'The BBC now admits Al Qaeda never existed' video

[Garlic]

Typical aeroplane crash wreckage. Nuff said.

[davros]

Like I said, I haven't researched anything. I've seen some footage here and there, for example of building 7, which seemed structurally fine, much like other buildings surrounding the WTC. And sure, there were more fires than I said (a couple of rooms), but still, I found it odd for the building to collapse like it did, when it did. But you're right, I have no basis for any of this.

There's a scale of "odd". Having a building collapse like that due to the effect of buildings nearby collapsing is odd, and I don't think many would expect it to, even with the immense force exerted on it through the collapse of WTC, but compared to any and every other explanation available it is by far the most likely.

Regarding Flight 93....a hole in the ground was found, hardly any wreckage. Or at least, as far as Ive seen. The wreckage that was found seems so little even for a nose-down impact of said aircraft.

Strewn pieces of aircraft, burnt corpses that are DNA matches... a black box detailing the entire conversation between the pilot and hijackers.

Oh, and a hole in the ground.

One side of me really wants to use that engineering knowledge, dive into it and debunk claims from either side for myself....but my practical side feels that it's been over 10 years and I don't really care anymore. Everything has been said and done about 9/11.

I just feel like, if one were to dive in like that, you'd find some discrepancies.

Fortunately a lot of people have already done the work for you and the ratio puts wtc conspiracy theorists in the same category as young earth creationists, climate sceptics and people who think elvis is still alive.

[Garlic]

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/biztravel/2004-07-19-aircells_x.htm

Posted 7/19/2004 9:39 PM

In-flight cell phones 'worked great' in test

Wait a second.... You mean that initial tests for using a cell phone in a commercial plane began in 2004...? And they needed special air to satellite equipment to do so??? WHAT A RIP OFF!! People were calling from their cell phone in 2001!!!!! 11/9/2001, to be exact....

And as for the DNA matches and black box, we've only got they medias word for it. There are few things I am this cynical about but there's just so much bullshit surrounding 9/11 that I am predisposed to disbelieve all of it until I'm presented with actual proof.

[vennie]

There's a scale of "odd". Having a building collapse like that due to the effect of buildings nearby collapsing is odd, and I don't think many would expect it to, even with the immense force exerted on it through the collapse of WTC, but compared to any and every other explanation available it is by far the most likely. Strewn pieces of aircraft, burnt corpses that are DNA matches... a black box detailing the entire conversation between the pilot and hijackers.

Oh, and a hole in the ground.Fortunately a lot of people have already done the work for you and the ratio puts wtc conspiracy theorists in the same category as young earth creationists, climate sceptics and people who think elvis is still alive.

Yeaaah, I try not to take anyone's word for anything. especially what is being fed to us through media and studies.

It would be the same as taking a medical study for its 'word'. They study something, find out something, so they claim it's bad to do something. 3 years later another study suggests the exact opposite.

So, sure, I'm willing to believe whatever claim there is about 9/11, after I have studied the evidence for myself. Right now I simply don't have much of an opinion on the matter, just thoughts

Also, ELVIS LIVES BITCH!!

[Garlic]

Also, ELVIS LIVES BITCH!!

Shit just got real

[stubblesticker]

Typical aeroplane crash wreckage. Nuff said.

Know what's also typical of airplane crashes? Pilots not trying to kill everyone on board...

Where's {}{}{} when you need him?

[Garlic]

Know what's also typical of airplane crashes? Pilots not trying to kill everyone on board...

Where's {}{}{} when you need him?

So you're basically saying that the pilots  intent to crash the plane made him able to make a whole thing vanish on impact?

[stubblesticker]

I'm saying you can't compare the wreckage of a plane going 150-200 mph (because the pilot is trying to save lives) to the wreckage of a plane going 450-500 mph (because the pilot is trying to kill people).

[Guest Skellington]

The jet fuel must've burned the whole plane up since it melted all the steel in the towers. now it all makes sense.

