Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11 Attacks

Options
1…2526283031…36

Comments

  • Options
    #812
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No.
    You need to read the whole thread. I don't subscribe to a lot of the common CT's.

    Ah well then - that's alright. You're only subscribing to the global evil conspiracy theory. Fair enough.


  • Options
    #813
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No.
    You need to read the whole thread. I don't subscribe to a lot of the common CT's.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I daresay the people who 'possibly' orchestrated or manipulated 9-11 give a rats arse if they were Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Born Again Christians or Mormons, what I'm saying is that they needed to create a 'boogey man' and they demonstrably have created one. Muslims.
    Nothing new in that, has been done before the world over 'Communists', 'Jews', 'Kurds', 'Hutu's' 'Tutsis' etc etc nothing new there then.

    Aren't "They" as much of a boogeyman as the Jews or the Tutsis or the communists?

    (Well some times "They" are the Jews, but that's beside the point.)

    You mightn't totally subscribe to the CT but then I suppose that Fox News don't really subscribe to the idea that this new Islamic Centre is a terrorist training ground. They're just saying it "Possibly" is.


  • Options
    #814
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You're only subscribing to the global evil conspiracy theory.

    Do I believe that alliances have formed throughout history to legally and illegally protect their interests? Yes, do you?


  • Options
    #815
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    King Mob wrote: »
    (Well some times "They" are the Jews, but that's beside the point.)

    All too frequently it would seem. I think there should be some positive discrimination in favour of evil conspiracists who aren't jewish or american. This favoritism will not stand!


  • Options
    #816
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    King Mob wrote: »
    Aren't "They" as much of a boogeyman as the Jews or the Tutsis or the communists?

    Yes.


    What exactly is the point you are trying to make, coz you have lost me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #817
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    And it's all gone quiet down the back.


  • Options
    #818
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And it's all gone quiet down the back.
    yeah you won that happy42:rolleyes::rolleyes:

    so lets get back to the whole buildings falling don thing.what theory do you subscribe to hapy42 just so we can be clear.


  • Options
    #819
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    And it's all gone quiet down the back.

    It's all gone quiet down the back because you're dragging the conversation utterly off topic.


  • Options
    #820
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    It's all gone quiet down the back because you're dragging the conversation utterly off topic.

    So we can't look at the results to see how the game might have been played? Fair enough, but don't take History in your Leaving Cert.


  • Options
    #821
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So we can't look at the results to see how the game might have been played? Fair enough, but don't take History in your Leaving Cert.
    How about you talk history in a history class.were talking science/physics here.

    seriously start a thread about it.you are talking about the war


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #822
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seannash wrote: »
    you are talking about the war
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk


  • Options
    #823
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xnNhzgcWTk
    bravo


  • Options
    #824
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    So we can't look at the results to see how the game might have been played? Fair enough, but don't take History in your Leaving Cert.

    Wow, again just running with. Instead of demanding why we investigate who else is responsible prehaps you'd care to discuss the motives of Al Quaeda who y'know took responsibility for the attacks.


  • Options
    #825
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Its was a bit of a cheap reply alright Seanansh, apologies.
    But it's ridiculous to disallow discussion of the what happened after 9-11 in trying to get at the truth of 9-11 if you know what I mean.
    Motive is everything to my point of view, which has been given again and again on this thread. Why start another thread, will the answers be any different? And we will just have to thrash through a lot of the stuff again.
    Wish a Mod would pronounce on it. As there are those who are using the fact to avoid questions.


  • Options
    #826
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Yes.


    What exactly is the point you are trying to make, coz you have lost me.

    My point is that it is then hypocritical to bemoan the idea that they are using this tactic when you yourself are using it.

    Do you not have an issue with doing the very same thing you believe your boogeyman is doing?


  • Options
    #827
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    Wow, again just running with. Instead of demanding why we investigate who else is responsible prehaps you'd care to discuss the motives of Al Quaeda who y'know took responsibility for the attacks.

    Did I ever say any different?


