My Views on Everything

[SoulBlazerFan]

Quote:

Also when are these explosives supposed to have been planted? Are you telling me people wouldn't know about it?

The theory here is that it was done weeks in advance. They had a firedrill, and evacuated the entire building two weeks before the crash. According to this video, and other sources I've read, the bomb sniffing dogs that would normally patrol the building stopped coming in those two weeks. Once again, not definitive proof, but a part of the theory.

Quote:

ALSO: My biggest issue is, supposing this was a coverup or conspiracy, what is the motivation?

Interesting enough, the video also produced a document via the Freedom of Information Act. This document had, during the 1950's, the height of the Cold War, high commanding generals discussing plans of faking a terrorist attack to get the country behind a potential war, if needed. Once again, only theories, no proof.

Quote:

If it's a DMCA violation, then it is right to be illegal. Of course I think the DMCA is a bunch of bullshit anyways.

It more than likely is. But I just found it weird that the first time I tried to access this video it told me it was "Illegal to be viewed in your country" and now it's been changed to copyright infringment. Once again, no proof, but I now do believe this is the most likely scenario.

[inferiare]

Adding my two cents here: for all that we hyped up the military task force about doing their jobs in stopping this sort of thing from happening on our soil...

Quote:

The USAF response against Flight 175 8:45 a.m. - United Airlines Flight 175 is taken over by five hijackers who use knives, Mace and the threat of a bomb. Both pilots are killed and the plane is diverted southward to New York City. 8:53 a.m. - Unaware that their intended target has already crashed into the World Trade Center, the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base are sent to military-controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13 a.m. [National Geographic] Flight 11 had crashed into World Trade Center 1, and Flight 175 was hijacked and heading toward New York. Fighter jets were ordered to stay in a holding pattern off Long Island. Why weren't they ordered to protect New York?

from here

Bolding is my own, but I'm sure you get the idea. While I understand "oh shit passenger flight WHAT DO WE DO", on this particular case the answer really should have been "Do we let this plane stay on its course to New York and possibly do what the first did, or do we shoot it down and get rid of 50+ people instead of another 1500?"

That in itself is really, REALLY fishy to me.

Oh. There's also the whole "cell phone WE'RE GIVING THESE GUYS HELL" thing. Cell phones don't work in planes. You have to be using the plane phones. Cell phones are turned off for the same reasons that laptops are, and the reason why all electronics have to be off when the plane is landing/taking off. Sure, the reason they say is "it messes with our equipment" and all, but who knows what else it might do. Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane.

...also, seriously, a boxcutter? I mean. Unless you have one of those HUGE ones, a tiny boxcutter can do minor damage and I fail to see how hijackers OMG TOOK OVER THE PLANE WITH A BOXCUTTERRRRR considering I use one all day at work. :/ Yeah yeah mace and other weapons but I just. Seriously, A BOXCUTTER.

Can't forget the "BBC reporting on the WTC collapsing before it happened." I haven't really read up on anything possibly debunking it, but I do find that interesting. Why would they be reporting it before it happened? Hmm.

[Flamez]

Quote:

Oh. There's also the whole "cell phone WE'RE GIVING THESE GUYS HELL" thing. Cell phones don't work in planes. You have to be using the plane phones. Cell phones are turned off for the same reasons that laptops are, and the reason why all electronics have to be off when the plane is landing/taking off. Sure, the reason they say is "it messes with our equipment" and all, but who knows what else it might do. Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane.

The amount of people who have a mobile phone on them in a plane is extremely high; I wouldnt be surprised that out all the people on the plane, 1 of them didnt turn theres off, or turn it back on.

Quote:

...also, seriously, a boxcutter? I mean. Unless you have one of those HUGE ones, a tiny boxcutter can do minor damage and I fail to see how hijackers OMG TOOK OVER THE PLANE WITH A BOXCUTTERRRRR considering I use one all day at work. :/ Yeah yeah mace and other weapons but I just. Seriously, A BOXCUTTER

boxcutter to the neck would be rather deadly, would you attack a crazy guy with a object that designed to cut?

Quote:

Can't forget the "BBC reporting on the WTC collapsing before it happened." I haven't really read up on anything possibly debunking it, but I do find that interesting. Why would they be reporting it before it happened? Hmm.

