Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

9-11 What really happened?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 yano

yano

    I can see what you post!


  • Members
  • 6,469 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:04:35 PM

Posted 20 July 2005 - 12:22 AM

What do you think really happened on 9-11, do you think it was a conspiracy of the government or do you think the terrorists attacked it?

Just a few articles for both sides to view:



Supporting the conspiracy:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/plissken.htm
http://www.patriotsaints.com/News/911/Conspiracy/


Supporting the terrorists:
http://www.september11news.com/
http://www.religioustolerance.org/terr_010911.htm

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 frankie12

frankie12

  • Members
  • 941 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Michigan
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 20 July 2005 - 10:42 PM

I think the terrorist are all to blame for the attacks that took place on american soil on that early morning of september 11th, 2001.

I think the people that made the first site are nuts on blaming the american government for the attacks. That would be insane! I kind of think of that as Micheal Jackson saying that he only had a few plastic surgery's.

Edited by frankie12, 20 July 2005 - 10:43 PM.


#3 ddeerrff

ddeerrff

    Retired


  • Malware Response Team
  • 2,723 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Upper Midwest, US
  • Local time:04:35 PM

Posted 20 July 2005 - 11:26 PM

Sorry, but this whole thread is stupid. Conspiracy my bleep.

If you want Government conspiracy, then you can buy in to the one that says we never landed on the moon - it was all faked. Off course the hardware up there that is used to this day must have appeared spontaniously by itself....
Derfram
~~~~~~

#4 legoman786

legoman786

  • Members
  • 684 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Local time:02:35 PM

Posted 22 July 2005 - 12:03 AM

I am just posting to say that I will saty out of this topic. Mainly, because it is and will always remain a very controverisial topic, and that no one really knows the truth. 'Cept for the big man upstairs. But he will never share that information, until the end of time.

Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning.
- Rick Cook


#5 efizzer

efizzer

  • Members
  • 360 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 22 July 2005 - 10:01 AM

9/11 conspiracy theories will last as long as Bush lies and is in office.
Posted Image

We're going to make the merry-go-round go faster, so everyone needs to hang on tighter-just to keep from being thrown to the wolves.

#6 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:04:35 PM

Posted 22 July 2005 - 10:24 AM

As Aristotle wrote, "you can't have a science of non-being."

Regards,
John
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#7 dpb510

dpb510

  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 22 July 2005 - 09:25 PM

We're told many stories that don't add up about 9/11.
1. The raging fire from the jet fuel melted the steel and the WTC came tumbling down.
A. Jet fuel burns a 800 to 1500 degrees F. Steel melts at 2750 F.
B. We all saw the fuel exploding out the side of tower #2. How was there enough fuel left, to melt the steel?
D. If the fire was burning for about 25 mins longer in tower #1, why did tower #2 collapsed first?
C. A couple of months ago, the largest skyscraper in Madrid caught fire and burned for over 24 hrs, and NEVER COLLAPSED.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/spain_fire_2005.html
2. The WTC buildings fell into their on foot print, even though above the entry point, the second tower was leaning at an alarming degree.
A. Why did tower 6 & 7 fall, when tower 1 & 2 fell into their own foot print?
B. Many people that were in the WTC at the time of the impacts, state that there where several large explosions in the subbasements.
3. WHERE OH WHERE did the BLACK BOXES GO?
A. 4 jets, each with 2 black boxes = 8black boxes.
B. We're told the 4boxes from the WTC where not recoverable, because these horrendous crashes produced a g-force of 560Gs and a temp above 1000 deg.
a. Black boxes are made to with stand 3,400 Gs and 2,000 F.
http://travel.howstuffworks.com/black-box7.htm
C. Later the boxes form the Penn crash site are said to be mostly unintelligible.
3. The FBI states they know the name of the terrorist who was flying the 2nd jet, because they found his passport at the WTC site.
WAIT! The black boxes are kaput, BUT the passport, which was probably in a pocket, survived! And how does a passport found in rubble, prove that this was the terrorists, or he was flying the jet?
Just start investigating for your self. Keep an open mind. Take nothing for granted. And don't let folks scare you by using the word Conspiracy, like it's a 4 letter word. Most of these people never take the time to really check it out, only spout their own opinion.
..........dpb...........

#8 timothy

timothy

  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Detriot City.
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 29 August 2005 - 12:26 AM

As Aristotle wrote, "you can't have a science of non-being."

Regards,
John



As you were saying John?


http://www.physics911.net/index.htm

Edited by timothy, 29 August 2005 - 12:31 AM.


#9 dpb510

dpb510

  • Members
  • 55 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 03 September 2005 - 11:04 AM