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

Ockham's razor, bitches. The sheer scale of the deception required to fake the whole thing is about a thousand times more complex than that a few terrorists with a prior history might bring down a few planes.

And if it were a conspiracy then exactly why, after all that effort, would their budget suddenly run a bit too short for them to scatter sufficient debris on a field? They'd need years of planning, hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially tens of thousands of people to pull it off (assuming the media is 'part of the conspiracy' - which they'd have to be) - so why the fuck couldn't they just pick up some more debris from a junk yard?

[Garlic]

Ockham's razor, bitches. The sheer scale of the deception required to fake the whole thing is about a thousand times more complex than that a few terrorists with a prior history might bring down a few planes.

And if it were a conspiracy then exactly why, after all that effort, would their budget suddenly run a bit too short for them to scatter sufficient debris on a field? They'd need years of planning, hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially tens of thousands of people to pull it off (assuming the media is 'part of the conspiracy' - which they'd have to be) - so why the fuck couldn't they just pick up some more debris from a junk yard?

They assumed the media would cover it up for them sufficiently enough to make most people believe the lies. And look! It worked!

[mickloud]

Ockham's razor, bitches... They'd need... tens of thousands of people to pull it off.

Sorry for chopping up your quote SayHello, but I think this sums it up.  People.  It would take SOOOO many people, hundreds upon hundreds of people to even orchestrate such a conspiracy, and thousands more would have to agree to be silent on the matter. Ignoring logistical problems and lack of motive, the sheer human scale would probably constitute the largest collaborative human effort ever undertaken.

And, if I may give my opinion, if this were the case, the 9/11 conspiracy would represent an EVIL far greater than any terrorist plot... and that's coming from a guy who doesn't really even believe in the good/evil dichotomy.  Think about it...  It was either a handful of fundamentalists with a political/religious motive - or thousands of low-mid level government employees, cops, and firefighters conspiring to murder their own countrymen, then lie about it for more than a decade, with no motive to speak of.  Ponder that.

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

They assumed the media would cover it up for them sufficiently enough to make most people believe the lies. And look! It worked!

Well done, you avoided answering the major questions, and instead gave an 'answer' that actually emphasizes my original point. 'They' (the evil lizard-people, who stand to gain nothing from the endeavor) assumed that an entire international industry, which answers to no single state and has no hierarchy, would uniformly perpetuate an elaborate hoax involving the death of thousands of people, with no obvious benefit whatsoever to themselves or anyone else?

This is the problem with you conspiracy theorists. You're more than happy to write off entire subsections of the population as murderously evil, based on nothing but a childish dislike of their profession. If all of the media, all of the lawmakers and statesmen, all of the military, and all of the intelligence and defense communities were part of these absurd plots then why would they even bother to cover it up? That's basically half the fucking population - they wouldn't even need to waste time feeding us some elaborate and expensive hoax.

Furthermore, where does it place the actual terrorist networks and their leaders? They're just lies too, presumably?

[Guest Skellington]

Well, to be fair, I don't think it would take "thousands of low-mid level employees," because I totally agree that the scale of the whole thing makes it *highly* unlikely. But I think it could easily be done with, say, a hundred high-level employees, like say, the president, maybe some senators or something, who knows. The Al Qaeda were the ones functioning as the "thousands of low-mid level employees" so that we wouldn't have to do it and could just blame them.

The only reason I'm even pressing the point and trying to look at ways around it is because the controversy surrounding the whole thing is highly suspicious. In addition, like I said, I've spoken with people who lived in Somerset, and I've also seen a couple of those videos about the 9/11 conspiracy. While I definitely don't believe most conspiracies because of how many people would need to be involved to make it work, this one I think has a least enough to contradiction and weirdness to it that it at least is worth giving a second look.

