View Full Version : Path to 911
Was engrossed by this last night... shame they haven't really gone into WHY, the detailed background stuff, i didn't think it really explained what was driving the terrorists. Just showed the sequence of events and that the terrorists are extremely comitted to their cause. of course its probably very biased as well. looking forward to the second part tonight!
http://abc.go.com/movies/thepathto911/index.html
suzsv650
11-09-06, 04:12 PM
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911
this should really be aired ! VERY interesting!
yes i know its been on here before ..... but id like as many people to watch it!
Loose Change is total rubbish. FACT!
suzsv650
11-09-06, 05:27 PM
how is it ?
I'm a believer sorry!
Just watched the loose change thing, makes for a covincing argument, but only if you believe all the "facts" that they are presenting. Which Im not sure I do..
carelesschucca
11-09-06, 07:59 PM
do you believe the facts the governments tell you, both USofA and UK???
After watching the loose change film better read this:
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
the best page in the universe. (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)
It's not really. It's alright though.
northwind
11-09-06, 10:41 PM
I view it as being a bit like the "faked moon landing" reports- while I can't dismiss all of the points presented as evidence, and I don't really accept the official version as gospel, I can dismiss enough of the material that's presented as solid fact, to cast doubt on the rest.
It doesn't prove that it's all false, but when someone reports as fact things that are blatantly either false or wrong (such as the statements about melting steel, which are factually correct but actually irrelevant, since steel doesn't have to melt to lose strength) that either shows they're not at all qualified to evaluate what's accurate and what's not, or they have an agenda. Get a bit of steel rod and a blowtorch and you can test that...
Then, you get into "facts" that are simply not true- the statements about water in the wells proving the sprinklers were working, when in fact it just proves that there was running water further up... And the bits about the steel being rated to, what is it, 2000 degrees? Which is simply not the case and has been refuted over and over by, well, everyone.
Once they've been caught out that many times, even the stuff that could be true starts to look less credible to me.
Jester666
12-09-06, 01:31 AM
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=911
this should really be aired ! VERY interesting!
yes i know its been on here before ..... but id like as many people to watch it!
Just finished watching it! It is interesting as they didn't just follow all the other conspiracy videos. Different angle.
mac99 clicky is also v good.
I'm gonna sit on the fence at the mo.
philipMac
12-09-06, 03:11 AM
So. I have been looking at this whole conspiracy thing on and off for a while now.
As stated... by Northy, there are one or two slightly smelly things about the whole affair. But, what is seeming to me is, the cover up, which is not really that well done any more, is in the the following issues:
1) The steel they used was not the standard required by the plans. They cheaped out a bit. The WTC was incredibley stong in design. People sort of knew this, and the skimped a little on the steel.
(An aside, yeah, the steel didnt melt, it weakend. The heat was enough to weaken it.)
2) The heat proofing was a joke. It was never put on properly. It was not maintained. It was falling off the beams, turning into dust, and lots of it were barely clinging on at all. This dust could be seen in the AC. When you have beams like that, un insulated, they sweat. Water condenses on them, and it sort of pries away the rest of it. Upon aplication of > 100C this water boils, and the vapour drives the rest of the insulation off. It happens, there is no question at all about any of this.
So, now you have not quite the right steel, with no or almost no insulation. This becomes a problem now.
The cover up that people are seeing, the shifyness is, that the Port Authority knew all this. They were completely complicit in it. They could have fixed it, and they didnt, cause it was expensive. Another thing is... since they are Port Authority, they need not abide by Fire And Safety regs. They still dont for the new WTC. Now, this is shocking. But, if liability is found, there will be MASSIVE litigation. Thus... an element of cover up.
Then there was the deal with the squibs. Again... the way that building was built was by winching these unbelievabely strong cables tight to anchors in the ground. The building was under massive huge strains. If any part of it went, there would be explosive reprocusions elsewhere in the building. I believe that this is what we were seeing.
And, Northwind is exactly right. Once people see this covering up, once they get that smell, you are now in a position to start wondering... where does it stop? Its good to question. But, you know, we want a parsimonious answer to some extent too.
Ha ha. And +1 Mac99 for the Maddox link. He can be a funny dude.
philipMac
12-09-06, 03:34 AM
Now... if you want a conspiracy, have a look at that United Flight 93 flight that went down.
I am not going into it now. I have seen some interesting alternative ideas about that though. I havnt really seriously looked at it too hard though. :oops:
We'll never know the truth, but I'm prepared to believe that the towers fell down as a result of the planes. Where the conspiricists have a point is the pentagon, it does not look like a plane hit, and doesn't seem to be any public film evidence that shows a plane either. Is it true that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon or in the Philadelphia woods, or is that conspiracy blarney?
northwind
12-09-06, 09:03 AM
Nah, there was loads of plane wreckage at the pentagon... You can even see bits of it in Loose Change. Shortly afterwards he says "And why can't you see any debris?" I don't know. Are you, perhaps, mental? Mainly, the Pentagon part's an exercise in selective video and image use, and it's very well done. The hole you see in Loose Change, that he keeps on saying is too small for a plane to have hit, really is too small, for example- it's not the entry hole. From memory, it's from an inner curtain.
There's a refute site that's got loads on the pentagon claims somewhere, I think it's linked from "The best site on the internet". It's a little biased ;)
northwind
12-09-06, 09:08 AM
My own counterargument- "Bush and co (or Cheney, or The Evil Military Industrial Complex) faked 9/11 so they could invade Iraq (or Afghanistan)". If they had, they'd probably have made some effort to link Iraq to the attacks, no? Instead, there's no connection at all, and they had to work incredibly hard to get people to make the link without any evidence. If it'd been designed to justify a war, every terrorist would have had an Iraqi passport, and a note of thanks signed S Hussein.
Biker Biggles
12-09-06, 09:40 AM
I love a good conspiracy,but In this case I have to go along the lines of ---Incompetance complacency and a bit of corruption leads to cover up and denial,which in turn give credence to conspiracy theories.
Also,one weakness in the American political system is that every time they change their president they tend to change virtually their entire civil service to suit.The ensuing loss of continuity filters down to all sorts of aspects,including which terrorists are getting "looked at".
the white rabbit
12-09-06, 09:50 AM
I'm a believer
Ooooh, you Monkey
Biker Biggles
12-09-06, 09:51 AM
Not a trace of doubt in my mind. :wink:
muffles
12-09-06, 11:01 AM
Now... if you want a conspiracy, have a look at that United Flight 93 flight that went down.
I am not going into it now. I have seen some interesting alternative ideas about that though. I havnt really seriously looked at it too hard though. :oops:
it was shot down, that's what they deny...i am probably 99% certain of this, as i know of someone who was in a position to know this at the time (i don't want to say any more, probably could, but it's not my call and wouldn't want to put myself in that situation!). The 1% is because I'll never know because i wasn't there, but i highly doubt that the person in question is lying considering that it being shot down makes sense wrt all the other evidence.
the white rabbit
12-09-06, 11:17 AM
[i am probably 99% certain of this
:smt044
Spiderman
12-09-06, 02:40 PM
Loose Change is total rubbish. FACT!
How can you say that about what has to be one of the best 9/11 documetaries there is out there?
I found it to be a well balanced and well presented argument about all the simple questions that remain to be answered by those who are currently using what happended as a license to invade and destroy everything and anything they can attach the "terror" tag to?
I'm suprised by you razor, i did think you more open minded than to just say something is rubbish.
Scooby Drew
12-09-06, 02:57 PM
It is very very sad when an act of terrorism kills so many people at one time - this is also true when terrorism collectively kills many people over a period of time.
Perhaps the USA should erect a monument alongside Ground Zero to the victims of the 'organisations' that they have sponsored over the years.