timothy, thanks for the link to physics911 site. Great info. It's hard to find a site where the facts are actually worked out in a scientific method.

....dpb.....

#10 Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Members
  • 5,898 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Florida, USA
  • Local time:04:35 PM

Posted 06 September 2005 - 10:15 PM

It wasn't a conspiracy on the part of the Bush Administration. It was far worse!

How could the government deny knowing this possibility of a massive attack using jetliners as bombs existed, yet be able to name the alleged hijackers almost instantly because these individuals had been under surveillance for months?

If they could name the alleged hijackers, then they couldn't deny
knowing the possibility of using planes as weapons existed, could they?

Bush, not long before 9/11 changed hotels on a trip he made to Italy to attend a conference because the Secret Service feared they could not protect the first hotel as well as they could the one Bush did stay in from attacks using an aircraft to hit the building.

The hotel Bush at which Bush stayed in Sarasota, Florida on the night of 9/10 had anti-aircraft batteries on its roof, installed by the Secret Service. It wasn’t in many newspapers, but I live in Sarasota and saw it! Bush came to read “MY Pet Goat” to elementary school children here in Sarasota, which he was doing as Michael Moore pointed out, while the attacks were occurring!

In Michael Moore’s film, the fact that there was a security conference going on in New York on the very morning of 9/11 aimed at formatting what procedure would be taken by our Federal Government if just such an attack were to occur and advising Bush of the meeting through Condolisa Rice’s famous “President’s morning briefing” which was finally disclosed after the Bush team lied about it existing to the Congressional hearings and the American public for months!

Here is an article from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists:

March/April 2003, Volume 59, No. 2, pp. 28-37

“Slow-walked and stonewalled”
By John Prados

The administration’s near-gag order assured a less-than-satisfactory outcome to the congressional investigation of 9/11.

From the day after September 11, 2001, when the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. took place, it was clear there would be a congressional investigation of the intelligence aspects of the disaster. Unanswered questions loomed in everyone’s minds: Who were the men who had seized airliners in flight and driven them into huge buildings? How had they eluded sophisticated American security systems? And what warning, if any, had there been?

It took some time to agree on the form the inquiry might take, but at length the issue was settled, and the examination was completed in December 2002. Oddly enough, given the magnitude of the attacks and the importance of learning how they could have happened, the inquiry attracted startlingly little attention.

How did that happen? It is important to understand how the investigation was conducted, how it became sidetracked, and what the process can tell us, not only about the workings of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and its intelligence cohorts, but also about Bush administration policy and politics.


The shape of things to come

For nearly three decades after its creation, the peacetime U.S. intelligence community functioned in silence—in the shadows, as the spies are fond of saying. That was not so much because the work was inherently secret, but because there was broad public consensus at the height of the Cold War that intelligence activities were necessary and appropriate. During the time of the Vietnam war, however, that consensus began to erode, partly due to revelations of questionable activities, some in Vietnam, but others in the United States and elsewhere; partly due to Watergate-induced suspicion of the government, and partly due to the lessening of Cold War hostility between the United States and Russia (then the Soviet Union). Over the years there have been a succession of major investigations of the CIA and related matters.

The first investigation began in 1975, triggered by reports that the CIA was involved in assassinations abroad and illegal spying at home. In 1975 there was a presidential commission under Vice President Nelson A. Rockefeller to look into the domestic activities of intelligence, as well as inquiries by separate investigating committees in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senate inquiry, headed by Idaho Republican Frank Church, is remembered today mostly to accuse it—unjustly—of various excesses; in fact, the committee labored hard to investigate without alienating. The House inquiry, headed by New York congressman Otis Pike, is largely forgotten, but was far more contentious at the time. Efforts to write law codifying charters for the CIA and other agencies failed. The main results of the 1975 investigations were the establishment of intelligence committees in both houses of Congress, an oversight arrangement that continues today; passage of a law (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, recently in the news); and promulgation of a presidential executive order prohibiting assassination.1

