# 'Plot to blow up planes foiled'



## DelfinoPie (Aug 10, 2006)

I woke up this morning to this being on the news.

Plot to blow up planes foiled

Good stuff, thats a fair few lives saved right there.


----------



## rogue (Aug 10, 2006)

im just watcing it on the news, good job to the defence services but people wont like it, ignorant dicks


----------



## giannifive (Aug 10, 2006)

Oh man, if this is real then I'm glad they foiled the plot. I'm supposed to be flying through Heathrow soon! I hope flights resume by then, though. Right now, according to Heathrow's site, at least a third of the flights are cancelled.


----------



## Pauly (Aug 10, 2006)

giannifive said:


> Oh man, I'm supposed to be flying through Heathrow soon! I hope flights resume by then. Right now, according to Heathrow's site, at least a third of the flights are cancelled. I don't mind not being able to bring liquids on the plane; I just want to catch my flight.



You better read the hand luggage restrictions, they are fucking draconian. No Ipods, no books, nothing. Just your wallet and papers. The departure longue is going to be a nice several hour long wait with zero to do because all the shops are closed when I'm going (eaaaarly morning) and I can't do anything except sleep or talk to people.


----------



## giannifive (Aug 10, 2006)

pauly-bobs said:


> You better read the hand luggage restrictions, they are fucking draconian. No Ipods, no books, nothing. Just your wallet and papers. The departure longue is going to be a nice several hour long wait with zero to do because all the shops are closed when I'm going (eaaaarly morning) and I can't do anything except sleep or talk to people.


I know, I just read that on the BAA site. Damn! It's going to be a boring-ass flight.


----------



## Pauly (Aug 10, 2006)

Your shoes get x-rayed too, ace. The thing is, I can GUARANTEE tons of people won't read this, and will turn up and cause loads of delays because they haven't packed their hand luggage into their suitcase. My dad rang the airline up and everyone is getting 5KG extra on their suitcases, to make up for the loss of handluggage.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 10, 2006)

In light of what was being planned, the airports don't have any option but to handle it in the way they are...

My brother might be one of the people battling his way through Heathrow at the moment though...


----------



## XEN (Aug 10, 2006)

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm

No liquids are allowed onboard either. Things are pretty intense right now.


----------



## David (Aug 10, 2006)

since I don't believe "terrorists" were the soul source of 9/11, I'm skeptical about this event too. Who knows, they could fabricate anything to make the public feel as though Home Security is doing their job.


[action=David]prepares to be made fun of yet again.[/action]


----------



## Adam (Aug 10, 2006)

urklvt said:


> http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm
> 
> No liquids are allowed onboard either. Things are pretty intense right now.


or gels


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 10, 2006)

David said:


> since I don't believe "terrorists" were the soul source of 9/11, I'm skeptical about this event too. Who knows, they could fabricate anything to make the public feel as though Home Security is doing their job.
> 
> 
> [action=David]prepares to be made fun of yet again.[/action]




Dude...WTF are you talking about??? You aren't one of those conspiracy people are you? I hate the administration too but I just don't believe they were behind 9/11.

From what I saw it wasn't Homeland Security who foiled the plot...I think it was Scotland Yard.


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2006)

Yes, he is one of those "conspiracy people." Don't bait him, I don't want to have to listen to his arguments again.


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 10, 2006)

Oh yeah Drew here's a big  for shutting down my dup thread. 

OK OK...no baiting...but you know I do love it so..


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2006)

Right back at you, fucker. Not MY fault you can't read the boards nor post in the right topic!  





While we're at it, does anyone else think that this talk of Al Quaida being behind these attacks as well is a little premature? Their modus operandi is, if anything, one based on flexibility. They've never struck the same way twice, unless you want to distill it down to the common thread that they tend to favor suicide attacks, and yet now US and British intelligence officials are saying they think Al Quaida might have organized a terror attack on the approximate 5th anniversary of 9/11 by, drumroll, blowing up a bunch of international flights? 

It doesn't add up. I'd be somewhat surprised if this isn't a new group, it's just not in keeping with the Al Quaida style.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Aug 10, 2006)

Drew said:


> Yes, he is one of those "conspiracy people." Don't bait him, I don't want to have to listen to his arguments again.