  • Options
    #828
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    King Mob wrote: »
    My point is that it is then hypocritical to bemoan the idea that they are using this tactic when you yourself are using it.

    Do you not have an issue with doing the very same thing you believe your boogeyman is doing?

    Can you point to anywhere where I said anything about an 'Evil Global Conspiracy'. Is < that not the first time I have even typed that phrase?
    Just to be fair to me, like?


  • Options
    #829
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Did I ever say any different?

    And pithy meaningless one line answers like this is why the thread isn't lively.


  • Options
    #830
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Its was a bit of a cheap reply alright Seanansh, apologies.
    But it's ridiculous to disallow discussion of the what happened after 9-11 in trying to get at the truth of 9-11 if you know what I mean.
    Motive is everything to my point of view, which has been given again and again on this thread. Why start another thread, will the answers be any different? And we will just have to thrash through a lot of the stuff again.
    Wish a Mod would pronounce on it. As there are those who are using the fact to avoid questions.
    Fair enough
    but it is a somewhat seperate topic even if the connection is there for some people.
    i take it that your view on the towers is that it was a controlled demolition.
    if that is true what did you think about the evidence that was posted earlier on.
    (if this isnt your view,sorry for juming to conclusions)

    part of the reason im not in favour of discussing the war in this thread is because i havent done much research into it and i dont want to pick a side without knowing the facts.i have researched the towers though so i feel my opinion on that is well founded


  • Options
    #831
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    seannash wrote: »
    Fair enough
    but it is a somewhat seperate topic even if the connection is there for some people.
    i take it that your view on the towers is that it was a controlled demolition.
    if that is true what did you think about the evidence that was posted earlier on.
    (if this isnt your view,sorry for juming to conclusions)

    part of the reason im not in favour of discussing the war in this thread is because i havent done much research into it and i dont want to pick a side without knowing the facts.i have researched the towers though so i feel my opinion on that is well founded

    Thank you.

    The OP
    9/11 Attacks
    I believe that 19 hijackers working for Al Qaeda, boarded four planes on the morning of September 11th. A few minutes after take off, they seized control of the planes through force and through the threat of force. Several of these hijackers had some training as pilots, and took charge of the cockpit.

    One plane flew into the towers at approx 8:50. A second flew into the 2nd tower approximately 15 minutes later. A third struck the pentagon 25 minutes later. Passengers on the 4th flight, contacted loved ones on cellular and airphones, realised that their hijackers were on a suicide mission, fought back in the process control was lost of the plane and it crashed into the ground.

    Around the same time in New York the 1st tower fell, due to the extreme heat of the fires generated by thousands of gallons of aircraft fuel, and the structural damage from the planes impact which also weakened and dislodged fire resistant material around the steel. Half an hour later the 2nd tower collapsed for the same reason. The towers collapse threw huge amounts of debris over the surrounding area, critically damaging several large building in the area. Firecrews more concerned with rescuing trapped and injured victims, ignored these fires. One of these buildings, Building 7, collapsed due to the massive damage it received from the collapse of the WTC towers, and several other buildings damaged.

    The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

    If Happy man would happily stick to the issue at hand, and start another thread about the Iraq and Afghanistan wars thatd be super.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #832
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »
    And pithy meaningless one line answers like this is why the thread isn't lively.

    That was a question, not an answer, small point!

    repeat: Did I ever say anything different?


  • Options
    #833
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Di0genes wrote: »

    The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

    I disagree with this and demand to be allowed to present whatever evidence I deem relevant, your honour.


  • Options
    #834
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Can you point to anywhere where I said anything about an 'Evil Global Conspiracy'. Is < that not the first time I have even typed that phrase?
    Just to be fair to me, like?
    The first time you typed that exact phrase, yes.
    But you used the term "They" a lot. "They" are usually a global conspiracy, and if you are suggesting the possibility that "They" organised 9/11 it's safe to assume you think "They" are evil.
    I've already quoted a bit to illustrate my point in fact.
    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I daresay the people who 'possibly' orchestrated or manipulated 9-11 give a rats arse if they were Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Born Again Christians or Mormons, what I'm saying is that they needed to create a 'boogey man' and they demonstrably have created one. Muslims.
    Nothing new in that, has been done before the world over 'Communists', 'Jews', 'Kurds', 'Hutu's' 'Tutsis' etc etc nothing new there then.

