Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

9/11 media happenings

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jazzz said:
I've always - since I first posted a 9/11 thread here, many years back - believed that the whole thing was planned so it would be like an unprecedented 'disaster movie' for the world to watch live as it happened. The idea was to shock us to the core so badly that we would accept huge restrictions to our freedoms that we would never do otherwise. And crucial to this movie was the bringing down of the towers - symbolic symbols of the 'free' world. There was only one way to be sure of doing that, and that was to blow them up. The idea was to have us all see them coming down before our eyes.

I invite others to join me in this belief for the length of the post.

It wouldn't work to simply blow them up - for a start you wouldn't have the first on film live at all, and you would have pretty poor, chaotic shots of the second at best from ground-based crews filming the debris of the first. And not to mention that it would be very hard to then pin it on muslim terrorists, as everyone would know what questions to ask of the security at the WTC - especially if it required several bombs.

No - far better to combine it with the aircraft strikes. This also provides more scares for us (we don't feel safe in the sky anymore) and the impact of the South Tower is in fact the most iconic shot of the whole scenario. We will then have the collapses viewed live by the whole world from aerial helicopter shots. These also function as your explanation for the collapses. You are going to blame those on the damage done by the impacts and especially ensuing fires. You have to have the fires otherwise it can't possibly sell. Nothing can be left to chance. So, that means you have to be sure of creating plenty of fire. Can you be sure of creating plenty of fire with a simple plane crash? No. Huge explosions happen in Hollywood when a plane crashes but not necessarily reality. And the WTC towers have sprinkler systems too. You can't take chances - and you want that huge fireball too when the plane hits the South Tower. So, either they fire missiles before they hit - or an alternative (I recently came across) was that explosives are already stationed in the towers where they are going to hit. Either will do.

That is the WTC part of the plan - with one crucial loose end - your 'command post' is somewhere high security with a good view of the towers to syncronise and oversee all events. This is also where all your plans are. This is where all the evidence is, all the paperwork and you have to destroy it all. The last act is to blow up this one, down to the ground. You hope that people won't pay much attention to why it came down, after all, the others towers were far more interesting.
Click to expand...

And they would have gotten away with it, too, if it wasn't for those pesky conspiracy nutjobs.

whats-new-scooby-doo-pic.gif


:D
 
So the whole thing is a stitch-up, and not one of the people involved has had a guilty conscience and spoken out? I mean, what are we looking at here - demolition crews, report writers, technicians, air traffic controllres and so on.

All the nasty shit the US has done, there is a paper trail, people involved who will talk about it. But for this, the biggest crime a government has ever pulled off on its own people? Not one voice? Even under the threat of death, if I had actual 1st-hand knowledge of such a plot, I would speak out - the truth is just too big. And that risk - that one of the people involved in pulling this thing off would squeal - is surely enough to put the planners off the idea altogether. After all, it would completely collapse their credibility. Completely.
 
Jazzz said:
Oh sorry bees, you did put a civil question. Forgive me.

I've always - since I first posted a 9/11 thread here, many years back - believed that the whole thing was planned so it would be like an unprecedented 'disaster movie' for the world to watch live as it happened. The idea was to shock us to the core so badly that we would accept huge restrictions to our freedoms that we would never do otherwise. And crucial to this movie was the bringing down of the towers - symbolic symbols of the 'free' world. There was only one way to be sure of doing that, and that was to blow them up. The idea was to have us all see them coming down before our eyes.

I invite others to join me in this belief for the length of the post.

It wouldn't work to simply blow them up - for a start you wouldn't have the first on film live at all, and you would have pretty poor, chaotic shots of the second at best from ground-based crews filming the debris of the first. And not to mention that it would be very hard to then pin it on muslim terrorists, as everyone would know what questions to ask of the security at the WTC - especially if it required several bombs.

No - far better to combine it with the aircraft strikes. This also provides more scares for us (we don't feel safe in the sky anymore) and the impact of the South Tower is in fact the most iconic shot of the whole scenario. We will then have the collapses viewed live by the whole world from aerial helicopter shots. These also function as your explanation for the collapses. You are going to blame those on the damage done by the impacts and especially ensuing fires. You have to have the fires otherwise it can't possibly sell. Nothing can be left to chance. So, that means you have to be sure of creating plenty of fire. Can you be sure of creating plenty of fire with a simple plane crash? No. Huge explosions happen in Hollywood when a plane crashes but not necessarily reality. And the WTC towers have sprinkler systems too. You can't take chances - and you want that huge fireball too when the plane hits the South Tower. So, either they fire missiles before they hit - or an alternative (I recently came across) was that explosives are already stationed in the towers where they are going to hit. Either will do.

That is the WTC part of the plan - with one crucial loose end - your 'command post' is somewhere high security with a good view of the towers to syncronise and oversee all events. This is also where all your plans are. This is where all the evidence is, all the paperwork and you have to destroy it all. The last act is to blow up this one, down to the ground. You hope that people won't pay much attention to why it came down, after all, the others towers were far more interesting.
Click to expand...

