Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Let's try to keep this conversation civil, Acedreamer.
Thanks.

yeah...sorry, i think i went to far too.
My bad..i havent slept in a while...
sorry people!...im outta here.
It was fun arguing with you!
haha

Originally Posted by Acedreamer

Hey Dumbass!..saddam Hussein Is Dead,.....Ok?
So Stop Bullshitting. We Are Talking About Now, You Might Be The Kinda Off Guy Who Live In The Past, But I Expected You To Be Someone Who At Least Knew A Bit Or 2 About What's Your Government Still Doing In Iraq!? Terrorism?
Al-qaeda Is A Total Bullshit Story!...look At It This Way Ok?... For Any Conspiracy Believers Here, America Was Attack By Your Very Government And They Took That As A Reason To Attack The Middle East! The Iraqi Never Did Anything To YOU. They Helped You Out With Iran Did'nt They?

Saddam was a cruel dictator and he went too far, but he did a good job because without him, all hell would have break loose! Im not saying he's good, yes he is evil....but he is a necessary evil.

So how was he not a threat? We were talking about justification for the war, which did not exactly start today. Explain how the threat should have been handled in terms of the specific considerations I discussed. Thanks.

As for the rest of your post, I will respond with this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

He was not a threat to us. Just like most of the 'terrorists' your scared of are really not a threat. I am sure you will argue about his WMD which were proven not to exist and his connections to al qaeda which were next to non existent, or how he hated his neighbors which has nothing to do with us. Or maybe you will throw in how he was a murderer, which while true, provides no threat against our countries which is nearly half way around the world from his.

If your arguement was one based on humanitarian reasons, you might have an arguement. But an arguement based on iraq being a serious threat to our security is laughable at best.

Originally Posted by Alric

He was not a threat to us. Just like most of the 'terrorists' your scared of are really not a threat. I am sure you will argue about his WMD which were proven not to exist and his connections to al qaeda which were next to non existent, or how he hated his neighbors which has nothing to do with us. Or maybe you will throw in how he was a murderer, which while true, provides no threat against our countries which is nearly half way around the world from his.

If your arguement was one based on humanitarian reasons, you might have an arguement. But an arguement based on iraq being a serious threat to our security is laughable at best.

Did you read my post where I talked about the big picture of why the Hussein regime was such a threat? Look there for my reasons. There are a lot of them which come together to form a horrible picture. The regime had a history of terrorism, including WMD terrorism. That is not disputed. And the WMD's were not proven not to exist. They were just never found. The regime was required by our ceasefire to demonstrate the destruction of the WMD's we knew they at one time had. They failed on that and several other terrorism grounds. We also were given intelligence from five ally governments and the U.N. that the regime had stockpiles of WMD's, which is very serious when it regards a government with a history of WMD terrorism and who has arrogantly violated your ceasefire for 12 years on terrorism grounds and who angrily calls you "Satan" and "infidels". You make it sound like Hussein was just some every day murderer who wasn't really a terrorist. He in fact was, and he was our bitter enemy. We couldn't chance his getting WMD's into the hands of the terrorist organizations he supported or Al Qaeda, with whom he did have meetings as well as a common Islamofascist support of suicide bombings against "infidels" and a common enemy-- the United States. Put all of that together. See my other post for further details of that picture.

<dodo interval>

Hey people, if you could bring the subject back to 911 conspiracies I would much appreciate it, as I find them much more entertaining.

</ dodo interval>

Originally Posted by dodobird

<dodo interval>

Hey people, if you could bring the subject back to 911 conspiracies I would much appreciate it, as I find them much more entertaining.

</ dodo interval>

We are talking about that by talking about whether the Iraq invasion was justified, which gets to whether the U.S. government has been pulling our legs about this whole thing, which gets to whether 9/11 is part of some big crock of shit. But I have an idea. Whatever you want to talk about very specifically, make a point about it so people will start discussing it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

We are talking about that by talking about whether the Iraq invasion was justified, which gets to whether the U.S. government has been pulling our legs about this whole thing, which gets to whether 9/11 is part of some big crock of shit. But I have an idea. Whatever you want to talk about very specifically, make a point about it so people will start discussing it.