    You've already agreed that "They" are as much of a boogeyman as you are accusing "Them" of using.

    So how exactly is your stance not hypocritical?


  • Options
    #835
    Di0genes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,005 ✭✭✭Di0genes


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I disagree with this and demand to be allowed to present whatever evidence I deem relevant, your honour.

    You haven't posted anything remotely resembling evidence for pages now, just a litany of questions.


  • Options
    #836
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I disagree with this and demand to be allowed to present whatever evidence I deem relevant, your honour.

    You'd be rather late in actually presenting pertinent evidence, but knock yourself out.


  • Options
    #837
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    seannash wrote: »
    Fair enough
    but it is a somewhat seperate topic even if the connection is there for some people.
    i take it that your view on the towers is that it was a controlled demolition.
    if that is true what did you think about the evidence that was posted earlier on.
    (if this isnt your view,sorry for juming to conclusions)

    No, That is not my view, at the moment. It needs to be investigated properly though.
    seannash wrote: »
    part of the reason im not in favour of discussing the war in this thread is because i havent done much research into it and i dont want to pick a side without knowing the facts.i have researched the towers though so i feel my opinion on that is well founded

    Sorry, I don't think I can claim that sinsiter motives were involved if I can't discuss what those motives achieved. I don't understand why this is so scary for people.


  • Options
    #838
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    I disagree with this and demand to be allowed to present whatever evidence I deem relevant, your honour.
    The entire operation was funded organised and carried out by fanatical fundamentalist Al Qaeda terrorists, and was not supervised or arranged by any western intelligence agency.

    okay i can see your going to hang on to the funded bit but how about the organised and carried out.this would basically mean how everything took place on that day

    im presuming this because you still havent made clear your stance on what took down the towers.was it from the planes or was it a controlled demolition.

    if you believe it was the planes then maybe you have an alternative theory,maybe that it was cargo planes,the US hired these terrorists etc.

    i dont know because you wont clarify your beliefs.you kight well believe it was a controled demolition and if so can we talk about the evidence we provided.

    or are we gonna fiaxte on the word funding in a massive opening post where 99% of the statement is about the events of that day


  • Options
    #839
    seannash
    Registered Users Posts: 5,672 ✭✭✭seannash


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    No, That is not my view, at the moment. It needs to be investigated properly though.



    Sorry, I don't think I can claim that sinsiter motives were involved if I can't discuss what those motives achieved. I don't understand why this is so scary for people.
    could you please clarify what you believe was the cause.

    i gave you a reason why i dont think the war should be the major point of argument for this discussion.

    like i said i dont know enough for me to formulate an educated opinion.im trying to look at it from both sides but i do think that if we can find out if you think the collapse was an inside job or not itll give us a background into why you believe your stance on the war(meaning that if the goverment did it they did it so they could start a war and it was not retaliation)


  • Options
    #840
    Happyman42
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    alastair wrote: »
    You'd be rather late in actually presenting pertinent evidence, but knock yourself out.
    I believe that evidence of WMD's was manufactured to manipulate public opinion and parliment in Britian, can you see why I might think that elements in another country would do the same?
    Either you can or you can't, give me your opinion not your evasive snide remarks and we'll move on.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #841
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Sorry, I don't think I can claim that sinsiter motives were involved if I can't discuss what those motives achieved. I don't understand why this is so scary for people.

    Nothing scary in red herrings.

    If you believe there's a motive - you first need to prove such motivation, and then connect those you can connect with the 9/11 attack with this motivation, and to a plausible consequent result that would connect to Iraq.

    You've no evidence of any of these stands - let alone connection between them:

    1. Motive
    2. Non al-Queda involvement in 9/11 attack
    3. linkage between identified 9/11 perpetrators and later Iraq invasion


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement