Are you sick of conspiracy nuts?.....9/11

by Witness 007 220 Replies latest jw experiences

  • AGuest
    I wasn't going to get back in this but I can't sleep so I'm going to ask once again the question no truther has yet to answer intelligently: Why?

    I am not a "truther" (what IS that, exactly?), dear Jeff T (peace to you!), but I think the "why" is answered in the "what" and "where": a very strategic location in relation to IRAN (and Syria and other)... enem(ies) of ISRAEL... which is believedto be CRITICAL... to "world peace." The ONLY place(s) where that could have been possible was Iraq... and Afghanistan. And, well, just look at where "we" are, now. Saudi Arabia wasn't a problem (or so we thought, but that's gonna change, as it is doing with Pakistan). While we claim "friendships" with Yemen and Oman... the "terrorists" coming from those countries apparently aren't buying it.

    "We've" got problems with Somalia AND the Sudan... and now Egypt's ruler has fallen, Libya's ruler is being outsted, and Syria's is being told to also move out of the way.

    Look at a map of the region, dear ones... and look at the history of the conflicts there... and the "interest" of the U.S. and Israel. Iran was (and still is) intent on invading Iraq... in order to set up an assault against Israel. And it is STILL developing weapons to do that. Hussein knew that his country was going to be invaded (unrelated to HIS invasion of Kuwait) and so tried to "posture" by buying yellow cake to make Iran think he had the capability to withstand an assault. The U.S. knew this (c'mon, Hussein was OUR "man"!)... and that he didn't have WMDs but only pretended in order to stand up against Iran.

    "We" took advantage of that knowledge and accused him of developing WMDs (which "we" KNEW he didn't have... and KNEW Iran did)... because Hussein HAD TO GO. He was in the way... because his loyalties were UNPREDICTABLE. He was a "friend" (after the Iran-Iraq War; the U.S. backed Iraq)... until the U.S. refused to get involved when he accused U.S. "friend" Kuwait of stealing oil from Rumailia. So, he invaded and annexed Kuwait (resulting in economic sanctions)... attacked Israel in the process (note, Israel first attacked IT... in 1981... unilaterally and irrationally destroying a nuclear power plant that was given by the French for scientific research, but the Israelis weren't buying that)... thus making his relations with Iran, Al-Qaieda, and other anti-Israeli factions... unpredictable... and him an potentially VERY dangerous "enemy" of the U.S. And so, he had to go.

    "We" had to go through the motions, though... which included getting the U.N. involved and the world all worked up... in order to criminalize Hussein to the world (his actions against his own people did that for them, but that really wasn't the world's problem... or responsibility. And for those who disagree, I have to ask you, if it IS the world's problem, at what point does Darfur... and various other SUB-Saharan issues become the "world's" problem??). By the time no WMDs were found (c'mon, U.S. intelligence doesn't MAKE those kinds of mistakes!)... folks all over were calling for his removal. "We" instigated that removal... and it wasn't just a removal from power (which would not have worked, because Hussein knew "too much" and would have ratted out U.S. operations in the region)... but had to be a literal removal... from the earth entirely.

    I don't know how long some of you have been following what goes on around the world, but I've been doing it since the Vietnam war. I don't know why... perhaps because that era had such a profound effect on my life. My father did three tours... and lost a lot of friends... so I heard a lot of "talk" from the "inside" (meaning, people who were on the ground or close to the battles, including "in country"... when my dad and his friends got together). My father enlisted in 1947, so he also toured during the Korean War. His service was NOT compulsory but voluntary, so his comments were very interesting... and entirely different from those about Korea. From that time on, I tried to keep up, because I heard a LOT of distrust coming from the folks who were actually FIGHTING.

    Some here may remember the Vietnam conflict... and how we were NOT all on the "up and up" there, either (i.e., Gulf of Tonkin... and who exactly were "we" backing, anyway? Supposedly, "we" were on Bao Dai's side, but then we jumped over to support Ngo Dinh Diem, who not only rigged his own election but began massacreing communists and dissidents AND killing Buddhist monks so as to replace them in office with his Catholic "brethren"... because of HIS support by the French, another U.S. "friend"...). While "we"... under Nixon... were illegally bombing Cambodia...