OK, though I admit I don't know much about it. About the plane at the pentagon that SolSkye said may be fake: Seems to me a huge risk to try to fake that, I mean what if someone made a video of a missile or a bomb or something hitting the pentagon, and the government missed them and didn't confiscate their footage in time? Doesn't seem to me likely that they will be so stupid as to take such a huge risk.

Wow
no talk about the petrodollar / petroeuro in here?

The whole US economy is floated on the petrodollar
and creates an international demand for US dollars

The United States economy depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits

Ah.. please explain that in words dummies like me can understand

Originally Posted by Ynot

Wow
no talk about the petrodollar / petroeuro in here?

The whole US economy is floated on the petrodollar
and creates an international demand for US dollars

The United States economy depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits

Originally Posted by dodobird

Ah.. please explain that in words dummies like me can understand

I started to write my own explanation, but this pretty much sums it up

http://www.petrodollar.info/indexp1.html

Imagine this: you are knee deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have — another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime. Your cheques should be worthless but you keep buying stuff regardless because you've made sure that none of those cheques you write will ever reach the bank!


How? Well, you have an agreement with the producers of one thing that everyone needs and that everyone wants that they will accept your cheques -and only your cheques - as payment.
The product in question is oil, and your agreement with the oil producers means everyone must hoard your cheques so that they can buy it.


Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they can also use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round — the cheque gets recycled but never actually makes it back to the bank.
You have a debt on your books for the cheques you wrote, but so long as they never reach the bank, you don't have to pay off your debts and in effect you have received your oil and TV for free.


This is the position the USA has enjoyed for over 30 years — it has been getting a free world-trade ride for all that time. It has been receiving a huge indirect subsidy from everyone else in the world - including the poorest of third world nations. As its debt grows it has merely to print more money (write more cheques) to keep trading. No wonder it is an economic powerhouse!


Then one day, one petrol seller (let's name him Saddam - for arguments sake) says he is going to accept another person's cheques, and a couple of others think that might be a good idea too. If this spreads, people are going to stop hoarding your cheques and they will come flying home to the bank asking you to make good on them. But since you don't have enough gold in the bank to cover all the bad cheques you've written however, very nasty stuff is going to hit the fan!


BUT, you are big, tough and very aggressive. You don't easily scare the other guy who can write cheques, he's pretty big too, so you contrive a 'legitimate' excuse to beat the living hell out of the lone oil producer to make him revert back to selling his oil in dollars again without anyone knowing what your real motives were.

There's a whole historic background to this, from the early 1900's, though World War One and the abolishment of the Gold Standard, through the 1930's American depression to the rise of Europe as a rival super-power during the 1960's, etc. etc., but the above gives a fairly good overview

I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?

The truth is that our oil prices have gone up big time. This has nothing to do with our oil companies wanting more money, its about Middle Eastern countries jacking up their prices. Thats the "petro-dollar" talk.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?

The truth is that our oil prices have gone up big time. This has nothing to do with our oil companies wanting more money, its about Middle Eastern countries jacking up their prices. Thats the "petro-dollar" talk.

I was to lazy to read the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

It seems awfully convenient that that oil pipeline could be build. Probably the Taliban wouldn't allow it. Also, Saddam was a big treat to American accessibility to oil in that region, right?

I don't think Saddam was screwing up our oil trade, but i'm not sure.

I also don't understand why this oil pipline in Afghanistan has'nt been bombed. Probably because all Afghanis know it is good for their country.

Its not about physically owning the oil. Its about having control over it. Besides your not thinking on a global scale.

Its a fact that the US debt is at nearly 9 trillion dollars. An amount we can not pay. If tomorrow the government took everything ever person in the US owned and sold it, it still wouldn't be enough to pay off what we owe. The US is basicly bankrupt and our money is worthless. Now what Ynot is saying is this. Even though our money is basicly an IOU with no real value, people still need it in order to buy oil, and as long as they need it there is some value to it. Now if for some reason you no longer need the money to buy oil, there is no value left in it. Its just a piece of paper, worth about as much as monopoly money.

So then the question is moved away from should we attack iraq or risk terroist attack? To should we attack or risk the total collapse of our economy? Of course the government can't say that, as it would cause massive panic and likely collapse our economy from the inside as people start ditching the dollar for something with value.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?

