The "buried at sea" bullshit should have been a pretty big WTF

With all the bloodlust in the US, I was surprised there wasn't a full-color spread of his naked, mutilated corpse on the front page of every newspaper in America that day. No pictures, no proof, no nothing...just, "Oh, yeah, and we got Bin Laden. Your soda is too large."

I'm worried for our future, in all honesty.

"Your soda is too large"

I fucking love you.

Also, how many papers DIDN'T run pics of Saddam...or his hideously mutilated sons?

+bitcointip $1.00 verify

He really did tip me a dollar, too. What a world we live in.

That's awesome, what a cool guy.

Out of curiosity, how did he get your bitcoin details to do that?

Bitcointip

You're awesome.

I remember seeing Saddams sons on the front page of major newspapers. After they had been hit by a bomb or a bunch of lawnmowers. The weird part was how normal or maybe even good it felt hearing that. I bought the whole story hook,line,and sinker for a long while after 9/11.

It was actually a bomb of lawnmowers, I saw it on theguardian.uk

Don't feel bad (not saying you do). What's most important is you question everything they tell you.

Best comment I've seen on this sub in a long time. 100% with you. We see pictures of Sadam as soon as we found him and we see a knife to Gaddafi, but we don't see anythign on OBL? I too throw the BS flag.

If I remember correctly WikiLeaks threw out a document saying that his body was actually brought back via C-17 to Dover AFB in an American casket to disguise it, and probably shipped to our good friends at Wright-Patterson.

what goes on at wright patterson?

Soylent green?

is that a household term? I'll google it I guess.

Supposedly, it's America's "Area 51 out in the open". They store a lot of stuff there, and they've been known to house some black projects, UFOs, and extraterrestrial bodies.

huh. been on base many times. out in the open is right.

They of course store most everything underground now. Dayton wasn't as populated in the 40s/50s.

Psy War and The Power of Nightmare ms are much better docs than that one.

Especially with no pictures or film (as far as I know) that has publicly revealed... I do not believe jack shit anything the government says anymore.

I was laughing my ass off when I heard that, It was just too obvious, however my laughter converted to despare when I heard people actually believed this story.

Speaking of buried... Any chance this post was a victim of a downvote squad? In the past, I post of this caliber and quality, would have made it to the front page.

It was.

If there is two conspiracies I absolutely am sure are true, it is 9/11 and the JFK assassination. I'll never forget when I realized 9/11 was; I watched a movie my dad showed me that was literally just a guy in a room on a stool talking about things that didn't make sense with 9/11. So simple, but incredible effective. By the end, I went from staunch non believer to a convert. There were things he said in it that were just so obvious it whisked over all our heads.

EDIT: Thanks to a couple fellow redditors, we figured out the movie is called "In Plane Site". A great watch, I certainly recommend it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_3-YkV_Uik

Was the movie "In Plane Site"?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_3-YkV_Uik

YES it was! Excellent find, gotta love reddit. Definitely worth the watch; personally the two parts that hit me hardest was when he was talking about the lack of cameras ANYWHERE to capture the pentagon plane (really?? no cameras in the PENTAGON?) and how the hijackers van at Logan airport conveniently contained all their names, aliases, plans, history everything you would ever need to know about these guys.

[deleted]

I was gonna say I recall even across the street a gas station camera captured it and they confiscated that too.

I just watched this after finding that link above. I've seen a bunch of them, but this one was really special. Eloquent, logical and a very minimum of speculation - it just examines the facts.

Another one I really like is Simon Shack's September Clues. It's very similar in that Simon examines a lot of the footage and photography from that day. He comes to some similar conclusions.

I FUCKING LOVE SEPTEMBER CLUES AND I LOVE YOU TOO BECAUSE I NEVER KNEW WHO MADE IT

Isn't it just so straightforward? I'm usually fact checking up the wazoo when I watch these, but this one it was just so simple: sit back and listen. I'll definitely check out September Clues as well.

Have you seen Zeitgeist?.. it's a pretty similar movie, talks about his the banks rule the world and how we all worship the same God.. I'm sure its on YouTube.

Zeitgeist is a very eye opening but a grain of salt is required, especially when they get into all the utopian nonsense (basically all the second two films focus on). A much more partial examination can be found in loose change and its follow up fabled enemies. For the banking side, money masters, for the religion, the god who wasnt there. Not talking trash about zeitgeist so much as its maker's ulterior motives.

Thing with TZM, its just trying to make people understand how capitalism can't work foreveron a finite planet without destroying it, and how its not true that consumables fulfill our human needs or that looking out for yourself while others suffer is what we're taught by free enterprise but is kind of against the grain of human nature.

The future cities n shit, that's just speculation

ya the whole utopian thing really turned me off...it was weird

Oh god the banks.....don't even get me started on the banks that isn't even a conspiracy that's just highway robbery. I'll definitely check out Zeitgeist though, I assume it spans a number of theories?

It does, my favorite is the third Zeitgeiss: Moving Forward. There is a really excellent discussion of genetics and their misrepresentation in the media. All excellent films, but dont miss the third.

I really would not recommend Zeitgeist. It's filled with disinformation and on top of it they were spreading Luciferian doctrine. No thanks!

Seriously. Legal extortion

Read The Creature From Jekyll Island. It pretty much confirms what Zeitgeist had to say but goes into much further detail. My dad worked in the financial world for 35 years and retired a multi-millionaire. I gave him a copy for the holidays and he dove right in and it ended up being his favorite book of the last 40 years. It's pretty much spot on.

[deleted]

That's the reason it never set well with me, it's a fine film, but seems so dead set on making the average skeptic into a frothy illogical mess. If they had delivered their message in other kind of way, I would have loved it.

What you are saying is that it prove its own point so well, that the average ignorant skeptic (person that doesnt believe but has no reason to think different because of not being exposed to valid information) is given the information they were looking for to not be skeptical. And that's why you don't like it.

No, but you've demonstrated the attitude of the film quite well.

"Look how right I am!"

I don't believe in a universe of absolutes. And while much of what they said was relevant, I couldn't take an entire documentaries worth of information presented in that way. Not saying the information was bad, but just people, like you, trying to tell me what is right and what I think and how I really perceive the world.

It would have been great without the pretentiousness, at least in my opinion.

It proved no points for me, and seemed to be 'intelligent' people attempting to masturbate their own ego. And it seemed to spring forth a culture that stamps others as ignorant because they didn't enjoy their commercialized documentary.

I believe people like you are what's wrong with the world, so ready to throw yourselves at the next revelation. Completely giving over your thinking to their ways. "They're right! Nothing else is right!" and you handicap your own thinking, you cut yourself off from potential growth of your own mind instead of some whitewashed rhetoric from someone else.

But I guess that makes your world easier to live in.

So, not a fan. And that's why I don't like it.

i completely argee with the points you made about the arrogance and the lack of cold hard facts in the films, and the parts where they start talking about the future i think are hyperbolic. At the same time you stated your position like an "asshole" (not calling you one but i did think to myself "this guy sounds like an asshole. and i did bait you a bit. i see that now) even tho i agree with you. I think a lot of people have an aversion to aggressiveness and persuasiveness, also have a hard time giving up what ideas about what works in this world when confronted with ideas that contradict them.

Now why IIII liked the film was the info they presented was stuff that i had felt as a kid that didnt match up with what i was being told. I have been expressing my thoughts trying to find people that could understand what i was tryin to convey and either couldnt find people or didnt have the knowledge to convince them of my position. That is why I suggest people watch it, EVEN IF THEY VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE IT, just so they have more knowledge and choose what to believe instead of being forced to believe so you can grow your mind. The mind needs to be challenged with its ideas to make them stronger rather than just ignoring everything that contradicts them.

I believe people like you are what's wrong with the world, so ready to throw yourselves at the next revelation. Completely giving over your thinking to their ways. "They're right! Nothing else is right!" and you handicap your own thinking, you cut yourself off from potential growth of your own mind instead of some whitewashed rhetoric from someone else.

