Martial Law 911: Is There Any Truth To It?

  • Thread starter physicsuser
  • Start date
In summary, Daniel believes that the building that was demolished later in the day was #7 and that there was a nazi party of America. He does not believe that the claims made in the video are true.
  • #1
physicsuser
82
1
http://www.infowars.com/martial_law_911.htm

Are there any truth to any of the these things? Was the bilding seven demolished? Was there a nazi party in america? If you just going to say 'this a conspiracy' then just go away.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #3
One building was demolished later in the day by some company because some engineers realized the structure had been weakend to a point that it was unimaginably dangerous to actually try to save the building. Not sure if it was #7 though. There has always been a nazi party of america lol.

Most people that go on rants like that guy did are usually pretty dumb. There the type to think that if a government report about the military is censored, it must be aliens! or some junk like that. Anyone who yells about "machine guns" are usually rather ignorant. Most military types call them rifles or automatic rifles. Not to say anything definitative... but in my own experience, people who say machine gun usually don't understand police work or equipment or anything necessary to be saying things related to martial law.

This guy seems to have very little credibility to me. Anyone who uses buzz words are usually making up crap/are ignorant because if your story is really true, you don't need buzz words or hyperbole. The one that made me laugh is the audible beam that he goes "is being used in iraq!". Now, intelligent person thinks "Ok... its used in iraq... and in the us... so? Hell they would use it in france or england or Canada" but the close-minded would htink "omg america is under military control just like in iraq! and this is definitive proof!" or something like that.

I really dispise people who make films like that simply to get sales (Look at the DVD price, that's a big profit margin). Its funny how they claim people are exploiting 9/11 by whatever trumped up crap they say when they are the ones tryen to sell a high priced DVD of 9/11.
 
  • #4
Something i came up on google made me laugh. Theres this one website posting a theory that the WTC was hit by a missile... no not hte pentagon... the WTC. They show a few frames of a video where this "missile" comes flying out. Now... exactly how does a missile come in... blow up... then proceed to leave out the other side? Plus of coures... millions of people are watching it if it was the 2nd tower... and video of the first tower being hit by the airplane. I am sure the reason they didnt show the rest of the video is that you'd see the "missile" fall harmlessly to the ground. I mean ugh... these conspiracy theories are so disrespectful.
 
  • #5
Okay you missing the point... I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on the conspiracy. What I am asking if what he is saying in suport of his theory is true? IE his references to reports,history,science etc. Or does he make them up? He says that Dick Chaney took over the norad and prevented it from shooting down the planes or something.
 
  • #6
shouldn't this be in the debunking forum then?
 
  • #7
I believe he take bits of truths and he arranges it in such a way to make it sound sensational. He is after all trying to sell his DVD. I don't believe he tells the whole truth. Only what sounds good for the camera and his pocket.
 
  • #8
physicsuser said:
Okay you missing the point... I didn't ask for anyone's opinion on the conspiracy. What I am asking if what he is saying in suport of his theory is true? IE his references to reports,history,science etc. Or does he make them up? He says that Dick Chaney took over the norad and prevented it from shooting down the planes or something.

Thats absolute stupidity. "Dick Chaney took over NORAD". Now... if you know what NORAD is... that statement is absolutely insane. How would some lil dip**** know that that happened? Who outside of the people working at NORAD would ever be able to find that out since your not even allowed to say you work at NORAD in the first place if you do work there. Most peoples "scientific" evidence is usually entirely false. I don't know where the actual claims are on the page but anyone whos had their fair of conspiracy theories know that the science is usually completely incorrect.

Someone throw some links out here or direct me to the actual nitty gritty of this bs.
 
  • #9
http://www.standdown.net/noradseptember182001pressrelease.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
can someone give me links on that infoseek or whatever site for the conspiracy things where there's stuff to dispute.
 
