Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News > Debunking 9/11 conspiracies from the Left
Reload this Page Reply to Thread
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Thread: Debunking 9/11 conspiracies from the Left Reply to Thread
Title:
Message
Image Verification
Please enter the six letters or digits that appear in the image opposite.


Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
Sep 23rd, 2006 10:32 AM
Courage the Cowardly Dog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant10708
Courage, most of the hijackers were Saudis. Which I have no idea why the U.S. would pick Saudi hijackers to fly planes into buildings in order to attack Iraq and afghanstan. I also thought Geggy believed it was crazy to think planes were hijacked at all.
i was reffering to his reffering to the plans to attack iraq and the culture of fear and all that. I still think he's full of shit when it comes to the US faking it all.
Sep 23rd, 2006 07:04 AM
Ant10708 Courage, most of the hijackers were Saudis. Which I have no idea why the U.S. would pick Saudi hijackers to fly planes into buildings in order to attack Iraq and afghanstan. I also thought Geggy believed it was crazy to think planes were hijacked at all.
Sep 22nd, 2006 04:42 PM
Courage the Cowardly Dog
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
...but since the United States created the Al Qaeda terrorist network, has complete control over it and its members, why didn't they hire Iraqi hijackers and actually give themselves the "proof" they need?
Yeah find an iraqi who is willing to learn how to fly planes and sacrifice themselves by crashing it into buildings for the interest of the US.

Rumsfled rushed into the war room literally right after the attack took place and called for immediate military deployment in Iraq. How would he have known right away that Iraq/Saddam was involved? They've been pushing the Saddam and 9/11 connection until it was discovered there was none. Of course they were forced to brew the WMD lies as justification to invade Iraq, and it worked.

Bin laden, white house's number one boogeyman, was named the culprit within 4 hours yet he denied any involvement in the month after 9/11. I've not seen one convincing evidence pointing his guilt. Even if he has called for holy war against the US before 9/11 and he did say he was responsible for the attacks in audio tapes, why doesnt the FBI use it as an evidence to indict osama?

Let me back up to OKC bombing, in the book "culture of fear" by barry glassner, it stated that 70 percent of american initially thought muslims were responsible of the bombing before the real perpetrator was caught.

Like i said in the other thread, when people are frightened, they become more passive and more susceptible to propaganda. They are willing to cling on higher authority to keep them safe and believe in whatever is told. That's why Bush approval rating went up to "record breaking" 90 percent at the time. Repetive images of Osama, planes crashing into the towers and wtc collaspe were shown on TV for months during the aftermath to keep them locked down on fear, resentment toward the "culprit" and emotional distress to make it all a blur for them to see the bigger picture.
This is the most intelligent post you've had in some time cause I agree 100% with ost of it.

The rush to blame saddam and rumours about it were rampant. Saddam being one of ou biggest enemies who had espoused terror it seemed only logical he was espousing THIS terror attack, but of course he was not.

I think the Iraq war whether you supprt it or not, has little to nothing to do with 9/11. I think it's more because of his crimes against humanity and our desire to make the middle east in general more moderate.

9/11 and Al Qaeda has no link with Iraq that's obvious now, which doesn't mean nessacarily that Saddam has nothing to do with other terrorism movements, just that he has nothing to do with ones that have been successfully attcking us, but he did constantly encourage attacks on our interests and calling us the Great Satan, so I do believe he may have been a threat eventually, but in general I think we went in to stop him from his crimes against humanity. I think we can all agree he's guilty of that at least.

However recently I'm wondering if the cost was to high, but now that we have dug in leaving is only gonna cause more trouble and death.

Of course I do unflinchingly support the war in afgahnistan as the taliban was openly supporting al qaeda.
Sep 22nd, 2006 02:47 PM
kahljorn Seriously he's already admitted to lying about his response to 9/11 that geggy and alot of other people like to focus so much on. Plus come on ATTACK IRAQ CAUSE THEY HAVE NUKES FOR 9/11!!!
Sep 22nd, 2006 02:34 PM
mburbank I think there are only two real wys in which debunking is anything more than an odd sideshow attraction.