    A LOT goes on, dear ones... away from the "seeing eye" of the mainland. And if you think the U.S. media is reporting with accuracy, I suggest you take a university-level journalism course. Because the TRUTH is that, while a war is in progress... ANY war, of ANY size, at ANY place in the world... involving the U.S.... the U.S. government controls the media. It is the law... resulting from the declaration of "clear and present danger"... and often puts the government... and media industry... at great odds.

    Anyway... just a little background info. No, I didn't post references - sorry, but I'm not in school and so don't have to ascribe to those "rules." The information IS out there, though... I would exhort any who want to know what's really going on... to go back. As far back, perhaps, as before the granting of Israel "statehood" in 1948. There are a LOT of connecting dots that get missed when one tries to understand the conflicts experienced around the world today, solely from the perspective of what's taken place in that particular conflict. One must also consider events that often lead UP to them... to get a clearer picture of... why.

    Again, peace to you all!

    A slave of Christ,

    SA, on her own...

  • Leolaia
    i will never convince you that it was an inside job, and you will never convince me it wasn't.

    Yup, I agree with you there, which is why I felt that these threads are usually so pointless, and not really worth investing time and energy in.

  • MrFreeze

    Saying "you will never convince me" is dogmatic. So no matter what evidence comes out, it won't convince you? To me, you say those of us who believe the official story aren't critical thinkers. Saying that nothing will convince you does not show signs of critical thinking. JW's say the same things about their doctrine.

    When the whole 9/11 truth movement came out, I was very interested in it. I read a lot of the pages online and watched a lot of videos. In the end, I was not buying the conspiracy theory. I weighed both sides and looked at which side made more sense. It's fine if you don't agree with me, but to say something like "nothing will convince me" and then claim I'm sticking my head in the sand and that I'm not thinking critically, well that just reeks of hypocrisy.

  • AGuest

    I think dear strymecki (peace to you, dear one!)... was "speaking" rhetorically, dear Mr. F (peace to you, as well!). I think he meant "never"... on the basis of current evidence/arguments. If some... ummmmmm... "new light" were to come about, however, either side would be subject to [further] convincing... depending, of course, on the info contained in such "light," yes?

    Then again ... there ARE those who, that no matter WHAT information is presented (say, Dubya literally stepping up and saying, "Yeah, we needed to do sumthin about... 'n so, we..." or some credible Al-Qaeida operative saying, "No, it really WAS all on us, alone, and we acted all by ourselves!"), some simply will NOT be convinced (of whatever it is). They'll just start questioning the authenticity of THOSE proclamations... rather than say, "Oh, oops, called THAT one wrong, I did!".

    But such ones have made up their minds NOT to be convinced... by anyone or anything. Even such proclamations. They simply cannot remove their minds from what's already there. I think those kinds of folks, though, are actually mentally ill (a nicer way to say "nuts")... because they're CHOOSING not to listen to even their own side's admonitions. Well, you know what I mean...

    Unlike many similar folks in the WTBTS... who are either just set in their ways, stuck in a rut... or afraid/unable/unwilling to face the truth.

    Again, peace to you!

    YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,


  • strymeckirules

    i will always try to speak the truth and will admit when i am wrong.

  • White Dove
    White Dove

    I saw one video from one perspective close enough to show the consecutive boom boom boom going down, each followed by the top of the building descending straight down after.

    It APPEARED as a controlled and professional demolition from that perspective.

    That is all I have, what it appeared to me to be from one video of one side of the building.

    On the other hand, the air gushing out of the building due to the sudden impact from each floor crashing down onto the floor below it could have produced the boom boom boom effect, making it appear to be little explosions at the corners of the building kind of like on the movie Titanic when the windows exploded outward as the ship went down.

    That could have been what happened.

  • Leolaia

    White Dove....Let me show you what I mean. Here is the largest building ever taken down with controlled demolition:

    Notice those loud bangs and explosive flashes, followed later by the flowing sound of the progressive collapse? Even during the collapse there were charges going off, continuing the loud bangs. I have been to a controlled demolition of a high rise building myself, about three blocks away, and even at that distance the explosions were intense; I felt the bangs go right through me.

