Oddworld Forums - 9/11

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - 9/11 - Staged? (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=10057)

As a secual to the "American beheaded in Iraq" and "WMD found in Iraq" threads, I thought Id trow my own thoughts in.

You have probably heard some vague things about it on the news, or you read some articels on the internet. Could 9/11 have been staged? If it was, and someone would ever find out... OMG... that would mean a freakin big disaster for America.

'Staged?! You idiot! Your Crazy!' I Can hear you say it now.

But there are some facts supporting the theory, although not to many.

To start of with: Its been in the news, the FBI had knowledge of the planned attacks months before it happand and still they did nothing to prevent it. They knew years ago (just after the first WTC attack) that a large amount of equipment was bought (guns, knive's, radio's ect.) but was never seen again with any 'meanwhile' terrorist actions. I even read that a plane was bought.
They also knew right away when the the plane's where hijacked and they also knew what they were heading for. Still they did nothing to stop them, basicly they chose to let 3000+ ppl get killed in the WTC attacks, rather than shooting down two plane's which would kill maybe 200 or 300 passengers and now both those pasengers are dead, and the ppl in the towers.
The question raises... WHY?! Why would they let these attacks go?

Lets just say for a minute here that this theory would be treu, just for a minute.
Then the worst case scenario would be this:
America proposes an attack to Iraq, for both Saddam and the oil. But when Bush could lose his place as president when he would attack Iraq without reason he changed tactics. So 9/11 was staged and they would have had an exuse to attack Iraq after linking Saddam with Osama from out of nowhere.
What probably was intended to happan was that the plane's would hit the towers, killing a few hunderd ppl. Then after long work the fires would be put out and the damage could be repaired while Afganistan and Iraq where being attacked... only one thing had gone wrong... the towers collapsed.
But not in a drastic way, not all over the financial district. They Imploded, as done with old buildings.

What the FBI (who adlegely planned the attacks) did'nt know was that after the first WTC attack explosives where placed at key points of the building. Becouse after the first attack, ppl started realizing how many ppl could die if the towers where to tip over. 50.000 could die! As a savety ensourance the WTC engineer placed explosives that could bring the entire structure down if needed. Ofcourse not much ppl got to know about this. Apperently not even the FBI.

Explosive's being there was always denied to this day, but thats just a fact. There WHERE explosives present in the towers, and it where those explosives that brought the towers down.
Ppl at the bottom of the towers heard loud explosions just seconds before the towers fell.
The top of the south tower keeled over at the begin of the collapse becouse the foundation for the corner was already damaged and most weigt was put there.
And as a last prove some math:
If a persone would jump of the WTC for any reason whatsoever, that persone would hit the ground in about 9.3 seconds. A little extra if you count air resisctance.
Both towers collapsed in a record time of 30 seconds.
Both towers had 110 storie's minus aprox 30 stories above pint of impact make's 80 stories. That would mean that the building would have to crush its own floors at a rate of 4 floors per second to even get close to 30 seconds, which is practicly impossible if the towers collapsed on their own.

Ok, that about does it. BTW Im running low on time.
And remember, the above statements are not my opinion, these are facts that support rumors in one way or the other.

Discuss.

EDIT: Sorry for the grammer mistake's I was in a hurry and Im tired :)

OK. One too many threads envolving terrorism.

Seriously, can we keep it down to like one... maybe two at a time?

Id have to agree whats the point of this? I wrote my threads because I had a purpose it was news. And that was only two threads which mind you does have actual news I got off MSNBC. The first one ok dident do well the second is going smoothly because its about what everybody thinks what the reicient news findings of WOMD is. What it all means really. If your trying to make me get into your little trap then hehe not anymore!

And I wrote this becouse I want to hear ppls oppinions about this.

Thats fine my opinion towards that well I would have to say you are maybe a small part right. The Government did know about the Terrorist plans. Especially Clinton and what did he do?

A little far-fetched, but an interesting hypothesis nontheless.

So, are you saying the FBI let this happen, or that they actually staged it?

If staging is what I think you're suggesting, then how would FBI convince terrorists to crash a plane into the World Trade Center? Those terrorists think they are working for Alla(God), so why would they make a deal with 'the devil'(America)?