1.) As the fact that this article is from the Progressive points out, it's a pain in the ass for more mainstream lefties, and anything that even suggests the possability of tin foil hatism is used to degarde any possible point the mainstream left has. Like anyone listens to us anyway.

2.) Outside America, especially in the Arab world, 9/11 conspiracies are widely belived. But I don't think American debunking, even from the prgressive, adresses this.

I am far more concerned by what I think is a far more agruable and important crime. That before the day was out on 9/11 the Bsh adminsitration was already manipulating this tragedy to solidify their power and to acheive long held goals that had little to do with where the atttack had come from.

Even if a secret cabal of Cuban Homos and the mafia masterminded the attacks, you will never, never, never prove it. Thorough investigative journalism and historical research could easily make the cae that this adminsitration betrayed the country and the world by hijacking 9/11 and using it to consolidate unprecedented executive power and steer America away from constitutional democracy.

That's my Axe. And I bet the Progressive knows how to play it.
Sep 22nd, 2006 01:54 PM
Grislygus But is he the master of discrepancies?
Sep 22nd, 2006 12:57 PM
kahljorn like i said geggy is a walking discrepancy, and like other discrepancies, he's covered in a thick adhesive glue that allows him to attract and stick to only other discrepancies.
Sep 22nd, 2006 12:25 PM
KevinTheOmnivore It doesn't even matter if you were to do that. All of these things have been pointed out and cited for Geggy before, and he just brushes it off.
Sep 22nd, 2006 12:22 PM
El Blanco
Quote:
Even if he has called for holy war against the US before 9/11 and he did say he was responsible for the attacks in audio tapes, why doesnt the FBI use it as an evidence to indict osama?
Because technicaly, an audio or video confession isn't enough for a warrant unless someone who was actually there when it was made will verify it under oath or a direct path to the suspect can be established.

Just out of curiosity, do you intend on looking any of this stuff up yourself, or do you expect us to do your work for you?
Sep 22nd, 2006 11:37 AM
Grislygus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Yeah find an iraqi who is willing to learn how to fly planes and sacrifice themselves by crashing it into buildings for the interest of the US.
Oh, of course. Iraqis would have more sense that that. But those Afghanis, what a bunch of crazy bastards, huh?


One: Why the hell would ANY new terrorists join Al Qaeda if it's obvious that it's "in the interest of the U.S."

Two: If it isn't common knowledge that Al Qaeda is in America's pocket, then why didn't America have Al Qaeda hire Iraqi hijackers?
Sep 22nd, 2006 11:16 AM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
Bin laden, white house's number one boogeyman, was named the culprit within 4 hours yet he denied any involvement in the month after 9/11. I've not seen one convincing evidence pointing his guilt. Even if he has called for holy war against the US before 9/11 and he did say he was responsible for the attacks in audio tapes, why doesnt the FBI use it as an evidence to indict osama?
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...cnn_topstories
Sep 22nd, 2006 10:05 AM
Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
...but since the United States created the Al Qaeda terrorist network, has complete control over it and its members, why didn't they hire Iraqi hijackers and actually give themselves the "proof" they need?
Yeah find an iraqi who is willing to learn how to fly planes and sacrifice themselves by crashing it into buildings for the interest of the US.

Rumsfled rushed into the war room literally right after the attack took place and called for immediate military deployment in Iraq. How would he have known right away that Iraq/Saddam was involved? They've been pushing the Saddam and 9/11 connection until it was discovered there was none. Of course they were forced to brew the WMD lies as justification to invade Iraq, and it worked.

Bin laden, white house's number one boogeyman, was named the culprit within 4 hours yet he denied any involvement in the month after 9/11. I've not seen one convincing evidence pointing his guilt. Even if he has called for holy war against the US before 9/11 and he did say he was responsible for the attacks in audio tapes, why doesnt the FBI use it as an evidence to indict osama?