+1


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 10, 2006)

Actually I was thinking it was well timed...just when the Dems are starting to look like they favor the "cut and run" philosophy ie: Lieberman not winning the primary, all of a sudden the need for a strong defense comes up as well as a justification for DHS...speaking of conspiracy...hmmmmm


----------



## WayneCustom7 (Aug 10, 2006)

I was thinking also, that perhaps it was fabricated...wait, maybe I have been reading to much Dan Brown lately...


----------



## noodles (Aug 10, 2006)

urklvt said:


> http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/threat-change.shtm
> 
> No liquids are allowed onboard either. Things are pretty intense right now.



Right, because that bomb some dude made out of shampoo won't blow up if placed in the cargo hold.


----------



## Donnie (Aug 10, 2006)

David said:


> Who knows, they could fabricate anything to make the public feel as though Home Security is doing their job.
> 
> 
> [action=David]prepares to be made fun of yet again.[/action]


That wouldn't suprise me one bit.


----------



## noodles (Aug 10, 2006)

Homeland Security is a joke and should be dissolved. Rolling all these differnent government organizations into one bloated model of inefficiency is almost as stupid as destroying the one secular government in the middle east.

They set the computer security standards for the entire federal government, yet they have gotten an F on every secruity audit since their first. The current group running the country is going to go down in history as the biggest group of idiots since the British Loyalists in the Revolutionary War.


----------



## rogue (Aug 10, 2006)

erm hang on its not a big american thing it was planned in the UK, over here we have so many groups getting news coverage saying how anyone that doesnt believe in their religion should be 'beheaded' right out httere in the middle of the street, but our government is wear and wont do anything untill its too late.

i dont think that 9,11 was totaly set up but equally i dont think it was something they knew nothing about.

as regular citizens i dont htink we'll ever be told the true story but i can see the problems in our respectives governments, andi think i could do a better job


----------



## David (Aug 10, 2006)

I've used literally over 200 hours of my time researching 9/11 for myself, instead of listening to others, and I've found the same thing. A 16 year old kid on the internet, was able to do it... it's obviously not hard. Infact, it's right infront of you.

And for any of those who make fun of my thought process, same thing as always with me. There's a reason as to why I'm atheist.

Maybe... we should make an Official thread for that topic? And any and all arguements can go into it? 



Anyway, fabrication has been done time and time again. It's proven.


----------



## rogue (Aug 10, 2006)

yeh, i dont dispute your reasearch david but the thing is how do you know the stuff you've read is true unless you see things for yourself then we just dont know. and judging by the governments usual underhand, deceving nature then we cant believe anything we read or are told


----------



## Drew (Aug 10, 2006)

David said:


> Anyway, fabrication has been done time and time again. It's proven.



And it's been disproven just as many times. It all comes down to who you believe is more thorough - again, opinion, not fact.


----------



## Samer (Aug 10, 2006)

One thing for sure, believing anything the goverment, coorperations, or media tells you to be true is silly.


----------



## David (Aug 10, 2006)

Drew said:


> And it's been disproven just as many times. It all comes down to who you believe is more thorough - again, opinion, not fact.


EDIT: not getting into it in this thread...


----------



## Leon (Aug 10, 2006)

David said:


> I've used literally over 200 hours of my time researching 9/11 for myself, instead of listening to others, and I've found the same thing. A 16 year old kid on the internet, was able to do it... it's obviously not hard. Infact, it's right infront of you.


the internet is probably the easiest thing to manipulate


----------



## David (Aug 10, 2006)

Leon said:


> the internet is probably the easiest thing to manipulate


You can write anything in a book. You can say anything you'd like. The government lies all the time. My sources are just as liable as your sources.


----------



## Mastodon (Aug 10, 2006)

Therefore everyone loses @ life!

Game over.

4 retry plz insrt magical religion coin into slot.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Aug 10, 2006)

First thing you learn about academic research ias to not trust anything on the internet. Great for sharing information, but lousy for being able to back up claims and resources. Too many people can state opinions as fact.

As for the plot, well, good ole scotland yard, although with the amount of actual experience they have in dealing with people like this is vast, years of the IRA blowing the shit out of mainland britain I'd say. (strange thought, but if the IRA hadn't gone into state of non aggression, would ireland be under US/UK occupation, and just to point something out, how easily do people forget that some of their funding did come from the US)


----------



## rogue (Aug 11, 2006)

and who forgets that most americans came from the UK all those years ago.....war of independance


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

I'm not so sure that CNN and the CIA archives are considered bad sources.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> I'm not so sure that CNN and the CIA archives are considered bad sources.