Or how about:

CIA and other intel agencies present a case that says 'There will be a serious terr attack involving aircraft against the US on September 11'. NSA chief advises against taking action. No action taken. 4 planes hijacked, 2 hit the WTC buildings in an unprecdented action, 1 hits the Pentagon and one is bought down by the actions of it's passengers.

My personal view on the matter is that the Administration were forewarned of this potential action, but decided not to act against it due to personal prejudice, both intellectual (Condi still saw Russia as the Big Threat) and personal (against George Tenet). Given the nature of the warning the strongest possibly evidentiary argument that can be bought is that Bush failed to act in a manner consistent with protection of the US.
 
Crispy said:
So the whole thing is a stitch-up, and not one of the people involved has had a guilty conscience and spoken out? I mean, what are we looking at here - demolition crews, report writers, technicians, air traffic controllres and so on.

All the nasty shit the US has done, there is a paper trail, people involved who will talk about it. But for this, the biggest crime a government has ever pulled off on its own people? Not one voice? Even under the threat of death, if I had actual 1st-hand knowledge of such a plot, I would speak out - the truth is just too big. And that risk - that one of the people involved in pulling this thing off would squeal - is surely enough to put the planners off the idea altogether. After all, it would completely collapse their credibility. Completely.
Click to expand...

You have put the case against Jazzz's nonsense in a nutshell. No more really needs to be said.
 
Jazzz said:
Oh sorry bees, you did put a civil question. Forgive me.

I've always - since I first posted a 9/11 thread here, many years back - believed that the whole thing was planned so it would be like an unprecedented 'disaster movie' for the world to watch live as it happened.
<snip>.
Click to expand...

You're paranoid mate.
 
kyser_soze said:
Or how about:

CIA and other intel agencies present a case that says 'There will be a serious terr attack involving aircraft against the US on September 11'. NSA chief advises against taking action. No action taken. 4 planes hijacked, 2 hit the WTC buildings in an unprecdented action, 1 hits the Pentagon and one is bought down by the actions of it's passengers.

My personal view on the matter is that the Administration were forewarned of this potential action, but decided not to act against it due to personal prejudice, both intellectual (Condi still saw Russia as the Big Threat) and personal (against George Tenet). Given the nature of the warning the strongest possibly evidentiary argument that can be bought is that Bush failed to act in a manner consistent with protection of the US.
Click to expand...
Sounds about right - but not sexy enough for CTers :(
 
Jazzz said:
You have to have the fires otherwise it can't possibly sell. Nothing can be left to chance. So, that means you have to be sure of creating plenty of fire. Can you be sure of creating plenty of fire with a simple plane crash? No. Huge explosions happen in Hollywood when a plane crashes but not necessarily reality.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sure if all that had happened was that a couple of planes smashed into the World Trade Centre killing many hundreds in the worst terrorist attack in American history by a mile, but without sufficiently telegenic explosions, the nation would have shrugged, said 'whatever' and carried on with its business.

That whole post of yours shows just how deep in a fantasy world you are...
 
Crispy said:
Personally, I don't think the US public requires such strong persuasion.
Click to expand...

Remind me, what huge catastrophe did they concoct to justify going to war in Vietnam. Oh, that's right, they didn't.
 
Well one of the 'smoking guns' that are often bought up in support of these CTs is the mention of a 'catalyst event' in one (take note, ONLY one) of the PNAC essays, and this has been linked to 9/11, and later to argue that 9/11 was planned so that there would be an excuse to invade Iraq.

Which completely ignores the oft commented point that little baby Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was elected. What 9/11 was for the neo-cons was a happy accident. Collusion? Possible but unlikely - what Jazz is doing, as many CTers and often many leftists on here do, is to ignore or downplay the possible motivations, strategies or plans of ANY other player on the planet other than the US. It's the idea that no other power on the planet could do something like this, and it's a fallacious intellectual position to take.
 
kyser_soze said:
Which completely ignores the oft commented point that little baby Bush wanted to invade Iraq before he was elected. What 9/11 was for the neo-cons was a happy accident. Collusion? Possible but unlikely - what Jazz is doing, as many CTers and often many leftists on here do, is to ignore or downplay the possible motivations, strategies or plans of ANY other player on the planet other than the US. It's the idea that no other power on the planet could do something like this, and it's a fallacious intellectual position to take.
Click to expand...

Good point.
 
Jazzz said:
Oh sorry bees, you did put a civil question. Forgive me.
<snip>
Click to expand...
You didn't actually answer the question - do you still believe missiles were fired from the planes? Y/N :)

You say "either will do" - which do you believe, and why?
 
So Jazz, why isn't this scenario any less likely than yours.#

The whole scheme was cooked up by China/Russia because they thought that if Bush did go to war it would completely blow up in his face and cause at least a generations worth of damage to the US's reputation.

Is this any less likely than your explanation?
 
I think this thread should be renamed as "9/11 WTC demolition theories debunked" as that what the content represents to just about every one reading it (apart from the eternally evidence-shy Jazzz, of course) and it will be easier for new conspiracy 'fans' to find and hopefully learn from it.

Anyone object?
 
Well that would be a way to really piss someone off. Last thing you do when you've won an argument is be all smug about it and rub it in their face.
 
editor said:
I think this thread should be renamed as "9/11 WTC demolition theories debunked" as that what the content represents to just about every one reading it (apart from the eternally evidence-shy Jazzz, of course) and it will be easier for new conspiracy 'fans' to find and hopefully learn from it.

Anyone object?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not on at all. Another incredibly low suggestion. You start your own thread, you may call it what you like. If people want to post on mine, and accept my title, that's up to them.
 
And if people want to come here and watch every single argument you've presented be absolutely trashed (yet strangely you don't realise this) then so much the better!
 
Crispy said:
Well that would be a way to really piss someone off. Last thing you do when you've won an argument is be all smug about it and rub it in their face.
Click to expand...
Err, actually, I'm trying to do what the FAQ recommends and give the thread a title that reflects it content.

This thread has barely any content about '9/11 media happenings' (whatever they are) and tons and tons of excellent, well argued and well-research posts carefully and methodically debunking demolition theories.

Thing is, you haven't had five looooong years of dealing with fucking conspiraloons repeating the same thing over and over and over again, and anything that helps them find the answers to their vital questions can only be a good thing, IMO.

That's why I think this thread should be renamed.
 
Well, how about just plain old "9/11 demolition theories discussion" then. Makes it seem less vindictive. (Whatever your motivations may be, that's how it would read)
 
Lock&Light said:
Whatever this thread might be called it represents a complete debunking.
Click to expand...

Actually it looks like a controlled demolition of most of the conspiracy theory guff.
 
Maybe you should call some kind of online press conference on a messenger service or something, call that a 9/11 media happening, and then just copy & paste the whole thread and call it a press release?

I'm with Crispy - there is no glory in gloating over a defeated enemy, who has been so bebunked even a public school prefect would question a further beating.
 
kyser_soze said:
I'm with Crispy - there is no glory in gloating over a defeated enemy, who has been so bebunked even a public school prefect would question a further beating.
Click to expand...
But you agree that the next 'truth seeker' to arrive here is hardly likely to bother with this thread and will just start yet another thread regurgitating the same old endlessly repeated bollocks about invisible missiles, demolition and vanishing explosives, yes?

I don't care if it seems 'vindictive' or not. I just want these fucking idiots to stop using these boards as a one-stop cut and paste repository for the same old fruitloop shit.
 
editor said:
But you agree that the next 'truth seeker' to arrive here is hardly likely to bother with this thread and will just start yet another thread regurgitating the same old endlessly repeated bollocks about invisible missiles, demolition and vanishing explosives, yes?

I don't care if it seems 'vindictive' or not. I just want these fucking idiots to stop using these boards as a one-stop cut and paste repository for the same old fruitloop shit.
Click to expand...

Suggestion

Start another new, locked thread called 911 debunking and copy the pertinent posts into it for posterity.
 
Jazz

Since you like to claim that we - and in particular yours truly - misrepresent you when we debunk...sorry, respond to...your theories, I have a challenge for you.

Present us your theory about what hapennd on 9/11.

This includes at least:

- What flew into the towers.

- Why did they fall

- In case of controlled demolition: please show how the buildings where prepped, how it was possible to do that within the time limits, why nobody saw the prepped walls, how the dynamite and the wires survived the planes' impacts and why no traces of dynamite were found afterwards.

- Please explain why such a destruction would work without the slightest problems even though there has never been any building brought down that was even nearly as large as the towers, everything was done in a rush and therefore had to been done very sloppy, and even though everything went perfect.

- What flew into Pentagon

- Does that match with the eyewitnesses observations?

- What was the purpose of the attack?

- Who is involved into the conspiracy?

- How have the engineering communities across the globe been silenced?

- What do you think happened to WTC7?

This just to start with.

Please explain in detail and with your own words. No links to CT sites accepted. Any articles, etc. will be checked in order to ensure quotes are accurate. Any calculations will be checked. Unsupported speculation will be ignored.

Are you up to the challenge?
 
The Truther Credo:

We made that film essentially as a bunch of kids. That’s the reality of the situation; we were a bunch of kids tackling a subject far beyond the scope of any one documentary. I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts….

Dylan Avery on Hardfire
Click to expand...

That's right. Loose Change, a bible for the CT community, contains errors and unfounded conclusions. According to it's author. Fantastic!

Jazz, doubtless you'll be quoting LC at us soon so I just thought I'd save you the bother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
If the US govt organised 9/11 in order to justify a war in Afghanistran...
Replies
12
Views
37K
Citizen66
C
Dillinger4
'9/11 Truth Movement' and Academia
14 15 16 17 18
Replies
537
Views
30K
kyser_soze
K
friedaweed
  • Poll
So 9-11. Who really did it?
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
Crispy
Crispy
DrRingDing
  • Locked
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
15 16 17 18 19
Replies
543
Views
34K
FridgeMagnet
FridgeMagnet
M
9/11 a conspiracy?
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
221
Views
13K
Jazzz
Jazzz
Back
Top Bottom