-oddguy

As I said, its just a rumor. Most of it isnt even supported by a fact. But I do think it is an interesting topic to discus about becouse it was a great hapening in America and everyone had and has his own view on what happand.
There are also some story's going around about the place being flewn be remote, I know its possible, but or its treu I dunno.

Il look for the site I read all this a year ago, but I doubt I can find it again...

Okaaay, so you aren't going to answer my questions? You're the dude representing this theory after all.

-oddguy

I think a lot of what surrounds 9-11 is fishy. Now, that doesn't mean I'm wearing my tinfoil hat as I type this but a couple of things have always struck me as odd.
Why don't we have any definitive proof of a plane smashing the Pentagon and if we did why would the terrorists launch a plane into a part that was being remodeled and had no critical people in it?
Why didn't they just smash Indian Point? This has been the one of the most dangerous sites open for a terrorist attack for over decades. One or two well guided planes would have turned New York into a toxic wasteland and kill roughly 20 times more people than the attacks on the WTC. It was about 45 minutes closer than the WTC towers.
How did the metal constructs become so hot as to melt and tumble down from a relatively small amount of fuel?
Why didn't the terrorists try to smash as low to the ground as possible?
Why were all these people given visas and let into the U.S. although they hard terrorist records?
Some reports show suspected terrorists to STILL BE LIVING. So, did they make up this miraculous list? If they didn't make it up how did they know balls-on, without a shadow of a doubt who the hijackers were? Its been over 70 collective years and we don't know who the Zodiac is and who killed Kennedy beyond a shadow of a doubt yet we get all the bad guys' names within 3 days? Shit, if my car got stolen it would take 'em three days to find it.
What the hell were hardcore Muslims doing getting hammered and cavorting with strippers in a night club?
One last thing: If these "masterminds" had difficulty piloting jerkwater planes how'd they get in the cockpit of machines much more complex and sophisticated and fly them nigh flawlessly?

Good points, Statikk.

I'm still a bit sceptical that 9/11 was staged. I'd rather believe that there are some details about 9/11 that are being hidden from the public.

-oddguy

To be honest, how do we actually know that Bush himself knew all the details about 9/11? Same goes for the War on Iraq. It wouldn't surprise if there were people behind the scenes, pulling the strings, manipulating country ruling people for their own devices. That was on MGS2 actually, at the end with those guys. But it is a theory in real life too, one that goes back to the Middle Ages as well...

OK. One too many threads envolving terrorism.

Seriously, can we keep it down to like one... maybe two at a time?

Searex, if you don't like it, you don't have to participate, it's no skin off your nose. If threads like this are what the majority of the forumers want, then they will continue to be made, if not, then they will fall back in the forum and get forgotten.

You don't need to try to deny people their right to talk about what they want to.

=----------------oOo----------------=

Back to the topic, I personally think that none of it was staged. I don't know why I just don't feel it was. Sure, there are conspiracy theories that it was staged to give America an excuse to attack Afgahnistan, but really America is the sort of place that would make excuses to attack Afgahnistan along the lines of "they have WMDs pointed at us" or something.

Its would seem far fetched... but whit Bush... im not supprised of anything. And there are just to many gaps concerning the attacks.
BTW, Bin Laden has never admited he had anything to do with those attacks... and a big shot like him is more likely to claim his own attacks...

Well there was substantial evidence that Bin Ladden was behind it because months before 9/11 he attacked the US Cole. And there was intelligence that Al Cida terrorist were going to fly planes into the WTC and the Pentagon. When the US Cole was attacked Clinton was in office he dident do anything about it so the threats of 9/11 were just floating out there. When Bush took office apparently to the Bush administration the threats did not seem very obvious to them. It was a failure on our government of not only the Bush administration but the Clinton administration aswell.

9/11 was nothing more than an intelligence failure that went very wrong. But no matter what president Democrat or Republican we get the people who did that are the administrations responsible which is Clinton and Bush and especially Al Cida, they are going to be brought to justice by the people. What I have been trying to explan all along is that the people and justice is whome I support. Now the Terrorist are the ones who decided to kill 3000 people they are the ones that are going to be taken to prison or put to death for their crimes. It was the administration who decided to ignor it. And most likely they will be impeached. Now remember I am not saying Iraq or Afghanistan are the enemy I am saying the people who did these acts are the enemy the ones reponsible. Its not the nation, its those people and that is the difference of the way of thinking of what we think as American people to the rest of the world. We don't blame nations, we hold people who commit such acts responsible. Its all under the law of our Constitution.