[Guest Skellington]

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is what the US gained out of this entire thing. We DEFINITELY had motivation to do what we did, and something like 9/11, where coincidentally a US-funded and trained "terrorist" organization suddenly has a coordinated and highly controversial attack on the US was the PERFECT catalyst to unite a nation and actually have us AGREE to invade an entire other country. Oh, how convenient, now the US Gov gets what they want (oil and foothold in the middle east for starters) and the US people actually are supporting it.

If you also look at the reasons we had for invading Iraq, it was both "ties to Al Qaeda" which turned out to be false and also "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which also turned out to be false evidence. Then as soon as everyone started dropping their support and saying, wtf?, our government just changed the focus to point toward Sadam and the spread of democracy.

Again, I'm not actually saying that I think the 9/11 thing was a hoax, I'm just saying that it was exactly what the US needed to do to get what they want. I don't think the US would be so smart and efficient as to pull off a hoax without problems (they actually didn't, there is obviously all the contradictory/controversial evidence), while I also don't think the US would be so dumb as to go against the entire U.N. and invade a country (Iraq) based on "evidence" which turned out to not even be true (ties to alQaeda/WMDs).

I think it's just obvious that there's an underlying TRUE reason for everything they did, which can be summed up in money and power. All the other "reasons" were just made up to keep up the support/funding so that they could actually do what they wanted to do. If the US had just come out in the beginning and said "we need to invade the middle east to keep them down and keep us up, also so we can steal their oil," nooooo one would have supported it, and they obviously knew that.

[Garlic]

No motive? War is incredibly profitable. The Bush family made their fortune in the oil business retard Bush Jr. managed to fuck it all up with his retarded business sense. How to get the money back.....? Steal oil from other countries!! But wait.... He can't just walk in and take it if only US was at war with those countries.... Hmm...

[Garlic]

I think one of the most important things to keep in mind is what the US gained out of this entire thing. We DEFINITELY had motivation to do what we did, and something like 9/11, where coincidentally a US-funded and trained "terrorist" organization suddenly has a coordinated and highly controversial attack on the US was the PERFECT catalyst to unite a nation and actually have us AGREE to invade an entire other country. Oh, how convenient, now the US Gov gets what they want (oil and foothold in the middle east for starters) and the US people actually are supporting it.

If you also look at the reasons we had for invading Iraq, it was both "ties to Al Qaeda" which turned out to be false and also "Weapons of Mass Destruction" which also turned out to be false evidence. Then as soon as everyone started dropping their support and saying, wtf?, our government just changed the focus to point toward Sadam and the spread of democracy.

Again, I'm not actually saying that I think the 9/11 thing was a hoax, I'm just saying that it was exactly what the US needed to do to get what they want. I don't think the US would be so smart and efficient as to pull off a hoax without problems (they actually didn't, there is obviously all the contradictory/controversial evidence), while I also don't think the US would be so dumb as to go against the entire U.N. and invade a country (Iraq) based on "evidence" which turned out to not even be true (ties to alQaeda/WMDs).

I think it's just obvious that there's an underlying TRUE reason for everything they did, which can be summed up in money and power. All the other "reasons" were just made up to keep up the support/funding so that they could actually do what they wanted to do. If the US had just come out in the beginning and said "we need to invade the middle east to keep them down and keep us up, also so we can steal their oil," nooooo one would have supported it, and they obviously knew that.

Your argument is very reasoned and logical.

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

As far as profiting from an invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan rate among the lowest in history. In the colonial period, there was actually a genuine financial and political incentive; in this instance we have a war that can still barely break even, a noticeable lack of personal fortunes being made my any government officials whatsoever, and a complete public backlash that resulted in the disowning of the Bush/Cheney cohort by just about every faction in the world.

That the US had previously trained and armed a division of rebel soldiers that later founded a number of Islamist groups across the Middle East is redundant; they've done the same in Africa, Indonesia, South America, and Eastern Europe as well. Sometimes it bites them in the ass.