You should take a step back and read what you just wrote, its really emotional and doesn't resemble at all what the TZM films are about. The films bring to light fundamental problems with our social economic system, there is no disputing things like how we spend more money researching male baldness cures than than trying to eradicate malaria. The third film really shows how a society can have such distorted value systems that it begins to destroy itself through unsustainable and damaging practices. ie fraking, altering watersheds and hoarding freshwater as a commodity to be more value than gold in the near future. Another good example would be our prison systems, and the disputed theory that punishing someone for doing something you don't want changes why they did it in the first place. I could go on and on, not everything is in the Zeitgeist films but, there is enough to get even a really slow person thinking about topics that are very taboo in today's society. The films are not telling anyone how to think or how to live, its showing that there are different ways to associate with each other than the way we do now, and that maybe the way we run things and view each other today is not in the best interest for us, or the future generations.

The first step is viewing the world as changeable.

There is a site that proves pretty much every claim in the Zeitgeist to be false http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/

It's currently on Netflix as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a36_CwzA0bk

zeitgeist is dinsinfo. filmmaker has ties to freemasonry.

Power Hour Productions

Eh? So how does the game work? Do a shot every time the word "terror" is spoken?

the drinking game "power hour" borrows the phrase from its original usage which has been around for ages. duh.

Once you know what happened, find out who did it.

I know.

[deleted]

i wish everyone listened to ry more often.

Saved for later

What's your view on the www.debunking911.com site?
I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm not saying the 911 site is wrong. I just want your opinion.

Hm, I checked it out, and it certainly makes sense at times. While I feel certain that 9/11 was a conspiracy, I have no problem admitting that I am, for the time, simply unable to figure out what exactly went on. This is the problem conspiracy theorists have; we always face an uphill battle because even if we work hard enough to debunk an explanation, we still have to go and find another, more suitable one that fits. Usually these alternate explanations are even worse, which is why it gives many conspiracy theorists a bad name. For that reason, as unproductive as it might be, I stick mostly to just observing the fallacies of a story. I do hope one day when I have more free time to truly try and find solutions, but for now I am content simply making sure the public understand not to just blindly accept "facts".

Agree. A lot of the videos/theories contain a few credible pieces, but none contains the whole puzzle. I doubt we'll ever know every detail...with every passing year it becomes more of a pipe dream. But if others want to dissect the events in search of the truth, so be it. Seems like a worthy cause as long as we don't get caught up in details and lose sight of the big picture.

If only 9/11 happened a few years later in the smartphone era there would be a lot less speculation.

So basically what you are saying is that you don't have any particular concrete reason to doubt the official explanation and you don't have a more probable alternative.

I think he said he has doubts about the event, but has no reasonable alternative with more evidence. So, his view is that something else happened, but he is unsure of what it is.

Kind of like saying that he doesn't think MOND is correctly explaining dark matter, but he doesn't know what dark matter is composed of yet.

Yup, I'm pretty sure that's what they are saying.

Upvote for saying what I was thinking.

Any website debunking 9/11 that doesn't look at how vice president Cheney gave his former company billion dollar no bid contracts during the war 9/11 started, or how they picked Henry Kissenger to head the 9/11 commision report is doing a disservice to the debate. Most of these websites pick the craziest 9/11 theories and debunk them without ever going into the real creepy things that actually occured.

[deleted]

don't forget operation northwoods and the USS Liberty incident

And operation Gladius and their shenanigans.

Upvotes for sensible comment. Unfortunately, even if the official story of 9/11 is 100% true, we'll always have doubts because of how it was handled after the fact. The claims that they "never could've imagined" a plane hitting the Trade Towers and all the other lies make the whole thing seem like a giant conspiracy (which it might well be). Using it as an excuse to go to war with Iraq, the lies about weapons of mass destruction and all the rest...how could you NOT question the event that triggered it all?

But to believe that the whole thing was a setup requires suspension of disbelief of how incompetent our government really is.

Then again, maybe I'm just misunderestimating them.

I thought the Pearl Harbor attack was due to us supplying China with weapons and putting sanctions on Japans oil supplies. Didn't think it had anything to do with Japan wanting to control the oil.

The science is in dispute.

[deleted]

Insufficient accounting of lizard men.

I'm sorry. But that is absolutely ludacris. You sound like an intelligent man but where's the footage of a 747 destroying the pentagon. Why are there 45 degree angle cuts in the main support columns of both towers 1 & 2? How did those fires burn anywhere remotely hot enough to compromise the structural integrity and adequacy of those columns that were supporting the weight of those towers before it pulverized itself into fine powder?!

I have a good understanding of steel and how it behaves (i study this), so i'm interested in you hypothesis.

I would highly recommend everybody giving Christopher Bollyn's free book "9/11--The Deception That Changed the World" a read when you get a chance. Available for free at his website and purely follows the money.

The fact that it leads directly to Israel through about 1000 paths should be a surprise to nobody...

How a 757 caused such a small hole in the pentagon

[deleted]

That isn't an answer. Look at the photos. There is no crater, there is a small impact hole. Originally, the top floors didnt even collapse. You can see video of the top floors falling later. The original hole was only about 16 feet wide. Also, the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world. The fact that there have only been a handful of security cameras with terrible quality footage of the plane hitting the wall is incredibly disconcerting. I'm not saying it was a conspiracy, you said you would give answers, so i'm asking a legit question. How can a 60foot wide plane create a 16 foot hole. If you dont believe that the top floors collapsed later, then check out footage of the first response.

[deleted]

but if you want I'll go through point-by-point and address all of your disputations

You offered to explain something, i ask something, you are amazed that someone asked something, i try to clarify what little knowledge i have in efforts to get a good response, and you explode, angered by the fact i would ask something so crazy. You want to know why people hate americans? It is because of aggorant cunts like you that are amazed that people have different viewpoints. Yeah, i get the science. I looked it up, i agree, because instead of answering my question you instead tried to satisfy your ego by bringing upon insults. Is that how you deal with people? Are you that self-centered? I don't believe in a conspiracy. I barley knew anything about this. I came to this post, saw some stuff, and when someone offered to explain something i thought maybe asking someone who had done research. Instead, after asking and having to clarify, you feel it necessary to be an asshole. Here's a tip, "buddy", work on your fucking communication skills. Maybe you won't be stuck with debating on reddit.

[deleted]

I'm American, i just wanted to point out your arrogance. You are confirming the stereotype like the whiney little bitch you are. And you didn't spank my ass hahahhahaha you are taking this like a competition, there was never anything COMPETITIVE. Is this how you get yourself off? Pretending to be talking about "significant issues" while boosting your ego? why google something when i have a chance to get someone as butthurt as you. I dont come on to reddit after having to research something. The pentagon being hit by the planes is the least known aspect about 9/11. I never bothered to look anything up because i thought it was pretty cut and dry what happened on 9/11. That was the one aspect that came to my mind, because its unusual.

You are probably one of those people who think America is going to exist forever and will always be the top. Guess what, you are in for a rude awakening. All societies fall. Your in-group bias is astounding, and a bit humorous too.

♥ For You ♥

mostly based on bad evidence.

You could add 7/7 to your list aswell. About a year ago after watching a few 9/11 videos I wondered if there were any to do with the London bombings. I found this http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=R7PQG5weeHk&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DR7PQG5weeHk&gl=GB 7/7 Ripple Effect. IMO it's a great film/documentary. Blew me away. Well worth watching.

is there a non potato quality version?

DrStemSell posted this one above: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsbnFxqu7b8

And JFK?

What's the movie?

I think that might have been "9/11 In Plane Sight"

yup correct! a great watch if i do say so myself

Thats the thing, I have no idea what it was called because my dad had burned it on a disc, wrote "9/11" and said I HAD to watch it. My dad's number one passion in life is the pursuit of knowledge too, and he is the last person to be fooled by trickery, so I knew it was some serious shit. I know if I saw it I'd be able to recognize it, though.

Was it Michael Ruppert? I know he likes to sit on stools and chain smoke while talking

Collapse :) Do not watch if you have just quit smoking. Its good any other time though.

[deleted]

9/11 had always been a significant part of my life: my best friend lost his father on one of the planes, and my father was scheduled to be in North Tower one of the top floors for a meeting that was ultimately postponed to a later date. Also did I mention my father, a Muslim as well, was born on September 11th? I first saw the footage of the wreckage when I was one verse in singing happy birthday to him. I have visited ground Zero and lower Manhattan quite a few times, although much more recently since my girlfriend was living in the area. I am 21, so I was just ten years old when 9/11 happened, and I'll never forget my reaction when my mom told me planes had crashed into buildings that day: "oh...cool! whats for dinner?" I just didn't understand at the time, and was under the impression planes always crashed. Being Muslim however, it of course caught up to me when people started calling me a terrorist etc...and so my freshman year of high school I read and learned everything I could find on the subject. It is INCREDIBLE, really just so shocking, how many holes you begin to see when you simply collect ALL the information available about a subject. Not even make assumptions or conclusions, just literally find all the facts you can, learn them, and watch them negate each other.

