[ QUOTE ]
I don't care enough to spend the time... I'm just poking a little because you guys are so serious about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty much the saddest thing I have read in this thread. Humor at death (in either manner with/without the conspiracy people died in this event). Lovely Eric.
we have never been at war with eurasia
we have always been at war with eastasia
boot production is up ..
LordScottish: think about what it takes to feed, clothe, arm, and transport an army.
In the 80's it was common knowledge that if a foreign power wanted to own american jets like A4s or F-18s they would be locked into maintenance contracts with the manufacturer and its subsidiaries for parts replacement. i.e. For five bucks you'd get a pack of half a dozen washers inside two layers of sealed plastic satchels that had "Quality Assured - Military Grade" General Dynamics or McDonnell Douglas stickers on it. The same washers you could get from radio shack for a penny a handful.
The more I watch these videos (theres loads) the more I think it was a demolition job. So many people must have been involved I'm sure the truth will come out when the current administration bows out.
WTC7 was almost certainly a demolition job, you can see that from the video and from on the spot news. WTC1&2 are debateable but I've been in my fair share of skyscrapers here in Tokyo, and it's kinda hard to believe that one colud just crumble like that.
Whatever the final reasons, or the intentions, the evidence coming out now really does point to premeditated foul play and not some planes simply whacking into buildings. WTC7 is almost evidence in its-self.
It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.
Also in these videos, it clearly shows what appears to be a few missiles being fired from helicopters, or rather the white flashes of them being set off. I kid you not. Watch it. Could be flashes from sunlight though.
It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.
I saw plane, my co-workers saw plane. It was seen by hundreds of people at the navy annex/FOB2 as a plane. From my personal accounts, and the accounts of others, and things I can't even say, it was a plane.
Just because the government does'nt want to admit how little it knew at the time, does'nt mean it's a conspiracy. They had to rush handling the public relations of this event, not send scientists and investigators. It was clean up, and don't over react.
I'll watch the video later as I don't have that much spare time at work. I also can't attest for the trade center portion of this. Though, perhaps those 'missiles' you say are being fired, were to shoot the planes down?
It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.
Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.
It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hawken, I swear, you want it to be true so badly that you easily believe these videos. They keep showing dust clouds at the bottom, and acting as if it's new each time. I never hear the explosions that they claim... Sounds more like the lenscover hitting the camera.
I see helicopters, but no missiles. Do you honestly think they would fire missiles at the towers in plain site of everyone? See them clearly? Not on google video compression
I need to stay away from these threads. They drive me nuts.
[ QUOTE ]
So did they investigate what provoked the attacks, or was it simply because "they hate our freedom?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?
[ QUOTE ]
The only way to know the truth is to find the source, instead of being misled by Washington's buzzwords and catch phrases.
[/ QUOTE ]
Find the source? The source of what?
[ QUOTE ]
When a drunk starts a topic, everyone joins in. When anything political begins, people jump in to stop it. Why is it so important to derail the discussion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have nothing to contribute to serve as a counterpoint?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.
[ QUOTE ]
You start quoting books few have read like they're the word of god.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?
[ QUOTE ]
Many sections of the 9/11 Commission report are still kept in secret.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?
[ QUOTE ]
Some people in the world act as a voice, others act as support. If you have nothing constructive to add, take Ror's example and step out.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.
[ QUOTE ]
What can be accomplished is that people will ask questions. When claims were made of Iraq having WMD, questions were asked. Later we find the claim was false, and years later those questions are justified.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.
[ QUOTE ]
The administration is now careful of it's activities because the people still play a role in choosing who governs them. Or at least we still hope so.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?
The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.
As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.
[ QUOTE ]
Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't watch the whole thing, but to me it looked like those flashes are caused by the sun reflecting off of the tail portion of the helicopter (the reflection coming through the smoke causes a corona, which makes it appear to be a flash). After the helicopter comes out from behind the smoke (just before the camera cuts away), you can see a reflection "flash" from the tail for a second.
And besides, a missile wouldn't be able to collapse a building, unless it was a big fucking missile (in which case, you'd see an explosion bigger than the one caused by the airliner flying into the building).
Frank, awesome reply! Thanks for taking the time to do that
KeyserSoze: Agreed, if those flashes were anything, they're much more likely to be flashes reflecting off the tail of the helicopter than 4 (count 'em!) missiles. How come we don't see this missile-firing from any other angle? Oh yeah... because the sun is at a different angle to the camera.
Also even if (huuuge damn if) those were missiles, why did the tower collapse from the base, they were fired at the top of the tower!
Well, for someone that claims to be so smart in the beginning, I guess he skipped his physics classes. Most of the video completely ignores air pressure.
He also assumes a lot about those dust clouds. He suggests the bird is circling because it's a heated thermal cloud below. Funny, I've seen birds do that over an open field. Guess there was a small fire in the field that I missed.
His sound estimate is wrong also. If you listen to the footage, there isn't a 9 second lag between the time you see the tower collapsing and you hear it. You can see it falling into itself, and you hear the rumbling from it about a second or two later.... not 9 seconds.
He claims that the fire is out because it's black smoke. Black smoke? Maybe from his crack pipe. I see white/gray smoke. He even shows a fire coming out of the building, yet he claims nothing is on fire? He asks, what's burning? Maybe office equipment, wallpaper, files, carpet.... Wait, that doesn't fit his argument.
and yes, I agree, the flashes were the sun's reflection. It has also already been stated that they didn't rescue anyone because the heat rising was too great, and creating too much turbulance for the helicopters to get in there.