Dude, _you're_ trusting the American media?


----------



## Leon (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> I'm not so sure that CNN and the CIA archives are considered bad sources.


so, what you're saying is... is that you think the American government is hiding something, and you're going to find information on it on THEIR websites? like i said, the internet is probably the easiest media source to manipulate, *especially* websites run by the government themselves.


----------



## MetalMike (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> since I don't believe "terrorists" were the soul source of 9/11, I'm skeptical about this event too. Who knows, they could fabricate anything to make the public feel as though Home Security is doing their job.
> 
> 
> [action=David]prepares to be made fun of yet again.[/action]



Although I admit there are some instances where the big picture of what happened on 9/11 dosn't add up to me, but believing that the government had any involvement in this plot, let alone fabricated it, almost contradicts your 9/11 conspiracy beliefs.

Most believers share the common "police state" theory in that the government is trying to create a police state. If they wanted to create a police state, the aftermath of this attack would have been the easiest time in US history to do so. 2 terrorist attacks in 5 years with 8000+ victims would have created one of the darkest, if not the darkest time in US history for both the people and the economy. We would have been very vulnerable. As far as I'm concerned we're lucky that the attack was thwarted in the first place. Imagine the loss of natural rights after an event possibly more catastrophic than 9/11?


----------



## Dive-Baum (Aug 11, 2006)

What do you think the Patriot Act did?

You don't think we live in a Police State now??? Our conversations are tapped without warrants, our bank accounts are monitored, there are video cameas in most major cities watching what we do. We hold prisioners without accusing them and depriving them of their rights. 
Police no longer have to knock to enter a home. Your land/home can be taken away from you at a "fair price" because the government wants it. Police have walked into bars in the last few months and arrested people for public intoxication. The representatives of the people vote on issues, not for the will of the people, but for their own personal beliefs. What more do you need??



Drew said:


> Dude, _you're_ trusting the American media?



Or media in general:::See Reuters:::


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> What do you think the Patriot Act did?
> 
> You don't think we live in a Police State now??? Our conversations are tapped without warrants, our bank accounts are monitored, there are video cameas in most major cities watching what we do. We hold prisioners without accusing them and depriving them of their rights.
> Police no longer have to knock to enter a home. Your land/home can be taken away from you at a "fair price" because the government wants it. Police have walked into bars in the last few months and arrested people for public intoxication. The representatives of the people vote on issues, not for the will of the people, but for their own personal beliefs. What more do you need??


That's exactly it! And that is something that Alex Jones was preaching in 2000. Everything he's predicted, has come true. You have no rights, right now. You CAN be arrested for what you say, or don't say, such as I labeled out in my "fuck the popo's" thread.




Leon said:


> so, what you're saying is... is that you think the American government is hiding something, and you're going to find information on it on THEIR websites? like i said, the internet is probably the easiest media source to manipulate, especially websites run by the government themselves.


Nothing about 9/11, but you can prove that the United States and other governments have personally created a terrorist event upon themselves for a pretext for war in the past. They did it for Vietnam. They did it to intervene with Egypt. When people say that the government would never do such a thing, well it's nice to have proof that they have thought about it, and that they have done it. Declassified documents due to the Freedom of Information Act.




Drew said:


> Dude, you're trusting the American media?


And may I ask what channel you were watching when 9/11 happened? I think everyone here was switching between CNN, CNN Headline News, and Fox. They then reported on it for multiple weeks on the air, and in the years following, they continued with findings online. Who did you find out about the hijackers from? Well considering most of them are alive, that's not very true. Where did you find out about the _theory_ that Arab-muslim extremists were flying the planes? Where did you hear about the complete official story originally? Probably the American media.

And considering the fact that I'm using the American media for reports, and they don't share a common view that I share, the articles I'm using are legit.



And please, I created a thread for these 9/11 arguements... go there...


Oh yeah, and, if government documents aren't a reliable source of information because they can easily lie in them, that means that you don't trust the government. And if you don't trust it, then why do you trust that they're telling the truth about 9/11? when there's a much greater amount of evidence that terrorists DIDN'T attack us, than there is to say that they did.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> And may I ask what channel you were watching when 9/11 happened?