  • #11
He has as much credential as anyone. Every time something like this comes up most people just it is bs. Because you say it is bs that does make it so. Back up your claim with some info. He does that and I want to know if what he said about the attack, Bush's history, and the secret society is true. How is it that the US government say that they never heard about the plans of attack agains the US by the terrorist even though it appears that they were warned by numerous intelligence agencies from other countries. How is it that they demolished the seventh building which was the furthest away from the WTC towers and yet sustained so much damage that he had to be demolished while the other buildings that were right next to the towers were not? And that is just impossible that they found the hijacker's passport in the rubble. I mean how is it that the flames were so hot that they melted steel but did not burn the passport? Why don't they release the video that they ceased from the surveillance cameras around pentagon? And why do Bush family belong to a secrete society that does weird stuff and has the same logo as Hitlers (the skull and bone one)? And when asked about it they start acting weird and all. I want to see comments other than 'oh that guy is a retard and he is ignorant and this is bs.' Show some info with your claim.
 
  • #12
Actually he doesnt. He just draws links that don't actually mean anything in reality. And I am not sure what he said about his history but just because he says its true, doesn't mean it is or encompasses the whole story. The secrety society exists but has existed for a very long time and any assumed connection is just that, assumed. The US government knew there were plans of attacks against hte US and repeatedly said this because guess what, there's ALWAYS someone planning an attack on the US and has been for over a century. The UK intelligence agencies, among others, gave the information to the US that there was an "imminent major attack". The "hook" to this BS is that you have to be ignorant enough to think that since the US was told there's an attack, that they should have been able to stop 9/11. No clue how they found the passports or if they even did but its possible. Debris flies right out the other end and through the windows and hteres no reason to think the passports weren't part of it. And government agencies rarely release video from major events such as this. Again, its a hook to make people ASSUME the government lied. And ask yourself this, what does being in a society with the same symbol as Hitler's group (along with thousands of other societies that use the same symbol) have anything to do with a 9/11 conspiracy?

Ask yourself what your actually assuming and then you'll start realizing why people think these conspiracies are dumb.

For example: Look at United Airlines volume. These guys claim there was a 9000% jump in call orders. Take a look at the stock data for yourself and the volume was actually below average in the days before 9/11.

Lets look at something else... Ah yes, FBI ignores fanatical french-algerian who took flying lessons. Sounds like 9/11 was being painted for them right and this is proof! But wait a second... actually read the article and the only people who should have been worried should have been the French... plus the guy was jailed. I suppose since there was a relationship though, its definitive proof the 9/11 hijackers were ignored because the FBI is incompetant (or, seeing as how this website isn't consistent in its beliefs, the person who was in cahoots with the US)
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Pengwuino said:
Ask yourself what your actually assuming and then you'll start realizing why people think these conspiracies are dumb.

Please, do tell what am I to assume.
Do you not think that people are capable of bs these days? Martha Stewart was jailed for some $50 000, which is pocket change for her, and yet she still lied about it. Now about the 9/11 the hard thing is to believe that this can happen on such a humongous scale. Surely some in the chain would break and expose it. The WTC was attacked before and there were practice simulations.

As hypatia pointed out norad did not stand down but rather it was delayed.
from http://www.standdown.net/index.htm
"IGNORAD
The Military Screw-up Nobody Talks About
by Scott Shugar
http://AttackOnAmerica.net/IGNORAD.htm

With a minute-by-minute chronology from 7:59 a.m. till 10:06:05 a.m., this article will dismantle the Wednesday September 18, 2001 North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) Press Release. This press release encompasses the (supposed) response times of the United States Air Force on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.
"

Pengquino said:
The "hook" to this BS is that you have to be ignorant enough to think that since the US was told there's an attack, that they should have been able to stop 9/11.
That is what norad is for and yet it didn't do jack. Now they pulling Canada into the missile shield, talk about iron curtain.
Okay then why did they build norad? Why do they have jet fighters? Why spend so much money of defence if, in your words, there is nothing they can do? Now they want Canada to join the missile shield. And how is that going to help? If norad didn't protect then how can this shield protect anything?

EDIT--------------
http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.jhtml?reposid=/multimedia/tds/stewart/jon_10046.html
See...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
or should have been ready to try these other techniques, which might well have spooked or forced the hijackers into turning
From your IGNORAD site. I just found it odd that someone thought you could spook these terrorists, who were already willing to die. There will always be "what if" with 9/11. The artical points out a lot of "what if" but no real answers.
 