Of course I may be wrong and the US never gave money to the IRA etc.
northwind
12-09-06, 03:11 PM
Controversial :) But true. The US govt. didn't fund the IRA from memory, but the US public- and NY and Boston in particular- sure did. Whipround for the boys...
philipMac
12-09-06, 03:24 PM
Now... if you want a conspiracy, have a look at that United Flight 93 flight that went down.
I am not going into it now. I have seen some interesting alternative ideas about that though. I havnt really seriously looked at it too hard though. :oops:
it was shot down, that's what they deny...i am probably 99% certain of this, as i know of someone who was in a position to know this at the time (i don't want to say any more, probably could, but it's not my call and wouldn't want to put myself in that situation!). The 1% is because I'll never know because i wasn't there, but i highly doubt that the person in question is lying considering that it being shot down makes sense wrt all the other evidence.
No. I dont think the shot it down. They had no orders to do this, cause the Pres was hiding under a bed somewhere, and was un-contacable, or paralysed with indecision. They need that order. Had they had done, there would have been tons of wreckage, covered in explosive residue all over the place. One person would have picked something up, and the whole deal would be over.
BUT there are other ways to take (fly by wire) planes out of the sky than missiles. Especially if you can get close to them in a plane that can generate huge amounts of electricity, like say a C130 cargo plane. If you take a plane out of the sky The only evidence left will be the black box will cut out just before the plane crashes. Along with all other electrics. In the plane, and in the immediate vacinity.
Guess what.... right beside the United plane was a C130. So close at times ATC mixed up the two planes. You have to ask why they chose that plane to track the airliner. One of the only planes they have that is: not fly by wire (ie immune to massive electro magnetic pulses), and able to generate one. Why did the black box stop working before the plane fell out of the sky? And why did people in the area report power going out just before they heard the plane hitting the ground.
Else where... yeah, a plane hit the Pentagon. I have no doubt about that. And the only cover up in the WTC is incompetence. Nothing more sinister. (In my opinon :roll:)
philipMac
12-09-06, 03:30 PM
Controversial :) But true. The US govt. didn't fund the IRA from memory, but the US public- and NY and Boston in particular- sure did. Whipround for the boys...
It is true. The Ra got money from the US.
Guess what else... they got money from the Soviet Union, because they were a far left orginisation.
And weapons from the Middle East. Cause they were revolutionaries trying to over throw imperialist dogs etc.
And support from the Republic. The Irish police force used the Ra as a tool to do their dirty work. (See Martin Cahill.) (The British security forces also used loyalist paramilitaries.)
It was a nasty situation.
northwind
12-09-06, 03:46 PM
I'd forgotten about Cahill... Talk about "means justifies the ends" eh...
philipMac
12-09-06, 03:50 PM
It is very very sad when an act of terrorism kills so many people at one time - this is also true when terrorism collectively kills many people over a period of time.
Perhaps the USA should erect a monument alongside Ground Zero to the victims of the 'organisations' that they have sponsored over the years.
Of course I may be wrong and the US never gave money to the IRA etc.
*Ahem* (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_affair) Not just the IRA. The US has sponsered loads of "Terrorists" over time. So has France. So have lots of governments.
To be fair though. What happened there was wrong and horrific. Just because there are loads of other wrong horrific things happening in the world doesnt make it less so.
philipMac
12-09-06, 04:07 PM
I'd forgotten about Cahill... Talk about "means justifies the ends" eh...
The Brits sent in some heavy hitting brothers to deal with IRA guys that they could not pin things on. I dont know.
For me, I know its wrong, and is indefensible, but... I cant help not feeling that bad about it. It is definately a very very dangerous path to walk though. I do know though that those SAS types deployed up north scared the crap out of all sorts of people.
If you want to see dubious ethics at work, look at how Spetsnaz operate. The end does justify their means. All means.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.