Its been said and Il say it again. You only know what you hear from the press. And since you can never trust that... you don't know sh*t about what realy happand on that day. So don't claim you do.
Im not saying everything stated above is true, but untill every question mark is gone, im not going to believe a word Bush says about 9/11 even if he starts dancing in a tanga on a table... (I just felt like saying that :P)

Hey, just thought I'd drop this quote into the arena. Please, don't ignore it.

The society Orwell describes in Nineteen Eighty-Four is part of a global system dominated by three superpowers. Oceana, where the story unfolds, is perpetually at war with either Eastasia or Eurasia and war is used to justify harsh political and economic measures while simultaneously legitimizing the protective role of Big Brother and The Party, the state’s leadership.

The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. It is like the battles between certain ruminant animals whose horns are set at such an angle that they are incapable of hurting one another. But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. [Orwell, 1949:161]

The equivalence of war and peace is, in some senses, a truism in Western history. Since we began to live in societies characterized by class divisions, which is to say for a very long time, war has been used by the elites to distract us from other more pressing problems or dangerous pursuits. Knights were sent on Crusades to distract them from fighting amongst themselves for limited land and riches, excess population has often been used as cannon fodder in pointless and hopeless conflicts and both world wars have coincidentally resolved crises in the capitalist system. It should be remembered that the first ‘Great War’ came just around the time of the crash of the first experiment in globalized liberal economics. The second one, of course, ended the Great Depression, which itself galvanized Western governments to impose rules and limitations on capitalists in order to prevent a repetition of this most obvious demonstration of capitalism run amok. War does indeed distract and since the birth of the nation-state in the last 200 years, it also inspires nationalistic fervour, thus turning criticism away from the homeland and focusing it on the enemy ‘over there.’

Since the Second World War, another type of ‘war is peace’ has emerged to keep us busy without the expense and mess of actually sending us off to fight and burying our corpses when we return. This new type of war is designed to be un-winnable and un-endable because enemies are defined as and by ideas. The Cold War pitted the doctrines of Communism (also known as Socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism and Maoism) against Capitalism (usually simply referred to as Freedom or Democracy). Some would have us believe that this ‘war’ has been won. Certainly, it was won or lost with the lives of non-Westerners many times on many far away battlefields. It is true that the Soviets no longer represent the challenge of an alternative system. But, it is unclear at best that anything resembling Freedom has graced the lives of the majority of humanity as a result of our supposed victory – this, despite Capitalism’s rampage across planet Earth.

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been some scrambling around looking for another diversion. The War Against Drugs was only moderately successful in getting our attention, though it certainly has the attention of the peasants of Latin America and Asia who have had their crops destroyed along with their livelihoods. In particular, it has the attention of the Afghan people who are starving after 3 years of drought and no poppies to trade and the Colombians who are now governed by a former paramilitary warlord who is prepared to suspend any and all civil liberties to fight the guerrillas in the name of this war. But it never really caught on as a crusade the way the Cold War did. One might argue that it didn’t work because such a war could be won if anyone actually had the desire to win it but the real battle had to be fought in the consuming rather than the producing countries. Reporting time and again that drug use was on the rise while spending billions to thwart distant producers and doing precious little to improve the lives of deprived children at home just got a little tiresome. We tuned out.

Thankfully, a chap named Osama Bin Laden decided to do the unthinkable and attack the biggest of the Big Brothers at home. And so was born the War Against Terror (WAT). Now this one has the ring of a winner and may rival the Cold War for its ability to distract and divert over the long haul. It will work as a long-term distraction because it has all the essential ingredients of a permanent diversion

o It is un-winnable. There is no point when we will be able to conclude, once and for all, that this war is over. Unlike the Cold War, where the fall of a wall was a cogent symbol of victory, no walls will crumble in this war. Even if we chased terrorists into the most remote corners, there would always be the fear that we were brewing more somewhere. In fact, the very policies of such a war will brew new terrorists like bacteria in petrie dishes. This, from an Orwellian point of view, is the perfect situation.

o There will always be an enemy. Given that ‘terrorists’ can be constantly created out of any conflict between groups, we will never run out of an enemy even if Osama is eventually run to ground. Currently, Muslim dissidents in China have been granted this prestigious title as have Muslim ‘extremists’ in Indonesia. So, even if our repressive economic and political policies don’t hatch new terrorists, we can simply ‘invent’ them anywhere anyone resists anything.

