| *goodco* 10.09.2014 07:51 |
Have been to the Memorial on a couple of occasions, and just recently the 911 Museum. The last display room presented tourist pix and artifacts of life prior to that day. The only time we smiled during the visit. Little things like Billy Squier's video (and Freddie's voice) help as well. link |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.09.2014 06:52 |
I'm in the neighborhood but I've never been to the memorial. Not sure why. All I really know about it is how some people felt the museum shop, with 9/11 memorabilia for sale, was in poor taste. But I guess since capitalism was under attack that day, too, then a for-profit gift shop makes sense. Still, I'm sad today partly because the pain of loss still lingers here but also because nothing has changed. "Never Forget" seems to be the slogan not for remembering the lives of those who were murdered or the heroics of the first responders, but for wallowing and aggrandizing. It was agony to have an attack like that happen here, in the US, specifically in NYC. But attacks are happening in other parts of the world, too and were happening before 9/11. On a regular basis, people are being tortured, killed or made to suffer under oppressive, extremist ideals. "Never Forget" should mean never let it happen again. Anywhere. Not just at home. I love that song, btw. I'm a Billy Squier fan but it's Freddie who makes that song so good. And I do love my city's old skyline, too.. |
| thomasquinn 32989 11.09.2014 06:55 |
"But I guess since capitalism was under attack that day, too, then a for-profit gift shop makes sense." That has to be one of the most nonsensical, non-factual remarks I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something! In what way does 9/11 have any bearing on capitalism in any way? Capitalism, particularly neo-conservatism, has come under attack since the crisis of 2008, i.e. 7 years later. And still, most people by far are totally uncritical about that system, despite its ever-larger failings. Sounds to me like you were simply exercising a little wishful thinking when you wrote that. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 11.09.2014 12:01 |
thomasquinn 32989 wrote: That has to be one of the most nonsensical, non-factual remarks I've ever seen on this forum, and that's saying something!We really need to work on your timidity, TQ. Seriously, learn not to beat around the bush. Just, say what’s on your mind. thomasquinn 32989 wrote: In what way does 9/11 have any bearing on capitalism in any way? Capitalism, particularly neo-conservatism, has come under attack since the crisis of 2008, i.e. 7 years later. And still, most people by far are totally uncritical about that system, despite its ever-larger failings. Sounds to me like you were simply exercising a little wishful thinking when you wrote that.If I was exercising anything, it was a little snark since I'm sadly amused by the irony of mourning and profiting from the same event. Beyond that...label me as one of the sheep if you'd like, but I stand by my comment. I absolutely believe that rattling the capitalist system by targeting the World Trade Center - capitalism's very symbol - was very much a goal of the 9/11 attacks. Clearly, you do not agree. |
| pittrek 12.09.2014 05:38 |
What do you guys think about all the conspiracy theories? I knew some of them and some of them actually sound really interesting, but yesterday I heard for the very first time the claim that actually no planes hit the buildings. I've seen it in a youtube documentary (September clues) and to be honest I don't know what to think - on one side their arguments seem pretty strong, but on the other side it all seems just TOO crazy to believe. |
| Doga 12.09.2014 10:15 |
If you ask me, the plains destroyed the towers. But i think, and that is a personal opinion, some people in the goverment knew about the attacks and they did nothing to stop it. That's the perfect excuse to start a lucrative war, it wouldn't be the first time USA let something like that happen to start a conflict. |
| brENsKi 12.09.2014 10:33 |
america did NOT let it happen deliberately. think about it. the negligence claims following a leak of that information would be enough to cripple the american economy permanently. 3,000+ people in the vicintity, relatives, damage to business continuity, reputation, insurance etc etc....no chance. THEY may have been stupid enough to think "it'll never happen here" or maybe the intel wasn't as good as they thought they were...but nO WAY could they deliberately let this happen. there's no doubt these things happened as described. there'd be far too many people to have to hush. it's not possible. the conspiracy theorists are lonely bedroom dwelling w*nkers who haven't got a life or any kind of perspective on reality. think about it. what kind of mind can create such theories without deferring to the obvious undeniable facts. people died, planes hit buildings at a few hundred MPH...buildings collapsed. no matter what these idiots believe was concocted by Govts etc, even if you could fake ALL of the TV footage (haha) you can't fake ALL those amateur films and independant accounts. people actually SAW planes hit buildings - people's eyes (in the street) did NOT see CGI - they saw events in real-time. these people deny everything, because creating a fantasy world to believe in makes their own sad existences somewhat more interesting...and garners their desire for attention. For me the only over-riding factor is the insult and disservice these cretins do to the memory of those who died, and the lack of respect it shows to the bereaved. these are the same people who slow down and rubber-neck road accidents - ghouls all of them |
| Doga 12.09.2014 11:42 |
You're right, a goverment could never forfeit the lives of a few citizens in order to fulfill their objetives, that's never happened in the past, and of course not in the USA. |
| brENsKi 12.09.2014 17:01 |
Doga wrote: You're right, a goverment could never forfeit the lives of a few citizens in order to fulfill their objetives, that's never happened in the past, and of course not in the USA.you definitely like your conspiracies eh? but like most conspiracy-subscribers you overlook the facts. 1. if the govt knew about the attacks well in advance, then why no attempts to contact the planes and when that fails - then shoot the planes down? 2. as i said too many people to "hush" - think about how Govt works...someone somewhere "in the know" would've (by this time) have had a grievance against someone else "in the know" - and that's when secrets get into the open....no way would anyone in the know have kept this under wraps this long 3. as a said - too much compensation to pay for negligence/culpable homicide. nah. sorry i honestly believe it's just a case of the govt intel at the time just not being good enough to realise that an attack was imminent, or more particularly - where an attack would take place |
| Doga 12.09.2014 17:16 |
You can believe what you want of course, but i honestly think the Twin Towers played the same role of the USS Maine in Cuba. |
| brENsKi 13.09.2014 03:18 |
Doga wrote: You can believe what you want of course, but i honestly think the Twin Towers played the same role of the USS Maine in Cuba.you do realise that there is a huge difference between 19th century media, and the media today. IF there were a single piece of evidence to prove your conspiracy for the twin towers it'd have leaked long ago. the fact that ALL we have are conspiracy theories with NO actual facts bears this out. Conspiracy Theories without evidence and proof are just the meanderings and rantings of insane sociopathic nutjobs, with no girlfriend/wife or family life to speak of. sometimes these looney-loners end up killing classrooms full of students. NB: re: USS Maine - still no proof (over a century later) of what definitely cause the explosion. But, even if this were internal tactical sabotage (as you imply) then you ignore a key fact: those on board the USS Maine were military and military history is full of casualties of war who died in what baseball terms would call a "sacrifice fly". the people in the twin towers were civilian. your choice of comparison is shoddy - if you're going to make reference to other events - make them comparable. "US people dying" is not enough without the events and circumstance being similar and a presence of established proof. |
| mooghead 13.09.2014 04:52 |
And so it goes on....... |
| magicalfreddiemercury 13.09.2014 07:12 |
brENsKi wrote: nah. sorry i honestly believe it's just a case of the govt intel at the time just not being good enough to realise that an attack was imminent, or more particularly - where an attack would take placeI love my country, I truly do, and I agree with much of what you said, but I don't think it was about poor intel as much as it was about the incompetence and arrogance of those reviewing it. The evidence was there for the Bush administration prior to the attack. In memos released to the public after the fact, all signs pointed directly to the use of planes over the US, including notes about hijackings, flying into buildings, and titles like, 'bin Laden to strike within the US'. Added to that was the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers. That attack failed to take the towers down, but a vow was made that further attempts would be carried out. That alone should have placed the World Trade Center in a permanent spot at the top of the target list. Instead, the administration either ignored all the warnings (incompetence), failed to connect the dots (also incompetence since connecting the dots was their job), truly believed an attack would never/could never occur on US soil (arrogance) or simply did not want to heed warnings or accept advice from the previous administration (also arrogance). I don't think they 'let' it happen, but I do believe they could have prevented it. |