So their motive is void, and even if they did stand to gain some measly little fortune it would do them no good; there's no chance of ever openly receiving a large personal fortune, and if the benefit to the US economy is to be considered, it must be done with the cost of the war effort in mind as well, alongside the thousands of dead civilians and soldiers and a complete lapse in public support. In other words, it failed in every conceivable regard, and even the most biased intelligence agency would've known that this would be the case if no weapons of mass destruction were found.

I find it far easier to believe that Bush and Blair are just a bunch of morons, than that they have any motive or reason to knowingly kill tens of thousands of their own citizens for money that they never received. I mean fuck, the most Blair's got out of the whole affair are the bloody book sales from his memoirs.

[mickloud]

As far as profiting from an invasion, Iraq and Afghanistan rate among the lowest in history. In the colonial period, there was actually a genuine financial and political incentive; in this instance we have a war that can still barely break even, a noticeable lack of personal fortunes being made my any government officials whatsoever, and a complete public backlash that resulted in the disowning of the Bush/Cheney cohort by just about every faction in the world.

That the US had previously trained and armed a division of rebel soldiers that later founded a number of Islamist groups across the Middle East is redundant; they've done the same in Africa, Indonesia, South America, and Eastern Europe as well. Sometimes it bites them in the ass.

So their motive is void, and even if they did stand to gain some measly little fortune it would do them no good; there's no chance of ever openly receiving a large personal fortune, and if the benefit to the US economy is to be considered, it must be done with the cost of the war effort in mind as well, alongside the thousands of dead civilians and soldiers and a complete lapse in public support. In other words, it failed in every conceivable regard, and even the most biased intelligence agency would've known that this would be the case if no weapons of mass destruction were found.

I find it far easier to believe that Bush and Blair are just a bunch of morons, than that they have any motive or reason to knowingly kill tens of thousands of their own citizens for money that they never received. I mean fuck, the most Blair's got out of the whole affair are the bloody book sales from his memoirs.

Now that you mention it, if the 9/11 conspiracy plot were true, wouldn't it have made sense for our government to keep the lie going, and assure that WMDs were found, thus serving to justify the war on terror?.  It would be simple matter of planting the necessary evidence.  That's GOT to be easier than orchestrating a false-flag terror attack on US soil and getting countess government functionaries, civilians, law enforcers, emergency personnel, and journalists to silently comply.

It seems crazy to me that our government could be so overwhelmingly competent at orchestrating a false attack, and at fooling so many people, yet fail to follow through and make the entire endeavor genuinely convincing.  Doesn't add up.  Terrorists with box-cutters hijacking a commercial aircraft and crashing into the WTC for ideological reasons... that does add up.

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

Now that you mention it, if the 9/11 conspiracy plot were true, wouldn't it have made sense for our government to keep the lie going, and assure that WMDs were found, thus serving to justify the war on terror?.  It would be simple matter of planting the necessary evidence.  That's GOT to be easier than orchestrating a false-flag terror attack on US soil and getting countess government functionaries, civilians, law enforcers, emergency personnel, and journalists to silently comply.

It seems crazy to me that our government could be so overwhelmingly competent at orchestrating a false attack, and at fooling so many people, yet fail to follow through and make the entire endeavor genuinely convincing.  Doesn't add up.  Terrorists with box-cutters hijacking a commercial aircraft and crashing into the WTC for ideological reasons... that does add up.

Yes, I forgot to mention that pertinent point. I suppose I was distracted by all the other pertinent points. Even if I were a complete sociopath running this shadow government operation, on practicality alone I'd be far more inclined to simply plant WMDs than to kill thousands of my own people in a stunt that still barely justified an invasion even in the heat of the moment. The weapons are what people were worried about, silly as it may seem in hindsight.

[Garlic]

They couldn't keep the lie going forever.

In not saying that they'd profit ONLY from oil. A politician taking tax money for ones own use is illegal. They would have to find a way to take it legally. Creating a war would mean buying more ammunition, weapons, R&D, etc.