  • #15
physicsuser said:
http://www.infowars.com/martial_law_911.htm

Are there any truth to any of the these things? Was the bilding seven demolished? Was there a nazi party in america? If you just going to say 'this a conspiracy' then just go away.
One glimpse at that sight and "nutcase" comes to mind.

I don't think anyone here is actually going to waste their time reading through something like that. Why don't you make a clear list of the questions you have?

physicsuser said:
That is what norad is for and yet it didn't do jack. Now they pulling Canada into the missile shield, talk about iron curtain.
Okay then why did they build norad? Why do they have jet fighters? Why spend so much money of defence if, in your words, there is nothing they can do? Now they want Canada to join the missile shield. And how is that going to help? If norad didn't protect then how can this shield protect anything?
Your notion of what NORAD was originally for is wrong. They weren't prepared for a domestic attack by a commercial airplane.

From NORAD's site. "Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace."

http://www.norad.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
@physicsuser

Im not sure what the martha stewart thing has to do with anything but you do realize the actual situation she was facing right? if so, you wouldn't have thought it was dumb to do what she did (hindsight is 20/20). She did something that looked like insider trading... which is a felony i believe... and her lawyer said to lie to get off the hook. Whatw ould you have done? Thats right.

And its ironic you say that 9/11 was so humungous that someone HAD to have had exposed something when you are pointing us to a website saying peopel were exposing things left and right. And it was not humungous at all. Doing all the pre-9/11 stuff was rather easy. Hell with the money, i coudl go out and do the training myself and find the flight schedules! Not very humongous in my eyes. And the 9/11 stuff wasnt that hard as long as you can hijack hte planes (and as we saw, they weren't even able to do that 100% correctly).

As far as NORAD is concerned, you must not know what NORAD actually does or is (plus fo course you think Canada isn't apart of it for some reason). NORAD's main job is to detect and respond to any UNAUTHORIZED or UNIDENTIFIED flying object, be it human or space debris. It was made to detect incoming bomber formations or fighters or missiles or space crap coming into US territory or heading into US territory or anything coming over US territory. The key is it is UNAUTHORIZED or UNIDENTIFIED. All airplanes have transponders that relay to airports and such about who they are. They are thus, identified. NORAD sees identified aircraft and doesn't do anythinga bout them. The airplanes used in the 9/11 attack were identified and authorized. When they go off course, it was also very common for NORAD not to scramble jets from relatively nearby (to the airplane) bases because planes going off course happens about 1-3 times every day so its not a big concern pre-9/11. And if you read your own rhetoric, planes were in fact scrambled about half an hour late at the 2nd airplane to hit the WTC but was too late. Theres also speculation of course that fighters did take down that airplane in virginia or wherever it was because it had also gone off course and they had enough time to scramble fighters. But that's of course, speculation and there's little to no evidence that that happened.

And please, don't try to defend yourself with a comedy central news parody unless we have a jokes and humour section that you would like to write in.
 
  • #17
Evo said:
I don't think anyone here is actually going to waste their time reading through something like that. Why don't you make a clear list of the questions you have?

I am wasting my time in the name of truth, justice, and the fact that i have too much time on my hands!

Mainly because i have too much time on my hands. I don't really care what he feels is the truth or not.
 
  • #18
That's because truth doesn't exist. There is only perception.
 
  • #19
Well that's not very scientific or useful now is it.
 
  • #20
Evo said:
One glimpse at that sight and "nutcase" comes to mind.

I don't think anyone here is actually going to waste their time reading through something like that. Why don't you make a clear list of the questions you have?

Your notion of what NORAD was originally for is wrong. They weren't prepared for a domestic attack by a commercial airplane.

From NORAD's site. "Until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, NORAD's focus was almost exclusively fixed on threats coming toward the Canadian and American borders, not terrorism in our domestic airspace. Because of that day, NORAD's focus has increased to include domestic airspace."

http://www.norad.mil/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome

Uhm no...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/index.html

"According to a statement from NORAD, "Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
Jesus christ. Look at your own source!

Every other paragraph in that story contradicts your claim. You pick hte 1 paragraph that, if read alone without any other context or the rest of the story, you might possibly make the huge assumption that NORAD had simulated an attack just like 9/11.