| Day dop 20.09.2014 10:31 |
Twoofers are the biggest morons on the internet. |
| stevendabudgie 23.09.2014 13:00 |
|
| stevendabudgie 23.09.2014 13:04 |
"What do you guys think about all the conspiracy theories? I knew some of them and some of them actually sound really interesting, but yesterday I heard for the very first time the claim that actually no planes hit the buildings. I've seen it in a youtube documentary (September clues) and to be honest I don't know what to think - on one side their arguments seem pretty strong, but on the other side it all seems just TOO crazy to believe." I find this documentary interesting: |
| stevendabudgie 23.09.2014 13:04 |
link |
| brENsKi 23.09.2014 13:19 |
stevendabudgie wrote:but yesterday I heard for the very first time the claim that actually no planes hit the buildings. I've seen it in a youtube documentary (September clues) and to be honest I don't know what to think - on one side their arguments seem pretty strong, but on the other side it all seems just TOO crazy to believe.":EVERY new conspiracy theory has ONE thing in common with EVERY other previous theory - the state of being rubbish. You can't fake planes hitting buildings. Anyone who believes these (ahem) shockumentaries would be no further away from the truth if they believed that Princess Diana and Shergar were flying the planes. If you honestly don't know what to think - take a leaf out of your own LAST FOUR WORDS |
| Doga 23.09.2014 13:48 |
The Towers were hit by planes, no doubt about it. |
| Day dop 23.09.2014 16:03 |
This site debunks most of the conspiracy theory shit surrounding 9/11 >> link But if you wanted some videos to watch that debunks the 9/11 conspiracy theories, Myles Powers has done a series, starting with this one >> link What's even more disturbing is when you realise that most of the 9/11 conspiracy theories stemmed from Alex Jones >> link 99% of conspiracy theories are nothing but horseshit, and it's all about making money out of people who are a little credulous, via book, sales, dvd sales, and advertising etc. |
| Day dop 23.09.2014 16:19 |
stevendabudgie wrote: "What do you guys think about all the conspiracy theories? I knew some of them and some of them actually sound really interesting, but yesterday I heard for the very first time the claim that actually no planes hit the buildings. I've seen it in a youtube documentary (September clues) and to be honest I don't know what to think - on one side their arguments seem pretty strong, but on the other side it all seems just TOO crazy to believe." I find this documentary interesting:Don't get suckered in. One conspiracy theory leads to another too. If you're susceptible to 9/11 conspiracy theories, next thing, you might find yourself believing that Sandy Hook was a false flag operation, or vaccines are a plot to depopulate the planet, or that cannabis is a cure for cancer, or other non-evidenced based conspiracy theories such as governments spraying populations with chemicals from jet engine exhausts to make people dumb and subservient. The list goes on.... If you're checking out a particular conspiracy theory, my advice is to always look at the other side of the story - Google search whatever you've seen, but put "Debunked" behind the Google search. For example - "Sandy hook debunked" etc. Or instead of debunked, try "Skeptic" or "Skeptoid".... It's always worth looking into the science of the claims too, but then you've also gotta be aware of how some conspiracy theory sites completely mislead when it comes to science, and some so called scientific journals are fake too. There's a hell of a lot of shit on the internet. Try typing "Stonehenge 1954 into Google search for an example. Another good site is Rationalwiki. It's always worth looking something up on there to see what they say about it. I find that they're often on the ball. An example - link There's another site called Metabunk, that cuts through a lot of the conspiracy theory bullshit. |
| Doga 23.09.2014 16:38 |
Yeah, my favourite conspiracy theory is darwinism and evolution, is obviously a pile of crap, but is fun to read that fantasy. I have my own theory, and is Darwin was more on drugs than Morrison while writting that, even more when it was stated our Lord create the Earth 4000 years ago. |
