, and the order for this would have to come from above.
- From the time that the first plane hit (and even then, people still didn’t know what was happening exactly) to when the second one and the pentagon one hit wasn’t that long. Certainly not enough time for people to conclude it was an attack, to have the message passed up to the president, have Bush sit like an idiot for a while in front of those students, then have an order to scramble jets, have the message relayed back down the chain, have the pilots get dressed, the planes armed (this takes a while), the planes taxi and take off, then fly to NY or wherever.
Finally, there was debris:
I still want to know why the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country when every American was not allowed to after the attacks.
No, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I just want a simple answer on that one.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]SeanParent wrote:
The only part of the conspiracy theories that really get me about 9/11 are the photos/videos of the pentagon. The ones that show the Pentagon wall falling…to me what I don’t understand is that one single plane can take down one of the WTCs(which I believe) but for some odd reason one single plane can’t take out one side of the pentagon?
[/quote]
A quick look at the shape of each building should give you the answer as to why this is the case.
WTC = tall thin
Pentagon = short flat
In both cases, the plane makes a relatively small hole and starts a fire.
In the WTC, the steel support structures get weakened from the heat and buckle under the weight of the many floors above. The building then collapses under the weight.
In the Pentagon, there isn’t a lot of weight above where the plane hit, and most of the building wasn’t either directly above or below the impact. Therefore: no collapse and only a small hole.[/quote]
Makes sense.
What I wonder is, why all footage of the crash was confiscated. These are the small things that rile the conspiracies theorists.[/quote]
I have no doubt that the government wants to hide some things. But, that is due to them not wanting to be exposed for their screw ups/weaknesses rather than some great conspiracy. This was a successful attack on the USA’s military headquarters. I can see them not wanting to show footage of that.
As I posted earlier, the number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy would be huge. You would need:
The people who planted the explosives.
The people who let them in the buildings (while they were carying the explosives).
The people who came up with the idea.
The people who provided technical expertise regarding where to plant the explosives, how to make it look real etc.
The people who procured the explosives.
The people who shot a missile at the pentagon.
The people who procured the missile.
The people who faked their deaths on the planes or just sat there while the plane was being remotely controled to fly into a building and the families who pretended to be sad (if the deaths were faked).
The pilots who either didn’t show up (so the planes could be controled remotely) or were willing to fly into a building.
The people from the middle east who claimed responsibility for it.
I’m sure there were others as well. In the end, it would be hundreds if not thousands of people involved and would take months.
Not one (ONE!) person in all that didn’t have a crisis concience and say something to the authorities before it happened! Not one (ONE!) person was approached but said they weren’t interested in killing their fellow countrymen and reported it to the authorities. Not one (ONE!) person in all that has moved to a different country and then written a book/sold interview rights etc. in order to cash in on what would be the story of the century. Not one (ONE!) person from the Obama administration has taken the opportunity to come forward and sink the republican party by providing evidence that it was a government conspiracy… evidence that the president should be able to access.
Finally, if the buildings were in fact planted with explosives, why didn’t they go off almost right away? I would think that those huge fires we saw would probably set them off.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I still want to know why the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country when every American was not allowed to after the attacks.
No, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I just want a simple answer on that one. [/quote]
IMO to keep up relations with both the Bin Laden family and the Saudis. IIRC they have a lot of ties with people in the Bush government. Keep in mind that Osama was the black sheep of the family. None of the rest were psycho terrorists like he was.
My guess is it was just a bunch of ultra rich people who used their power to get out of a bad situation. Can you imagine the treatment they would have recieved had they not gotten out? If anything, this likely would have been a commendable move by the US government if they had just done it out of the goodness of their hearts (less commendable if it was due to corruption - which was likely the case). There is no reason for innocent people to be exposed to the backlash they would have felt.
Corruption: yes.
Corruption out of the ordinary for a country: not really IMO.
I just heard on internet news that based on the info on the computers confiscated from bin Laden, there was another terrorist attack planned for the 10th anniversary date of 9/11.
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]SeanParent wrote:
The only part of the conspiracy theories that really get me about 9/11 are the photos/videos of the pentagon. The ones that show the Pentagon wall falling…to me what I don’t understand is that one single plane can take down one of the WTCs(which I believe) but for some odd reason one single plane can’t take out one side of the pentagon?
[/quote]
A quick look at the shape of each building should give you the answer as to why this is the case.
WTC = tall thin
Pentagon = short flat
In both cases, the plane makes a relatively small hole and starts a fire.
In the WTC, the steel support structures get weakened from the heat and buckle under the weight of the many floors above. The building then collapses under the weight.
In the Pentagon, there isn’t a lot of weight above where the plane hit, and most of the building wasn’t either directly above or below the impact. Therefore: no collapse and only a small hole.[/quote]
Makes sense.
What I wonder is, why all footage of the crash was confiscated. These are the small things that rile the conspiracies theorists.[/quote]
I have no doubt that the government wants to hide some things. But, that is due to them not wanting to be exposed for their screw ups/weaknesses rather than some great conspiracy. This was a successful attack on the USA’s military headquarters. I can see them not wanting to show footage of that.
As I posted earlier, the number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy would be huge. You would need:
The people who planted the explosives.
The people who let them in the buildings (while they were carying the explosives).
The people who came up with the idea.
The people who provided technical expertise regarding where to plant the explosives, how to make it look real etc.
The people who procured the explosives.
The people who shot a missile at the pentagon.
The people who procured the missile.
The people who faked their deaths on the planes or just sat there while the plane was being remotely controled to fly into a building and the families who pretended to be sad (if the deaths were faked).