We all know the British have a time machine

[inferiare]

Flamez wrote:

Quote: Oh. There's also the whole "cell phone WE'RE GIVING THESE GUYS HELL" thing. Cell phones don't work in planes. You have to be using the plane phones. Cell phones are turned off for the same reasons that laptops are, and the reason why all electronics have to be off when the plane is landing/taking off. Sure, the reason they say is "it messes with our equipment" and all, but who knows what else it might do. Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane. The amount of people who have a mobile phone on them in a plane is extremely high; I wouldnt be surprised that out all the people on the plane, 1 of them didnt turn theres off, or turn it back on.

Sorry to say, it's pretty much mandatory to shut off phones. Everyone knows it, and I do believe the last flight I was on, the stewardesses were making sure people shut them off.

Quote:

boxcutter to the neck would be rather deadly, would you attack a crazy guy with a object that designed to cut?

If it were a choice between die a fiery death and possible small injuries due to the blade of a boxcutter swinging wildly, then yes, I would. I've cut myself on my boxcutter but it wasn't a ton of damage.

Quote:

We all know the British have a time machine

I guess so, since I can't really explain that one. Only reasonable guess is that it was just a picture backdrop, but even still, that's sort of stretching it all in itself.

[SoulBlazerFan]

rainichan wrote:

Flamez wrote: Quote: Oh. There's also the whole "cell phone WE'RE GIVING THESE GUYS HELL" thing. Cell phones don't work in planes. You have to be using the plane phones. Cell phones are turned off for the same reasons that laptops are, and the reason why all electronics have to be off when the plane is landing/taking off. Sure, the reason they say is "it messes with our equipment" and all, but who knows what else it might do. Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane. The amount of people who have a mobile phone on them in a plane is extremely high; I wouldnt be surprised that out all the people on the plane, 1 of them didnt turn theres off, or turn it back on. Sorry to say, it's pretty much mandatory to shut off phones. Everyone knows it, and I do believe the last flight I was on, the stewardesses were making sure people shut them off. Quote: boxcutter to the neck would be rather deadly, would you attack a crazy guy with a object that designed to cut? If it were a choice between die a fiery death and possible small injuries due to the blade of a boxcutter swinging wildly, then yes, I would. I've cut myself on my boxcutter but it wasn't a ton of damage. Quote: We all know the British have a time machine I guess so, since I can't really explain that one. Only reasonable guess is that it was just a picture backdrop, but even still, that's sort of stretching it all in itself.

On cell phones: Depending on the altitude of the plane, the phones wouldn't actually have worked anyway. It may have been a "government plant" that some people believe, or someone else trying to give others hope, like the story about Columbine about the girl who wouldn't renounce her faith and was killed. Several students who were in the room and survived claimed that event never took place.

On boxcutters: There were probably the bigger ones. And yes, I would attack- either the plane goes down and you die, or you try and do something to save lives. Either way it went, the plane crashed, and all onboard perished.

On the British: This I don't see as evidence of a cover-up. Instead, I think it was all the false rumors and information circulating about the attacks that day. In my town, we were told in school it was two U.N. buildings in another country that were attacked by planes. I didn't find out until later about what really happened that day.

As I've told you, I live in Jersey. At the time, I lived near the coast, right by the waterfront. I went down to the beach, and could see New York in the horizon. A giant grey cloud of smoke rose out of the city for days. The water tasted different for two months. People I knew lost loved ones.

I just want answers as to why it happened. We've never been told why the terrorists decided to do the attack this way, only given thoughts that they wanted to "weaken our moral resolve" and that they hated our "freedom" and other things. I believe there's a reason why, a real one that isn't based on some insane idea- and I want to know why.

[Jason Tandro]

rainichan wrote:

Adding my two cents here: for all that we hyped up the military task force about doing their jobs in stopping this sort of thing from happening on our soil... Quote: The USAF response against Flight 175 8:45 a.m. - United Airlines Flight 175 is taken over by five hijackers who use knives, Mace and the threat of a bomb. Both pilots are killed and the plane is diverted southward to New York City. 8:53 a.m. - Unaware that their intended target has already crashed into the World Trade Center, the F-15s from Otis Air Force Base are sent to military-controlled airspace off Long Island and ordered to remain in a holding pattern until between 9:09 and 9:13 a.m. [National Geographic] Flight 11 had crashed into World Trade Center 1, and Flight 175 was hijacked and heading toward New York. Fighter jets were ordered to stay in a holding pattern off Long Island. Why weren't they ordered to protect New York? from here Bolding is my own, but I'm sure you get the idea. While I understand "oh shit passenger flight WHAT DO WE DO", on this particular case the answer really should have been "Do we let this plane stay on its course to New York and possibly do what the first did, or do we shoot it down and get rid of 50+ people instead of another 1500?" That in itself is really, REALLY fishy to me.