I was talking on the phone with a friend who saw the airplane pass overhead and crash into the Pentagon. That video circulating the net is utter bullshit, because that plane hit. I live in the DC area, and I talked to several people who saw it hit.

The government was not behind the terrorist attacks. What they did do is foster an environment that made it easier to happen. I remember when the Clinton administration pointed the finger at Bin Laden, and all the Republicans wrote it off as Clinton trying to shift the attention away from the Lewinski sex scandal. So, the problem was ignored, and when the attacks happened, all the Republicans immediately pointed the finger at Clinton, saying his lack of vigilance allowed them to happen. They then used it as the excuse to start tightening the screws on the American people, ramming through a bunch of crazy new laws and policies, all in the name of national security.

The government is not guilty of the attacks. The government is guilty of exploting the attacks to serve its own end. You really have to stop focusing on phantoms and focus on the real problem: an out of control, corrupt, power hungry government. Honestly, how old were you back in 1998 when the US embasy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania occured? How much were you following the events that led from that point to the attack in 2001? Did you know that he has been gunning for the US since the 1992 bombings of the Gold Mihor Hotel in Yemen? Did you know he was suspected in the 1993 bombing of World Trade Center? Did you realize that in 1999 Bill Clinton convinced the UN to place sanctions against Afghanistan in an attempt to get the Taliban to deliver Bin Laden up for trial?

There is a long history that leads up to 9/11. Why don't you go do some more research before you keep arguing the conspiracy angle? Were you 14 when it occured? That would make you about five when we first started learning about this guy, and honestly, this isn't the sort of thing they talk about in depth until maybe your senior year in high school. You're seriously hurting your credability by posting things that, to those of us who lived through it as adults know, are completely and wildly off base.


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> I was talking on the phone with a friend who saw the airplane pass overhead and crash into the Pentagon. That video circulating the net is utter bullshit, because that plane hit. I live in the DC area, and I talked to several people who saw it hit.


Yes indeed... and after I heard that from you, my opinion started to sway towards a plane did, hit the pentagon. Like I've said the whole damn time, show me proof, and I'll believe. They haven't showed me proof... but since I trust you, that is.

Now someone prove that it was arab-muslim terrorists that did it.


GO HERE:
http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/showthread.php?t=13553


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 11, 2006)

^You're starting to sound like a junior David Icke...


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> You don't think we live in a Police State now??? Our conversations are tapped without warrants, our bank accounts are monitored, there are video cameas in most major cities watching what we do. We hold prisioners without accusing them and depriving them of their rights.
> Police no longer have to knock to enter a home. Your land/home can be taken away from you at a "fair price" because the government wants it. Police have walked into bars in the last few months and arrested people for public intoxication. The representatives of the people vote on issues, not for the will of the people, but for their own personal beliefs. What more do you need??



Most of those don't exactly apply. The prisoners being held without charges are not american citizens, but foreign nationals arrested under the pretext of terrorism. Sure, that's a pretty big problem, but it's an international and not domestic problem. Your land/property being taken away at "fair price" is called "eminent domain" and has been a part of American government basically since inception. The police arresting people in bars in Texas for "public drunkennes" were later reprimanded for their actions and all charges were dismissed, and IIRC they are now facing lawsuits for what happened. And there is no constitutional mechanism forcing representatives to vote for the majority opinion of their constituency against their own personal belief - that, again, has been happening since the early days of the American government, and the same check they had then stops them from getting out of hand - go too far out of line, and odds are you're losing your next election. 

I will, however, grant you the domestic wiretapping. I'm still waiting for a formal constitutional challenge on that one, which with a bit of luck we might still get, if perhaps only after the '06 mid-term elections. 

I think what people are saying when they mean "police state" is the American military being mobilized to "keep the peace" on American streets, with the federal government using it to consolidate power and supress opposition. Thus far, this has not happened. Could it, under a second large-scale terrorist attack? Quite possibly. Sure, the GOP stands to gain a bit by a reminder that the War on Terror is far from won, but stopping a terrorist attack is more of a consolidating gains tactic, rather than reaching for new ground, and I don't feel that they're nearly close enough to a true fascist/police state for them to follow a strategy such as this. 

