Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 110

Thread: Marion Cotillard's 9/11 conspiracy theory

  1. #61
    Elite Member Sarzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    England
    Posts
    17,228

    Default

    Wow, she's not the brightest spark is she?

  2. #62
    La vie en rose DitaPage*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    37,547

    Default

    The comment about not wanting to modernize the towers was pretty dumb, I've always thought the reason was to justify going into war in Iraq. (for oil)

    I'm not here to argue though, thats just my opinion. I agree with Marion that there is more to the story, but I don't agree with her on the 'motive' ; that is stupid.

  3. #63
    Silver Member LastLook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    563

    Default

    Why should she face embarrassment (as the article says) for doubting the "official" government sponsored 9/11 account? If you watch news footage from that day you'll find lots of things that don't make sense, but were never mentioned again. Asking valid questions should never be a bad thing. Oh, wait, I forgot, anyone who thinks for themselves is shamed into silence.

    Come on guys, this isn't 2002. 9/11 gave Bush Inc. and PNAC everything they'd ever wanted. I used to get offended at that very suggestion years ago...how could our government let something like this happen? Infuriating, sick, twisted....but now I've read too much to dismiss it. The Neo-cons should be rotting in prison.
    Burt Johnson: I don't drink because drinking affects your decision-making.
    Arthur: You may be right. I can't decide.

  4. #64
    La vie en rose DitaPage*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    37,547

    Default

    A fool trusts the government. They're all corrupt.

  5. #65
    Elite Member january's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,255

    Default

    Great posts, Sojita. It blows my mind that people actually believe such insane things. Its not because I am some sort of sheep, it just defies any bounds of logic, physics, etc. I dislike Bush as much as the next guy, but come on. I think 911 was used in its aftermath to justify an unjust war, and our government is to blame for that, and should be held accountable. But to think that the government somehow burned down our own buildings and even believe (as some do) that there weren't even planes, is simply just insane. Even the structural engineers who designed the buildings admitted they never took into account the building getting hit by such a large plane filled to capacity with fuel when they designed the buildings, and felt terribly guilty about the error. 911 happened, it was engineered by terrorists, get over it. Perhaps the government didn't do enough to PREVENT it, but thats different than implicating them in somehow burning down the towers by bombs. I cannot believe the things I hear on this board sometimes.
    Women ain't gonna let a thing like sense fuck up their argument. - Chris Rock

  6. #66
    Elite Member Novice's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Beyond Caring, then hang a left.
    Posts
    47,789

    Default

    May I just add - great posts by everyone. The tradegy of the number of lives lost is not in dispute here.
    However the whys and wherefores are.
    Govts do "lie" to get public support in unpopular areas of policy - We now know more about American joining WW2 after Pearl Harbour - which it knew was going to happen. This is just one example.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raspberry gashes View Post
    The comment about not wanting to modernize the towers was pretty dumb, I've always thought the reason was to justify going into war in Iraq. (for oil)
    Isn't that go back into Iraq? To continue the war with Iraq - because it never finished since it started in 1990 - That is 18 years of war! My ex who had been in the army 20 years had spent three tours there / in the surrounding area (one of which was 10/12 years ago).

    This kind of "under the radar" war, that has fallen from public attention and is an incredibly drain on any Govt's funding. There had to be some way of bringing this to a head & the Govt (and I'm including the UK in with the US on this one as "we" don't appear to actually have any independent thought any more!) needed "something" to get that support.

    And for people going "OMG! They wouldn't kill their own people" I have two words. Collateral Damage*.

    Quote Originally Posted by LastLook View Post
    Why should she face embarrassment (as the article says) for doubting the "official" government sponsored 9/11 account? If you watch news footage from that day you'll find lots of things that don't make sense, but were never mentioned again. Asking valid questions should never be a bad thing. Oh, wait, I forgot, anyone who thinks for themselves is shamed into silence.