A little more than a decade later, in 1986, the discovery that proceeds from illegal arms sales had been diverted to rebel fighters supported by a CIA covert action led to a fresh controversy. White House officials, specifically National Security Council (NSC) staffers, had orchestrated both arms sales and rebel aid, and intelligence agencies had had a supporting role (witting or unwitting) at many levels. This became known as the Iran-contra affair. Investigations of these excesses included one by a presidential commission headed by past (and future) national security adviser Brent Scowcroft, inquiries by the House and Senate intelligence committees, a joint committee established by Congress (there had also been joint committees to investigate Watergate and, just after World War II, the intelligence failure at Pearl Harbor), and a special prosecutor created under investigative provisions instituted after Watergate. The last acts of the Iran-contra drama did not take place until 1992, when a number of former officials—including convicted felons—were pardoned by the current president’s father. The major results of the political crisis were new strictures on CIA reporting to Congress on its covert operations.2

Overlapping with the Iran-contra affair were hearings on the CIA that took place in 1991, on the occasion of the appointment of Robert W. Gates to be director of central intelligence (DCI). Gates, then serving as deputy national security adviser (under Scowcroft), had been deputy director of central intelligence. He was accused by CIA officers of slanting the agency’s products to benefit the policies he favored.

That allegation resulted in a series of hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. There were no programmatic results of the Gates nomination hearings, but the present DCI, George W. Tenet, was at that time a member of the staff of the Senate committee.

This is the background against which the September 11 investigation should be seen. Looking back, there have been periodic major inquiries into intelligence matters, as well as a rough correspondence between the perceived severity of excess and the scale of the investigations.

From the beginning the avenues available for the latest investigation were clear. There could be committee investigations by either or both houses of Congress, a joint congressional committee, or a blue ribbon commission. From the outset, President George W. Bush expressed no interest in a commission. When legislation authorizing a commission was first offered late in 2001, the military campaign in Afghanistan was at its height, and that fact was used to argue that investigations would distract the war managers. On January 29, 2002, when Bush spoke to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, a White House spokesman told the press, “The president thinks it’s important for Congress to review events in a way that does not unduly burden the defense and intelligence communities, as they are still charged with fighting a war.”3

The above is just a small part of an article written by John Prados
which appeared in the March/April 2003 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists on pages 28-37 (vol. 59, no. 02) in 2003. You can read the rest here:
http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=ma03prados

From the facts stated in this article and from numerous other sources - from Congressional hearings to a variety of disclosures by members of the Bush Administration who could no longer tolerate the administration’s lying and deceit, we can only come up with the conclusion that the Bushies were covering up their blatant ineptitude and malfeasance in office, not a conspiracy to attack America and destroy the WTC.

And yet, after disclosure after disclosure proving the Bush Administration was incompetent and deceitful for so many things they did and in so many ways, we, the American public elected Bush again anyway.
How sad!

#11 timothy

timothy

  • Members
  • 23 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Location:Detriot City.
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 12 September 2005 - 11:32 AM

The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. For any who think some in our government might have actually LET the 911 attacks happen, this book brings up mounds of supporting evidence. For instance:

How exactly is it that the STRATEGIC MILITARY COMMAND CENTER of the United States of America (The Pentagon) was unable to defend itself against a 757?

...the most HEAVILY defended building on this PLANET, was unable to stop a HUGE (150,000 pound) airplane traveling at just 500 Miles per hour, even after it had already been established (for more than an hour) that planes were being hijacked, slammed into buildings, and one was heading that way. If not under those circumstances, under WHAT circumstances COULD the building be defended? ...and how come nobody was held accountable for such a catastrophic failure?
The Northwoods document proves that high ranking officials in our government have openly conspired to PROVOKE and ALLOW attacks against the US to happen in order to justify attacking another country. EVEN WORSE, the document suggests our own government could carry out the attacks itself (to be blamed on the target country) or completely manufacture an attack (to be blamed on the target country.)

READ THAT AGAIN! The Northwoods document PROVES that high ranking officials in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT have conspired to allow and / or actually carry out attacks against US targets in order to justify attacking another country.

This document available at the National Security Archive (George Washington University website). It took 40 years and the Freedom of Information Act to get it released. -Start reading on page 10 for the unbelievable truth regarding how far some in power are willing to go to get what they want. And then ask yourself, are you prepared to support this in an AMERICAN government?