But then if you have a worthwhile head on your shoulder, you notice the ENTIRE REST OF THE ARTICLE and realize "oh wait... they never prepared for this, didnt think it was probable, and never had domestic flights in teh simulation". I mean do you even read what you post?
 
  • #22
physicsuser said:
Uhm no...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/04/19/norad.exercise/index.html

"According to a statement from NORAD, "Before September 11th, 01, NORAD regularly conducted a variety of exercises that included hijack scenarios. These exercises tested track detection and identification; scramble and interception; hijack procedures; internal and external agency coordination and operational security and communications security procedures."
"
Uhm yes... Did you even read that article?

"They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad, a slightly different scenario from what happened on September 11, 2001."

""We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised," said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD."


Hmmm, that would mean not a domestic scenario.

Also from your article - "The exercise was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the headquarters, as are major exercises."
 
  • #23
Evo said:
Uhm yes... Did you even read that article?

"They emphasize it involved an airliner being hijacked as it flew into U.S. airspace from abroad, a slightly different scenario from what happened on September 11, 2001."

""We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace. Regrettably the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised," said Gen. Ralph Eberhart, commander of NORAD."


Hmmm, that would mean not a domestic scenario.

Also from your article - "The exercise was conducted at one regional sector, and was not conducted at the headquarters, as are major exercises."

Oh now I see what you are saying. But that is just stupid of them. Let's say you hijack a passenger plane, say, in Iraq and head for washington. Well, they will probably shoot down it over the atlantic. However I don't think the terrorist are that stupid. It is the same as rushing with a knife at your enemy that is a mile away. These terrorists were trained by CIA during the afgan war, everyone knows that. I don't understand how they took the warnings so lightly. In addition norad was doing war games on 9/11 about which they refuse to answer question. Well they probably run test all the time, but why keep it secret on that particular day?
 
  • #24
I believe its time for Physicsuser to post his facts, and the source of them.
Not hearsay, and rumors that others have invented.
 
  • #25
physicsuser, your being very dodgy about everything. Maybe you need to start confronting the actual accusations before you instead of running away from the facts.
 
  • #26
hypatia said:
I believe its time for Physicsuser to post his facts, and the source of them.
Not hearsay, and rumors that others have invented.

I am not trying to pull anything over you. I am just confused about the things that don't make sense or were not answered clearly.

Now the thing I said about Dick Chaney taking over Norad probably comes from this http://globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN403A.html :
"
#1 – On the morning of September 11, 2001, NORAD was running war games involving hijacked airliners while the National Reconnaissance Offices (NRO) was running a drill for the scenario of an errant aircraft crashing into a government building at the exact same time as an identical scenario was perpetrated. The Air Force was in day two of annual drills testing all of its systems to respond to various threats.
What role, if any, did Secretary Rumsfeld, Under Secretary Wolfowitz, and acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard Myers play in any war game scenario on the morning of September 11, 2001? What briefings did they receive about these war games before, during, and after the morning in question?

#2 – On October 24 through 26 of 2000 a mass emergency drill was conducted in response to an airliner being crashed into the Pentagon.
"
Is that true?

The thing that makes this fishy is that, assuming, they were running test and then after 9/11 they said they never heard of any plans of attack nor were they running any simulations on attacks by terrorists.

"Rumsfeld stated in his opening remarks to the government appointed 9-11 Commission on March 23, 2004 that he, “Had no idea hijacked airliners would be used as weapons".

And as I've said before they did run simulation with hijacked planes.

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/071204_final_fraud.shtml

As for the training in afganistan http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm chapter two:
"The international environment for Bin Ladin's efforts was ideal. Saudi Arabia and the United States supplied billions of dollars worth of secret assistance to rebel groups in Afghanistan fighting the Soviet occupation. This assistance was funneled through Pakistan: the Pakistani military intelligence service (Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or ISID), helped train the rebels and distribute the arms. But Bin Ladin and his comrades had their own sources of support and training, and they received little or no assistance from the United States.23 "

Okay so didn't deal directly with bin laden but it still ended up in his hands.
 
  • #27
That first link doesn't even mention dick cheney... where in the... my god i can't believe it. How can you say that he "took over" norad? This is like being told Britain is taking a holiday off and assuming that means Britain plans on invading the United States. I mean wheres the logic?
 
