What about the one that got shot down, and the one that barely left a scratch on the Pentagon?
----------------------------------------
OK sure, but I guess that actually helps my point though since I don't believe it was a conspiracy. Yes you could argue that a lot of people made money from the wars, but I don't think any sane person would orchestrate those attacks with that end in mind. It's just to much risk and too many unpredictable outcomes.
comment by tgi fry ★ (U9236)
posted 2 minutes ago
9/11 makes for a good conspiracy theory due to how perfectly it came off. No terrorist attack before or since is even close. In fact is was pretty efficient even for a precision military strike. The problem I can't get past though is motive. Sure you could say it gave Bush the excuse to invade Afghanistan and (sort of) Iraq but it's not as if they've exerted much strategic control in the region since 9/11 and even if the US got lucrative rebuilding contacts in Iraq, it hardly seems a worthwhile risk/reward when you consider they destroyed a city block of the most expensive real estate in the country, destroyed a huge chunk of the Pentagon and killed thousands of US citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no photographic evidence of the plan that hit the pentigon (all the pictures of it look more of a missile strike) and there is more than enough evidence to suggest the tower 8 was intentional demolished. it was announced one one news program that it had collapsed due to the vibrations of the towers falling - yet was still fully intact behind the news anchor. a pr ballsup. as for the steel melting in the towers. there should of been nothing, nothing that would burn so hot to melt the steel.
Also Dubya's Brother owned the twin towers security company. 9tgi i was originally replying to you but may of went off on a tangent / rant. not really anything to do with you comment. sorry
I wish I could spell and understand grammar
I can see the other side of the argument though, you could say it was controlled demolition of the twin towers and Pentagon and the other plane was crashed intentionally to make it look like a terrorist attack that didn't quite come off. Diabolical stuff...
comment by soccerlol (U7650)
posted 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
A cure for cancer...I detest that phrase as it communicates to the uneducated masses that cancer is a singular entity that can be extinguished in one fell swoop with a magic bullet. Wrong, oh so wrong. It leads to these theories that big pharma already have the answer but are just sitting on their hands.
soccer?lol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they stand to make more from drugs that relieve the symptoms rather than cure, why are electrical appliances and electronics not built to last?
No self respecting industry is going to cut it's own throat is it.
Not that i'm saying there are cures, just playing devils advocate
comment by tgi fry ★ (U9236)
posted 42 seconds ago
What about the one that got shot down, and the one that barely left a scratch on the Pentagon?
----------------------------------------
OK sure, but I guess that actually helps my point though since I don't believe it was a conspiracy. Yes you could argue that a lot of people made money from the wars, but I don't think any sane person would orchestrate those attacks with that end in mind. It's just to much risk and too many unpredictable outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair there is historical precedent, Hitler bombing the Reichstag (German parliament building) and blaming Jews and Communists immediately springs to mind. I'm sure more learned users could add more.
He got away with it, seized power, and the rest is history.
There's so many more reasons for engineering an invasion first in Afghanistan and back into Iraq (WMDs ) than we can begin to fully understand, certainly not without extensive reading and cross checking.
Balls to that.
There's enough in my mind to doubt the official story. In my opinion people in the government knew and at some level complicit in the attacks. Whether it all went to plan technically is irrelevant if the plan was to severely restrict civil liberties and increase military spending etc.
The problem I can't get past though is motive.
------------------------------
The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
Most people don't know that because 9/11 happened (rather coincidentally) the very next day.
By the way that money was never accounted for as far as I'm aware.
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
The problem I can't get past though is motive.
------------------------------
The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
Most people don't know that because 9/11 happened (rather coincidentally) the very next day.
By the way that money was never accounted for as far as I'm aware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldn't that arouse suspicion though
Superb fact
It's all right in front of our eyes
Maybe they stand to make more from drugs that relieve the symptoms rather than cure, why are electrical appliances and electronics not built to last?
No self respecting industry is going to cut it's own throat is it.
------------------------------------
But you're assuming it's a industry decision. All companies are in competition with each other, if a drug company can make several billion on a cancer cure then they will surely do it. Anyway the concept of a cure if flawed anyway. It's rare that any disease can be cured, it's just a slow evolution of treatments that leads to better outcomes. The pharmaceutical industry has generally delivered on that basis, although those companies involved in conventional ethical pharmaceuticals are running out of ideas. hence a lot of what you see now is old molecules re-purposed as lifestyle drugs or alternate therapies.
