My beliefs have changed regarding 911

dont mean to be rude but most people twigged on to this ages ago.

but well done for leaving the sheepeple and joining the guys that call wolf.

shame we are drowned out by the hoaxers and fakers and disinfo. leaving not many to trust us when we do spot a real wolf.

ah well all the more easier it makes it for the shepherds off this world, doing the herding.

reply to post by mikelee


Well said and I agree with everything that you stated 100%. S&F for you sir for a well thought out post that shows that the senseless deaths of 9/11 were not orchestrated nor aided by the government.

Bravo!

reply to post by Geemor



My opinion and what I believe in holds more clout than many of the prosterous theories floating around on the internet that are based in other's opinions who spend more time in front of the computer trying to convince others that some death ray from the heavens caused the towers to fall. Or, how about those who promote no plane theories and then discount those who were onboard? How much of a fact is that? I would think that several hundred lawsuits would have been filed by now looking for their loved ones, yet people wish to describe to and promote silly no plane/passenger theorys for the sake of their 911 fame trip. How self serving is that? And that is not based on any facts at all.

Then we hear from those such as yourself who just want to be forum bullys and chide someone who posts something that goes against what they think or believe in. Or maybe makes more sense than compared to their "loose change" slight of hand movies that they swear are the entire truth man!!

reply to post by okbmd


Not worried about flames at all. But I appreciate your post, have a good one man!

Originally posted by Geemor
oh cheers, thank you letting us know! we al love to hear your opinion.

i don't posess any opinions what may have caused 3 buildings, - two of them designed to endure a plane collision - to collapse within few hours time, one of them wasn't even hit by plane. all we know that 3 buildings collapsed when they should've not. there are lot of reasons to assume that there were something fishy going on, but then there may be the possibilites of flaws in design.

Cars are designed to protect the driver in the event of a head on collision. People still die in head on collisions. Because a driver dies in a head on collision when both cars involved were specifically designed and crash tested over and over and over again to prevent the death of the driver in a head on collision does not necessarily indicate a conspiracy.

then there are really the question that who has profited most from the attacks? terrorists? israel? united states? afghanistan? irak? i mean c'mon - use your own logics and quit relying on "official information", "professional" and "official" statements - make your own mind, rely merely on the facts, not on "opinions" of others.

Very interesting questions. But when analyzing the engineering and physics behind the airplane impact damage, and fire damage prior to the the collapse of the twin towers and then analyzing the engineering and physics involved in the collapse of the twin towers money does not come into the equasion.


In terms of the facts it's hard to say. You get your facts, every single one of them, from something someone else wrote or said. I have not found one single fact about the 9/11 attacks. Just tons evidence supporting tons of different theories.

just to clarify.

9/11 was planned

was orchestrated.

and was a successful false flag that gave the go ahead for Iraq,

and also not to state the blinding obviouse.
the bombings in london where also a false flag to make us engage our troops and join the war effort. my mate toms dad is head of police in my region. and from his lips when i saw him after the london bus bominigs.


"its very weird how they had us all up there practicing for a bombing event on the transport system.. and then it happens for real."

kind of like 9/11 when they where supposedly running simulated war-games involving aircraft hijackings..


do they relay think the general public are that stupid.

well they do

and the sad thing is most are.

they believe what ever's on their newspaper while they chow down their breakfast.

reply to post by mikelee


i don't know about the truth - and apologies, my post wasn't directed entirely to you nor anyone else. it is just a general remark - or bullying, as you said. that said, i don't believe in any theories i read here, not yours, not "truthers" nor debunkers.

what i "believe", forgive me, is that the facts in this event are so blurry, thwarted and twisted that we can only stick with the facts that are so widely and profoundly plain that they can be said to be facts. i try to stick with them, not hanging to any "loose chances".

i gladly admit that i don't know what exactly happened that day or how it happened and who was behind it. i know the concrete facts, 3 buildings collapsed, a plane went missing, wars was started and lotsa people suffered, many theories were spawned and continue spawning etc etc. it may have profited mostly arms contractors and israel because of all the unrest and destruction caused towards few arab countries, but i didn't say they were behind it. maybe they were real terrorist who did it; it may be an fact.

i think that someone said it best before, that there are only evidence supporting theories, not proof about anything. for someones, proof may be slightest thing, to another it may be just opposite.