Okay, no soldier is going to open fire on a civilian aircraft, and there is no possible way we could have known at the time that the planes were on a collision course for these towers until it was too late to stop them.

And if we did know, then you would just be saying that it was proof that we were involved. We do not negotiate in terrorists, nor will we sacrifice American lives in the possibility of saving more lives if we do not have a grasp of what was going on.

Further fighter jets fly at a much higher altitude than commercial jet liners, and even if they had been ordered to intercept it would have been impossible at those speeds and altitude.

Quote:

Oh. There's also the whole "cell phone WE'RE GIVING THESE GUYS HELL" thing. Cell phones don't work in planes. You have to be using the plane phones. Cell phones are turned off for the same reasons that laptops are, and the reason why all electronics have to be off when the plane is landing/taking off. Sure, the reason they say is "it messes with our equipment" and all, but who knows what else it might do. Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane.

No. You're wrong raini. It is not that cell phones do not work in planes, it is that you are asked not to use them because the electronic signals can possibly interfere with the planes equipment. This is honestly a minor hazard, but they take every precaution to avoid it happening.

Quote:

...also, seriously, a boxcutter? I mean. Unless you have one of those HUGE ones, a tiny boxcutter can do minor damage and I fail to see how hijackers OMG TOOK OVER THE PLANE WITH A BOXCUTTERRRRR considering I use one all day at work. :/ Yeah yeah mace and other weapons but I just. Seriously, A BOXCUTTER.

Okay, well tell me how it goes when you try to take on somebody holding a boxcutter. You realize that boxcutters are retractable razor blades that are just as dangerous as knives. We're not talking about letter openers here.

And furthermore, it was likely that these terrorist also said "we've got a bomb" or something like that.

Quote:

Can't forget the "BBC reporting on the WTC collapsing before it happened." I haven't really read up on anything possibly debunking it, but I do find that interesting. Why would they be reporting it before it happened? Hmm.

Okay, do you have any idea how scattered news reports are, and how CNN is always "we haven't verified this yet?" When news reports get sent in, they can always get mistranslated. And anybody who hears "tower hit by airplane" could easily think the towers have fell, or it could have been that they were on fire and so forth. It's a big phone game and it's a very weak argument.

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

We do not negotiate in terrorists, nor will we sacrifice American lives in the possibility of saving more lives if we do not have a grasp of what was going on.

LOL I'm sorry, but yeah no we do. Hell, if I wanted to go on to say that 9/11 was a ploy to get the Patriot Act put into place, I would. We've done shitty things in the past in order to let those in charge get what they want.

Quote:

No. You're wrong raini. It is not that cell phones do not work in planes, it is that you are asked not to use them because the electronic signals can possibly interfere with the planes equipment. This is honestly a minor hazard, but they take every precaution to avoid it happening.

See what SBiF said for this one. Aaaand I think you missed my saying this: "Either way, I doubt hijackers would let someone make a phone call in the middle of them taking over the cockpit of a plane." If I wanted to end a bunch of lives all at once, I wouldn't let some Joe Blow get on his cell phone to alert people to what I was doing, let alone let him live after that.

Quote:

Okay, well tell me how it goes when you try to take on somebody holding a boxcutter. You realize that boxcutters are retractable razor blades that are just as dangerous as knives. We're not talking about letter openers here. And furthermore, it was likely that these terrorist also said "we've got a bomb" or something like that.

Again, I work with one all day. The blade on mine isn't even 1" in width. I have probably 1/4 of 1" of a blade when I push up on the handle. I know exactly what they are, sarcastic tone of "not talking about letter openers" or not. Even still, if it's "slam into a building and burn to death with jet fuel and falling debris" or "get a mob of people and take on the hijacker assholes", damn straight I'm going for "get a mob of people and take on the hijacker assholes" because I would rather not die in the other way. I'd like a chance to survive

And even if they DID mention a bomb I'd rather take the chance of them bluffing and try to get the plane on land before evacuating or whatnot.

