Quake3World

Man I wish I had made that "I blame videogames" thread that day. That would have been the funniest thing I have ever done.

But I had made some light-hearted comments about people surrendering their plane to people with carpet knives earlier and everyone jumped on me for that, so I didn't.

9/11 was the day that taught me that you should never think twice.


About the 9/11 conspiracy:
There was a conspiracy. That's a fact. People selling lots of airline stock the day before? WTC-7 going down? Complete obstruction of all journalistic investigations? Plans to invade Iraq? "Another Pearl Harbor" being the (documented) wet dream of conservative think tanks? It's all circumstantial evidence, but there's just SO FUCKING MUCH of it, you can assume it's a fact.

Just as much as it is a fact that JFK wasn't killed by Lee Harvey Oswald (alone). (Have you noticed that pretty much everyone knew this before 9/11 and then it suddenly became a crazy thing to say?)

But we will never know the details so we might as well stop worrying.

there has only been 1 scientific poll on how ppl feel about 911...that poll which was conducted 3 or 4 months ago(i forget who did it), 84% poll thought the govt either was in on it or is lying to us about what happened. so you see, only a minority (of morons) still believe the official conspiracy theory...

anyone remember who conducted that poll? cbs? someone?

i think mkultra techniques were used in the assassinations of jfk and rfk btw...pretty obvious...

Fuck off you idiot.

scared? wrote:there has only been 1 scientific poll on how ppl feel about 911...that poll which was conducted 3 or 4 months ago(i forget who did it), 84% poll thought the govt either was in on it or is lying to us about what happened. so you see, only a minority (of morons) still believe the official conspiracy theory...

anyone remember who conducted that poll? cbs? someone?

if you and the rest of the 84% believe that, believing that your own government killed 2000? American civilians, then why isnt there some uprising

seriously, if that many people believe it then theres no way the government could keep a lid on it... unless americans are quite happy igoring it, in which case your just getting what you deserve

scared? wrote:
anyone remember who conducted that poll? cbs? someone?

The Association of the Tin Hat Brigade.

I can see 84% of the Tin hat brigade thinking that Gov. had something to do with 911.

seremtan wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:

seremtan wrote:mediocre piloting skills

IT'S SO OBVIOUS!

see this is exactly the problem. misinformation gets taken as fact. buddy's flight instructor said he thought that the dude could indeed have pulled off the flying necessary. the common misconception is that the instructor said the opposite

actually, all that thierry meyssan crap about hani hanjour being a shit pilot: who says he even piloted flight 77 anyway? where did that come from?

edit: and btw hanjour's flight school instructors DID say he was a mediocre pilot. that's not misconception, it's fact

The flight instructor speaks in short clips, which give the impression that his pupil, the hijacker Hani Hanjour, was incapable of hitting the Pentagon. Elsewhere he has said the opposite: he had "no doubt" that Hanjour could have done it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Co ... 30,00.html


so maybe a mediocre pilot could have done it... the POINT IS the implication by the Jones types is that it meant he couldn't do it.

there are so many examples of these little attempts at manipulation built on misconceptions. tons regarding wtc7 as well

So Puff, do you think the attacks were carried out in the way that the government has put forth? And subsequently, the administration has been able to prevent any of their attacks from hitting us again, as they say?

Or do you think they just wanted to hit a building once, and never attack us again, just to make a point?

Has the terror organization disbanded now, having fulfilled their only objective? Or are they done with the US homeland, and are focusing all their efforts on Iraq, like the president wanted?

Did al quaeda really spend several years planning a single attack with box cutters, just to prove a point, and then stop?

If their plan was to show the American people what Lebanon was like in the 1980's, have they given up, seeing that the American public didn't get the allegory?

Did they attack us once, and have no plans for hitting us again?

oh here's the poll...well the story on the poll...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.c ... emID/13469

complete poll...

http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collate ... ber2k6.pdf

along with these polls...





and about the pentagon...all the pilots i have heard from said you would have to be one super excellent pilot to do what hani is alleged to have done...

Nightshade wrote: The planes are capable of sooooo much more than they're ever put through during normal flight operations.

Nightshade - ever hear of the Gimli Glider?

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

awesome story.

R00k wrote:So Puff, do you think the attacks were carried out in the way that the government has put forth? And subsequently, the administration has been able to prevent any of their attacks from hitting us again, as they say?

Or do you think they just wanted to hit a building once, and never attack us again, just to make a point?

Has the terror organization disbanded now, having fulfilled their only objective? Or are they done with the US homeland, and are focusing all their efforts on Iraq, like the president wanted?

Did al quaeda really spend several years planning a single attack with box cutters, just to prove a point, and then stop?

