9/11 | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

9/11

It'll be interesting to see what Obama does with this case.

My cousin in Newark, NJ says that there are a lot more people showing concern on what really happened than what they first believed.
 
39% of Americans, according to the latest poll, believe the government either orchestrated the whole thing or played a large role in it IIRC.
 
Disco08 said:
39% of Americans, according to the latest poll, believe the government either orchestrated the whole thing or played a large role in it IIRC.

Are these the same people though who vote that the moon landing was fake and that Boston winning the NBL was a sign of Judgement Day coming :cutelaugh
 
Disco08 said:
You seriously struggle with disagreements huh?

nah, just enjoy USA polls. My favorite is the geography ones, last one had the majority of Americans not able to find the UK on a world map.
 
Did you have a look at some of the links to the evidence of high ranking government, military and FBI officials who have publicly questioned the official version of events? If so, thoughts?
 
I also ask why September 11?

Do terrorists know or give a stuff about causing this on a day which coincides with the US emergency number 911 ?
 
TigerForce said:
I'll say it again!

Instead of flying a plane into a building, why not set up bombs inside the WTC building? Can you understand that now?

I understand the point you are making, it's just incredibly weak. The plane attacks did happen, and they worked. You are arguing a hypothetical that has been made irrelevant by the reality.

The car bombing didn't work, the plane attack did. Theories about controlled demolitions and the like have been comprehensively debunked.

I know other bombings were smaller, so I just used 'just like the Oklahoma building in 1995' (I posted 1993 instead of 1995 by error) as just an example no matter what type of bomb is used. The Oklahoma building was an example because it's AN OFFICE BUILDING just like WTC was when comparing to other bombings (e.g. Bali). Don't get so technical. WTC bombing in 1993 was from a car bomb so I'm not saying to use a car bomb again.

One was the tallest skyscraper in the world for a while, not just an "office building" actually.

The WTC had a 'pancake collapse' so just a few bombs in the bottom floors would've been enough.

Have you seen the footage? The buildings do not collapse from the bottom. They collapse from the damaged floors downwards. Another loopy theory debunked.

Why the hell would terrorists come up with a huge effort in training themselves to be pilots, pass tight US security and bother to just fly into a building. It's absurd.

The terrorists strategy absurd? Audacious, definitely. It worked didn't it? A conventional bomb attack failed after all.

What is absurd is your argument, sorry TF. It's lame. We all saw what happened - and yet you are saying it didn't happen the way we saw it because real terrorists would have used conventional bombs or wired up the building controlled demolition style?

The whole crux of your argument is weak - "I think terrorists would use bombs in a particular way. Therefore, because they didn't do what I think good terrorists should do, it didn't happen."

Lame.
 
Tiger74 said:
Are these the same people though who vote that the moon landing was fake and that Boston winning the NBL was a sign of Judgement Day coming :cutelaugh

We won two titles last year ?

Geez, we're even better than I thought ! :fing32
 
antman said:
Have you seen the footage? The buildings do not collapse from the bottom. They collapse from the damaged floors downwards. Another loopy theory debunked.

No I was asleep for 7 years.

antman said:
What is absurd is your argument, sorry TF. It's lame. We all saw what happened - and yet you are saying it didn't happen the way we saw it because real terrorists would have used conventional bombs or wired up the building controlled demolition style?

The whole crux of your argument is weak - "I think terrorists would use bombs in a particular way. Therefore, because they didn't do what I think good terrorists should do, it didn't happen."

I didn't say IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY........FFS !!

Going by your 'train of thought', yes it happened with a plane. My question is was it terrorists who planned it or did the US govt train terrorists to do it?? That's what the main question of this whole case is.
 
Disco08 said:
Did you have a look at some of the links to the evidence of high ranking government, military and FBI officials who have publicly questioned the official version of events? If so, thoughts?

I can name presidents and some of histories greatest minds as believing in God, yet you mock and laugh at their ignorance. Job titles don't make a person right or wrong, it just shows they have a view.
 
They have access to more information than most of us though, don't they? Belief in God is faith based, these assertions one can only assume are based on evidence.

When have I ever mocked anyone for their belief in God?
 
Disco08 said:
They have access to more information than most of us though, don't they? Belief in God is faith based, these assertions one can only assume are based on evidence.