My personal feelings here? The extent of the sleight-of-hand of the American Government is "We believe this was Al Quaida" in reference to an attack that bears none of their usual hallmarks. Solidifying resistance against a known enemy rather than accepting the possibility that there may be more than one, in that it's easier to unify the people against one enemy than two.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> I think what people are saying when they mean "police state" is the American military being mobilized to "keep the peace" on American streets, with the federal government using it to consolidate power and supress opposition. Thus far, this has not happened.



Well, we saw a bit of that after Katrina leveled the Gulf Coast. A lot of that had to do with FEMA being moved under the Department of Homeland Security, which was designed to focus on terrorism and keeping the US secure from future attacks. You can't apply the same disaster recovery model to a natural disaster, and the public outcry was enough to ensure that such a debacle will not happen again any time soon.

So, while I disagree with you a technicality, I agree with you over all, since it was of a limited scope over a short period of time, and the actions of the government were not tolerated by it's citizens. I feel that if that hurricane had happened before the presidential elections, Bush would have lost. Then again, Bush probably wouldn't have ignored the problem during an election year.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> Yes indeed... and after I heard that from you, my opinion started to sway towards a plane did, hit the pentagon. Like I've said the whole damn time, show me proof, and I'll believe. They haven't showed me proof... but since I trust you, that is.
> 
> Now someone prove that it was arab-muslim terrorists that did it.
> 
> ...




David, I closed your 9/11 thread. We've beat that one to death here before, I know too many people who were there who did in fact see planes hit the pentagon, and everyone's seen the second plane by now. As far as I'm concerned, there's far too much evidence that three hijacked airplanes hit the towers and pentagon for it to be even remotely debatable. If you want your conspiracy theories, I'll buy that the government was aware of it but let it happen, but arguing that the government remote-controlled three 747's into the two buildings and then claiming they fabricated or abducted all the alledged "passangers" is pretty preposterous. 

Honestly, man, this is me doing you a favor. I'm saving you the trouble of going through your "I'm a terrorist/the government did this," which just makes you look immature. Obviously we've hit a point where it's no longer a question of reason, it's a question of faith for you, so I don't see any point into your having a thread to preach in, effectively.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> So, while I disagree with you a technicality, I agree with you over all, since it was of a limited scope over a short period of time, and the actions of the government were not tolerated by it's citizens. I feel that if that hurricane had happened before the presidential elections, Bush would have lost. Then again, Bush probably wouldn't have ignored the problem during an election year.




Well, you saw what he did in 2004's hurricane season in Florida. Was that politically motivated? Of course it was. Louisiana wasn't a swing state in quite the same way, but I'd like to think even still Bush would've given it a little more attention than he did (i.e - any) if he hadn't already secured his final term. As it was, he (to say nothing of his mom and her "Well, compared to what they're used to, they're actually doing pretty good") ensured most of that area will go predominantly democratic in '06 and '08.


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> David, I closed your 9/11 thread. We've beat that one to death here before, I know too many people who were there who did in fact see planes hit the pentagon, and everyone's seen the second plane by now. As far as I'm concerned, there's far too much evidence that three hijacked airplanes hit the towers and pentagon for it to be even remotely debatable. If you want your conspiracy theories, I'll buy that the government was aware of it but let it happen, but arguing that the government remote-controlled three 747's into the two buildings and then claiming they fabricated or abducted all the alledged "passangers" is pretty preposterous.
> 
> Honestly, man, this is me doing you a favor. I'm saving you the trouble of going through your "I'm a terrorist/the government did this," which just makes you look immature. Obviously we've hit a point where it's no longer a question of reason, it's a question of faith for you, so I don't see any point into your having a thread to preach in, effectively.


God damn it.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> If you want your conspiracy theories, I'll buy that the government was aware of it but let it happen, but arguing that the government remote-controlled three 747's into the two buildings and then claiming they fabricated or abducted all the alledged "passangers" is pretty preposterous.



Not to mention that not even the current administration is nuts enough to do that. In my experience, everything eventually leaks. When that got out, the public backlash would be massive. So massive that Congress would have not choice but to step in and severly limit the power of the federal government in order to quell the outcry, in much the same way we now have an ammendment to prevent Congress from voting itself pay raises. Except way mroe so. We would also witness, for the first time, executions for treason at an extremely high level.

The two major parties in this country are great at unity when it involves protecting the power of the federal government. No one is ever going to rock that boat, especially when they can build as much power as they want by stripping away our rights one layer at a time.