If their plan was to show the American people what Lebanon was like in the 1980's, have they given up, seeing that the American public didn't get the allegory?

Did they attack us once, and have no plans for hitting us again?

1)more or less but when you say government, do you mean the Bush Admin or the NIST report or what?
2)don't know
3)they would probably want more attacks staged in the USA at this point in time but of course I'm just speculating
4)no they haven't disbanded
5)i'd say no. they're probably hoping radicalized US citizens will attempt attacks along the lines of the attacks in London
6)just speculating but I'd say they would have stopped at one attack only if they had come to some sort of truce with the US after 9/11 (not sure what you mean by 'just to prove a point'
7)was that their plan?
8) you asked that question in different language already (see my answer to your 6th question)

i'd be interested in hearing how you think the attacks were carried out if you'd care to lay out your theory.

there's no precedent for an inside job anyway. and no, operation northwoods doesn't count because it was never carried out

on the other hand, there's several instances where attacks were "allowed to happen" in order to start a war: pearl harbor being the most salient instance, as we now know

seremtan wrote: on the other hand, there's several instances where attacks were "allowed to happen" in order to start a war: pearl harbor being the most salient instance, as we now know

this is distinctly possible in the case of 9/11 imo

it's the most plausible theory i've heard yet

it's either that, or missiles'n'thermite, or massive prolonged incompetence by otherwise seemingly competent people

scared? wrote:oh here's the poll...well the story on the poll...

http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.c ... emID/13469

complete poll...

http://www.angus-reid.com/admin/collate ... ber2k6.pdf

along with these polls...





and about the pentagon...all the pilots i have heard from said you would have to be one super excellent pilot to do what hani is alleged to have done...

4987 votes, yeah that's most people.

it's a poll of canadians to boot

[xeno]Julios wrote:

Nightshade wrote: The planes are capable of sooooo much more than they're ever put through during normal flight operations.

Nightshade - ever hear of the Gimli Glider?

http://www.wadenelson.com/gimli.html

awesome story.

No, I haven't. I'll check it out.

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:i'd be interested in hearing how you think the attacks were carried out if you'd care to lay out your theory.

My whole beef surrounding 9/11 is the lack of investigating things that clearly should be (and/or should have been) investigated. There are no shortage of discrepancies that are not explainable. Aspects of WTC7 are part of those.

If I had to endorse a theory, it would be that it was allowed to happen - and even a possibility that someone inside was watching the attacks being carried out, and making sure nothing interfered.

I don't really believe the government had any hand in carrying out the attacks themselves, but when I mention a possibility of complicity, I'm usually talking about people who knew what was about to happen, and allowed it to go through unhindered.

Did you read this article of Raimondo's, called the High Fivers?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10528

My point in mentioning this, is that if they knew about it, then it's fairly plausible that we did as well.

We know that numerous countries including Israel warned the U.S. of the impending attacks.

As for the investigation, have you read the NIST report and updates (they are continuing their work)?

Yea, we knew of the warnings. But that doesn't explain high fives.

No, I didn't know the NIST was still doing any work on it, but I did read most of the original report.

R00k wrote:

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:i'd be interested in hearing how you think the attacks were carried out if you'd care to lay out your theory.

My whole beef surrounding 9/11 is the lack of investigating things that clearly should be (and/or should have been) investigated. There are no shortage of discrepancies that are not explainable. Aspects of WTC7 are part of those.

If I had to endorse a theory, it would be that it was allowed to happen - and even a possibility that someone inside was watching the attacks being carried out, and making sure nothing interfered.

I don't really believe the government had any hand in carrying out the attacks themselves, but when I mention a possibility of complicity, I'm usually talking about people who knew what was about to happen, and allowed it to go through unhindered.

Did you read this article of Raimondo's, called the High Fivers?
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10528

My point in mentioning this, is that if they knew about it, then it's fairly plausible that we did as well.

this is pretty much the conclusion i've come to as well. it may only be backed up with circumstantial but holy fuck, what a vadgeload of circumstantial evidence it is

ever read ahmed nafeez's 'the war on freedom'? it fleshes out the foreknowledge theory without veering off into thermite and missiles

I heard a few people shit-listed popular mechanics over it's supposedly unsatisfying debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

seremtan wrote:this is pretty much the conclusion i've come to as well. it may only be backed up with circumstantial but holy fuck, what a vadgeload of circumstantial evidence it is

ever read ahmed nafeez's 'the war on freedom'? it fleshes out the foreknowledge theory without veering off into thermite and missiles

I haven't read it but I've heard quite a bit about it. Maybe I'll add it to my booklist to pick up on my next trip.