    Come on guys, this isn't 2002. 9/11 gave Bush Inc. and PNAC everything they'd ever wanted. I used to get offended at that very suggestion years ago...how could our government let something like this happen? Infuriating, sick, twisted....but now I've read too much to dismiss it. The Neo-cons should be rotting in prison.
    And, if it wasn't the Govt, in this time of freedom of information there should be no issue with people questioning the conflicting reports.


    * By this I mean not taking action to stop something happening rather than planting a bomb themselves... Or maybe not clearing a room of non-Forces personnel before the bomb goes off...
    "United States Department of Defense definition collateral damage — Unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time. Such damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack. (Joint Publication 3-60)"
    "I don't know what I am to them, maybe a penguin XD" - Tiny Pixie

  7. #67
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,359

    Default

    it's interesting to note that the 9/11 report and the commission that wrote it was a bit of a whitewash wasn't it?

    Also, I still fail to understand, given the history involved (central america, proxy guilt of gassing victims, iran contra, gulf of tonkin, noriega, saddam, bin laden, telling everyone the air in NYC was fine after 9/11 when it was not) why it would be so hard to accept something this horrendous being done.

    Hundreds of thousands have died in the last 2 decades alone; the only difference is that it's been in OTHER PLACES, but perpetrated by the same people
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  8. #68
    Elite Member Palermo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Nor Cal
    Posts
    9,580

    Default

    updated 12:55 p.m. PT, Tues., May. 16, 2006
    WASHINGTON - The Pentagon on Tuesday released the first video images of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters building and killing 189 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    The images, recorded by Pentagon security cameras outside the building, were made public in response to a December 2004 Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a public interest group. Some still images from the video had previously been leaked and publicly circulated, but this was the first official release.

    The airplane is a thin white blur on the video as it slams into the Pentagon at ground level. Almost instantly a white flash and a huge orange fireball appear on the video, followed by a tower of gray-black smoke. One of the videos shows a Pentagon police car driving in the direction of the impact point shortly after the plane hit.

    Traveling at an estimated 350 mph, the hijacked American Airlines plane plowed into the southwest side of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. EDT, shortly after two other hijacked airlines were flown into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York. The attack set off fires in a portion of the Pentagon and killed 125 people inside, in addition to the 59 passengers and crew and the five men who hijacked the plane at Dulles International Airport.

    The Pentagon had previously refused to release the videos, saying they had been provided to the Justice Department as evidence in any criminal proceedings.

    “We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11,” said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.

    Cheryl Irwin, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said families of the victims of the Pentagon attack were not consulted before the videos were released on the Pentagon’s Web site.

    © 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  9. #69
    Elite Member bellini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    6,593

    Default

    I've always been open minded to that fact that the Cheney-Bush Company had something to do with 911. I'm surprised that anyone would be surprised about that idea.


  10. #70
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    While I believe we weren't told the complete truth behind 9/11, I still doubt that Bush planned it, even though I hate the son of a bitch.

    As for the buildings falling, if the buildings in Spain that she was talking about were hit by giant jets like in N.Y., then she might have a point. But when you have huge jets, full of fuel, crashing into buildings, it's not a surprise if the buildings come down.

  11. #71
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    While I believe we weren't told the complete truth behind 9/11, I still doubt that Bush planned it, even though I hate the son of a bitch.

    As for the buildings falling, if the buildings in Spain that she was talking about were hit by giant jets like in N.Y., then she might have a point. But when you have huge jets, full of fuel, crashing into buildings, it's not a surprise if the buildings come down.
    I pretty much agree with this. While I highly doubt they planned it(I think terrorists planned it and carried it out-it being flying planes into the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon..I know what I saw on live TV..and doubt the hundreds of thousands of people who saw this in person in NYC and the hundreds of live eyewitnesses in DC had some kind of collective psychotic lapse or something) I think the Bush administration may have known this was going to happen, and certainly exploited it.