[deleted]

Flag on the play. There is no vibrational force, despite being interconnected via basement that could cause 11 seconds of free fall at terminal velocity. The other problem is that vibrational forces would have caused asymmetrical damage, the worst damage would be closest to the other buildings that fell. This disputes the video record. The video record clearly shows a nice smooth symmetrical free fall. The roof even caves in right before the exterior walls begin to move and the entire mass accelerates to terminal velocity nearly instantly and maintains that speed for 11 seconds. Please elaborate on your theory to adjust for these scientific facts that are uncontroversial due to video record. Thanks!

An object falling at terminal velocity for 11 seconds would fall roughly 3,200 feet. If the towers took 11 seconds to fall, it was not at terminal velocity.

And no object can reach terminal velocity "nearly instantly", except maybe a parachute.

Apologies, it incurred free fall acceleration, 9.8 ft/sec for 11 seconds. I misspoke, thank you for pointing that out. The underlying "big issue" remains, that being that all mass would have to be removed from the structures path of collapse in order for free fall acceleration to occur.

Not really, no.

If, say, the top 25 storeys of the buiding collapse, you're talking about 125,000 tons of concrete (plus several thousand tons of desks, people, filing cabinets, etc.). There is not much that can stop the acceleration of that kind of mass once it has gathered some momentum.

I find your statement troubling. You are basing it on the premise that the weight of the building ultimately caused the collapse. NOTHING SLOWED DOWN THE ACCELERATION OF THE ROOF. You are also ignoring the fact that the building was designed asymmetrically. How does a building with asymmetrical structural support fall symmetrically into its own footprint? It doesnt. I am an engineer, hundreds of my fellow engineer brothers and sisters have signed petitions and even made a movie describing the science involved.

The enitre building was a web of welded rebar, encapsulated in concrete. A part of a building doesnt just break off and become the force that works against itself. Yes, I am talking about 125000 tons of concrete, each ounce of which has its own structural properties, which is then attached to steel making for an even stronger structure.

Your assertion that there isnt much that can stop the accelleration of 125,000 tons of concrete is correct, given that the momentum has already been developed. It hadnt. Each floor was welded, then concrete poured, then repeat. Each floor of the building was designed to withstand the weight of the entire building. There is no way for even a single floor to collapse, let alone 25.

There is no science to support your claim. Vibration cant bring a building down. Not in a model, not in the real world. Even if it did, why building 7? There are plenty of buildings closer. The building fell at free fall acceleration because there was absolutely no mass in the path of the roof. None. The 125,000 tons of concrete you mentioned came down as dust. Dust.

Dust. Not concrete, dust. Watch the video again. 7 doesnt fall until 6 hours or more later. So the vibration did so much damage that it just sat there for 6 hours then suddenly went from 0 to 9.8 ft/sec and continued at that rate, accelerating more and more for 11 seconds? There is zero historical or model precident for such an event without explosives.

You should build a model of the towers and simulate your theory. Spoiler: hundreds of engineers with Ph.D.'s havent been able to make any theory work without explosives being involved.

Tl;Dr: There is just no way, as an engineer I would be glad to review any calculations, simply saying there is not much that can stop that kind of weight is not enough.

1. I don't believe you're an engineer.
2. That is not how the twin towers were constructed.
3. No 57 storey building ever had a 110 storey building fall on it before.
4. None of the collapsed buildings at WTC did anything remotely like "collapse into its own footprint".
5. However, they did all fall in the direction known as "down". This remains a mystery, although the official government story is that this was due to some mysterious force known only as "gravity" (as if).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

The third picture down shows asymmetrical steel structural supports redistributing the load to the interior to avoid power station substructure.

The fourth picture down show WTC 6 in between WTC 7 and WTC 1, it also shows WTC 6 and WTC 5 between WTC 7 and WTC 2.

Your statement number 3 indicates that a 110 story building fell onto a 47 story building. Is it your assertion that the building jumped over WTC 6?

WTC 7 was 57 storeys. There is no question that it took heavy damage from the collapse of WTC 1. Is it your contention that this did not happen?

I read some of your post history and realized that I am an idiot for not looking at it before I posted. I feel bad for you, but I understand that the problems are much too complex and widespread for me to have any impact upon them. Good luck...

What an odd and misleading thing to say.

1. How were they constructed? What parts of my explanation were incorrect?

Rebar in the floors is irrelevant if the floors lost their connection with the supporting outer walls.

Are you an engineer?

Yes

Yeah honestly I suppose my initial post could've even been a bit misleading, I don't even necessarily think that 9/11 is just a completely made up lie; rather I believe that there are just certain things that we were told that were not true, and certain things we were not told that were true. Just like you; you largely believe 9/11 to be legitimate, and very slightly (in regards to flight 93) believe that the government was a bit deceptive. I'm the same way, I just believe more of these types of details are deceptive. My real inner struggle is trying to figure out if enough of these facts make 9/11 a boldface lie, or just strong equivocation by the government. Once again, all personal opinion though. Also I have rarely, if ever, used the WTC7 in my arguments. I agree its a very sketchy bridge that connects the ideas.

Overcoming the cognitive dissonance is the hardest part. When you truly understand the severity of the deception and the magnitude of the human violence it throws the country into a crisis of authourity. Who is in charge? Whose job is it to porotect us? Why did we invade Iraq?

I just got back from New York Friday and visited ground zero. There was just a bunch of construction for the new complex. The lower west side looked beautiful anyway. You should visit if you have the chance.

Don't forget the OKC bombing and TWA flight 800

For me, it was the Loose Change documentaries. Too many things happened that don't even qualify for common sense. But that show made so many good points as well.

Loose change is garbage and those guys have been owned over and over again. Their arguments isn't where i have the problem.

I agree, especially the parts where they show how the building was constructed.

Oooh good call I gotta finish those! There's what, like four of them? I have seen the first couple, and they are excellent as well. Gotta find a good place and time to watch the latter ones.

Yeah, the Loose Change 2nd Edition is almost 2 hours long. That's the one I recommend. I'm all over this debunking 911 site now.

[deleted]

[deleted]

So are you saying that there are NO conspiracies that are actually true?

Edit: deleted after being questioned? I smell shill...

Seriously.

Not the greatest site for this since it's comedy site but

http://www.cracked.com/article_15974_7-insane-conspiracies-that-actually-happened.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_19884_6-insane-conspiracy-theories-that-actually-happened.html

http://www.cracked.com/article_18955_6-crackpot-conspiracy-theories-that-actually-happened.html

Show some that happened, and if not that - the fact that COINTELPRO, MKULTRA, Operation Ajax, etc. happened should make one willing to question the official story.

The fact Henry Kissenger, known war criminal and government cover-up specialist, was originally choosen to lead the 9/11 commission report should raise major red flags.

Yeah, I'm literally payed by the government to spread opinions online. That makes sense.

Although it would literally be impossible to prove if you were, or were not...it does happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

This doesn't refute what I said. Sorry.

I am not saying they are for sure correct or not, but completely devoid of logic? Please explain. I consider myself at least somewhat logically and I find some of the points about these conspiracies to hold some logic and that is exactly why I question the validity of the government's analysis of these events. To say they aren't true or provable would be fine, but completely devoid of any logic?

i notice a lot of claims, and a lot of links, but not a whole lot of actual credible information; anybody can just say "oh yeah osama was in a hospital in dubai, some guy who knows a guy saw him there"; that doesnt quite meet the criteria for me to consider something as accurate, or even probable.

Am i to believe now that osama was in a hospital and died before the 9/11 attacks because of THIS "proof" you've given me? No thanks, I'll entertain the possibility of it being accurate; but by no means have you justified your sure-edness on the subject.

[deleted]

what do you mean? Word Theory? Do you mean that this subreddit generally has linguistic difficulties in the sense that they present opinion as fact; evidence as proof; etc etc; or what do you mean by word theory? Im not familiar with the term but it sounds interesting.

