If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
it was being planned back in the days of reagan.
for an administration to tell its people it is going to war for a generation to build ...the new american century ...needed another pearl harbour ...all their words not mine.
the dollar is on the verge of total collapse ...saddam was about to break the oil trading rules by selling in euros ...splat!
iran has announced it is going to do the same thing as of next month ...splat!
if middle eastern oil producing countries ditch the dollar ...ever oil consuming country on the globe ...has to follow suit.
result ...america bankrupt.
the fact that world resources from cement to timber to oil to everything that is produced manufactured grown processed etc ...is now heading toward asia in an unforseen way ...on a massive scale ...is a cause of great concern for the greatest consumer in history ...america.
war for a generation ...your generation.
Experts in the field have competing views on the subject - I don't have the engineering background to be able to tell which group of experts makes more sense.
Plenty of things do seem a little dubious about the official version of events - but every alternative theory of events I've ever heard quickly becomes incredibly ludicrous - stuff about holograms, missile-firing jets disguised as 767s, that kind of thing.
I don't see what the Chinese manufacturing boom has to do with the events of 9/11 and resource wars certainly aren't anything new - what do you think all those colonial wars were about?
so links from sites that have made their minds up that their is a conspiracy are supposed to be accurate and credible sources?
don't give up the day job
Accurate about what? You quite clearly don't have a clue about political theory or history.
Eh? How is that relevant?
how can you "wiegh up the evidence" when you have no background in flying planes or structural engineering?
This is where my oft repeated cry of "read some fucking history" is repeated. Almost all wars throughout history have been resource wars you daft plank.
LOL!
This doesn't even make sense.
Oh dear m r. At the risk of sounding boring and repetitive - please read some history.
carry on believing a hole at ground level at the pentagon was made ...whats the point.
must go and pick wifey up from school ...tara.
They didn't have "no experience" did they? Anyway, I can't believe its that difficult to point the thing at a big fuck off building
I don't have to "beleive", there are plenty of eye witness accounts
Which is why, vray, one sticks to the empirically verifiable holes in the coverstory which are more sufficient for the rationale and investigatory mind to realise the public has been sold the most ridiculous "conspiracy theory" of them all.
The extraneous notions of holograms and pods, or what have you, are also addressed with in the 911Truth movement as clearly interjected by those with the vested interest in discrediting the legitimate and reasoned research. Not all that hard to fathom as a tactic and not without precedent when those who mihg t be exposed find the spotlight coming too close for comfort.
Just as one can examine the record of character smear with which this admin (and indeed many previous) has/have answered charges against them arising from what IS known (i.e. logical, evidentiary, fact), so too one need deal, in this instance, with those aspects which are rationally consistent and throw out that which is not.
The intellectually complacent, like our dear Blagsta, simply demonstrate their inability to differentiate between the two by searching for the first outlandish reference they can find in the mix and dismissing it all. Hardly the mark of anyone wishing to present himself as scholarly.
because the people questioning it don't have any experience in those fields either?
Which just leaves us with expert opinion and the laws of physics - i.e. jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt steel and an office fire certainly isn't. Oh, and buildings don't just fall down all on their own footprint three times in a day either.
Which people? The ones whose passport was found three hours later on a sidestreet or the ones who turned up alive and well three weeks later?
That's not to say i am with the tinfoilers on this issue. It just means I know the government is lying. Now I know they are kind of known for doing that but I am a little curious why.
Have an alternate theory for WTC - terrorist planes hit the buildings making them unstable. The authorities are faced with a rather nasty choice - either watch the fucking things fall over sideways and take out many many more buildings in a terrible domino effect or blow the foundations and condem the people inside to death.
Would there be any way to secure such monstrous structures against eventual collapse? It's not like you can get the hairy arses to come round and whack some scaffolding up, is it?
have another one - What if the government has absolutely no idea who the fuck did it. It blames the usual suspects but really IS in the dark about the whole thing. In a panic, they ask for more and more powers to curb civil liberties because they know nothing about who the real terrorists were.
Islamic groups join in, a war is started the whole thing goes tit's up.
No, you don't have a clue. You can't even see that there is a difference between communism and the system in the former USSR which didn't even come close. State capitalism ring a bell? Thought not. Your political theory is sorely lacking.
So who do you reckon was flying the planes?
Also worth noting is the fact that in 1945 a US bomber plowed into the side of the Empire State Building causing structural damage on two of the floors and there was no global collapse then. The WTC was designed to far stronger specifications than the Empire State, I trust you can appreciate.
It wasn't the first al-Qaeda attack on American interests by a long way though - it wasn't even the first attempt by terrorists to knock down those particular buildings, the WTC was bombed by Islamic terrorists early in the Clinton adminsitration.
Like an attack on the empty bit of the pentagon?
Who knows, maybe they did one and others were responsible for the WTC, or maybe the other way around. The biggest problem is that there is little data to go at.
The other problem with theories is that everyone can have one. There are massive holes in the government line, but the truth is still unclear and some of the theories out there are pretty wild, especially to someone like Blagsta who worships authority almost as much as he hates it.
By the way, have you seen "Why we fight?" I heard it was pretty good.
Nothing out of keeping either with events of the day, available aerospace technology, or the logic of the attack and its intended repercussions whatsoever.
Certainly explains far better the aerial maneuvres which the alleged hijackers could in no way have made by sworn testimony of their instructors and other military aviation experts.
Also explains far more plausibly why the most protected strategic installation in the US, protected by numerous independent SAM missile batteries did not fire a single shot at the incoming craft (which given the maneuvres of flight 77 and the time of its path over Pentagon airspace, it most assuredly would have).
Learning to fly a plane isn't as difficult as learning brain surgery or something, during the second world war thousands and thousands of men were taught to fly bombers in a relatively short time.