0
12

[–] Taka 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

Science doesn't lie, and science says that there is absolutely no way it is possible that those buildings fell in the manner that they did without the addition of controlled explosives. Especially building 7.

The entire thing from the ground up was a false flag attack planned by the American government in order to justify the passing of the PATRIOT Act (and thus begin the tearing down of our constitutional rights), instill fear into the populace (to make them feel dependent on the government and by extension, safer under their protection) and to justify invasions into middle-eastern countries to reap their resources and overthrow their governments.

Anyone who does not understand this simply has not done enough research on the subject, or is a paid shill by the government.

1
5

[–] Sparumph 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

Could I have some sources, please? it might help me understand more if you didn't just refer to "Science" as a magical, be-all end-all answer.

1
1

[–] Mumberthrax 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have got a fair bit of information about evidence supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis: http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Is there a specific issue that you would like source information on?

1
1

[–] mr-fahrenheit_ 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

I agree and would like a source too. So often you hear about the "institutional racism" or the government being in on stuff but it's a lot more uncommon to get a credible source.

As an aside, let's please not have a conversation about whether or not the police are purposefully keeping black people at a disadvantage. It is not something I want to talk about with anyone.

0
2

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I linked this to Sparumph, but in case you missed it: The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth have got a fair bit of information about evidence supporting the controlled demolition hypothesis: http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

I am certain they are not the only ones who have been collecting evidence and reviewing it. If there is a specific issue in the controlled demolition hypothesis that you're interested in a source on, I can try and sift it out for you.

2
12

[–] johnparish 2 points 12 points (+14|-2) ago 

I believe the official story, with maybe some minor things being twisted. But I also believe that the powers at be abused a terrible disaster to create terrible laws and get into terrible wars, and that they knew exactly what they were doing, and it was not quite "for justice"

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Pattoe 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I don't believe the government profited at all. Maybe they intended to but they didn't. Before the war they had nice deals set up with Saddam, cheap oil and the like. The way increased oil prices and was really expensive and was really unpopular with the public, not even mentioning the longer term effects of the way which are only just coming to surface in a really grizzly way.

If this was planned by the government, something went wrong because nobody won

0
9

[–] matt 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

I have had architects engineers and firefighters tell me that something is not quite right.

[–] [deleted] 3 points 8 points (+11|-3) ago 

[Deleted]

1
7

[–] Mumberthrax 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

I find it really amusing that people repeat this meme as though it is some sort of proof that the 9/11 truthers are dumb or wrong. It's something that is provably true, that jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel, and there was indeed molten metal as seen by witnesses and even caught on video. Yes we know that the official explanation is that somehow the fire, fueled by office papers and furniture, weakened the steel support beams and there was a progressive collapse in the only steel frame building ever to be brought down by fires despite there having been quite a few blazes in the past in others. This doesn't explain the molten metal.

0
6

[–] matt 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

It's fucked up right? People get upset when reality doesn't match what the scientific process predicts will happen.

0
7

[–] Telepath 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

It is foolish to claim that the government was involved since there is no evidence to support this. However, its equally foolish to accept the official narrative in its entirety. A lot of information was withheld, a lot of witness accounts (with no ulterior motive) contradict official reports, and there is a lot of evidence that the government was actively spreading misinformation/disinformation to the public.

We should not be asking whether or not the U.S. had any involvement. The questions we should be asking are: Why was x information withheld/manipulated? Who benefited from that censorship? Who benefited from the aftermath of the attacks, and what were their actions preceding them?

Therefore, let's look at what we know as fact:

It is public knowledge (unfortunately not popular knowledge) that there are people in the government and CIA who are willing to execute such an attack against U.S. citizens to go to war, as seen in Operation Northwoods. The public wasn't made aware of this until the 90's.

The 9/11 commission report bases its claim about the number of hijackers and their identities on information revealed by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was tortured for weeks before making these claims. The CIA destroyed all documentation of the interrogation before the commission could even see it, so the official commission report is based on the CIA's integrity. If you know anything about history, you know their trustworthiness is naught. Why would they destroy the only evidence that supposedly supports this narrative? It's well known that extensive torture is counter-intuitive and leads to false information. The significance of these facts is amplified with the recent CIA torture report from the Senate.

The claim that Bin Laden was responsible for the attacks was an article of faith for the media and government officials. They released a video of him confessing that played a huge role in promoting the war. The President made an official statement about it! Yet intelligence agencies have never found evidence linking him to the attacks; he was never wanted for 9/11. He also released a video denying the attacks. Cheney would later say the government never made any claim that Bin Laden was responsible.

There's more but I don't want to leave a wall of text, so I will just say this: there is way to much evidence of information manipulation and obfuscation to blindly accept the official reports. I think it is safe to assume less than .1% of the population has read the commission report, the NIST report, etc. We need to eliminate the term "conspiracy theory/theorist" from our vocabulary because it only serves to negate conversation. Calling people "truthers" is a way of shutting down the 9/11 discussion. It's an emotional reaction from people who favor stability over honesty. Many people are interested in this event, and there is nothing wrong with asking questions.

0
4

[–] Pono_Honu 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Well said. It's so easy to dive into this subject because there is so much that flies in the face of the official narrative. It's also easy to get lost in how much contradiction there really is. The rabbit hole is deep with this one.

0
3

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You make some excellent points, though i think that some of them contradict your opening statement that it's foolish to claim the government was involved.

  • The fact that NIST (a government entity) refuses to admit the possibility of controlled demolition, refuses to release the data they use to create their models for the collapse of WTC7, suggests they are involved in at least a coverup.