But yeah; i notice a lot of people on the internet have a lot of syntax errors in their language usage and reasoning; like the OP of this thread is claiming to have absolute knowledge of an actual event instead of just presenting unsubstantiated claims with no tangible direct evidence; either way, I think I agree with your general conclusion; let's help 'em figure it all out though (like what words mean; and how opinions work); cause a lot of these dumbasses will end up in the senate and whatnot; so we may as well shout at them while they're still listening

Sometimes hearsay can be important evidence, when it comes from someone esteemed such as Benazir Bhutto

hearsay IS NOT evidence; and thus cannot be important evidence.

Osama Bin Laden is not even a name that ANY of Osama's colleagues would recognize him by; and thus I would expect some probability of translational errors.

Furthermore; just some randy hoe ranting some randy bullshit doesnt mean anything; show me a video with some timestamps or something; randy people say randy things all the time.

I've heard this story before and have yet to see any actual evidence of osama being in any hospitals in the US, being met by the CIA in US hospitals, and even dying in a US hospital; all the evidence comes from some randy nurse saying randy unsubstantiated things.

Hearsay is NEVER important evidence; realize this.

It cannot be PROOF, but it can absolutely be evidence

just some randy hoe

Why do i even respond...

sorry but "some woman" (or "randy hoe") saying 1 remark during an interview is not enough; get more if you actually want the OPs claim to be REASONABLY SUBSTANTIATED.

I could just as easily say "i saw osama bin laden NOT in a hospital on that date" and it would be EQUALLY as credible as the OPs statement; your statement; and others; it is in this sense that I do not consider it PROPER evidence; it's just some randy hoe saying a randy sentence with almost zero contextual details or concrete facts to back up the almost back-hand, possibily mis-spoken, claim.

I hope you wouldnt live your whole life thinking you're so damn sure about what happened; and if you do; then I would hope it would take more than the "evidence" (or pile of garbage bullshit) presented here to convince you of such...

President Obama is "esteemed" to many too..

[deleted]

None of these pics are of planes hitting a concrete building at full speed. For that, you can find a clip on YouTube of a plane completely vaporizing when hitting a concrete wall.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZjhxuhTmGk

Using that video to exemplify the lack of plane debris on 9 11 is quite reaching... First of all, that is a simulation of a plane hitting the side of a nuclear power plant. While the jet in the experiment is moving about the same speed at which the planes supposedly hit the towers (give or take 50-70mph), the wall it collided with is in no way comparable to the walls of the towers, or the pentagon for that matter.

"The wall designed to move and absorb energy did its job well."

The wall itself is more of a technical marvel than the jet it vaporized.

What he questioned had nothing to do with the planes. He never said anything about the actual attacks, just the part of him dying in 2001. You don't know all that believes, so why are you freaking out about the plane? Chill and read his comment.

What are you talking about? He was talking about OBL dying in 01...

haha, you just got screwed outta a lot of karma points because you jumped to conclusions; bro i watched loose change, I know what's crackin; what I was referring to in the comment you responded to was THAT ONE SPECIFIC SOURCE; the sources he cited about OBL dying seemed incredible; I never said "9/11 is not a conspiracy"; gatdam

All of that is pure speculation.

Prove to me that he died in 2001.

I'm not taking any sides here, but prove to me that he died in 2011.

I never claimed that he's dead.

^This. He might not be dead. Or maybe he died before 2001. Who knows. Without evidence, we don't know for sure.

That's not how burden of proof works, bud. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and you don't have it.

Are you saying that we should assume he's alive until we're given evidence?

The preponderance of evidence says that he died in 2011, which makes it the standard that should be disproven. I made this point to illustrate that askscience777's approach--prove that he actually did--incorrectly shifts the burden of proof. It should be: "Prove to me that he didn't die in 2011."

What evidence? All we we know is what we were told.

I think he believes that TV news sources are wholly legitimate and we shouldn't question anything that's given to us on the TV box.

This place is a playground for people who are interested in conspiracy theories, people who hate conspiracy theories and trolls.

I have a hard time telling them apart.

The preponderance of evidence says that he died in 2011

Look, I'm a skeptic who usually only comes here to debunk conspiracy theories. But there's no evidence that Osama bin Laden died in 2011. Please correct me if I'm mistaken. The burden of evidence is on you to back up your claim.

LOL preponderance of evidence. Yes, the organization that has told countless lies in the past must be held as the standard for what is considered the truth and all else must be rejected until evidence is brought up to the contrary, and that evidence can only come through the one source who's story you're trying to refute anyway.

You didn't provide evidence, you just offered an ad hominem attack. Please try harder.

Huh? I wasn't trying to provide evidence? I don't see where the ad hominem attack is either. I'm trying to show why your argument is preposterous because you're using circular logic. You're essentially saying you must trust the government because they're right

You've misconstrued the nature of my argument, misused "circular logic," and attacked the argument with, at best a "poisoning the well" argument or, at worst, an outrageously smug deflection ...all without actually refuting my basic premise that the preponderance of available evidence suggests he died in 2011, and not at any other time.

What "available evidence" are you referring to? And you should work on being a little less pompous in the future - you come off like a self-satisfied douche bag in your comments.

Confirmations by global governments and intelligence agencies, of which there are numerous. Reports and books written by the operators that executed the mission. Attack the credibility of these sources if you want, but that's merely poisoning the well.

I'll add your personal attack to the enormous pile. Thanks for that. It added a lot to the discussion.

sorry but what is the multitude of evidence?

typical debunker with canned phrases like 'prove to me that he 'DIDN'T' DIE in 2011.'

go back to /r/atheism please.

I've never posted in /r/atheism, and you're just another person that has resorted to baseless attacks instead of a logical refutation of my point.

All you do is introduce circular logic.. You shills regurgitate the same talking points

Still a little unclear. The preponderance of the evidence prior to 2011 was that he died in 2001. So if i understand your reasoning, he would first have to be proven alive in order to be killed again in 2011. Do I have that right.

Honestly i have no horse in this race. What evidence was presented in 2011 to show he was dead? IIRC it was eyewitness accounts, which is the same evidence given in 2001. Seems like a tie to me. Was there some evidence that I missed (I ignored most of it)?

There was no evidence that he died at any point prior to 2011, just baseless speculation and a lot of FUD.

OK and in 2011, what was the evidence? Eyewitness testimony only or was there anything else? Honest question, I really don't know. I wouldn't trust trust eyewitness testimony alone, especially since video is so readily available today.

Pretty sure he is yes....

yes

Pfft, I saw the movie.

Hahaha, thanks I love humor on this serious subreddit, no matter how small.

It was confirmed by Al Qaeda

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/07/world/asia/07qaeda.html?_r=0

You mean Al CIAda

Al Qaeda was not started by the CIA.

Bin Laden prior to forming Al Qaeda received CIA funds and weapons and training funnelled through the ISI while taking part in the Afghan Jihad.

[deleted]

if it was started by the CIA and run by them why didn't we find Bin Laden in 2005 in Iraq surrounded by WMD with pictures of him and Ahmadinejad sun bathing together? Instead we find an old forgotten man hiding in a house, never going outside.

[deleted]

"If we planned 9/11 to invade Iraq for oil, why didn't we throw together a few crates of chemical weapons and "find them" on accident?"

because they didn't have to. understand?

the government doesn't give a shit about the people and certainly doesn't have to answer to anyone.

did george bush have to answer for his crimes? did he go to prison for lying in order to send the country to war? isn't that treason? did cheney get punished?

anyone?

name one person who had to answer in a courtroom for the iraq war.

they didn't have to stage a discovery of fake weapons in iraq. it was completely unnecessary.

in fact if you actually think about it. the risks involved with faking a discovery of WMDs in iraq FAR outweigh the risks of simply doing nothing.

if they tried to fake a discovery of WMDs and somehow they got caught. like say wikileaks or something released proof that the government faked a discovery of weapons. well than that could cause real problems not only with the american people but with the international community as well.

someone would have to answer. it could trigger the american people to clean house within the government like a mini revolution or even a full fledged revolution.