The face will always be there to be stamped upon. The heretic, the enemy of society, will always be there, so that he can be defeated and humiliated over again. … The Hate continued exactly as before, except that the target had been changed. [Orwell, 1949:215, 149]

o It is a powerful motivator. Like the Cold War with its missile shelters and B-movies about Russian invasions, the WAT strikes fear into our hearts. Terrorists, like the Russians before them, are believed to be ‘evil’ and capable of invading our most sacrosanct spaces. As an added bonus, opposing evil can only make one good and everyone wants to be good. Of course, one is also prohibited from critisizing the good guys lest it be construed as siding with evil.

The enemy of the moment always represented absolute evil, and it followed that any past or future agreement with him was impossible. [Orwell, 1949:31]

o Most important information is secret. Again, like the Cold War, the WAT allows the experts and pundits to exempt themselves from full disclosure. We can be fed limited and erroneous information and if we should discover the truth, we will be told that it was kept from us for security reasons. This will make it very difficult for us to critically assess our ‘enemies’ or oppose our ‘protectors.’

o Nothing can be as important as The War. Today, we are girding ourselves for another pointless conflict and the elites are delighted that in our humble and confused concern over whether, when and how to engage in war, we are not asking the tough questions about the future of a global economy or environment. These concerns pale in the face of looming Terror despite the fact that every piece of evidence tells us that if we don’t soon pay attention to the state of nature, it will be irrelevant who wins or loses. Likewise, if we don’t soon pay attention to the great global class divide, we may find ourselves starving for those cheap imports we are so dependent on as poor nations retrench and withdraw from the lion’s den of the world market. We may not miss the cut flowers and diamonds, but we will sorely miss the oil and food.

The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival. [Orwell, 1949:156]

So we are in the midst of a perfectly Orwellian war as peace, war as distraction and war as self-destruction. How many will die and how many more will live anomic lives as a result? The end won’t come by pumping more money into weapons of mass destruction, not even ‘smart’ ones. This war can only end when we all refuse to fight on these terms; when we all return to the table as equals with no place set for those who benefit from continued fear and hate.

Its acutally making a scary type of sence. Could America one day become a fashist nation?

To answer your question, no. The individual parties are too focused on public approval to turn extremist, and facist parties would never have enough supporters to ever gain power.

So Death, what could we see on America in the future?

To be honest with you, the future probably won't be quite as interesting as everybody thinks it will. Cancer will eventually become very curable, technology and computers will improve more, and America will have new presidents, probably improved law/penal systems, and better/improved relations with other countries.

It was only a suggestion, man.

I just thought that perhaps this thread could be melded into another one. That's all.

'The individual parties are too focused on public approval to turn extremist, and facist parties would never have enough supporters to ever gain power.'

You seem to forget that America is the country that has the richest -
KKK Levels [Pillow cover sales went through the roof]
Nazi Levels [Sudden surge in wig availability]
And Raelian Levels [Sore arses all 'round]

America has the richest KKK levels because the KKK are an American exclusive organisation. I seriously doubt however, that the other statistics you have there are factual.

You seem to forget that the USA is the second largest country in the world. America would only have the highest Nazi levels if it was the highest number for every say 1000 people. Also, while these organisations may be at their largest in America, they are still widely shunned by the rest of the world, and most of America. It would be increadibly difficult for them to get in power unless they didn't reveal their intentions UNTIL they were in power.

Once in power, they could still be overthrown.

Thats the funniest thing i've heard for along time. God, i'm still laughing as I type this.

Really? I thought it was rather meagre to be honest.

Well, I dont know what meagre means...... So it was funny.

meagre = mediocre = poor

You mean meager, right? I thought it was pretty good. Don't be so eager to throw fascism out the window, Death. America is always looking for a "strong leader", a figurehead that will placate them for the next 4 years. If they think Chimp Il Duce is what they need to keep themselves safe from an abstract verb they will ask for and receive Chimp Il Duce.

America isn't a nation of "Yes/No" robots that just choose people on the basis of whether they think they will be able to sit on their asses more.

"Homer choose Nazi. Nazi make Homer feel like big man"