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> I'll buy that the government was aware of it but let it happen, but arguing that the government remote-controlled three 747's into the two buildings and then claiming they fabricated or abducted all the alledged "passangers" is pretty preposterous.


God fucking damn it, I'm going to give myself a three day ban, because I know my arguement, isn't even being looked at by any of you. I never said that they remote controlled. I said I believe that the government was behind 9/11. Everything else, is questions. I state questions, that none of you can answer. There isn't substantial evidence, because none of you have provided any evidence at all. All you've stated is that the government couldn't pull it off, prove it.


Fuckin ban me already. I'm sick and tired of putting up a substantial arguement, to have it not even read or looked into. Of course this looks immature, becausem I'm 16, not 25. If I were 25, maybe at least 1/2 of you would give a damn what I say. The only shit that gets noticed on here, is when I get pissed off.

hence why everyone will be all over this^^^^, and not thinking about anything substantial that I state.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

noodles said:


> When that got out, the public backlash would be massive.
> 
> 
> We would also witness, for the first time, executions for treason at an extremely high level.



Your first statement is perhaps the understatement of the year.  


David, if you want a ban you have to try harder than that.  And while you put forward a bunch of questions, that in itself doesn't prove anything - that's sort of like saing God exists becase no one can produce proof that he doesn't. I mean, the same is true of the Easter Bunny, you know? The reason we don't give it more than a cursory glance these days isn't your age - it's that we've heard it before, discounted it, and you evidently haven't and have decided to take it as an issue of faith that you also won't consider.

But, to put the ball in your court, let's see a piece of unrefutable evidence that the government was in fact behind 9/11. Not speculation based on passanger lists, foggy video captures, plane size, impact explosions, trajectories, or whatever, but actual firm concrete evidence that the US Government piloted three airplanes into domestic structures. What do you have? Internal memos? Wire tap transcripts? Signed executive orders? Interviews with supposedly "dead" passangers claiming the government ordered them off the plane shortly before takeoff? Everything you've argued here has been based on circumstantial-at-best evidence. Got anything harder than that?


----------



## distressed_romeo (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> Fuckin ban me already. I'm sick and tired of putting up a substantial arguement, to have it not even read or looked into. Of course this looks immature, becausem I'm 16, not 25. If I were 25, maybe at least 1/2 of you would give a damn what I say. The only shit that gets noticed on here, is when I get pissed off.
> 
> hence why everyone will be all over this^^^^, and not thinking about anything substantial that I state.



I've read all of your above posts, and whilst I've attempted to read them objectively, none of them consitute what I would think of as a 'substantial arguement'.

Like I said, this is the standard David Icke/[insert random conspiracy theorist here] approach to life.


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> But, to put the ball in your court, let's see a piece of unrefutable evidence that the government was in fact behind 9/11. Not speculation based on passanger lists, foggy video captures, plane size, impact explosions, trajectories, or whatever, but actual firm concrete evidence that the US Government piloted three airplanes into domestic structures. What do you have? Internal memos? Wire tap transcripts? Signed executive orders? Interviews with supposedly "dead" passangers claiming the government ordered them off the plane shortly before takeoff? Everything you've argued here has been based on circumstantial-at-best evidence. Got anything harder than that?


There is no one thing that will solve all questions and reside any possible discussion of the subject. It's about making connections, on a broad scale, to know that the official story isn't correct. It doesn't prove that one other event happened, but it is enough evidence to make a reasonable thought that the official story should be questioned, and isn't fact, until proven fact. I could list out all the questions I have, many of which you most certainly could not answer, but that is wasted energy, as you've heard it all before. I never said I have answers.


And Drew, I say the same to you. Provide one piece of evidence that proves that it was indeed, Arab-Muslim terrorists that were on the planes. It's the same thing that you're saying. Because no one can disprove for sure that it was Arab-Muslim terrorists, you will believe it. There's no proof God exists. There's no proof Arab-Muslim terrorists attacked us.