IMAGINE THIS News Story America-and then imagine it was our OWN government that conspired to make it so.


Cuba shoots down an American Airliner killing all onboard (Mainly students on vacation)

The US government announced today that Cuba shot down a civilian airliner in an unprovoked act of aggression against the USA. Congressmen Deceito of Washington went on the record, saying: "We MUST take action immediately if we ever plan on having safety in the skies."

He went on to say:
"Any failure to act decisively and immediately will be perceived as weakness around the world. Failing to respond to this heinous act would be akin to America saying: It's OK to shoot our planes down and kill our children. That would be a mistake America can't afford to make."



As usual, the "conspiracy theorists" are once again showing their utter lack of respect for America (and the dead) by questioning the governments account.



Even though there were numerous eyewitness accounts that a Cuban Mig was tailing flight #2235, and flight recorders plainly reveal the pilot issuing a mayday call; specifically: "Mayday, mayday, we are being fired on by a Cuban Mig" Bob Accurato (Known Conspiracy Theorist) was quoted as saying:



"It is ALL A LIE. That wasn't really a Cuban Mig, it was an American F-86 that our government painted up to LOOK LIKE a Cuban mig. ...and it wasn't really a civilian airliner either. The government loaded a bunch of people (under fake names) on a plane, landed it, and then flew another plane by remote control into the airspace where the fake Cuban Mig then shot it down. They did this so they could justify attacking Cuba."



NOW, Who would believe the "conspiracy theory" over the much simpler "official account?" NOBODY! Do you suppose those who would conspire to do such a thing wouldn't be prepared to use that to their advantage?



READ the Northwood's Document, and you will find out that (in the above hypothetical scenario) it would be the "Conspiracy Theorist" who was telling the truth. Thank goodness John F. Kennedy wasn't amused by the Northwood's plan. He rejected it and was in the process of trying to dismantle our country's corrupt "under-government" just prior to being assassinated.

This makes for a very interesting read to say the least. How often have you heard the quote
"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it"
Sad but true I feel like such a idiot.

Edited by timothy, 12 September 2005 - 11:40 AM.


#12 jgweed

jgweed

  • Staff Emeritus
  • 28,473 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Il.
  • Local time:04:35 PM

Posted 13 September 2005 - 09:42 AM

I am not so sure what the Northwoods document proves, especially in this discussion. I am sure many different scenarios are floated around the government, but never acted upon nor even read by those who have an executive function at that time it was written or even more recently. This lack of a clear and distinct link between the creation of the document and its purported influence thus puts the argument in doubt if one cannot PROVE that certain people even read the document, let alone acted upon it. It seems more reasonable---from a contextual criticism point of view--- to suppose it died a natural death in the bureaucratic paperwork between the 1960's and the turn of the century.
Cheers,
John

Edited by jgweed, 14 September 2005 - 06:01 AM.

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent.

#13 emcguy

emcguy

  • Members
  • 3 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 19 September 2005 - 10:31 AM

The Northwood document you cited were a creation of the blessed, sainted John F Kennedy administration in the early 1960's. Seems like a better reason to vote Edward Kennedy out of office rather than to bash the Bush administration.

Can the US military ever do anything good? Can the US government ever do anything good? In the minds of theses critics, I doubt it. Only sainted socialist countries like Cuba and China can do good, because they are for the Workers.

If we are so bleeping bad, why do our border guards only worry about people trying to ENTER the US illegally, while the border guards of Cuba, China, and North Korea have order to shoot to kill anyone trying to LEAVE their countries illegally.

Best regards,

EMCguy

#14 wfuhdehr

wfuhdehr

  • Members
  • 59 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Svalbard
  • Local time:12:35 AM

Posted 21 September 2010 - 09:11 AM

Nine years and ten days after this so poorly explained event, it is worth reviewing what happened that day and think deeply on the subject.

Edited by wfuhdehr, 21 September 2010 - 01:40 PM.


#15 Yurium

Yurium

  • Members
  • 12 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:05:35 PM

Posted 21 September 2010 - 03:27 PM

Thank you for the link; it has helped immensely in what I believe (like 90% of people) was definitely an orchestrated event. Just like how 9-11 was ... by our own government. It is kinda sad that the government is against us -- this isn't how it should be...we should be united, as a free people. We should be working together, living in harmony. Yet, those above us, those bankers, in our government and other governments want us to live on lies -- inexcusable for the many lives lost in 9-11 and other events...worldwide.
Βλέπε την αλήθεια! Η νέα παγκόσμια τάξη!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users