  • The fact that no jets were scrambled at all, were ordered explicitly NOT to scramble, suggests that at the very least that the person giving that order was involved.

  • The fact that the government contracted halliburton to destroy the evidence at ground zero before a proper investigation could take place suggests involvement.

  • The fact that George Bush said we can't allow conspiracy theorists to say things about government being involved suggests involvement.

  • The fact that members of the 9/11 commission stepped forward and claimed that the commission was hindered and debilitated from the top-down by government officials suggests involvement.

I suppose none of that is proof of involvement. I don't think it's foolish based on these and other bits of evidence to make a claim that government was likely involved.

0
3

[–] Telepath 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I absolutely agree with you, this all suggests some kind of prescience. However, as we both said, there is no undeniable evidence (available to the public).

Whenever 9/11 comes up I try to omit my opinion so the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" crowd can't discredit me.

0
7

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, as far as I'm aware this is the official story: 9/11: A Conspiracy Theory

I'm kind of skeptical of it. I don't really know what to believe. I think the architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have got some pretty interesting things to say about the actual collapses and forensics: http://www.ae911truth.org/

I also think David Ray Griffin has made some pretty good points about the event entirely apart from any discussion about the towers' collapse itself in terms of the physics in his talk: 9/11 The Myth And The Reality

Edit: I guess I personally suspect that 9/11 was the "new pearl harbor" that the Project for a New American Century said they wanted in order to catalyze the kind of global military dominance setup they talked about in their plan. I think that many news media corporations were complicit in pushing the bin laden story almost immediately, in covering things like the passports of the terrorists sitting atop the smoldering rubble as proof, and by lampooning dissenters as crackpots who believe in things like holographic planes and mini-nukes etc. which are at best fringe nutters giving everyone else a bad name unintentionally and at worst actual strawmen black propaganda.

I think the bin laden capture and burial at sea is very likely a fantasy. Bin laden was met with by the CIA, despite how crazy that sounds, several times after he was classified as a terrorist - once while he was in the hostpial seriously ill. It's hard to know what's what there, but the allegations that he had already died that circulated for years after 9/11, and then the destruction of evidence when they ostensibly tossed his body overboard, really makes it sound a bit off.

0
3

[–] Pono_Honu 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

The PNAC gets glossed over sometimes, but it is a red flag for me.

0
4

[–] udhr 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I would like someone to show me five examples of steel-framed buildings anywhere in the world at any time collapsing in a free fall due to fires. I can only find three and they all happened on the same day and in the same location. Also, if you do find such examples, they also should have an official investigation that excludes any possible causes other than fire. Again, there are three examples of that.

0
3

[–] rokococoa 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I believed the official story until I saw this https://youtu.be/Mamvq7LWqRU

That is a controlled demolition, there is no doubt. Therefore Larry Silverstein had some hand in tower 7 falling. He must have had some knowledge that the twin towers were also going to fall.

If you truly care about what happened during 9/11, look at the YouTube documentary 9/11: The New Pearl Harbour. Its long but watching only some of it should raise some very valid points.

0
3

[–] matt 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I would like, very much, to hear some voices from places other then the U.S. speak on this topic.

0
5

[–] mr_skeltal 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Ok Irish here, though obviously I don't purport to speak for all Irish people.

I am firmly of the belief that the official story is inaccurate, in fact I feel that it defies science. Though I can't speculate on who was behind it or why, there appears to have been a cover-up to me.

I'm not hear to change minds though, there is a world of evidence for people to sift through and reach their own conclusions if they so wish. I am comfortable in my convictions and to be frank it seems that a lot of people would rather mock "truthers" than consider what they are saying. This creates animosity on all sides and being that I'm not American and it doesn't really effect me, it's more headache than I'm willing to put up with.

0
1

[–] Mumberthrax 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

it's more headache than I'm willing to put up with.

A lot of us tinfoil-hat types tend to suspect that some of the Operation Earnest Voice type programs are aimed at disrupting civil productive discussion on topics like government complicity in crimes like the events on 9/11 via astroturfing, turning discussions into flame wars and personal attacks (where both sides may potentially be playing a part) which scare other people off from reading and participating. It happens enough that other people may join in the mocking just because it appears to be socially acceptable to do so.

Whether that's what's really the cause or not, it is frustrating that it happens so often and I believe it does achieve the effect of discouraging participation in the discussion. If any of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 are true, the implications are fairly substantial - at least for Americans, and likely any countries that are involved with the USA militarily. That such discussions in high-traffic forums devolve like that... well it's not something I know how to resolve.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] matt 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I'm so sorry they're feeding you our bullshit, brain washing tv.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

1
4

[–] ViolentlyMasticates 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

I shall grant your wish.

I'm from Australia, and was reasonably young when it happened. We kind of were all a little sad but forgot about it pretty quickly, until Australia decided to join the Iraq war. Most, possibly the majority of people were against joining it, and in retrospect those who supported it often changed their minds.

Then we saw our people die for people in a foreign nation that we didn't know. We were all so detached from the war and the terrorist attacks. They tried to make us scared but we didn't care, which made us angry regarding our troops going over there, when honestly they were needed for peace keeping in the Pacific. A lot of anti American sentiment popped up, and still remains.

Honestly, most of us treated it like we would treat a terrorist attack happening in any other country. People only gave a shit because America kicked up a stink. More people have died in attacks in one go before and no one cared.

0
2

[–] matt 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Thank you for the perspective.

5
-4
load more comments ▼ (5 remaining)