Oh, and I got tired of argueing about the Pentagon because of so many eye-witness reports. I still think that if it had flown over the highway, that this would have happened to quite a few cars:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1676908678742467252&hl=en


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> Oh, and I got tired of argueing about the Pentagon because of so many eye-witness reports. I still think that if it had flown over the highway, that this would have happened to quite a few cars:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1676908678742467252&hl=en



a) The difference between the thrust used to get a plane off the ground (what you saw on that video), and the thrust the thing is producing on a landing approach (what the plane was doing when it hit the Pentagon) is pretty big. Notice that the truck didn't go anywhere until the pilot throttled it up?

b) Since you don't live here, and have never seen the Pentagon, you obviously don't know how far the highway is from the building. It's definately longer than the distance that truck was thrown. There is a heliport on that side of the building.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

See, you're doing the same thing again, David, arguing that because there's no evidence the government DIDN'T orchestrate 9/11 that you can conclude they must have. It's the Easter Bunny all over again, David - you claim that we're ignoring your arguments, so I ask you for firm proof you're right, and you counter by asking for firm proof I'M right. If you've got anything, offer it up. 

Myself, I'd say between the eyewitness accounts I've heard, the following probe that basically showed that the CIA completely dropped the ball after getting multiple warnings that fundamental Islamic terrorists were preparing to crash airplanes into the White House, Pentagon, and World Trade Center, the number of arabic citizens with Al Quaida ties who had received flight training in the months before and shown such disregard to the process of actually landing a large aircraft that their instructors thought it was worth reporting to the CIA, and, oh, the fact Al Quaida took responsibility for the attacks (to say nothing of what we got out of Flight 193 before it crashed) are pretty strong indicators that there were Al Quaida terrorists involved, but I suppose you're going to say that's all circumstantial too.  Of course, you're going to respond to this and not my first paragraph, but whatever.


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> Myself, I'd say between the eyewitness accounts I've heard, the following probe that basically showed that the CIA completely dropped the ball after getting multiple warnings that fundamental Islamic terrorists were preparing to crash airplanes into the White House, Pentagon, and World Trade Center, the number of arabic citizens with Al Quaida ties who had received flight training in the months before and shown such disregard to the process of actually landing a large aircraft that their instructors thought it was worth reporting to the CIA, and, oh, the fact Al Quaida took responsibility for the attacks (to say nothing of what we got out of Flight 193 before it crashed) are pretty strong indicators that there were Al Quaida terrorists involved, but I suppose you're going to say that's all circumstantial too.  Of course, you're going to respond to this and not my first paragraph, but whatever.



All liberal lies.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

Oh, right.  Bush is dead, long live Bush! Hail to the Cheif! Ignorance is Bliss! War is Peace! Don't Mess With Texas! YEEEEHAWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!


----------



## noodles (Aug 11, 2006)

You forgot "stay the course" and "faith-based initiatives".


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

Motherfucker, I always forget something. 

Oh wait, now that I'm a religious right neocon I can't say that, can I? 

Um... "i DID NOT SWEAR. A TRUE PATRIOT WOULD NEVER USE SUCH OBSCENE A PHRASE. A TRUE PATRIOT WOULD NEVER QUESTION A FELLOW PATRIOT. TERRORISTS ASK QUESTIONS. ARE YOU A TERRORIST? YOU'RE EITHER WITH ME OR AGAINST ME." 


[action=Drew]is wondering if he would write GOP prophaganda if they offered him enough money. Sadly, it's taking more than a few seconds to answer, because, well, it's kind of fun.[/action]


----------



## MetalMike (Aug 11, 2006)

Dive-Baum said:


> What do you think the Patriot Act did?
> 
> You don't think we live in a Police State now??? Our conversations are tapped without warrants, our bank accounts are monitored, there are video cameas in most major cities watching what we do. We hold prisioners without accusing them and depriving them of their rights.
> Police no longer have to knock to enter a home. Your land/home can be taken away from you at a "fair price" because the government wants it. Police have walked into bars in the last few months and arrested people for public intoxication. The representatives of the people vote on issues, not for the will of the people, but for their own personal beliefs. What more do you need??
> ...



Of course I'm against wiretapping and these unnecessary arrests but if this country is a police state did I miss the Great Purges of George Dubyah? Are people being executed daily for not giving up their income? NO. In the USA we are innocent until proven guilty. In Mexico you're guilty until proven innocent. So if we live in a police state is Mexico an even more extremist police state?

I will admit that the world seems somewhat similar to Orwell's 1984 with perpetual war against an immortal enemy which somewhat scares me, and that we are possibly *heading * in that direction, but I think to call our country a police state would be an exaggeration.