Let me back up to OKC bombing, in the book "culture of fear" by barry glassner, it stated that 70 percent of american initially thought muslims were responsible of the bombing before the real perpetrator was caught.

Like i said in the other thread, when people are frightened, they become more passive and more susceptible to propaganda. They are willing to cling on higher authority to keep them safe and believe in whatever is told. That's why Bush approval rating went up to "record breaking" 90 percent at the time. Repetive images of Osama, planes crashing into the towers and wtc collaspe were shown on TV for months during the aftermath to keep them locked down on fear, resentment toward the "culprit" and emotional distress to make it all a blur for them to see the bigger picture.
Sep 22nd, 2006 08:27 AM
KevinTheOmnivore Once again, nothing.

I guess this time it's shame on me.
Sep 22nd, 2006 08:05 AM
Geggy
Quote:
NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...18-norad_x.htm
Sep 22nd, 2006 07:05 AM
Courage the Cowardly Dog all we knew ia that somewhere somehow maybe, terrorists wanted to do us harm, and may target planes.

Unless you read Tom Clancey at the time no one would suspect the planes into buildings thing. I seriously doubt letting this slip was anything more then either government incompetance or a lack of info (although i do not approve of new intel gathering methods)

the results are actually more of a timeframe, at first we thought truss failure preliminarily cause thats how buildings usually collapse, but further inspection of the videos revealed the trusses stayed attached and bowed under the fire. Fema says pancake but thats really an excuse, what happened to cause the pancake effect? The silverstiens report cleared it all up once and for all that the bowing trusses caused support failure and then the pancake effect occured.
Sep 22nd, 2006 06:13 AM
Geggy Before I go on I just want to post this. I was going to start a new thread but since we're on the subject (sort of)...if you can't get a hint there's a cover up going on in this subject in the article, I don't know what will...someone lost his job for speaking out...documents were destroyed....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon's inspector general on Thursday dismissed claims that an Army intelligence unit code-named Able Danger uncovered data that could have thwarted the September 11 attacks, saying the allegations could not be substantiated.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jh...rc=ActiveBuddy

Quote:
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Nationwide spying could have averted 9/11: Cheney

WASHINGTON: US Vice President Richard Cheney suggested Sunday that the September 11 attacks could have been averted, if the government could have order surveillance of phone calls and emails without warrants.

In his first comment on a new rights controversy that has hit the US administration, Cheney said: "It's the kind of capability if we'd had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11."
Sep 22nd, 2006 12:09 AM
kahljorn "Nist report-truss failure theory
Fema report-pancake collapse theory
Silverstein report-column failure theory "

Instead of answering this directly I would like to first ask you some questions:
If you want to know something about mathematics, do you ask a cowboy?
If you want to know something about cooking delicous mexican food, would you ask a water buffalo?

I'm sure the thousands of EDUCATED engineers who have DEGREES IN THE SUBJECT and an INTEREST IN IMPROVING THEIR BUILDINGS OR PROVING THEIR BUILDINGS ARE BUILT CORRECTLY that compiled this ten thousand page book might know what they are talking about more than FEMA and I don't even know what silverstein is.
I don't know but a report by fema and silverstein sound like, if anything, they wouldn't be "Scientific" and they certainly wouldn't be a final say in the matter. They were probably making a preliminary analysis, I'll have to look into the silverstein thing though.
Sometimes people have differing opinions though geggy especially in scientific fields but the important things is that they didn't f ind evidence of demolitions.
Sep 21st, 2006 10:04 PM
Courage the Cowardly Dog I wouldn't call it the left so much as the wackos, I know a lot of right wing nut jobs who think it's a conspiracey too. But like I always say Missouri ain't the most intelligent of states (steps over chewing tobacco stain)

I've still yet to see any logic int he arguments. So there are 3 logical theories as to how it collpased (actually the pancake one was throw out I believe the current excepted one is core failure, that's why the trusses still held on and pulled outter supports inward cracking window panes before the collapse began.