Don't you think though, that they would've planned the announcement around the attack rather than the other way round?
2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
-------------------------------
Thanks for that
A few years back on the news Honda or Toyota (can't remember) were championing their new hydrogen cell powered car, claiming it was a massive leap forward compared to hybrid and electric cars, what happened to it, anyone seen one?
comment by Mauricio's smile (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't you think though, that they would've planned the announcement around the attack rather than the other way round?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me. They certainly got away with it if that was the intention.
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
---
I dunno, there was some guy on a forum said about it..
Hydrogen cars are still a bit dangerous I reckon.
Just stuck my head in to see what is going on and it seems the normal conspiracy theory thread.
"The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars."
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
Admitting this serves no purpose if they were planning on covering it up.
comment by Mauricio's smile (U3582)
posted 14 seconds ago
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
---
I dunno, there was some guy on a forum said about it..
---------------------------------------------------
There's your answer then
Of course the money isn't the conspiracy, that's a fact. Like all the laws they changed after the attacks.
They're not going to fly buildings into planes in the middle of New York just to bury a news story ffs.
some geek who sits in his bedroom all day staring at a computer is set to make just over 2billion, the worlds gone mad
I dunno Superb. That stuff doesn't surprise me anymore
fly buildings into planes
I'm out
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
Sign in if you want to comment
On the anniversary of the 2 towers.........
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8
posted on 11/9/14
What about the one that got shot down, and the one that barely left a scratch on the Pentagon?
----------------------------------------
OK sure, but I guess that actually helps my point though since I don't believe it was a conspiracy. Yes you could argue that a lot of people made money from the wars, but I don't think any sane person would orchestrate those attacks with that end in mind. It's just to much risk and too many unpredictable outcomes.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by tgi fry ★ (U9236)
posted 2 minutes ago
9/11 makes for a good conspiracy theory due to how perfectly it came off. No terrorist attack before or since is even close. In fact is was pretty efficient even for a precision military strike. The problem I can't get past though is motive. Sure you could say it gave Bush the excuse to invade Afghanistan and (sort of) Iraq but it's not as if they've exerted much strategic control in the region since 9/11 and even if the US got lucrative rebuilding contacts in Iraq, it hardly seems a worthwhile risk/reward when you consider they destroyed a city block of the most expensive real estate in the country, destroyed a huge chunk of the Pentagon and killed thousands of US citizens.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
no photographic evidence of the plan that hit the pentigon (all the pictures of it look more of a missile strike) and there is more than enough evidence to suggest the tower 8 was intentional demolished. it was announced one one news program that it had collapsed due to the vibrations of the towers falling - yet was still fully intact behind the news anchor. a pr ballsup. as for the steel melting in the towers. there should of been nothing, nothing that would burn so hot to melt the steel.
Also Dubya's Brother owned the twin towers security company. 9tgi i was originally replying to you but may of went off on a tangent / rant. not really anything to do with you comment. sorry
posted on 11/9/14
I wish I could spell and understand grammar
posted on 11/9/14
I can see the other side of the argument though, you could say it was controlled demolition of the twin towers and Pentagon and the other plane was crashed intentionally to make it look like a terrorist attack that didn't quite come off. Diabolical stuff...
posted on 11/9/14
comment by soccerlol (U7650)
posted 2 hours, 31 minutes ago
A cure for cancer...I detest that phrase as it communicates to the uneducated masses that cancer is a singular entity that can be extinguished in one fell swoop with a magic bullet. Wrong, oh so wrong. It leads to these theories that big pharma already have the answer but are just sitting on their hands.
soccer?lol.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe they stand to make more from drugs that relieve the symptoms rather than cure, why are electrical appliances and electronics not built to last?
No self respecting industry is going to cut it's own throat is it.
posted on 11/9/14
Not that i'm saying there are cures, just playing devils advocate
posted on 11/9/14
comment by tgi fry ★ (U9236)
posted 42 seconds ago
What about the one that got shot down, and the one that barely left a scratch on the Pentagon?
----------------------------------------
OK sure, but I guess that actually helps my point though since I don't believe it was a conspiracy. Yes you could argue that a lot of people made money from the wars, but I don't think any sane person would orchestrate those attacks with that end in mind. It's just to much risk and too many unpredictable outcomes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair there is historical precedent, Hitler bombing the Reichstag (German parliament building) and blaming Jews and Communists immediately springs to mind. I'm sure more learned users could add more.
He got away with it, seized power, and the rest is history.
There's so many more reasons for engineering an invasion first in Afghanistan and back into Iraq (WMDs ) than we can begin to fully understand, certainly not without extensive reading and cross checking.
Balls to that.
There's enough in my mind to doubt the official story. In my opinion people in the government knew and at some level complicit in the attacks. Whether it all went to plan technically is irrelevant if the plan was to severely restrict civil liberties and increase military spending etc.
posted on 11/9/14
The problem I can't get past though is motive.
------------------------------
The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
Most people don't know that because 9/11 happened (rather coincidentally) the very next day.
By the way that money was never accounted for as far as I'm aware.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Superb (U6486)
posted 1 minute ago
The problem I can't get past though is motive.
------------------------------
The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
Most people don't know that because 9/11 happened (rather coincidentally) the very next day.
By the way that money was never accounted for as far as I'm aware.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
wouldn't that arouse suspicion though
posted on 11/9/14
Superb fact
It's all right in front of our eyes
posted on 11/9/14
Maybe they stand to make more from drugs that relieve the symptoms rather than cure, why are electrical appliances and electronics not built to last?
No self respecting industry is going to cut it's own throat is it.
------------------------------------
But you're assuming it's a industry decision. All companies are in competition with each other, if a drug company can make several billion on a cancer cure then they will surely do it. Anyway the concept of a cure if flawed anyway. It's rare that any disease can be cured, it's just a slow evolution of treatments that leads to better outcomes. The pharmaceutical industry has generally delivered on that basis, although those companies involved in conventional ethical pharmaceuticals are running out of ideas. hence a lot of what you see now is old molecules re-purposed as lifestyle drugs or alternate therapies.
posted on 11/9/14
*is flawed
posted on 11/9/14
Don't you think though, that they would've planned the announcement around the attack rather than the other way round?
posted on 11/9/14
2.3 trillion dollars.
That's 2300 billion dollars to put it into perspective.
-------------------------------
Thanks for that
posted on 11/9/14
A few years back on the news Honda or Toyota (can't remember) were championing their new hydrogen cell powered car, claiming it was a massive leap forward compared to hybrid and electric cars, what happened to it, anyone seen one?
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Mauricio's smile (U3582)
posted 1 minute ago
Don't you think though, that they would've planned the announcement around the attack rather than the other way round?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You tell me. They certainly got away with it if that was the intention.
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
posted on 11/9/14
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
---
I dunno, there was some guy on a forum said about it..
Hydrogen cars are still a bit dangerous I reckon.
posted on 11/9/14
Just stuck my head in to see what is going on and it seems the normal conspiracy theory thread.
"The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon could not account for 2.3 trillion dollars."
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
Admitting this serves no purpose if they were planning on covering it up.
posted on 11/9/14
comment by Mauricio's smile (U3582)
posted 14 seconds ago
How often do you ever hear people talking about the 2.3 trillion that went missing in the Pentagon ?
---
I dunno, there was some guy on a forum said about it..
---------------------------------------------------
There's your answer then
posted on 11/9/14
Of course the money isn't the conspiracy, that's a fact. Like all the laws they changed after the attacks.
They're not going to fly buildings into planes in the middle of New York just to bury a news story ffs.
posted on 11/9/14
some geek who sits in his bedroom all day staring at a computer is set to make just over 2billion, the worlds gone mad
posted on 11/9/14
I dunno Superb. That stuff doesn't surprise me anymore
posted on 11/9/14
fly buildings into planes
I'm out
posted on 11/9/14
I have a hard time with a lot of these theories as they seem to far fetched, vague and don;t hold water. For example, what has Rumsfeld admitting poor accounting in the military got to do with 9/11.
--------------------------------
You would put being unable to account for 2.3 trillion dollars down to bad accountancy ??
Do you realise how much money that is ??
posted on 11/9/14
about 2300 billion
Page 5 of 8
6 | 7 | 8