The simple fact is that the evidence supporting other players aside from radical Islamic terrorists is obvious. Were the building imploded? Heck if I know, but the attacks seem to have been allowed to happen or even aided in some ways.

It sound like you jumped into the "LIHOP" camp, the one that I lean towards myself. Trying to prove building demolition is just silly when leads to Pakistani intelligence were not followed, the criminal negligence of the executive branch was brushed under the rug and plans for a war in Afghanistan were made before hand. The blatant "Koran and incriminating evidence" dropping show complicity from compartment/s of the U.S and other governments. Don't think it was the government? That is fine to believe, but it is clear that the big bad bin laden didn't orchestrate and facilitate the attacks and neither did the hijackers.

You know, even if it were "the terrorists", the way the wars have been fought(why Iraq again?) is laughable. The whole "harboring" excuse is crazy and is an excuse to invade a country and place who you wish into power there. It is so clear and so obvious that only the most mind washed people can try to defend the actions of the U.S.


Edit: "LIHOP" is "let it happen on purpose".
[edit on 9-6-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

[edit on 9-6-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

reply to post by jericanman


911 was a planned event...By terrorists. The US Government simply took advantage of it and allowed it to further their own agenda. Then they cited "confusion of the day" to explain why they didn't act/respond in better time.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


I do not know what LIHOP means but your post is well stated. Star to ya

Originally posted by iamcpc

In terms of the facts it's hard to say. You get your facts, every single one of them, from something someone else wrote or said. I have not found one single fact about the 9/11 attacks. Just tons evidence supporting tons of different theories.

well that's exactly why i cannot really form an opinion. but are you saying that the buildings didn't collapse? i guess you are not saying that. but that were the types of facts i meant, not mere hearsay that one can read all over the net and elsewhere. facts are things that happened, clearly and objective - i can go and look at the missing twin towers right? i can try and go in irak and see the misery right? well, i have to admit that i haven't really got clue whether irak war took place or not, but i assume so; when defining what are facts, one has to draw line somewhere - some people just draw that line with more faith than others.

Originally posted by Geemor

Originally posted by iamcpc

In terms of the facts it's hard to say. You get your facts, every single one of them, from something someone else wrote or said. I have not found one single fact about the 9/11 attacks. Just tons evidence supporting tons of different theories.

well that's exactly why i cannot really form an opinion. but are you saying that the buildings didn't collapse? i guess you are not saying that. but that were the types of facts i meant, not mere hearsay that one can read all over the net and elsewhere. facts are things that happened, clearly and objective - i can go and look at the missing twin towers right? i can try and go in irak and see the misery right? well, i have to admit that i haven't really got clue whether irak war took place or not, but i assume so; when defining what are facts, one has to draw line somewhere - some people just draw that line with more faith than others.

I spoke with someone who honestly believe that the FACT was that NYC didn't even exist and there were no towers to collapse. Anyone evidence that either weakened or debunked that theory was a lie fabricated by the government. Eyewitnessess were either brainwashed, liars, paid to lie, or had their families threatened to lie, or were part of the grand conspiracy that NYC was fake and didn't even exist on 9/11/2001.

To him it's not a FACT that the towers were real or even collapsed for that matter.

Originally posted by jericanman
just to clarify.

9/11 was planned

was orchestrated.

and was a successful false flag that gave the go ahead for Iraq,

and also not to state the blinding obviouse.
the bombings in london where also a false flag to make us engage our troops and join the war effort. my mate toms dad is head of police in my region. and from his lips when i saw him after the london bus bominigs.


"its very weird how they had us all up there practicing for a bombing event on the transport system.. and then it happens for real."

kind of like 9/11 when they where supposedly running simulated war-games involving aircraft hijackings..


do they relay think the general public are that stupid.

well they do

and the sad thing is most are.

they believe what ever's on their newspaper while they chow down their breakfast.

