• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thinking about 9/11

Good4Nothin

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2018
Messages
13,230
Reaction score
2,912
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
The conspiracy theory says that the US government was desperate to invade Iraq, and needed an excuse. So they put on this big show of multiple planes being hijacked and ramming buildings, in NYC and Washington DC.

The planes did not actually cause the destruction, it was explosives planted inside the buildings prior to the fake attack.

Problems, with that theory:

1. They probably didn't need 9/11 as an excuse for invading Iraq. No one thought Iraq had caused 9/11. The actual excuse was WMD, which resulted from incorrect intelligence, which everyone (including Democrats) believed.

2. There was no need for the airplane show. They could just have planted the explosives and said it had been done by terrorists.

I have never believed the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Not because I trust the government. Because they don't make sense.

There were suspicious things about the investigation, and maybe we were lied to (when are we ever not lied to by the government?). But the conspiracy theories still don't make sense.
 
There are many flaws in the truther hypotheses, however, the biggest would be the fact that they claim Nano-thermite was deployed to cut the columns and beams at the impact points, yet being highly flammable, this material survived the intensity of the fires for over an hour. Obviously, this one wasn't thought through.

Others have claimed the use of Nuclear weapons and space energy beams, but these nutters are too 'out there' to be taken seriously. Hell, they all are.

Let's examine the reasoning: They wanted to invade Iraq so they came up with such a ridiculously Byzantine plan in order to do so. If so, why the WMD charade? Why invade Afghanistan instead? Others have suggested it was to invade Afghanistan. If so, they had all the pretext required to address AQ with the Cole attack and the bombings at the Kenyan and Tanzanian Embassies. Obviously, they haven't thought this through.
 
The thing that gets me about it is the surprise every September that it didn't happen on the ninth of November, which is how Europeans read the numbers.
 

Of course you don't.

You prefer to believe that known liars would suddenly start telling you the truth.

You believe that the laws of physics were suspended by God Almighty on 911.

Yeah mate, you're credible. :lamo
 
Thoreau72 said:
Of course you don't.

You prefer to believe that known liars would suddenly start telling you the truth.

You believe that the laws of physics were suspended by God Almighty on 911.

Yeah mate, you're credible. :lamo
Click to expand...

I do not believe the government told us the truth. I don't think they tell us the truth very often. That does NOT mean the 9/11 conspiracy theory makes sense!
 
Good4Nothin said:
I do not believe the government told us the truth. I don't think they tell us the truth very often. That does NOT mean the 9/11 conspiracy theory makes sense!
Click to expand...

There is more than one 911 conspiracy theory and none of them makes any sense.
 
zyzygy said:
There is more than one 911 conspiracy theory and none of them makes any sense.
Click to expand...

I never heard of one that made sense. Some people seem to think that if they don't trust the government they have to believe any crazy conspiracy theory. No, we should be skeptical of the mainstream official sources, and also of the alternative sources. That's what I try to do with medical information also. The mainstream stories might not make sense, but that doesn't mean the holistic alternative stories makes sense.
 
Manc Skipper said:
The thing that gets me about it is the surprise every September that it didn't happen on the ninth of November, which is how Europeans read the numbers.
Click to expand...

It took me years to learn to read "9/11" as Sept Ninth. and I'm English born Aussie. BUT I still have to stop and say to myself "9/11" means SEPT eleven.

I think the English made a very astute choice in favour of international solidarity. They had their "event" on Seven July - or July Seven - because the resulting 7/7 is palindromic. Saves confusion.
 
Putting the day before the month is like saying a house white.
 
zyzygy said:
Putting the day before the month is like saying a house white.
Click to expand...
Mmm.. Interesting analogy - and even that one depends on subject and context. Which word is the noun?

Then 20190516 or 16052019 are descending or ascending sequences in true set taxonomic hierarchy. 05162019 is a mixed hierarchy.

..and don't miss the key point - I was admitting that I'm a slow learner.

Do you know that rigorous surveys of the Australian male population have shown that half of us are below average intelligence?
 
Last edited:
You guys are straying from the topic.
 

A house cat is not the same as a cat house.
 
Good4Nothin said:
I do not believe the government told us the truth. I don't think they tell us the truth very often. That does NOT mean the 9/11 conspiracy theory makes sense!
Click to expand...

To which conspiracy theory do you refer? The official theory or some other? If some other theory, would you be able to describe it?
 
I have American friends. They don't say "I'll call you three four," they say "the fourth of March."
 
Thoreau72 said:
To which conspiracy theory do you refer? The official theory or some other? If some other theory, would you be able to describe it?
Click to expand...

The theory that the buildings were demolished by explosives, which were planted before the staged plane attack.
 
Good4Nothin said:
The theory that the buildings were demolished by explosives, which were planted before the staged plane attack.
Click to expand...

That is not a theory, that is a fact.

Just as Dan Rather and Peter Jennings noted, "Gosh, that looks like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV"
 
Thoreau72 said:
That is not a theory, that is a fact.

Just as Dan Rather and Peter Jennings noted, "Gosh, that looks like one of those controlled demolitions you see on TV"
Click to expand...

You know damn well CD isn't a fact. How can you actually post that knowing it's untrue?
 
NWO_Spook said:
Yes, it is. It is elitist and dogmatic, and doesn't require a shred of proof with the foundation being nothing more than an anti-government stance.
Click to expand...

And it takes no notice of the fact that governments change every four years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…