[deleted]

you can just feed a bunch of real terrorists with both the idea and specific intel on how to pull that off, and there is no way in hell to get caught.

think on what Al Qaeda was supposed to be. now, i dare you to think a better way to keep tabs on the whole middle east extremist scene for the CIA than creating something like that.
and who better to run it than someone that already worked for the CIA and also was considered a hero for the afgans?.

If they tried to pull of 9/11 and somehow got caught....

but they didn't get caught.....

they pinned 9/11 on bin laden and the highjackers and wrapped it all up in a neat little package.

the government couldn't blame anyone else if they got caught faking a discovery of WMDs. it's not the same.

[deleted]

While I agree that carrying out 9/11 would be lot harder then putting weapons in Iraq, it doesn't have the same effect.

9/11 was a emotional movie that would move the hearts of many people to get revenge or go to war with any country that had any connection with it because people were MAD and ready to fight.

Whereas saying to the American public, "Hey we found some bad weapons in this country and now we are going to war with them" would not go over so well with the American public.

[deleted]

I wouldn't say the government pulled the attack. However, I would say that the Intelligence department knew the attack was going to occur, and decided to let it happen.

Do you really believe that we are in Iraq because of terrorism?

Its mind-numbingly obvious that terrorism is an idea and not a people and cannot ever be destroyed. Its obvious that our muddling in the middle east for ~40 years increases the hate for america and the terrorist agenda.

but remember, we've only had one terrorist attack. one. (if you believe the story, i do not) that killed ~thousand people.

so were spending trillions of dollars fighting an idea thats impossible to destroy and our very fighting it makes it grow (this idea can be seem perfectly patterned in the drug war) to protect our citizens here who have a .00000000000001% chance of dying in a terrorist attack?

Yeah, not so much. We're there for many reasons, mostly ensuring the petrodollar, but you bet your ass the CIA is involved with the opium trade as well.

I'm not taking sides here but this reasoning is flawed. If it was a planned event, why put everything out there at once? Spread out the 9/11 thing as long as possible, ya know? 10 years later when Bin Laden gets killed, that's another 2 presidential terms you can play off of. Why no WMDs? Give it time.

Al Qaeda was not founded by the CIA. They received military/weapons training from the CIA when they were essentially a revolutionary militia.

Al Qaeda was not started by the CIA.

Bin Laden prior to forming Al Qaeda received CIA funds and weapons and training funnelled through the ISI while taking part in the Afghan Jihad.

Little lie,big lie.

Why is it that we can locate bin Laden, but not this "Al Qaeda’s General Command"? Apparently the New York Times knows where to look, maybe they should send an email to the military tipping them off.

can you read? "Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites." they put out a press release online. You didn't really think A New York Times reporter was going to interview them personally lol.

So what you're saying is that the New York Times didn't actually investigate the credibility of anything they printed?

if the Vatican puts out a press release tomorrow saying a new pope is crowned and it's pope john the third is the New york times going to go all the way to Rome and ask him "are you the new pope?" or are they going to take the Vaticans word for it since they are a reliable source?

This is how sources work, don't you see they named where they got their information. It's not a hard concept.

This is how sources work, don't you see they named where they got their information. It's not a hard concept.

It would seem logical to me to not believe what they read on the internet. What you're saying is that one of their reporters was on reddit, followed a link to a website and then wrote an article about what was on that website. No investigation or research as to what that website was, just "hay guys, look what I found on the web today!".

I'm not disagreeing with you. I think this is just evidence that we have no real reporting any longer in this country.

except it's not just some guy on a website, it is what they consider a reliable sources which they name in their article so you can decided for yourself if you think it's reliable. The group has reported previous reliable information about Al Qaeda.

Tell me how should the New York Times have reported this differently? Should they have interviewed the Al Qaeda command personally? That's unreasonable.

Should they have interviewed the Al Qaeda command personally? That's unreasonable.

Actually yes! Why is that unreasonable in your mind? If all they do is link to other websites, then they are no better than reddit.

Al Qaeda isn't the type of organization you just call up and schedule an interview. If you think it can be done why don't you do it? You could make lots of money selling your interviews to the big news station or to the CIA.

I might not be doing that, but I have submitted links on reddit, so I'm no worse than the New York Times.

If you are no worse then the New York Times why don't you have people buying your news articles every week? maybe there is something else like credibility. Unless you want to prove the New York Times isn't a credible news source you can't really say anything about their reporting.

Unless you want to prove the New York Times isn't a credible news source you can't really say anything about their reporting.

You've already agreed with me that they didn't do anything but parrot a press release. The MSM has no credibility any longer.

they don't have to do anything more. they are reporting the news. the news is "Al Qaeda released a press release saying this" That's what the news story is. they aren't saying "Bin Laden is dead because we independently went to the bottom of the Ocean and took pictures" They are reporting that an organization released a press release. How is this complicated?

If you don't believe it prove them wrong don't just say "they are wrong i can't prove it but I don't trust them"

If you don't believe it prove them wrong don't just say "they are wrong i can't prove it but I don't trust them"

The link at the top proves them wrong. The NYTimes has no more evidence than the OPs link.

NYT source is Al Qaeda, don't you think they would know if Bin Laden has been dead for 10 years? Why would they not tell anyone until a week after America says they killed him?

Thats false, the NYT source was a government website that was claiming to be monitoring a website claiming to be Al Qaeda. Hey guess what? I'm Al Qaeda too! I'm telling you that bin Laden died in 2001.

Thats thing the thing about reporting. They should look for multiple pieces of evidence to support the claim. Nothing physical has been presented.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SITE_Institute

yep looks like a government website except it's a private company. Again if you have any proof that the site institute is lying or is wrong lets see it. here are some more sources to confirm what the NYT says,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/osama-bin-laden-dead-al-qaeda_n_858440.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/11/us-security-qaeda-idUSBRE88A04L20120911

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13313201

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-13317717

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/06/bin.laden.qaeda.comment/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/06/osama-bin-laden-al-qaida

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384260/Al-Qaeda-confirm-Osama-Bin-Laden-death-vow-continue-US-terrorist-attacks.html

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/05/al-qaeda-confirms-osama-bin-ladens-death-in-internet-statement/1#.UT0wXFeO1OU

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2011/05/201156125729467729.html

yep looks like a government website except it's a private company.

Then what terrorist activities has it tracked done by the US through the years? None? I wonder where they get their funding from then?

Your other links seem to all point at that single source. Again another problem with the MSM, they all report the same thing that everyone else does. Kinda like when people repost things on reddit. Here is good proof of this fact

your using conan as a source? lol. Do you have any proof they get any funding from the US government? no you dont. you keep trying to dodge the issue you brought up. If you have evidence that the NYT article I linked was false lets see it. Lets see your personal interview with the leadership of Al Qaeda which is what you said the NYT should have done. and no you can't link me Jay Leno as a source.

If you have evidence that the NYT article I linked was false lets see it.

You're asking me to prove a negative, which can't be done. They gave no evidence. I can't prove that their lack of evidence doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist.

If all you require is a link to an internet website, then here is your proof that bin laden died in 2001. It clearly identifies themselves as an al qaeda source and states plain as day that he's alive.

Basically you're saying that if a government source says something, then it's true unless proven otherwise.

the burden of proof is on you, and you don't seem to understand that the NYT didn't use a government source. Also I know you didn't read the sources I linked you because one wasn't even about Bin Laden. That just shows that no matter what I say you won't even read it. So really I can just say whatever I want now, since you can't seem to read.

the burden of proof is on you,

Not sure how you figure that. I asked for evidence and all you provided was a website reporting on another website. The bar isn't very high there, but you wish to believe something, so you accept it.

That just shows that no matter what I say you won't even read it.

You tried a common tactic of swamping the same source off of different websites. Your little game doesn't change this fact. You still have nothing more than a website reporting on another website. That means you have nothing as evidence.

give me your address I'll provide you physical evidence. we are on the internet what do you want me to do?

As for the burden of proof, I gave you evidence it is up to you to prove that the evidence I gave you is false. All you did was claim (without evidence) that the source is run by the government which I disproved.

You're still insisting that an internet press release, reported by an un-named website, is somehow evidence. What could I offer you to prove that unreliable to your satisfaction?

Obviously not online press releases because according to you if it's on the internet it can't be believed. So give me physical evidence. This is your standard not mine. good luck

This is the kind of broken thinking that makes this sub a parody of itself.