I am afraid your " mate toms dad " was talking a load of cobblers. The exercise being held 7/7 in London was a paper exercise involving a handful of people in a room. There was zero involvement of the police or any other emergency services :-

www.channel4.com...

Wow... really?!

Even after Reichstag Fire, Pearl Harbor, Gulf of Tonkin, Liberty, and the previous WTC bombings that were orchestrated by the agencies?

For me, the final nail in the coffin came in the folk physics of it.

I don't mean idiot folk physics...

But to me, imagining the fire from the plane impact spreading DOWN to every I-beam joint the whole way down where they get thicker and thicker towards the bottom...

And the fires were only going for what, an hour?!

Keep in mind that ALL of the I-beams were intact all the way up to the point of impact, and even close to 1/3 of them still were intact all the way to the top.

To me, that is just plain silly that those towers came down.

Have you seen Mike Rupperts analysis of the financial aspects?

Google Video Link

Well, to each his own.

Good luck in your search for truth.

I hope you are not an undercover megaphoner or agent of cognitive infiltration.

Originally posted by beebs

For me, the final nail in the coffin came in the folk physics of it.

I don't mean idiot folk physics...

The experts disagree on everything.

Notice the sources that were previously cited. Teams of professors and engineering journals and all the such presenting logical well explained non-idiot physics supporting the airplane fire theory involving the twin towers.

reply to post by beebs


First, I'm not anything except myself. A human searching for the truth. Yes I have seen the entire presentation by Ruppert and others as well. They are well presented but all of them are presented to an already pre-dispositioned audience that already is somewhat subscribed to the beliefs that he and others are promoting. Kinda like giving a presentation on gun use to the NRA, the interest is there and they will surely pick up something they did not know before.

The entire "government did the whole thing" presentations people are giving is quite easy to accomplish. people already have a distrust of their government (rightly so in my opinion) already so going infront of a crowd like that to further their suspicions actually requires little than good salesmanship along with some interesting yet little known facts that tie everything together. Ruppert's presentation is for sure, interesting as he ties everything together from the banks to the terrorists but lacks any genuine evidence to support what he says. A few documents scanned here & there to the layperson may sum it all up as a whole but documents used to support financial fraud, CIA promotions, business ownerships and the like may prove those particualr points but they fall short of tying any connection with 911 to any of the former.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by mikelee]

Sorry, the Law of Conservation of Momentum completely disagrees with you. Have a nice sleep.

Originally posted by Geemor
oh cheers, thank you letting us know! we al love to hear your opinion.

i don't posess any opinions what may have caused 3 buildings, - two of them designed to endure a plane collision - to collapse within few hours time, one of them wasn't even hit by plane. all we know that 3 buildings collapsed when they should've not. there are lot of reasons to assume that there were something fishy going on, but then there may be the possibilites of flaws in design.

I don't believe the Twin Towers were designed to endure a plane collision. Skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up in a bit of a stiff wind.

I know about a type of ship that is designed to have airplanes land on them(aircraft carriers), but if you crash airplanes into them, they tend to lose their structural integrity, catch fire, explode and maybe sink.

I would bet those buildings weren't even designed to land a plane on, much less crash one into them.

reply to post by iamcpc


well that is sad - almost as sad that there are still some people who believe earth to be some 6000 years old. but then again, they will claim that all the findings, carbon dating, fossils etc are planted evidence to support theory of evolution.

in the end, i know next to nothing and it doesn't really matter too much. i am happy with my little, limited sphere of experienced observations that some label empiricism. i usually don't deny possibilities, many theories are good as the next one - but i don't easily buy into believing them as truth, as a fact.

i guess someone could claim that i don't have the "religion" gene. or perhaps i have damaged my brain in childhood when having few hard hits on the head. who knows, i don't.

but really, it's late and i don't feel like sharing my personal "belief" system which seems to be extremely skeptical and somewhat cynical compared to general level of ats users.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow
You get a star.

I have always felt that if there is a conspiracy to be found in 911, it is the LIHOP theory.

It is one that I CAN believe. It actually makes sense.