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.
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
No doubt the americans dropped the ball like they have so many times before and since but I have still not seen any evidence foe american invlovement in 9/11 with the exception of that it was the yanks that traine dup osama bin laden and no doubt a few of hi speople, back in the day to fight russia when they invaded afghanistan. So I guess america could potentially be blamed for giving bin laden his weapins and fighting knowledge, maybe even some weapons but thats as far as I'd go.
No one's saying there aren't terrorists in the world, of course there are, it's just America had so much to gain from 9/11 i.e. geo political positiioning in the Middle East, Oil, and very little to lose from it i.e.3,000 lives of complete strangers.
That a democratic government would attack it's own people (at the risk of being caught out) for economic and political gain is so much more ludicrous as to be gross stupidity.
There might have been a government conspircay involved in 9/11, but it would have to have been far cleverer than the paltry offerings on this thread because the official story is backed up by far too much evidence and the "conspiracy" theories are "backed up" by hearsay, skewing of the facts and downright lies.
If America had its act together and shot down the planes, they'd be taking as much, if not more, flak for that - everyone would be saying "you don't know that the hijackers would have crashed themselves into those buildings".
Japan was powerful in the east, they were doing major damage and were just as brtual and twsited as the nazi's in europe. The Pow camps there were just as bad, if not worse then Auschwitz and alike.
The bomb shortened the war in the region and saved a longer drawn out conflict. It had a use and it worked. And now atomic enegry is seen as the future of energy for quite a few years to come.
All the allies agreed to its use. The UK were the designers of the bomb an dhave the design to the USA to build. They built it an dused it. Singling ou tthe yanks for using it in a World War shows nothing, other then the fatc it was a world war that need to be won and ended.
Why not have a go the french who let off several of thing in the Pacific for no reason and had no backing from anyone.
I tell you at least one thing that was proved in 9/11. 2 planes flew into those 2 towers and thats a fact. 3000 people lost their lives overall. Lets not cheapen that with Bush bashing and conspiracy talk.
Thing is, there's not many people in the Pacific Ocean, there are in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Oh and tens of thousands of civillians have died in Iraq because of the occupation, but lets not cheapen Bush, lets support him actually!
Dropping nukes on civilians would shorten most wars. Do you think that makes it alright?
Because they are not the only nation in the history of mankind to use nuclear weapons in anger killing hundreds of thousands in the process?
Arg... It happened, lets get over it and get back onto 9/11. Which is the Issue
Well...true...you can't prove that you exist, but there comes a point at which it's helpful to start taking a few things as "fact".. We saw 2 planes crash into the WTC (on film at least), the buildings are definitely gone (go and see for yourself), there were plenty of witnesses - so the likelihood is that it happened for starters.
There is all sorts of evidence backing up the official line (well there *would be, wouldn't there). There's very little backing up the conspiracy (just watch as everyone becomes a structural engineer before our eyes) beyond comments like "well you can't trust governments" despite the fact that various affiliated Isalmic terrorist groups have much better reasons to commit the act
...Or to put that another way - a country that wasn't willing to waste the lives of its own citizens in a costly invasion of Japan probably holds those citizens in a higher regard than they're being given credit for (they would certainly have lost more than the 120,000 killed in the initial blasts). The statement "they didn't even need to do it" is either completely false or only true in retrospect.
Erm... there are all sorts of discrepancies with the government line. There is also quite a bit of evidence for the conspiricist line. And let's face it, plenty of conspiracies with little evidence have been true. Because the evidence we are given, is tampered with to fit hte government line.
Erm, initial blasts aren't the only part. The Japanese were considering surrender anyway. They would have had Russian backup as well, from the other side.
It would have been difficult yes. But let's not forget those killed were mostly civilians. The statement is true. But sadly it wasn't the chosen action. Let's get over it and learn from this mistake never to use nukes again. Ever. Japan was only good in one sense: It showed to world that the Nuclear Weapon is a thing that should not be used again. Without it, I have no doubt the Cold War would have had a far nastier end. And if we lived long enough for Vietnam, that would have got nuked. It very nearly was nuked... very nearly, closer that most of us realise. :shocking:
F'rinstance?
There really isn't. There's quite a lot of made up stuff, some twisting of real facts and some total misinterpretation. William of Ockham is rolling in his grave.
Again, I'll need examples to discuss this.
Nope. About another 250,000 were killed by after-effects. That's horrific, but 1) it's hard to believe anyone could get an accurate estimate on that happening before the bombs (hence I'm wary of throwing it into a figure of how many the US thought would die; 2) that's still fewer than would have died in an invasion; 3) that's still fewer than died in some of the conventional bombing campaigns in Europe.
Nice. We could have had East and West Tokyo too...