Quote:

Okay, do you have any idea how scattered news reports are, and how CNN is always "we haven't verified this yet?" When news reports get sent in, they can always get mistranslated. And anybody who hears "tower hit by airplane" could easily think the towers have fell, or it could have been that they were on fire and so forth. It's a big phone game and it's a very weak argument.

No no. This was the BBC. http://jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html They're usually a more accurate and trustworthy newscast instead of "local dog wins blue ribbon in dog food eating contest LOL!" reports in the news. You know. They actually report news.

There's also this: http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html
this: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html?q=wtc2_firefighters.html
and this: http://debunking-bbc.blogspot.com/

[Jason Tandro]

I'm sorry, but again I revert to my original point. A plot of this nature would take 1000s and are you telling me that those 1000 people have kept quiet?

And if the government wants to do something, they don't need to get public approval, they can just do it. The one thing I'll agree with you on is that we, the people, aren't in control of our country anymore, so that argument is invalid. That also does not debunk the fighter jets incident.

I think arguing on the basis of how dangerous is a boxcutter is a waste of time because we can hash it down one way or another, but it's subjective. One person may find it a valid weapon, another may not, but physical evidence isn't going to come out one way or another for what the passengers were thinking, and I doubt the presence or lack of a boxcutter will be the keystone upon which the conspiracy theory buckles or is solidified.

You miss my point about the BBC. They're getting reports from overseas, there is a lot of people and eyewitnesses reporting different things, and stories get muffed up. It was an accident, nothing more.

Besides why the BBC? The US Government has no control over the BBC.

And my friend brought up another point: If the Government wanted to pull off a conspiracy, with the technology that we have it would be executed so perfectly that nobody would ever consider it.

[Flamez]

Jason Tandro wrote:

And my friend brought up another point: If the Government wanted to pull off a conspiracy, with the technology that we have it would be executed so perfectly that nobody would ever consider it.

No matter how perfect something like that got pulled off, there would always be conspiracy theries about it. Also, sure the technology to pull such a thing off can be designed perfectly, but there is always the human element, and humans make mistakes.

[Jason Tandro]

Flamez wrote:

Jason Tandro wrote: And my friend brought up another point: If the Government wanted to pull off a conspiracy, with the technology that we have it would be executed so perfectly that nobody would ever consider it. No matter how perfect something like that got pulled off, there would always be conspiracy theries about it. Also, sure the technology to pull such a thing off can be designed perfectly, but there is always the human element, and humans make mistakes.

Pfft. Yeah maybe you do.

[SoulBlazerFan]

Jason Tandro wrote:

I'm sorry, but again I revert to my original point. A plot of this nature would take 1000s and are you telling me that those 1000 people have kept quiet? And if the government wants to do something, they don't need to get public approval, they can just do it. The one thing I'll agree with you on is that we, the people, aren't in control of our country anymore, so that argument is invalid. That also does not debunk the fighter jets incident. I think arguing on the basis of how dangerous is a boxcutter is a waste of time because we can hash it down one way or another, but it's subjective. One person may find it a valid weapon, another may not, but physical evidence isn't going to come out one way or another for what the passengers were thinking, and I doubt the presence or lack of a boxcutter will be the keystone upon which the conspiracy theory buckles or is solidified. You miss my point about the BBC. They're getting reports from overseas, there is a lot of people and eyewitnesses reporting different things, and stories get muffed up. It was an accident, nothing more. Besides why the BBC? The US Government has no control over the BBC. And my friend brought up another point: If the Government wanted to pull off a conspiracy, with the technology that we have it would be executed so perfectly that nobody would ever consider it.

No matter what there will always be conspiracy theorists out there. The problem is, even if they know 100% about the truth, people would debunk their claims, and call them "idiots."

On the phone: If I remember correctly, the guy who made the supposed phone call never tried to tell his mother, with whom she was speaking, to call the police or anything. If I got a call through, that would be my first line of thought.

Also, scientists at the time said the same universal thing- if the plane was flying above a certain altitude, the cellphone towers wouldn't have captured the signal. They were just way to high in the air. That's not just heresay. That's fact.

And like I said, I agree with you Jason. Chances are, the BBC misunderstood reports about the Towers. Several news sources received wrong information. It happens.