| *goodco* 10.10.2014 14:41 |
A couple of comments to comment on: 'Gift shop' is a figurative term. It's a place to purchase items to help offset the costs or grab a memento.......just as at Pearl Harbor, Arlington, Gettysburg, Ford Theater, Normandy..... The attacks were directed at icons of American government and capitalism. I have now learned what 'twoofers' are. They probably believe that David Copperfield moved the Statue of Liberty as well. Finally.....I was on a Billy Squier kick a few months ago. I purchased 'Enough is Enough' on vinyl when first released, but never saw the video for 'Love Is The Hero' until this past summer. Simply thought it was the right day to post the link. |
| waunakonor 10.10.2014 15:42 |
I have absolutely no memory of 9/11, in case you want to feel old. |
| The King Of Rhye 11.10.2014 14:28 |
waunakonor wrote: I have absolutely no memory of 9/11, in case you want to feel old.Yeah, that makes start to just think about feeling old.......lol The weird thing that will stick in my head is afterward............seeing NO airplanes whatsoever in the sky for a few days...........and I lived a few miles away from a major international airport at the time! I see there was the inevitable 'conspiracy theory' discussion in this thread..........ehh...........I actually rather enjoy reading about conspiracy theories, but I usually end up thinking they are a bunch of hooey.....which is what I think about the 9/11 'conspiracy' stuff.......... (tho I do think there might very well have been some sorta conspiracy behind the JFK assassination......but thats a whole different thing) |
| pittrek 12.10.2014 06:08 |
So I found it - link On one hand it looks really well "proven" but when you think how MANY people would have to be involved (TV reporters, military, police, fire fighters, random people in the streets ...) it starts to look too crazy to be true |
| brENsKi 12.10.2014 08:47 |
waunakonor wrote: I have absolutely no memory of 9/11, in case you want to feel old.thanks, b**tard.... :-) |
| waunakonor 13.10.2014 03:28 |
brENsKi wrote: :-)Have you gone soft? I don't remember you being the type of guy to type a smiley face in order to seem more lighthearted. |
| brENsKi 13.10.2014 11:52 |
waunakonor wrote:haha - f*ck off comedian :-)brENsKi wrote: :-)Have you gone soft? I don't remember you being the type of guy to type a smiley face in order to seem more lighthearted. |
| *goodco* 11.09.2015 08:51 |
link same video |
| The King Of Rhye 11.09.2015 09:22 |
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iklm3sSds00 Let's Roll by Neil Young (tribute to victims on Flight 93) |
| brENsKi 12.09.2015 04:21 |
The Eagles nailed it with Hole In The World the mood of the song is quiet and reverent - no anger, just sadness...and the lyrics are very simple but profoundly deep: i particularly like "Cool water running through the burning sand" There's a hole in the world tonight. There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow. There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow. They say that anger is just love disappointed. They say that love is just a state of mind, But all this fighting over who will be anointed. Oh how can people be so blind There's a hole in the world tonight. There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow. There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow. Oh they tell me there's a place over yonder, Cool water running through the burning sand, Until we learn to love one another We will never reach the promise land. There's a hole in the world tonight. There's a Cloud of fear and sorrow. There's a hole in the world tonight. Don't let there be a hole in the world tomorrow. |
| Day dop 12.09.2015 06:30 |
I had fewer conspiracy nut posts in my newsfeed this year. I must be doing something right! |
| Costa86 14.09.2015 04:47 |
When it comes to 9/11, it is a very complex, delicate and sensitive matter. Conspiracy theories of the type which claim that no planes hit the building, or that there was a controlled demolition, are, in my view, incorrect. I do believe that it was the planes which brought down the two towers. The claim that the heat/damage from the crashes would not have the power to take down the buildings, and that thus some sort of explosive device had to be involved, has been largely debunked. The complications and untruths regarding 9/11 do not relate to the way the actual event per se took place, but to the events which took place AFTER the attack. The real matter of "conspiracy" - although that is not the appropriate term, and although I know I am deviating