Most of those who would have been killed were conscripts - that's really just a name for civilians who've been forced to wear a uniform.
http://thebiggestsecretpict.online.fr/nwo.htm
I think the most suspious stuff has to do with the plane that was supposed to have crashd into the Pentagon Building
Even the most ardent conspiracy theorists have abandoned the "no plane in the pentagon" theory.
You can't see the plane in the security pic because it's already gone into the building and practically disintegrated. There are plenty of pics which show bits of debris. The hole in the side of the Pentagon doesn't resemble the shape of a plane because this isn't a cartoon. A couple of hundred people on the nearby freeway saw the plane crash into the Pentagon. The emergency workers on the scene saw the plane wreckage. The plane that this is stated as being never arrived at its destination. Nor did its crew or passengers.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1516135954720293016&q=wtc
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2037122715838605639&q=wtc
The in Plane site video's of which one is an hour long asks some interesting questions like what is it that appears to be a pod attached to the bottom of the 2nd plane, and live witnesses at the time were saying things like the plane had no windows, etc.
Also the only video released of the pentagon being hit showed like 5 frames and none of them showed a plane in any of them, only a fireball. And why the hole was so small.
The trouble these days is video cameras provide really poor images of distance objects and can't be easily enlarged like with old film cameras.
The way tower 7 came down seems strange to me.
everything about all these things just seems too perfect.
That would be the right fairing - it's where the undercarriage is stored.
And yet there's any amount of film you can watch where you can see the windows. It was broadcast around the world at the time. What would be the point in having a dummy plane with no windows anyway?
The plane came in almost sideways, sheared off one wing on the ground (half-full of fuel) and exploded. The other wing appears to have sheared off on contact with the reinforced concrete of the Pentagon and thus we have only the fuselage making a hole in the building itself.
But not to the structural engineers who looked at it. The WTC7 had sustained so much damage to its load-bearing capability that all of its weight was being supported at the bottom of the outer walls.
everything about all these things just seems too perfect.[/QUOTE]
and all without disturbing the lawn?
how reinforced is the pentagon?
especialy the bit the plane hit ...the bit that had been covered in tarps and scaffold for months ...
who needs special missiles when any cheap old plane can drill a perfect hole through one of the most reinforced buildings in the world.
That's special anti-aircraft grass!!
Like the video said, the Pentagon is supposed to be one of the highest security buildings in the world and they couldn't produce more then a single camera that covered the area that was hit and even then no plane at all shown in the frames... :chin:
And even the single camera they did have shouwed the wrong date on it..
At the very least I'd expect at least 2 more cameras to have covered the area.
Even London underground has cameras covered all the various angles by two cameras. And they say if you go into London you'll have your face capuured on over 300 cameras.
I reckon the opening episode of LOST shows a truer example of what a plane crash would look like and even that costed about $4 million to stage for the screen.
It would take a nuke to demolish that place.
Bit disingenuous isn't it? This wasn't "any cheap old plane", it was a 757 with half full fuel tanks doing about 500mph. There isn't a missile in the world (short of putting a nuclear warhead on) with that kind of power.
Following the biggest security breach in Pentagon history, I'm not sure it would be a great idea to give out the location of its other security apparatus. Either way, it's not that there isn't any film, it's that the Pentagon confiscated all security camera films - including that of a nearby hotel (whose staff watched the film and confirmed that it was a passenger jet before it was confiscated) - and hasn't deigned to show them yet.
Regardless, hundreds of independent witnesses SAW the plane hit.
Therein lies the main problem. Supposition dressed up as fact.
Bit disingenuous isn't it? This wasn't "any cheap old plane", it was a 757 with half full fuel tanks doing about 500mph. There isn't a missile in the world (short of putting a nuclear warhead on) with that kind of power.[/QUOTE]rubbish!
a flimsy bit of tim can ...very flimsy ...does not drill holes through reinforced bunkers!
the fuel?
that was way behind the nose cone.
There isn't a missile in the world (short of putting a nuclear warhead on) with that kind of power. rubbish!
a flimsy bit of tim can ...very flimsy ...does not drill holes through reinforced bunkers!
the fuel?
that was way behind the nose cone.
There isn't a missile in the world (short of putting a nuclear warhead on) with that kind of power. rubbish![/QUOTE]
I'm at a bit of a loss for words to be honest. A 757 is built to lift an enormous weight, to travel at over Mach 0.5 and to stand up to some pretty dreadful weather. If you think it's a flimsy tin can, I can only assume you never travel in them...
And possibly have never seen one...
Steering a plane is easy. Negotiating the altitude as well, a lot more difficult. But then, they weren't trying to do a textbook manoeuver - they were attempting to crash. There's nothing easier. You couldn't miss the Pentagon. The Twin Towers were way more impressive.