    There are no such loud bangs and flashes of light in the collapses of WTC1, WTC2, WTC7 in any video I have seen. Here are two videos of the WTC2 collapse, the first at the base of WTC1 and the second just a few blocks away. No loud bangs are heard at all in these videos, just the sound of the building coming down:

    Hence my question to you of what a progressive collapse due to structural failure would look like. It would look much like a controlled demolition -- minus the obvious detonation of explosive charges.

    On the other hand, the air gushing out of the building due to the sudden impact from each floor crashing down onto the floor below it could have produced the boom boom boom effect, making it appear to be little explosions at the corners of the building kind of like on the movie Titanic when the windows exploded outward as the ship went down. That could have been what happened.

    Indeed, that is what happened. The volume inside the Twin Towers was mostly air. As the upper part of the collapsing building crushed the lower portion, air was compressed many floors below the collapsing floors. The survivors inside the core of WTC1 described it as like being inside a wind tunnel, with the gusts of air blowing open doors and throwing them down stairs. The behavior of the so-called 'squibs' (as truthers call them) was not akin to explosive detonations but rather jets of air and debris exiting through windows and openings. For one thing, several of these air jets were clearly seen accelerating and increasing in intensity as the collapse wave approached them. This is not what happens in an explosive detonation.

  • Leolaia

    More examples of real controlled demolitions with explosives:

    And here are examples of a progressive collapse caused by structural failure without explosives (initiated by weakening of a floor with cables or hydraulics):

    And here is an example of a progressive collapse initiated by fire:

  • badseed

    Ah, those conspiracy nuts!! Absolutely crazy aren't they? Imagine that, accusing and questioning our honest politians of evil deeds and intent.

    Even accusing our then beloved president, Mr Bush, of war crimes, our heroic president who sat there calmly after he was just told his country was under attack. He didn't want to scare the kids you say. Awwww, such a sweetheart, thinking of the kids in a moment like that.

    And so we were under attack, but from what? And are they really a threat to national security? I mean, REALLY?

    If the story is true, well then it was only a bunch of guys who managed to orchestrate an attack by hijacking a couple of planes. OK, so there's a bunch of cave dwellers in Afghanistan plotting the destruction of America. Is that really a threat? I mean, a national threat?

    Ten years have gone by and these terrorists have hardly passed gas. Wow, now that's what I call war. Kill a couple of thousands of Americans every ten years, you'll really bring that country down.

    So then, Mr Bush (and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Powell, and Condi) decide (cause they have access to credible information of course, that you, little joe can't see, because you can't read and wouldn't understand it anyway. Only them are smart enough to read and decipher this stuff..ya right!!)

    That it's time to protect America. We're taking this war to the terrorists. They have WMDs, nukes, uranium, you name it they've got it, I mean stuff that will melt your eyeballs. They're plotting our demise and if we don't do anything NOW, they'll annihilate us!!!!

    So Bush Inc. decides it's OK to randomly attack a country (OK Dick, pick a card, any card), killing hundreds of thousands of women and children (he didn't care that time did he?), Shock and Awe, just so they could get rid of the man who owned and controlled that country's oil and give that control to his buddy's corp. Nice.

    And guess what? The weapons? There wasn't any. hahaha. Oops! We lied. But, don't you dare accuse us!!! It's politically incorrect to ask the right questions, and expect the right answers. If you persist with your questions, we'll throw you in jail, ruin you financially, call you anti-American, unpatriotic and a traiter, and maybe kill ya. That'll teach you not to shut up.

    What I believe though, is that a few, like Bush, had prior knowledge of the attacks, and it wouldn't surprise me to find out they were part of it somehow. Besides, what convinced me that Bush knew, was his facial expression in the classroom when he found out that the sh.t was going down. He just couldn't hide his inner struggle. He's not a good liar.

    And you call me a nut to question these people. C'mon.

    Go back to sleep and uncle Bush will come in shortly to tuck you in with your favorite teddy bear and read you a bedtime story of lies. Oh wait, uncle Bush is busy right now, so uncle Obama will do it instead.

    You deniers are really funny, and gullible.

  • White Dove
    White Dove

    Thank you, Leo, for all those fascinating YouTube videos!

    Yes, the WTC towers appeared to fall more like one that was being weakened by cables or fire.

    The appearance of flashes was absent in all of the videos of the WTC.

    Again, thank you!

Share this