from the main topic of 9/11 - has to do with the War in Afghanistan and the subsequent Invasion of Iraq. This is where things get REALLY complicated, murky, and where various very important interests come into play. We all know that the WMDs story was garbage. It was a lie, outright. There were no WMDs in Iraq, and, more importantly, there was no solid indication that there were. Even if we are to consider for a moment that some intelligence sources entertained the mere vague possibility of some initial development of WMDs, this was not the major reason for the 2003 Iraq invasion. WMDs were a front - we should all know this by now, and if you don't, then you're not really analysing the facts. So why did they invade Iraq? The overly simplistic and often put forward answer is oil. But that is only a small part of the answer. It goes (much) further than that. And, let me tell you this: the invasion was not for the benefit of the American people, nor for the benefit of the Iraqi civillians. It was for the benefit of those in power, those who pulls the strings, those who control at a macro and micro level the world's events. And this is not some conspiracy theory about the illuminati, or that sort of thing. I don't believe there is any specifically named group or organisation which manipulate things. But there are, almost definitely, very powerful persons who have the ability to pull political strings, who lie for the most part behind the curtains, and who also are basically able to make the 'world go round'. To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public. |
| thomasquinn 32989 14.09.2015 06:23 |
There's plenty more where that came from. A few aspects, from the top of my head: - Clinton-era warnings about plans for attacks on American soil were ignored by the Bush-administration during 2001 (intelligence reports indicating Bin Laden's network was up to something were presented to the Bush-administration the week he took office), because they would contradict the election-time lie that Clinton and the Democrats were doing nothing for US security. When a huge terrorist attack they should have been prepared for happened under their noses, administration-loyal groups (including media) gave much attention to far-out conspiracy theories to deflect attention away from the utter failing of intelligence. - Private, personal gain. Cheney is the most likely person to name here, but a number of high ranking officials and administration-friendly businessmen made tremendous amounts of money from shady business in the war, doing everything from providing hardware to mercenaries. The victors reap the spoils of war, and so certain of these 'victors' have - The Bush-administration was struggling all throughout 2001 to figure out substantial policy changes to differentiate themselves from the Clinton-era. Aside from a few obvious partisan issues, they failed to do so, opening themselves up to criticism of being 'more of the same'. A 'foreign undertaking' may well have been a welcome decoy. - The old anti-communist shtick. Resistance to Islamist groups in the middle east was, and for the most part still is, led by socialist and communist groups. The US had, in the '70s and '80s and probably well into the '90s, funded Islamic extremists as stooges against the communists. When that kinda backfired, the US desperately wanted non-socialist opposition to Islamism, which for the most part had to be created from scratch. |
| brENsKi 14.09.2015 07:30 |
Costa86 wrote:hen it comes to 9/11, it is a very complex, delicate and sensitive matter.without doubt. agreed Costa86 wrote:To put it briefly, the events of 9/11 were undertaken by terrorists, instigated by such people as Bin Laden - that is true, But such events were subsequently used by the US (and the West in general, to a certain point), to advance a complex array of geo-political interests, the true facts of which were hidden from the public.that would work except that you overlook Syria - there's two bad sides involved there - Assad and ISIS and as much geo-politcal interest as ever, yet the US don't go in? |
| Day dop 14.09.2015 08:44 |
I've never once met a conspiracy nut who thinks it was a controlled demolition job who is able to answer the following. Every time, they manage to do nothing more than deflect and/or avoid. 1) How could explosives or incendiaries cause progressive sagging in the floor trusses within the impact zone? 2) How could explosives survive the impact, jet fuel explosion and subsequent fires within these zones where the collapse was initiated? 3) How could explosives cause inward bowing and eventual buckling of the exterior columns? Footage caught on camera of the inward bowing - link |