The pilots who either didn’t show up (so the planes could be controled remotely) or were willing to fly into a building.
The people from the middle east who claimed responsibility for it.
I’m sure there were others as well. In the end, it would be hundreds if not thousands of people involved and would take months.
Not one (ONE!) person in all that didn’t have a crisis concience and say something to the authorities before it happened! Not one (ONE!) person was approached but said they weren’t interested in killing their fellow countrymen and reported it to the authorities. Not one (ONE!) person in all that has moved to a different country and then written a book/sold interview rights etc. in order to cash in on what would be the story of the century. Not one (ONE!) person from the Obama administration has taken the opportunity to come forward and sink the republican party by providing evidence that it was a government conspiracy… evidence that the president should be able to access.
Finally, if the buildings were in fact planted with explosives, why didn’t they go off almost right away? I would think that those huge fires we saw would probably set them off.
[/quote]
Oh, I never suggested or thought that there were explosives - I was just curious why footage was confiscated.
They are definitely hiding something (well, lots of things), but things like this will only get people jumping to conclusions.
Imagine though, for a second, that there are actually powerful people behind the scenes orchestrating these major tragedies and such, around the world. That would be seriously fucked up. But really, what could we do about it? Not much. /* crazy theory off */
I think the closest suspicious thing I’ve seen to a modern day conspiraces was the “assissnation of the Polish government” last year. The footage that was filmed and events that unfolded afterwards were rather suspect, IMO.
The Russian dude who filmed the video of the crash was stabbed (attacked) a few days later, and then finished off while in hospital. That to me is a little too coincidental.
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I just heard on internet news that based on the info on the computers confiscated from bin Laden, there was another terrorist attack planned for the 10th anniversary date of 9/11.
[/quote]
Damn.
Then again, who’s to say they’re not still planning something.
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I just heard on internet news that based on the info on the computers confiscated from bin Laden, there was another terrorist attack planned for the 10th anniversary date of 9/11.
[/quote]
Damn.
Then again, who’s to say they’re not still planning something.[/quote]
My thoughts exactly. Hopefully this time THIS administration won’t brush it off as a joke like the last one did. 
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]RSGZ wrote:
[quote]OBoile wrote:
[quote]SeanParent wrote:
The only part of the conspiracy theories that really get me about 9/11 are the photos/videos of the pentagon. The ones that show the Pentagon wall falling…to me what I don’t understand is that one single plane can take down one of the WTCs(which I believe) but for some odd reason one single plane can’t take out one side of the pentagon?
[/quote]
A quick look at the shape of each building should give you the answer as to why this is the case.
WTC = tall thin
Pentagon = short flat
In both cases, the plane makes a relatively small hole and starts a fire.
In the WTC, the steel support structures get weakened from the heat and buckle under the weight of the many floors above. The building then collapses under the weight.
In the Pentagon, there isn’t a lot of weight above where the plane hit, and most of the building wasn’t either directly above or below the impact. Therefore: no collapse and only a small hole.[/quote]
Makes sense.
What I wonder is, why all footage of the crash was confiscated. These are the small things that rile the conspiracies theorists.[/quote]
I have no doubt that the government wants to hide some things. But, that is due to them not wanting to be exposed for their screw ups/weaknesses rather than some great conspiracy. This was a successful attack on the USA’s military headquarters. I can see them not wanting to show footage of that.
As I posted earlier, the number of people that would have to be involved in a conspiracy would be huge. You would need:
The people who planted the explosives.
The people who let them in the buildings (while they were carying the explosives).
The people who came up with the idea.
The people who provided technical expertise regarding where to plant the explosives, how to make it look real etc.
The people who procured the explosives.
The people who shot a missile at the pentagon.
The people who procured the missile.
The people who faked their deaths on the planes or just sat there while the plane was being remotely controled to fly into a building and the families who pretended to be sad (if the deaths were faked).
The pilots who either didn’t show up (so the planes could be controled remotely) or were willing to fly into a building.
The people from the middle east who claimed responsibility for it.
I’m sure there were others as well. In the end, it would be hundreds if not thousands of people involved and would take months.
Not one (ONE!) person in all that didn’t have a crisis concience and say something to the authorities before it happened! Not one (ONE!) person was approached but said they weren’t interested in killing their fellow countrymen and reported it to the authorities. Not one (ONE!) person in all that has moved to a different country and then written a book/sold interview rights etc. in order to cash in on what would be the story of the century. Not one (ONE!) person from the Obama administration has taken the opportunity to come forward and sink the republican party by providing evidence that it was a government conspiracy… evidence that the president should be able to access.
Finally, if the buildings were in fact planted with explosives, why didn’t they go off almost right away? I would think that those huge fires we saw would probably set them off.
[/quote]
Oh, I never suggested or thought that there were explosives - I was just curious why footage was confiscated.
They are definitely hiding something (well, lots of things), but things like this will only get people jumping to conclusions.
[/quote]
Sorry, I should have clarified that most of my comments were not aimed at you specifically and at the conspiracy theorists that have been posting here.
LOL!
[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
I still want to know why the Bin Laden family were allowed to fly out of the country when every American was not allowed to after the attacks.
No, I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I just want a simple answer on that one. [/quote]
Never happened that was a Michael Moore presto chango for his haha “documentary”. People wanted to believe that as fact but it just never happened. Aside from Snopes I beleive there is 30 pages of inaccuracies in Bowling for Columbine.
.
[quote]print wrote:
.[/quote]
Ya that picture is going be saved, lol that funny. And I don’t even like facebook.