  • #28
as some of you pointed already, I'm sure NORAD knew very well what is going on and on purpose did not order fighters to inercept passenger jets.they could easilly send jets,there are countless air force airfields along the paths of the flight 11,175, 77 and 93
all this bull**** about how NORAD was unprepared for this scenario is laughable.
someone on very top (not Bush) level in US government is responsible for the twin towers destruction, pentagon and los of innocent lives.cover up of course,no question about it !
 
  • #29
Im sorry stone but there's no evidence to support your claim; which makes you laughable. I am very sure you have absoltely no idea what your talking about. There is one air force base near NY but there were no fighters on the ground at the time. The closet one besides that one was as pointed out, 160 miles away. NORAD does not deal with domestic flights going off course. Please use facts and not just radical assumptions lest your reputation be defined by your screenname.
 
  • #30
Pengwuino said:
Im sorry stone but there's no evidence to support your claim; which makes you laughable. I am very sure you have absoltely no idea what your talking about. There is one air force base near NY but there were no fighters on the ground at the time. The closet one besides that one was as pointed out, 160 miles away. NORAD does not deal with domestic flights going off course. Please use facts and not just radical assumptions lest your reputation be defined by your screenname.

Okay, buddy. First of all I don't see any of your evidence. Second, the thing about Dick Chaney is from the first video in the first post. Third, I think this is going no where since all you do is bug me for evidence for some one else's theory in which I try to research. My very first post was

"Originally Posted by physicsuser
http://www.infowars.com/martial_law_911.htm

Are there any truth to any of the these things? Was the bilding seven demolished? Was there a nazi party in america? If you just going to say 'this a conspiracy' then just go away."

Where in that post do you see me theorizing anything?

With replies like "One glimpse at that sight and "nutcase" comes to mind." Uhm yes that is very convincing. And then you still ask for my evidence.
 
  • #31
My evidence? My evidence is that its widely published fact that contradicts everything your sites say. Plus of course i use logic. Your obviously trying to fight to show you are right tooth and nail even though a lot of the webpages information is false or inaccurate. We've already told you time after time the information on that website is iether false or highly misleading. What more do you want?

And the nutcase quote is Evo's so you can talk to him about it. And you said the thing about dick cheney is from the link you posted which i followed and it had nothing in it talking about it.

But then again maybe this is all just a huge miscommunication and all your asking is if the theories on the webpage are true or not. The answer is no. There is the majority consensus, if you want something beyond that then please continue with this thread. Otherwise, if i have given you what you asked, we may go on to other business.
 
  • #32
physicsuser said:
With replies like "One glimpse at that sight and "nutcase" comes to mind." Uhm yes that is very convincing. And then you still ask for my evidence.
Actually, that's my post.

As I suggested, list your questions so people can respond. You've already received answers for building seven and the Nazi party in the US.
 
  • #33
Pengwuino said:
My evidence? My evidence is that its widely published fact that contradicts everything your sites say. Plus of course i use logic.

How about you just post a link to that 'widely published fact'? I don't see how your logic is relevant since you dismiss logic of other people.
 
  • #34
Its the same cnn article that you posted for one. Look there, there's some big evidence that you easily dismiss. Your logic is not logic at all. My logic says 1 + 1 = 2. Yours says 1 + 1 could equal 5 so it must equal 5. Its very easy to dismiss logic such as this. But it must be because your logic is not the 1 + 1 = 2 type so i have no reason to argue with you unless your entire personality is ready to convert to the '2' logic standard instead of the '5' logic standard.
 
  • #35
Pengwuino said:
Its the same cnn article that you posted for one. Look there, there's some big evidence that you easily dismiss. Your logic is not logic at all. My logic says 1 + 1 = 2. Yours says 1 + 1 could equal 5 so it must equal 5. Its very easy to dismiss logic such as this. But it must be because your logic is not the 1 + 1 = 2 type so i have no reason to argue with you unless your entire personality is ready to convert to the '2' logic standard instead of the '5' logic standard.

What are you talking about? What cnn article? Dismiss what? Evidence for what? Evidence that the Earth is flat? That buffalo have wings? Please be more explicit.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
875
  • General Discussion
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top