May I ask though, If you have any logical eingeneering evidence to suggest a bomb? We have 3 ways it could have collapsed by plane, you have 0 ways it could have fallen by bomb/ voodoo/ gravitational pull of Hillary Clinton's ass.

Your theory is the government is extremely competant, and very evil, My theory is most government employees (outside of politicians and some crazy deep south sherrifs) are well meaning but not very competant. I've had to go through enough government crap to know they mean well, but aren't very good at what they do.
Sep 21st, 2006 07:55 PM
KevinTheOmnivore
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
PYONGTAEK, South Korea (Reuters) - More than 10,000 South Korean riot policemen with shields and batons dislodged about 50 residents and activists from homes on Wednesday during a protest over the expansion of a U.S. military base.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060913/15/10ix9.html

Welcome to reality
I promised myself I wouldn't even bother with you anymore, but damn, I can't let this slide. I'm not even sure what your medication deprived brain thinks this means, but whatever it is, you're wrong.

The youth in S. Korea have become increasingly more anti-American, and more Left-wing. If you were to ask an older Korean, maybe someone who can remember the Korean War, you'd probably get a different reaction.

Geggy, what do you thinkwould happen if we pulled off of the DMZ?

Quote:
Or are you still going to call me a conspiracy theorist, which is code word for whacky?
I think "pathetic" summarizes it better.
Sep 21st, 2006 07:15 PM
Grislygus
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
I think they've already tried linking saddam to al qaeda but they found no evidence for that although cheney and rice are still aggressively asserting that there is connection even after the senate released memo there are simply none. I guess there are no iraqis in the us manufactured al qaeda terrorist network
...but since the United States created the Al Qaeda terrorist network, has complete control over it and its members, why didn't they hire Iraqi hijackers and actually give themselves the "proof" they need?
Sep 21st, 2006 07:05 PM
Geggy Kevin this is the most recent report


Wednesday September 13, 09:10 PM

S.Korea riot police clear U.S. base protesters

PYONGTAEK, South Korea (Reuters) - More than 10,000 South Korean riot policemen with shields and batons dislodged about 50 residents and activists from homes on Wednesday during a protest over the expansion of a U.S. military base.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/060913/15/10ix9.html

Welcome to reality

Or are you still going to call me a conspiracy theorist, which is code word for whacky?
Sep 21st, 2006 06:53 PM
Geggy Excellent counter argument, kevin
Sep 21st, 2006 06:50 PM
KevinTheOmnivore I feel bad for you, geggy.
Sep 21st, 2006 06:44 PM
Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by kahljorn
One thing I want to know is where's the 911 conspiraicists debunking of that engineer report? That thing seems fairly accurate to me considering it likely has scientific evidence backing it. Usually uncredible science is debunked by credible scientists.
People argue that engineers around the world agree how wtc collapsed yet three scientific studies by engineers have come up with three different explanations...

Nist report-truss failure theory
Fema report-pancake collapse theory
Silverstein report-column failure theory

So which one is it?
Sep 21st, 2006 06:41 PM
Geggy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grislygus
Allright, I picked a fight with kahljorn over the subject and was completely wiped out, so I don't have the credibility to back up objections, but still, this caught my eye.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geggy
It was not what went down on 9/11, but the mean, motives, opportunity and the length the bush admin had gone to cover it up that convinced me it was an inside jobby. Who seem to have gain the most from the attacks? The bush administration. If it wasn't for the attacks, where would they be now? What would they have as an invocation to further their agenda?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Rothschild
...if the Bush Administration plotters carried out 9/11 to justify attacking Iraq, why didn't they have Iraqi hijackers do the deed? In actuality, there was not a single Iraqi hijacker, and Bush propagandists had to do all sorts of gymnastics to link Iraq to the actual attackers.
That's a very, very good point.
I think they've already tried linking saddam to al qaeda but they found no evidence for that although cheney and rice are still aggressively asserting that there is connection even after the senate released memo there are simply none. I guess there are no iraqis in the us manufactured al qaeda terrorist network
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:25 PM.

I-Mockery.com - Archive - Top

© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.