We are fighting Islamic fascism. We are not fighting for the development of American Fascism. In fact those two words should never be used in the same sentence.

By calling the US a police state you are in fact comparing it to Communist Russia and more recently the world's islamic states. I rest my case.


----------



## Leon (Aug 11, 2006)

metalmike23 said:


> Of course I'm against wiretapping and these unnecessary arrests but if this country is a police state did I miss the Great Purges of George Dubyah? Are people being executed daily for not giving up their income? NO. In the USA we are innocent until proven guilty. In Mexico you're guilty until proven innocent. So if we live in a police state is Mexico an even more extremist police state?


America sure isn't perfect, but it's a far better place to live than some others


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

Drew said:


> See, you're doing the same thing again, David, arguing that because there's no evidence the government DIDN'T orchestrate 9/11 that you can conclude they must have. It's the Easter Bunny all over again, David - you claim that we're ignoring your arguments, so I ask you for firm proof you're right, and you counter by asking for firm proof I'M right. If you've got anything, offer it up.


Actually, no, I'm not. I provided you with an answer to your question. Maybe the answer wasn't exactly what you'd prefer to hear for my arguement, but I replied. And you are guilty of this yourself. Since I don't have firm evidence, that 9/11 was an inside job, you won't believe it. Although, I do have plenty of facts and questions that can be used as soft evidence, and when compiled together, help make a point. I never stated that I had a firm arguement.

Also, I didn't counter your question by asking for firm proof that you are correct... infact, I asked the question first, and you were the one to counter it with asking me to prove my base.


post #39 said:


> Now someone prove that it was arab-muslim terrorists that did it.


----------



## jtm45 (Aug 11, 2006)

Hey Dave man!
Chill a bit dude!
While your theories may be a bit over the top i'm with you on your general opinons (call me mad,but i am).

Get a new hobby or start taking valium or something so you don't get yourself so worked up about stuff.

I don't really think anyone here is against you as a person David.
You're just a tad excitable,but generally good-hearted (i think?).


----------



## David (Aug 11, 2006)

jtm45 said:


> Hey Dave man!
> Chill a bit dude!
> While your theories may be a bit over the top i'm with you on your general opinons (call me mad,but i am).
> 
> ...


I think everyone knows I have anger problems, so they're lenient on me. I'm one of the people who wasn't hugged enough as a child.


----------



## Drew (Aug 11, 2006)

David said:


> Actually, no, I'm not. I provided you with an answer to your question. Maybe the answer wasn't exactly what you'd prefer to hear for my arguement, but I replied. And you are guilty of this yourself. Since I don't have firm evidence, that 9/11 was an inside job, you won't believe it. Although, I do have plenty of facts and questions that can be used as soft evidence, and when compiled together, help make a point. I never stated that I had a firm arguement.
> 
> Also, I didn't counter your question by asking for firm proof that you are correct... infact, I asked the question first, and you were the one to counter it with asking me to prove my base.



You're missing the popint, David. The accepted theory is that Islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11. You're disagreeing with that and getting upset that no ne's paying you any attention, so I asked you to provide firm evidence that it WAS the US government, since thats what you believe in light of the accepted view. You countered by asking me to prove it wasn't. When I called you out on it, all you did was accuse me of doing the same. Considering you're the one arguing against accepted opinion here, I'd say the burden of proof falls on your shoulders to offfer firm evidence that the US government orchestrated the attacks, which thus far you haven't done. 

I'm giving you a chance to plead your case, and so far the best you've done is tell me to plead mine. 

As for the video, noodles is right - that certainly doesn't prove that the US government targeted the pentagon. It doesn't even really prove an airplane didn't hit the building, as noodles points out that an airplane coasting into position for acrash landing puts outa LOT less thrust than one under full accelleration for takeoff, and all eyewitness accounts collaborate that the airplane didn't begin to rev its engines until the last couple seconds before impact, well after crossing the highway.


----------



## Cyberi4n (Aug 20, 2006)

David said:


> I still think that if it had flown over the highway, that this would have happened to quite a few cars:
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1676908678742467252&hl=en




I wonder why they took the engine out of that truck?


----------



## Drew (Aug 20, 2006)

Cyberi4n said:


> I wonder why they took the engine out of that truck?



Interesting, you're right.


----------