I can claim all sorts of things so long as I'm not required to have any substantive proof.

Everything is speculation unless you were there or you have completely credible sources. So..... what do we do? I don't know. Obama should have just released a picture if they really killed Osama. He claimed they didn't because he feared retaliation and further violence. Like killing the leader of al-queda wouldn't be enough to enrage the rest of the organization. It's the biggest bullshit excuse ever. Killing Osama alone could have influenced multiple attacks, but nope, fear the picture. Fear the only real proof. Now there is no picture, no body(buried at sea), and we either have to take their word for it or try to piece together other speculative resources. I'm not really sure if there is any way to prove either side of this argument, but Osama was without a doubt a convenient foe, and he could have been used as a pawn for the US government to blame.

Like killing the leader of al-queda wouldn't be enough to enrage the rest of the organization.

It did. Many affiliates swore they would avenge him and carried out attacks in his name.

I'm just saying that the Obama administration has withheld all actual non-speculative evidence of the killing Osama from the public in the name of security and protection. I personally don't believe that the photograph would be the main influence in any of al-queda's retaliatory acts and it was just a lame excuse to withhold proof from the public.

Dr. Steve Pieczenik confirmed his death 2001.

Notice anything...unusual...about that name?

I will take your word on this, yoloswag6969.

I bet he gets all the girls

I chuckled.

[deleted]

[deleted]

Fuuuu not available on mobile.

Yea, herp reality doesn't matter...derp

Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:

• VideoLinkBot FAQ
• Feedback
• Playlist of videos in this comment

didnt he later claim responsibility in his video that he sent to al jazeera

you mean the video "found" by the israeli run, funded and backed SITE institute? which is widely acknowledged as a forgery, for multiple reasons, including the "bin laden" shown using the wrong hand (he was left handed) wearing jewellery and looking nothing like obl? that video?

They don't use the left hand for many things, because it is seen as unclean. So even lefty's use the right hand to eat and other such stuff.

9/11 "bin Laden" video

In early September 2007, SITE announced that Osama bin Laden would release a video message on the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. Bloomberg News also reported that IntelCenter, another web monitoring service, noted that al Qaeda's media production group as-Sahab flagged the video in an online media statement.[8] While Bloomberg reported only that the video would be released, the Associated Press stated that "the 30-minute video was obtained by the SITE Institute" and had provided a copy to the AP. The report stated that "American officials said the U.S. government had obtained a copy even though the video had not been posted yet by al-Qaeda".[9] AP noted that "during the video, bin Laden's image moves for only a total of about 3 1/2 minutes in two segments, staying frozen the rest of the time while his remarks continue." An anonymous U.S. intelligence official told the AP it may have been a technical glitch that occurred during production. While the video was intercepted by US intelligence agencies, its provision to SITE Institute may have been a boon to the small group, which only made it available on its website to subscribers.[10] However, Fox News released a transcript of the tape.[11]

A little over a month later, the Washington Post reported that SITE had given the video to two senior officials "on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release." SITE's Rita Katz complained to reporter Joby Warrick that within 20 minutes of providing access to it on the group's website, several government agencies began downloading it. "By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide," Joby Warrick wrote. "Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," Katz said. [12]

I was talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Osama_bin_Laden_video

where does he claim responsibility..? in that tape he does admit to being "glad it happened" at no point does he claim alq planned & executed it.

thats why i am asking since im not well informed on the subject. did he or did he not and was it even him. was expecting a tldr

tldr: no, he didn't

He is also wearing gold, gold colors and silk. Usually strict, conservative schools of fiqh rule that a man cannot wear silk, because it's considered women's clothes. No gold, or gold colors as God will give you these things in Jannah/Heaven.

These are citations from hadith, not the Quran and in some groups these things are ok, but usually someone so conservative, as he was painted by Western media, then he more than likely wouldn't have those things on in his video.

Also, he doesn't look quite like the other pics and vids we have seen. These are just my observations. I am not saying they are "right" as I don't think we will ever know the true story, honestly.

I haven't believed any "official" video since I saw Wag the Dog. Even before that I was skeptical of every "official version".

Look up "Tim Osman". He's a CIA agent and Osama's doppelganger in all the videos after 2001 (just do a youtube search). He's the reason why Osama just happens to look younger through the years up to his alleged death

Or maybe back up your own claims.

So you're suggesting that the same people who orchestrated all of these elaborate 9/11 schemes forgot to hire a decent makeup artist/stylist for their fake videos? They can execute several fake terrorist attacks with startling effectiveness, but are completely useless at home movies...

These two theories do not depend on each other. Faking a couple videos is easy.

I thought it was because Afghanistan just got their first shipment of "Just For Men" hair coloring.

You mean the video he sent after he was dead?

No comment on the content, but is it weird that I don't trust "yoloswagg6969"?

An OBL video was also used to help Bush win his second term. Don't forget about all the deaths of the Seals involved in his supposed take down. Disgusting.

That's not true at all. It was other members of seal team 6.

Never heard this, will you tell me about it?

Your google fu is weak grasshoppa

https://www.google.com/search?q=post+obl+raid+seal+deaths&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

There are so many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. Just too many. Was it a series of very serious blunders and an attempt to cover their stupidity? Or was there something malicious about the lack of evidence we have 10+ years later. How do we have zero camera shots of a plane flying into the nerve center of our country?(the pentagon) How did a building collapse do to fire alone?(building 7) the more you learn about it the less you understand.

I think 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to get carte blanche use of allowing the government to spy on its citizens, lock up whomever they want for as long as they want under the premise of terrorism. I give you The Patriot Act. And with that came the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which we know is buying up ammo and tanks for an unknown reason. It's a damn shame cause I was serving in the military when 9/11 happened, and seeing what the DHS is stocking up for, I don't even wan to think about how bad things can get if the US is put in a state of martial law.

Edit: added a link

Same here, USMC detach at Aberdump. We went to 'force protection code delta' or something, noone knew what the hell that even meant. We pretty much locked down and stared with our thumbs up our asses for three days, lot of talk about getting groups together to go help with search and rescue but nothing happened. We felt pretty goddamned useless, and confused. Some of us knew exactly what an intentional demolition looked like.

[deleted]

2171, Sergeant. Electro-optics armorer. Lance Corporal from 9 months in due to a one-rank jump-up in boot. EOS 4/30/02. Nine-line is an evac req. To locate, close with, and destroy the enemy.

I had no personal knowledge of demolitions, but we shared a lounge with seabees, some had UDT exp. Some ACOE i work with now with the dept. of the interior have expressed the same doubts. No worries about the test, Sergeant. I was POG as fuck and saw no combat, but still proud to be a Marine for the rest of my days.

OP delivers!

Thanks, i guess. sorry to say the most dangerous shit I got into was a floor buffer rodeo where the buffer caught fire.

[deleted]

Thanks, but i meant 'sergeant' in address to the questioner. I was a terminal lance only. (Terminal lance, the backbone of the corps!) Semper Fi.

[deleted]

Good to hear that, Sgt. "the rank so nice i earned it twice", lol.

[deleted]

True enough, brother. Some of the hardest chargers I knew were e-1 for the third time.

How do we have zero camera shots of a plane flying into the nerve center of our country?

See, this one I don't get. What are you trying to say? That it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon?

Assuming a US government lead conspiracy, why would they bother using a cruise missile if they'd already flown 2 passenger planes into the twin towers?

The two scenarios and the stages required to make each one work:

1) Cruise missile- Acquire a cruise missile and military team who can operate a cruise missile from the US stockpile without anyone else in the army/navy/airforce knowing. Get them to agree to firing on the pentagon (treason). Pay them so well that they've ALL kept quiet for 12 years and their moral duty never came into play. Remove all CCTV footage of the attack. Hope that no one happened to be looking up when the cruise missile comes in and hits the pentagon. Fake a manifest for a passenger plane. Pay actors to grieve on TV about their fake loved ones. Yaddda yaddaa yadda.

1) Passenger plane - Recruit some terrorists, hijack plane, fly into pentagon.

no he is asking why there are no decent pictures of the plane hitting the security nerve centre of the biggest military country in the world.

And I'm saying, what does it matter?