As for thousands to be involved, that's not necessarily true. Each flight was well under it's total load of passengers (I believe one flight had 78 people on it, and the highest was 117 or so). Theres an insane idea that the plane that hit the Pentagon wasn't a plane, but a missle, and that flight made an emergency stop at an airport.

And yes Jason, the government would shoot down an aircraft to stop a terrorist plot. They won't give into terrorist demands, and they would be willing to take down an aircraft if they believed it would spare lives. They would lie about it, too- because you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

After the first plane slammed into Tower one, they thought it was an accident. The second slammed, they knew it was a terrorist attack. The third hit America's defense building- all three planes were in the vincinity of a major city with potentially high casualties. Flight 93 went down in an open field in a countryside- is it a coincidence that the plane crashed where there would be little to no human lives lost on the ground? That it just so happened the passengers decided to fight back and down the plane there? That a random passenger aboard the plane would be able to crash the plane in an area of dense woods with little to no human life? Or does it seem more logical that the military would destroy the plane in an area where the wreckage would land and minimize ground casualties?

Another major issue people came up with about that was the severe lack of wreckage. Like you said, the parts would be scattered all over the place. I'm not denying that. But it seemed as though they found nothing. Now, it was you who said one engine was found like, two miles away? What seems more logical, that the plane smashes into the ground and one engine was sent two miles off, or that the plane either exploded in mid air or was blown to hell, and the engine was flung two miles?

[Jason Tandro]

For me, I'm a firm believer in Occam's Razor. I think it's far more likely that this was a terrorist attack and in the confusion of it all certain things were said and done that seemed suspicious, than the government who basically owns us already did it all to get public approval to tap our phones and steal the middle east's oil. It just doesn't add up logically for me.

Incidentally, I miss this. Intelligence is soothing. Even if I think your 100% wrong, if you can present your point with more than just rhetoric than you obviously have some brains behind you.

This is what I wish more of our debates were like you guys !

[inferiare]

Jason Tandro wrote:

than the government who basically owns us already did it all to get public approval to tap our phones and steal the middle east's oil. It just doesn't add up logically for me.

The Patriot Act was shoved through Congress/Senate/House. Those who were voting on the bill were told just to vote on the behemoth bill that was written up pretty quickly after the attacks happened. Those who were voting on the bill had no time to read over what the bill actually entailed, and had not even 24 hours to give it a read through.

The next day comes, senators and congressmen were told JUST VOTE ON IT, and they passed a bill in which they thought would do us some good, only to find out that it infringed on our Constitutional rights. A lot of those who voted 'yes' on it said that they wished they had more time to read it, since they would have killed it in the water before it could ever pass legislation.

No, they did it to pass that law. I absolutely HATE using Micahel Moore as my reference, but Fahrenheit 9/11 has that bit in there. Sure he goes to say "Well if we read every bill that we passed..." and so on, but at the same time, why were they being urged to JUST VOTE VOTE VOTE despite the fact that it infringes out rights?

Yes, I do believe that something on that magnitude could be done, and it was. If you haven't seen for yourself how good the government is at either burying things, or shutting people up, well... I can't really comment on that. But I believe that all the truth is being buried and anyone who says different about the 9/11 attacks (in which, yes they were indeed attacks, no matter which side perpetuated it; whether it be the USA or the Al-Qaeda jerks) not being "just a terrorist attack" aren't "idiots" or "conspiracy theorists" or anything else: they're searching for the truth on what really happened that day, and that's what I'm doing. I wouldn't believe my own government for a second. How sad is that? They've lied to me before, why wouldn't they do so again?

[Jason Tandro]

Again, I don't buy it. I'm fairly open-minded, but I just think that this conspiracy theory (and while I will gladly withdraw my idiot comment, I refuse to refer to this as anything but a conspiracy theory) is just another example of people believing anything they hear about the government except the good stuff.

Yeah our government is corrupt, but frankly it seems like almost a fad to hate them... well at least to hate Republicans. I think this conspiracy theory would not have been nearly as well followed had Obama been in office during the time of the attacks.

[Flamez]

Im not sure if the attack was real or a set up or not; what I do believe though is the American gov milked it for all it was worth. The attack gave them the excuse to do what the wanted (patriot bill, war .etc) for the next few years. All Bush had to do was say "9 11" for almost anything during that period and it was a plausible reason.