If the politicians buy shares and sit on the board for companies which profit from war, then the politician has an inventive to create a war.

[Heart and Mind]

I wonder their strategy for when oil ends..  Maybe move from killing 2000 to 2 million  ;D

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

They couldn't keep the lie going forever.

In not saying that they'd profit ONLY from oil. A politician taking tax money for ones own use is illegal. They would have to find a way to take it legally. Creating a war would mean buying more ammunition, weapons, R&D, etc.

If the politicians buy shares and sit on the board for companies which profit from war, then the politician has an inventive to create a war.

Okay, so to support a war you need (approximately) a majority of congressional support. So about 50% of the entire house of Congress must have had enough of a stake in some munitions dealers for them to be willing to kill a few thousand of their own citizens in a conspiracy, and then start two wars. All of which cost a few trillion dollars. Yeah, that'd never show up on anyone's tax return. Oh, but the entire accounting community is on the conspiracy too, of course. Well then, these congressmen all have their millions of dollars from war-mongering, but - oh wait! They can't publicly spend it on anything, ever, because they're still in the public eye. Gee, I bet that was totally worth killing tens of thousands of people for.

To say nothing of the fact that the opposing parties would give anything for such a scandal to occur - political capital is worth a lot more than any feasible stake in a weapons company. To say nothing of the fact that independent bodies exist all over the world to avoid such dirty dealings. To say nothing of the fact that nearly all of the richest people in the world who aren't dictators/monarchs or heirs thereof, tend to make their money in peaceful enterprises. Why? Because an open trade relationship between two democratic, capitalist countries has been proven to make a lot more money than incessant protectionism, nationalism and war-mongering. All that crap about how wars pull countries out of depressions and promote social solidarity are overblown myths; the literature against the theories is overwhelming.

[Garlic]

Okay, so to support a war you need (approximately) a majority of congressional support. So about 50% of the entire house of Congress must have had enough of a stake in some munitions dealers for them to be willing to kill a few thousand of their own citizens in a conspiracy, and then start two wars. All of which cost a few trillion dollars. Yeah, that'd never show up on anyone's tax return. Oh, but the entire accounting community is on the conspiracy too, of course. Well then, these congressmen all have their millions of dollars from war-mongering, but - oh wait! They can't publicly spend it on anything, ever, because they're still in the public eye. Gee, I bet that was totally worth killing tens of thousands of people for.

To say nothing of the fact that the opposing parties would give anything for such a scandal to occur - political capital is worth a lot more than any feasible stake in a weapons company. To say nothing of the fact that independent bodies exist all over the world to avoid such dirty dealings. To say nothing of the fact that nearly all of the richest people in the world who aren't dictators/monarchs or heirs thereof, tend to make their money in peaceful enterprises. Why? Because an open trade relationship between two democratic, capitalist countries has been proven to make a lot more money than incessant protectionism, nationalism and war-mongering. All that crap about how wars pull countries out of depressions and promote social solidarity are overblown myths; the literature against the theories is overwhelming.

I pity those who believe that the worlds most wealthy made so much money by being honest. Being in the public eye is irrelevant when almost all the worlds news outlets are owned by one, mortally corrupt man.

[SayHelloToMyLittleFriend]

I pity those who believe that the worlds most wealthy made so much money by being honest. Being in the public eye is irrelevant when almost all the worlds news outlets are owned by one, mortally corrupt man.

Good God you're naive. It is simply beyond me or any one person to sufficiently explain just how excruciatingly shallow your entire worldview is. Worst of all, you seem to mistake this baseless pessimism for wisdom, and have apparently made no further effort to actually investigate or in any way expand your knowledge; consequently, your whole concept of the world is in a state of arrested development.

I find this particularly frustrating because there are plenty of horrific injustices and deceits in this world, but they're far more subtle, cunning and dangerous than your ham-handed and sensationalist conspiracies will ever allow you to comprehend.