I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.

Originally Posted by Alric

Its not about physically owning the oil. Its about having control over it.

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.

They were also ordered to safeguard mosques, but that doesn't mean we want to pray in them.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

They were also ordered to safeguard mosques

citation please?

Originally Posted by tyrantt23

I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.

Sigh...you and Alric are the man.
Finally,someone come up with a concrete evidence.
How did you guy find that out? Owh well..
That should shut all these guys up for a while.

Damn This thread is getting too hot and heavy!

You still haven't answered my question...WHY would they hide hotel rooftop security videos of the plane if there is nothing to hide. Here's another one they released after a court order...conveniently STILL no visible commerical plane. Gee... maybe because it doesn't exist.
9/11 - NEW PENTAGON FOOTAGE DOUBLETREE (JudicialWatch)

9/11 No Plane Wreckage at Pentagon

You honestly believe the media has no ulterior motives? Give me a friggan break...Check out the amazing unbiased FOX news Geraldo Rivera in action as he skips the gentleman's valid clips and speaks to him in a condescending tone. Screw mass media. I'm stupified you actually think of them as valid sources of information. Just proves to me your level of peon-ism.
Did a 757 really hit the pentagon on 911?

Also, Half/dreaming, the hole doesn't correspond with a 757, where did you ever get that idea? Any footage of the crash clearly shows the pentagon windows surrounding the 'crash' still intact and the blast damage hole is confined to 14-16feet. Hardly the size of a 757. Since you guys obviously like to avoid staying informed, if you could just watch the last video and skip to 3:45. I'd be happy to eat my doubt and my words, if you would please show me any video evidence proving me otherwise? OHHH YEA... that's right... the goverment still hasn't released any of the 80 videos they so quickly scooped up and confiscated so you can't show me anything to the contrary because it doesn't exist...and if it does...WHY HIDE IT!?

Seriously, you two need to stop defending stuff you didnt even eyewitness yourselves. At least I can say I was actually there within an earshot's distance. You two act so convinced of what happened having not even seen or heard a goddamn thing. You can't even allow for the possibility of the american goverment being a fallible and secretive organization into your closeminded way of thinking. If that's not being a gullible peon, I honestly don't know what is...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You still haven't answered my question...WHY would they hide hotel rooftop security videos of the plane if there is nothing to hide. Here's another one they released after a court order...conveniently STILL no visible commerical plane. Gee... maybe because it doesn't exist.
9/11 - NEW PENTAGON FOOTAGE DOUBLETREE (JudicialWatch)

And YOU haven't answered why the hole in the Pentagon is the size of the plane that hit it. Check out the source i mentioned earlier. I have hard proof while you are citing "why did they take videos". Your entire argument is based on "what ifs". If we went to court, I would win.

They took videos because they didn't know what happened at first. They needed all the video they could get. There are no other videos because none of those people shot any good footage.

Do you honestly think the government would risk overlooking a video? All it would take is 1 random guy to take a photo, and all of the administration would be in JAIL!!! Like it or not, you are not as smart as they are.

Your conspiracy theory kin is a dying breed. There is a reason why the whole world has'nt jumped on your so called "evidence". Becasue its not true.

Solskye, I am still waiting to see a petition from thousands of Pentagon workers who say, "Plane crash? What plane crash?" Can you give me some of the names on such a petition? I don't know of a single Pentagon worker who claims that.

Also, you have not explained how your sources are more credible than big media corporations driven by extreme financial competition. One lie gives major power to the competition and results in major financial loss, so telling the truth (though with political slants) is much more reliable with those sources than it is with left wing fanatic blog sites that ATTRACT viewers by lying. Do you know how obsessive corporate executives are about making money? Have you ever met that type of person? They are the most ambitious and money obsessed people on the face of the Earth. They don't play Russian roulette by allowing their reporters to pull things out of their asses. It only happens in rare cases like the one with Dan Rather, who no longer has a career even though he was one of the top men in the business. Where is the hole in my theory?

SolSkye, can you respond to my comment on post #209?

I am still waiting for someone to explain what happened to building 7. Something I asked on the first page of this thread.