    The design of the WTC7 has been discussed by me already. And the design of the WTC towers 1 and 2? They were really susceptible to this type of attack. I think this pic of the towers speaks for itself(the hollow 'tube' construction to maximize usable undivided floor space with(unfortunately) a NON-concrete reinforced interior core):

    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  12. #72
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    Also the reason the Windor Tower building in Madrid did NOT have a full collapse was because the building was built differently, with a strong concrete core. The outside areas of the building fell off..but the core remained intact, hence it was NOT a complete collapse like the WTC. with the WTC the core itself was not strongly built enough(due to the tube construction) to support the building on it's own. It was a matter of both the core and the steel skeleton of the building working together to support the building. The damage to the steel skeleton from impact and the subsequent fire made it unable to support the building any longer-the Madrid building did not rely on the 'skeleton' of the building as a major part of the buildings support..which is why there was not a full and complete collapse.


    Windor Tower building: partial collapse in Madrid(what the actress had mentioned). Note the core of the building did NOT collapse. It was only a partial collapse of the surrounding part of the building-due to SURPRISE! weakening of the steel by the fire.



    This building DID partially collapse..only the heavily reinforced concrete core was left at the top. The steel part of the structure failed in the fire..as is obvious in the pic.

    *this actress obviously had no clue about what she was talking, and deserves the scorn she is getting. If anyone(actresses included) is going to speak about such complex and highly sensitive subjects, they better have their facts straight before the speak, or they can expect to be feel the fire just like anyone else would.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  13. #73
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sojiita View Post
    I pretty much agree with this. While I highly doubt they planned it(I think terrorists planned it and carried it out-it being flying planes into the World Trade Center Buildings and the Pentagon..I know what I saw on live TV..and doubt the hundreds of thousands of people who saw this in person in NYC and the hundreds of live eyewitnesses in DC had some kind of collective psychotic lapse or something) I think the Bush administration may have known this was going to happen, and certainly exploited it.

    The design of the WTC7 has been discussed by me already. And the design of the WTC towers 1 and 2? They were really susceptible to this type of attack. I think this pic of the towers speaks for itself(the hollow 'tube' construction to maximize usable undivided floor space with(unfortunately) a NON-concrete reinforced interior core):

    I believe that Bush and Co. exploited this situation, either by allowing it to happen, or just using it as an excuse to invade Iraq. Whether they knew about/or planned 9/11, Bush exploited it.

    And the difference in designs of the building in Spain and the WTC is definitely a factor in how the buildings differed in dealing with the impact. That should just be a given to everybody, except Miss I'm-an-Oscar winner/Actress/Civil Engineer.

  14. #74
    Elite Member Sojiita's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Central Duh-hio
    Posts
    22,809

    Default

    ^^And the Windor Tower in Madrid never even HAD an 'impact'-they just had a fire. No plane hit this building in Madrid..it was just a fire. And just a fire alone was enough to cause the steel superstructure part to collapse, leaving only the reinforced concrete structural core left at the top, which is obvious in the pic.

    The WTC towers 1 and 2 did not even have a strong reinforced concrete central core. There was no strong concrete superstructure in the center of the buildings(as is also obvious in the pic I posted-you can see the varying sections of the mechanical/service shafts and the elevator and stairway shafts..which were not concrete encased.
    Don't slap me, cause I'm not in the mood!

  15. #75
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    ^^If the building in Spain never had an impact then what the hell did she even bring it up for? Jesus, actors. They win an award and suddenly think they have all the answers to the universe.

Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: February 29th, 2008, 11:10 AM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: October 17th, 2007, 10:37 PM
  3. Smoking gun proof of Big Bang theory found
    By Grimmlok in forum News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 23rd, 2006, 07:04 PM
  4. Chappelle Theory
    By CherryDarling in forum Miscellaneous
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: December 31st, 2005, 06:10 PM
  5. For the conspiracy theorists....
    By EvilMonkey in forum Laughs and Oddities
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 10th, 2005, 11:19 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •