WTF ... IS WTF!?
We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.

Headlines WHAT? WTC attack review!

R

RedOctober

Guest
#1
What do we get next?
I found this article today while searching for new WTC/WTF facts.

(Hmm... Edited because article on the main screem seemed to be messing the layout)

~~~~~~~~~~~
A former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20050613-102755-6408r.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is insane!

How the hell can we in Europe think otherwise than to think the USA is a funnyfarm banana republic?

Is the Washington Times some cartoon magazine or what?

It's not the 1st of april... :confused: :confused: :confused:
 

OmegaZeto

Eyeless Pilot
713
0
0
#2
If you haven't seen the movie "In Plane Site", I suggest you do.
 

Big E

burner of random shit
469
0
80
#3
Wow I cant believe someone like that was interviewed ok a big plaine hit it and a bunch of people died and all she had to say is it was demolition. No wonder everyone in the world hates us we have morons incahrge.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#4
Well, I get a lot of mad response on WTF about my so-called anti-Americansim, but it really surprises me this kind of shit seems to be a surprise to you.

Of course it is hard enough to understand the value of the internet sources we see. If American newspapers also place garbage, how should we in Europe know what is going on over there?

So I based my remarks on American sources most of the time.
I read some things years ago.
Some members here were still in Kindergarden then.. :rolleyes:
 

void

Banned - What an Asshat!
4,126
0
0
#5
RedOctober said:
my so-called anti-Americansim

:eek:

say one good thing about america, the first thing in your head.. it is impossible for you i think..
 

Easty

Click click boom
5,564
8
68
#6
i don't know if anyone here saw it, but a few months ago on PBS some guy made a documentary saying that the 9-11 attacks were a conspiracy set up by the government. he slowed down footage of the attacks showing an explosion in the towers even before the plane hit. he also got reports that there were black objects in the upper levels of the towers. i think he's full of shit, but you never know
 
1,456
1
0
#8
You guys do realize that even if we converted every user of this site to believers in this theory, it won't be widely accepted by the american public unless it is put on FOX, and even then the heavy bush supporters would probably just stop watching FOX and watch something else, but whatever.
 

Captain 151

Seeped in a dry Merlot
4,261
4
0
#9
Oh boy.

I have a REAL hard time believing this. You see, I (like Max, and many other respected users at this site) am from New York State. Long Island to be exact, and I know many many people who died at the WTC site either at a job, or working to save other people's lives. To bring up a sort of government conspiracy theory not only makes me sad, but also very angry.

I refuse to believe that the fathers and mothers of my good, close friends gave their lives because the government wanted reasons to attack Iraq, demolish the buildings, or whatever the reason may be. I simply refuse to believe it.

Personally, I take this article (as well as the opinions of those believing in it) as an insult to me, my friends and family, and my country. I may not always agree with President Bush and his government, but I'll be fucked sideways if you ask me to support such a horrendous theory such as this.

For the health of myself, my friends and family, and my country, I hope this rediculous thought is quelled instantly.
 
R

RedOctober

Guest
#10
Yes, I understand that you are mad about it.
But that's why I started this thread.

How is it possible that Americans write all kinds of stuff on the internet that MAYBE bullshit or MAYBE true.
My point is, you can make a joke page, but a joke you can continue maybe 4 or 5 pages. Not an entire website with 200 pages or so.

So I am asking the question: Who or what is behind it?

Of course some military analist may come up with a scenario in the style of Tom Clancy. But what I find more frightning is that writers sell their stories as the truth.

I take Dan Brown as an example. If you read his book about Leonardo Da Vinci, and take the time to search for the paintings you'll find it's all bullshit.
But in an interview on television Dan is still talking as if it's all real.
That's the idiot thing about it.

How can people in Europe think otherwise, than that Americans, or at least pert of them are some idiotic freaks?
In Europe you have to at least persuade a publisher before you can sell a bullshit book. And of course there are some, but they are very rare.
Or sold as fiction. And then there is no problem.

We have our own fruitcake mister Von Däniken, I know.. ;)
 

RetArt

A Rampant Vagitarian
1,025
0
0
#11
On a side note red, Da vinci-code is not THAT much fictional. The story, yes.but for example the details on the artwork (or in angels&demons) is very much there. No, it might not be intentionally made, but yes, there is a huge M on the Last Supper and so on and so on. There are some details that don´t fit but surely, every reader with some common sense understand that under the core it is fiction. me hopes

But yes on to the point.

It is indeed very frightening that people who have no idea what they are talking about are acting as experts. I have stopped using internet-sources and US literature when concrete-knowledge is needed. Only after some higher authority has claimed it true I use it, I like to stick to european written sources.
Also when the author is a well-known researcher, professional, I see it fit to use him as a source. Too much this I-think -information going around. pseudosciences advertised as science and so forth.
 

RageAgainst

Chaotic Neutral
7,540
506
257
#13
There are serious doubts to be raised towards the official version of what happened... Like the speed at wich the wtc collapsed, and the building structure.. Not that I think the wtf got demolished, but there are scientifically challengable doubts. What the guy is saying is not moronic or retarded but objective and based on methodoligical logic.
 
656
131
107
#14
I'm dumb founded. Truly dumb founded. How paranoid and anti- Bush to you have to be to believe that kind of crap. It literally makes me sad. I understand Bush is a fuck up, but this kind of crap is ridiculous. I don't think Michael Moore would even swallow this one. I almost don't know the words to say about that. However, let's review a little history to make sure I have this right. On September 11, 2001, there were four or so planes hijacked by terrorist. Two of which crashed into the world trade centers. One of which crashed into the pentagon. The last was brought down in Pennsylvania, enroute to what may have been the White House. We know they were terrorists because A) they caused general panic and terror with this stunt B) Callers from the fourth plane said they were being hijacked C) Osama Bin Laden came out and took responsibility for the attack. I'm sorry, but reviewing the evidance, I can't see how such a load of shit is even considered plausible. How paranoid do you have to be to believe that the government planned out that entire thing? I believe that we never landed on the moon, that country is ran by Mason's, that we are the revived Roman Empire, and that most of history is bullshit and written down in the wealthy upper classe's perspective, but damnit, this is that line that even I won't cross. I gotta stop, I'm getting nauseated.
 

BadEvilWrong

I'd melt the world to stop with you.
3,071
538
227
#15
Just to get some speculation going, I'm going to pick on Aliensavant's reasoning a little bit. Nothing personal, sir.

Aliensavant said:
We know they were terrorists because A) they caused general panic and terror with this stunt B) Callers from the fourth plane said they were being hijacked C) Osama Bin Laden came out and took responsibility for the attack. I'm sorry, but reviewing the evidance, I can't see how such a load of shit is even considered plausible.
A: Such a thing is easy enough for the government or even one person to do. Note that it's being pointed out that terror as the effect is being used as evidence that the cause were terrorists. Technically, this is true, but it doesn't show if the terrorists in question are Al Qaeda, or even our own government.
B: Something else that can be arranged. If people working for the governmetn were hijacking the planes, then why not the caller? Certainly the caller knew that death was imminent. The obvious fear needn't have been faked.
C: What better way for a terrorist group to enlist new blood? Who could possibly have been a better scapegoat?