There are some, but the plane was going 500mph. CCTV cameras typically (at least in 2001) captured at only a few frames per second because of the limitations of tape recording. Planes going fast + crappy frames per second capture = crappy footage.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaPoD_7TmNc

Anyway, it doesn't matter because why do you need to have video evidence of a plane going into the pentagon when every other bit of evidence indicated a plane hitting the pentagon.

What do you expect to see from the CCTV evidence? A big 'CIA' written on the side of the plane?

No not at all, you have to admit it is a little odd though no? Like...the whole thing about the bits left on the lawn and everything seems a little odd but I am unable to draw any conclusions from that. I'm not saying it was the CIA but something doesn't feel right about the whole thing. Same with the bombings In London where I live.

but something doesn't feel right about the whole thing

If something felt right about people blowing themselves up and killing thousands then I'd be worried for you. There's nothing right about this situation, that's why it doesn't feel right.

I also think some of these 9/11 conspiracy theories stem from fear. It's a lot harder to accept the fact that there's people half way across the world that could plan and execute an attack on your home turf. There's very little the average Joe can do about such an attack and such hatred.

However, if you make yourself believe it was your governments doing then it's a lot easier to handle emotionally.

'America/UK are so powerful only their own governments could orchestrate such a devastating attack.'

It also lets one think that they personally can do something about it. They can protest on Washington/Whitehall or they can vote for the other party at the next election.

Anything to distract them from the truth that their country isn't as omnipotent, and they're not as safe as they might like to believe.

its the fact that people can plan and execute an attack with such efficiency that bothers me. Why isn't it happening now? Security measures have not increased one iota on the london underground as far as I can see. I don't feel better thinking it was the government because if it was look at how well they have covered thier tracks. A lot of people believe it was the government but have done absolutely fuck all about it.

The US government on multiple occasions loses money, literrally, they can't account for where its gone. This could be funding for an organisation thats off the books. The whole media coverage of 9/11 is also heavily fabricated. People on the ground did not see 747's, and those who did can be traced back to news agencies. Some people reported "small airplane" which is exactly what a cruise missile looks like.

Best documentary on 9/11 in my opinion. It goes into an aspect that can be more easily identified as proof. And that is the media aspect and the footage, he rips it apart like a fucking shark.

Regardless of that, it takes a shit load of people to:

1) Fire a cruise missile

2) Ignore it on the radar screens

3) Pretend they had relatives die in the the plane crash

4) Cook the books to make one cruise missile disappear.

It makes no sense and would cost much more money. If your subscribe to your line of thinking then you already agree that the US government was willing to kill 3000+ Americans. Why would they spare 100 or so and make it much more complicated and prone to discovery by using a cruise missile against the pentagon?

They wouldn't. It's completely illogical.

Just answer this question. 'How does using a cruise missile on the pentagon benefit the supposed perpetrators'

And how in an amazing coincidence that this all happened on a day when NORAD was running war games featuring commercial planes taken hostage.

[deleted]

The official wtc7 report is highly contested by credible people. Its also am almost unknown element of the attacks. I think its pretty important that 3 buildings were knocked down by 2 planes.

And who are those "credible" people? Steven Jones? lol

[deleted]

Building 7 has been explained? Seriously? I've read the NIST report and it has NOT been properly explained... Nor did they attempt to use the Scientific Method to explain it. Maybe you'd like to explain the 3500 architects and engineers at AE911Truth.org?

Why didn't we see similar structural failures in the other buildings? Especially the ones that were located even closer to WTC1 and 2?

[deleted]

Yet it's not mentioned in the NIST's commission report. Lol

[deleted]

It wasn't a question. Lol.

We need an explanation for:

16 floor free fall

Molten Steel

The free fall speed is pretty obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of physics.

I'll go through the maths because it's fun to do. It's rough because I'm not sure anyone has an exact weight for the twin towers but the general consensus seems to be 450,000,000KG for each of the twin towers.

Now, for this maths we'll need to assume that each floor weighs the same. Because of the steel box structure of the building this isn't actually that crazy of a premise.

So, 450,000,000kg / 110 floors = 4090909kg per floor, or about 4510 tons.

Ok, so we know the planes went into floors 93 through 99. We're going to use 95 in our example.

So above floor 95 there were 15 floors for a total of 61,363,636kg or 67650 tons.

So, now we fast forward to the point where the heat has weakened the steel to 50% of its strength (650°C will do that. The furnace like conditions could have easily raised the temperature inside the WTC to that. The wind acting on the WTC at that height would have worked like a bellow, fanning the flames) and the building begins to fall.

Now I'm going to calculate the kinetic energy acting on the lower portion of the WTC as the 15 floors above fall on top of it. I'm going to calculate the energy for it falling at just 2 meter per second. About 4.5 miles per hour.

The calculation:

KE= Kinetic energy

V = Velocity

M = Mass

KE = 1/2 (M * (V * V))

So, our equation is:

1/2 (61363636 * (2 * 2)) = 122727272 Joules OR approximately 123 Megajoules.

The energy density (joules/kilogram or J/kg) of dynamite is approximately 5 MJ/kg.

So, falling at just 4.5 miles per hour the kinetic energy held in those top 15 floors was approximately 24KG or dynamite.

By the time the towers were falling at 10mph it had the kinetic energy of about 124KG of dynamite.

By the time it reached 20mph it had the kinetic energy of over 600kg of dynamite.

None of this is taking into account that with each floor that it falls through it gains more mass and therefore more kinetic energy.

So as you can see, the idea that the tower would be able to resist these kind of forces is absurd. It fell at very near free fall speed because of the energies at play.

?
Building seven experienced free fall.

Oh I didn't realise you were talking about WTC7. I haven't really touched on this 9/11 conspiracy stuff for going on 6 years. Back then everyone was crying about how the twin towers fell at near free fall speed.

My mistake.

Regardless, though. The maths still has some relevance to WTC7.

In my view WTC7 had debris from a 450,000,000 kg building fall on it, and it had a fire rage with zero attention by firemen. It seems pretty obvious that it would fall down given those parameters.

It's not like we have any similar situation to draw from in history, either.

In my view WTC7 had debris...

Other than starting fires NIST said the debris played no role in the collapse.

a fire rage...

We've all seen videos of skyscraper fires. No resemblance to WTC7.

During descent, the top of the building stays level, the supports must have given out at the same time.
Impossible.

We've all seen videos of skyscraper fires.

Have we? I'd be interested to see one that burned unattended for as long as WTC1,2 and 7 did.

4,5,6

I think this at least needs to be addressed.

Why are we giving $60 Million to Syrian Rebels? Known terrorist and known for atrocious war crimes. Hmm maybe giving fuel to the fire. Continuing to support our enemies....

Blame it on a dead guy! Oldest trick in the book!

And YET, Some pleople still believe they live in the country of freedom, instead they live in the country of Lies and Slavery (if you don't see it that way then you still believe you are free)

Why was OBL and Al Quieda blamed for 9/11 when the Bush regime wanted so badly to use it as a reason to invade Iraq? Why wasn't the bullshit blame put on Saddam, like they initially (weakly) tried to do? What advantage came from blaming Al Quieda? Or was it different forces that engineered 9/11, as in not Rove/Cheney/Bush? Clearly they were involved in exploiting it the most - Cheney and the various Halliburton companies were the ones that profited the most.

The US gov't used it to start the "war" on terror, so I guess they did benefit some from blaming a non-country group that could never be completely eradicated. Seems like several groups were competing to use it to their advantage. A mistake would be to assume that the various groups manipulating the world all work in harmony.

There is so much more evidence to support a conspiracy than there is to support the official story. What I don't get is why no one has come forward, or leaked anything. Of course there is the threats that would surely be made against anyone involved, and I'm sure they would be carried through, but with such a huge conspiracy, so many people would have to have been involved, and in 12 years no one that I know of has come forward who was involved in a setup. And there is always someone whose conscience gets to them.

The whole thing reeks of coverup/lies. But why Osama? Why did the group (Bush & co.) fail so horribly to link Al Quieda and/or 9/11 to Iraq, which was clearly their top priority - could they possibly have been that far down the totem pole of power involved in this thing? In other ways, they were able to do just about everything they wanted. Seems like Bush was the driving force behind the 'blame Saddam' thing, I guess that's why it went so badly, since he was always really just a puppet and does not have any real political talent. Cheney was more into the war profiteering aspect, I don't think he cared who got the blame. I've read a bunch of articles about others who were most likely involved - Rumsfeld, etc. - but pretty much all of them are Americans.

What was the real goal of 9/11, if not to create an enemy that could never be clearly defined or eliminated, in order to push through a more imperial style government? I guess that there were several agendas competing to be fulfilled. It's good to know that there is so much discord and in-fighting between the super corrupt powers pulling strings.

the new war by deception 2013 edition is a must watch by ryan dawson.

Confessions of an Economic Hitman

Do we have any actual proof

War by Deception

what's with the shit load of unnecessary down voting in here?

Ahh yes.... The "smoking gun" video.... I knew that thing was bs right off the bat... If it was legit, it would be played in our faces around the clock.... It was championed for like a week then thrown to the back burner quickly....

Every time people ask about obi, this is the appropriate response.

wow, so wrong

I was not able to see the footage for a few days - when I finally saw the buildings fall, my first thought was controlled demolition - unfortunately this is never going to be the public consensus as it would involve painful disassociation of deeply held beliefs and the realization that our young people have been dying for a lie

This should also be included in OPs list,

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai

original source: Le Figaro

[deleted]

Arguably Obama's one positive thing from his presidency was killing OBL, and that is even extremely in question if that actually happened.

wait so your saying its not like it was in zero dark thitry?

no duh

There is no more proof (less in fact) that Osama died in 2001 than he died on the raid in Pakistan.

There has been no proof Osama had kidney failure. This has been a persistent rumor with no validation. The Taliban has said he had no kidney problems and Osama himself stated he had no kidney problems.

Khalid Shiek Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He operated under a very loose organizational structure that saw bin Laden as the main "leader" and certainly the financier.

This isn't Ford motor company with strict roles and responsibilities.

What a load of absolute Bullshit.

Did Bin Laden plan and have operational knowledge of September 11th? No most likely not, that’s the point of having a cellular organisation, operational security. So would he be sought as a suspect in the attack? No, what would be the point as I have stated he was merely an inspirational figure and the leader of the group that committed it, so yes they would not be most wanted. Did he claim responsibility? No because it was 19 men flying planes that did the act not Bin Laden. A good Muslim does not claim responsibility for an act that was the will of Allah to further ones own prestige, that would be blasphemy. Did he die of kidney failure? No, he did not, he followers never came out and admitted it, his closest confidant Zawahiri, a fucking Doctor never mentioned it. I am afraid he died in Abottobad as confirmed by his followers and by his successor Dr Zawahiri.

What amazes me the most is that being convinced as I am that 9/11 was an inside job, they couldn't pull something like that today.

High definition cameras in cellphones would completely debunk these in a matter of days.

Now we need to wonder what are the next tricks they have in their hands. I'm sure it won't be Hollywood-y like 9/11.

Plenty of footage, recordings and eyewitness testimonies confirm the explosions etc. Heck you have footage of buildings being demolished. The evidence is there, just that people are more happy to listen to the talking heads than the rational evidence.

Yes, I agree, but nothing like visual evidence.

If we had an HD camera recording the attacks, we could see what was below the planes, etc.

I show the explosion sounds to people and they don't believe it. But when you show them it's way easier. We are very much used to rely solely on our vision than the other senses.

Sandy Hook

Duh :)

This is why I want to move away.

America is everywhere.

LIES! osama will be alive whenever the US needs him to be. theres lots more countries with abundant oil reserves. I wonder if a death of hugo chaves will lead into us going in there and taking all of citco's oil.

OBL is useless now, but we have plenty of boogiemen in the wings.

im unfamiliar with obl?

Osama Bin Laden.

luls, im sorry but the fact that people are now abbreviating his name is funny to me

Osama Bin Laden

[deleted]

Did Obama tell you to say that?

Probably just mentally unstable.

Annnnd I'm new to this and you just changed my life.

all you guys are faggets

it doesnt take much brain to comprehend this. even a kid could have figured out the fact that his hair and beard were always different color every time they showed some apparently "new secret footage" of him on the news

[deleted]

ya, not sure how people really thing this is the case...I just don't get it.

The most secure building in the united states somehow doesn't have a camera shot of a fucking plane flying into it? That's not weird at all

Right, because they didn't think of that detail. They didn't think people would figure that out. I'm glad you guys have this covered. Sorry, it's crackpot, the whole theory.

You sound authoritative. Good thing you are on top of it. I've never seen a 747 disappear on impact. And all that jet fuel sure disappeared quick at the pentagon. Crack pot is living in denial, when things are so clearly not what you were told.

Eugh.

The only clear point here is that there is no proof. Show me ANY proof of this ?

I would like to see it.

Of what?

Stop being ignorant. Watch the videos posted in this thread. What makes these claims so outrageous?

Was it Michael Ruppert? I know he likes to sit on stools and chain smoke while talking

yup correct! a great watch if i do say so myself

That's not true at all. It was other members of seal team 6.

Never heard this, will you tell me about it?

The most secure building in the united states somehow doesn't have a camera shot of a fucking plane flying into it? That's not weird at all

I think 9/11 was used by the Bush administration to get carte blanche use of allowing the government to spy on its citizens, lock up whomever they want for as long as they want under the premise of terrorism. I give you The Patriot Act. And with that came the formation of the Department of Homeland Security, which we know is buying up ammo and tanks for an unknown reason. It's a damn shame cause I was serving in the military when 9/11 happened, and seeing what the DHS is stocking up for, I don't even wan to think about how bad things can get if the US is put in a state of martial law.

Edit: added a link

How do we have zero camera shots of a plane flying into the nerve center of our country?

See, this one I don't get. What are you trying to say? That it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon?

Assuming a US government lead conspiracy, why would they bother using a cruise missile if they'd already flown 2 passenger planes into the twin towers?

The two scenarios and the stages required to make each one work:

1) Cruise missile- Acquire a cruise missile and military team who can operate a cruise missile from the US stockpile without anyone else in the army/navy/airforce knowing. Get them to agree to firing on the pentagon (treason). Pay them so well that they've ALL kept quiet for 12 years and their moral duty never came into play. Remove all CCTV footage of the attack. Hope that no one happened to be looking up when the cruise missile comes in and hits the pentagon. Fake a manifest for a passenger plane. Pay actors to grieve on TV about their fake loved ones. Yaddda yaddaa yadda.

1) Passenger plane - Recruit some terrorists, hijack plane, fly into pentagon.

Your google fu is weak grasshoppa

https://www.google.com/search?q=post+obl+raid+seal+deaths&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

And how in an amazing coincidence that this all happened on a day when NORAD was running war games featuring commercial planes taken hostage.

The official wtc7 report is highly contested by credible people. Its also am almost unknown element of the attacks. I think its pretty important that 3 buildings were knocked down by 2 planes.

"If we planned 9/11 to invade Iraq for oil, why didn't we throw together a few crates of chemical weapons and "find them" on accident?"

because they didn't have to. understand?

the government doesn't give a shit about the people and certainly doesn't have to answer to anyone.

did george bush have to answer for his crimes? did he go to prison for lying in order to send the country to war? isn't that treason? did cheney get punished?

anyone?

name one person who had to answer in a courtroom for the iraq war.

they didn't have to stage a discovery of fake weapons in iraq. it was completely unnecessary.

in fact if you actually think about it. the risks involved with faking a discovery of WMDs in iraq FAR outweigh the risks of simply doing nothing.

if they tried to fake a discovery of WMDs and somehow they got caught. like say wikileaks or something released proof that the government faked a discovery of weapons. well than that could cause real problems not only with the american people but with the international community as well.

someone would have to answer. it could trigger the american people to clean house within the government like a mini revolution or even a full fledged revolution.

can you read? "Al Qaeda released a statement on militant Web sites Friday confirming the death of Osama bin Laden, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites." they put out a press release online. You didn't really think A New York Times reporter was going to interview them personally lol.

Yea, herp reality doesn't matter...derp

I'm not taking sides here but this reasoning is flawed. If it was a planned event, why put everything out there at once? Spread out the 9/11 thing as long as possible, ya know? 10 years later when Bin Laden gets killed, that's another 2 presidential terms you can play off of. Why no WMDs? Give it time.

Thanks, i guess. sorry to say the most dangerous shit I got into was a floor buffer rodeo where the buffer caught fire.

is that a household term? I'll google it I guess.