When have I ever mocked anyone for their belief in God?

you have two threads dedicated to that task.

As for their access, having access to some info doesn't mean they automatically make the right decisions. If this was Liverpool bringing up his handful of anti-global warming experts you would never let him get away with that.
 
If you care to have a look at the thread I admitted Livers was most likely right when quite a number of the world's experts in climate change basically supported his position. I'm usually swayed by expert opinion quite easily, just as I have been in the case of 9/11.

We have 2 threads dedicated to the discussion of religion. I'd like you to show me where in either of them I've mocked or laughed at anyone.
 
TigerForce said:
Going by your 'train of thought', yes it happened with a plane. My question is was it terrorists who planned it or did the US govt train terrorists to do it?? That's what the main question of this whole case is.

Alright genius, let's look at it your way then. The US government "trained terrorists" to conduct an attack "so absurd" - your words - and so complex, and so ridiculous - when it would have been so much easier for them (the government) to plant bombs in the building and say that it was a conventional terrorist bombing attack. Your way introduces so many elements of failure and complexity that no government or agency would ever attempt it that way.

This is ultimately why all the conspiracy theories fail - they depend on a supposed government plot so ridiculously absurd, convoluted and complex, and also reliant on the complicity of literally thousands of people, THAT NO GOVERNMENT AGENCY would EVER attempt to do it that way.

If it really was a government conspiracy THEY WOULD HAVE DONE IT SO MUCH MORE EASILY AND SIMPLY IF THEY REALLY WANTED TO. No nutty terrorists enrolling in flight training, no emails from public libraries, no complicity with airline pilots, security, air traffic control, military, airforce, CIA, FBI, Department of State, New York Fire Brigades, emergency services, rescue people, the list goes on and on and on and on and on. No weird doctoring of video and images after the event a la Disco's nutty website. Not needed, no sirree.

If the goverment really did it it would have gone down like this - terrorists snuck in, planted bombs, waited til the next day, blew buildings up. Oh dear, 4000 or so people dead. And so much simpler this way. Oh, and here's a convenient scapegoat or two we set up earlier. Job done, problem solved, no ridiculous loose ends and no conspiracy of thousands of people needed. No planes, no UFOs, no wreckage, nada. Simple and easy.

Of course, I'm oversimplifying but even so, this way is so so easy compared to your way. Your way is FREAKIN UNBELIEVABLE DUDE - NOT EVEN GEORGE DUBBYA WOULD GO FOR IT AND HE GOES FOR ANY NUTTY THING!

The very complexity and absurdity that conspiracy theorists point to making it a "Government plot, oh noes" make it conspiracy an absolute impossibility.

Wrap your conspiracy-oriented little mind around that one for a while. Same goes for you Disco - get off the grass for Pete's sake :hihi

Also excuse the CAPITALS but I feel that shouting at obtuse people does have an effect sometimes.
 
Disco08 said:
If you care to have a look at the thread I admitted Livers was most likely right when quite a number of the world's experts in climate change basically supported his position. I'm usually swayed by expert opinion quite easily, just as I have been in the case of 9/11.

We have 2 threads dedicated to the discussion of religion. I'd like you to show me where in either of them I've mocked or laughed at anyone.

I am definitely not in the mood to trawl through 12000 of your posts, but is it fair enough to say you do not understand how a person of intelligence can rationally believe in a God?

Well for myself, I cannot understand how rational people believe in conspiracy theories that are so complex and unlikely, when a simple and logical explanation exists.

What sounds more likely, Islamic terrorists hijacked 4 planes and tried to slam them into national icons, or a conspiracy involving the US Air Force, the FBI, the CIA, air traffic control, significant parts of the Government - that goes by with NO-ONE ever being revealed to be involved?

Seriously the US cannot smuggle arms to central America without half the known world finding out, how could they possibly keep a conspiracy this big silent?
 
Tiger74 said:
you have two threads dedicated to that task.
That may have been me. ;D

Hey,if you have a complaint about any of the arguments go to the relevant thread and raise them.Don't just make general whinges about it.
 
evo said:
That may have been me. ;D

Hey,if you have a complaint about any of the arguments go to the relevant thread and raise them.Don't just make general whinges about it.

Just pointing out that the lack of evidence he has here he would never let others get away with on other threads. TBH I'm actually surprised he is so strongly in support of the US Govt cover-up line