Edit: OMG!, they just completely took the history channel out of context. They left only the part where the guy stated the building was build to resist the IMPACT! The show later goes on to explain that it WASN'T design to withstand the HEAT and FUEL tunneling through the building.
The thing that makes me laugh is that no one can ever decide which story to stick with. Apparently the WTC towers were hit by a plane, demolished from the inside, shot with a missile from a pod on the plane (a plane that was a cargo/military combination), and also blown up by a helicopter with missiles! They sure didn't fuck around!
OK so bin Laden has been paid by the US government to pretend that he blew up the WTC? And these following video threats are also acting? So this is just like a big WWF match, they're all actors?
All the different conspiracy theories i've heard completely contradict one another. And we have people who believe ALL of them? What is that?
Yeah when I first watched the world trade centre come down I thought WOW I can't believe one plane could take that entire building down after hitting it near the top. But when I seen that flash movie with the techno music I thought WOW a piece of the airplane proceeded through the pentagon and punched a small hole through the back wall of a building and some loser with a pirated copy of flash decided to put techno music with said image and try and sell it off as a missile exit hole and a conspiracy.
Bruticus - so what you're saying is that it must be true because someone added techno music to a jpg image and did a bad job? Who needs investigators with this logic?!
[ QUOTE ]
OK so bin Laden has been paid by the US government to pretend that he blew up the WTC? And these following video threats are also acting? So this is just like a big WWF match, they're all actors?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, he was on the CIA payroll during the Afghan-Soviet war, but I'd say no. Osama bin Laden has denied his involvement in the attacks, so I don't understand what you mean by "pretending that he blew up the WTC." According to his account, he wasn't involved.
what i mean is his threats and their timing. but I admit I didn't even know he had denied it.
regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.
[ QUOTE ]
what i mean is his threats and their timing. but I admit I didn't even know he had denied it.
regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of those points are addressed in the "Loose Change" video.
[ QUOTE ]
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?
Find the source? The source of what?
Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.
No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.
How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?
What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?
What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.
Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.
You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?
The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.
As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.
We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.
This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority. And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?
Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.
I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question. And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible. In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.
It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.
If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.
In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations. This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?
I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.
Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults. I didn't even post the video. You couldn't get that right. But I doubt I can reason with you.
And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.
Im as open minded as the next guy, but honestly people, If you want to believe something you really will. Nothing I watched in either video shows me anything to prove foul play (well, apart fron that conducted by the perpetrators of course!). But the second one? Man thats just annoying. 'Explosions' are well, you know, shit exploding from the extreme heat. Or debris falling down and dust rising from them, WHITE smoke billowing up from the ground is the same, flashes from planes or helicopters are (as already explained) quite , *quite* clearly sunlight glints. Missiles?! C'mon people! But more than anything, I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to ever believe what a man with a mullet tells me! THERE IS JUST NO WAY.
Im sure Rick Siegel is doing very nicely thankyou out of selling his little DVD to mugs like you! LOOK, just $19.95!!111
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.
(acting as Elysiums support group like MoP did for Frank)
Awesome response Elysium! Thanks for doing that.
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.
LOL, I forgot about mentioning the mullet... nothing like a mullet with a bald spot also
This guy really seems like someone that exploits the internet for financial gain and that's it. I damn near punched my screen though when he took off his glasses to emphasize his statement in the video.
Funny thing is the only ones trying to win are those derailing the thread. The rest would like a discussion that doesn't require a finish line and tator tots.
Just to be clear, I didn't delete my posts because I felt I had nothing constructive to add, I felt there was nothing constructive that could be added that would be listened to so I got the hell out of the thread.
To be honest, ElysiumGX, your "discussion" is much like the "discussion" going on about Intelligent Design and evolution. One is a crazy theory with no proof (or self-proclaimed proof which is really just distorted facts and pre-formed beliefs masquerading as proof) but strong believers, the other one has mountains of scientific evidence.
Sure, you can "discuss" all you like, but the majority is bullshit. One side says light flashes are missiles fired from helicopters and shadows cast in a certain directions are weapons pods attached to military planes, and they have the backing of a man with a mullet in crappy glasses trying to sell his own home video to anyone who'll believe that the aliens are at Roswell, and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.
Now tell me what you're having is a discussion? Excuse me while I go and "discuss" that Elvis is living in my basement, honestly I saw the sunlight reflect off his glasses and sequin-studded suit!
edit: oXYnary: I was on a flight a few months back where they had phones built into the back of every seat, and you could make calls to anywhere from these.
So instead of addressing the issues, someone posts a second video which totally fucks up the relevant questions of the first video, and you all focus on that.
So again I ask.. with the first original video.
" please tell me who has accounted for the cell phone calls? How did they take place? "
Mop do you think people really want to believe this? I don't. But there are too many questions left unanswered (via the first more relevant video).
I dont know OXY, but I do know that Im a nervous flyer. So If the guy next to me leaves his cellphone on during take off just to do an experiment because you wont let it lie, I will punch him hard in the face for fear of it affecting the flight systems. Then I will a) get arrested and b ) not reach my destination and it will be your fault since your little obsession got spread all over the intramaweb!!1
I think the gov really lowered their pants to invite Bubba but they didn't actively plan the attacks. Wouldn't be a first, before the Pearl Harbor attack most of the anti-aircraft equipment was withdrawn from the base despite intel data suggesting that an attack there would be likely.
If those attacks were targeting our freedoms then they were really effective, considering all the insane yet ineffective anti-terror laws passed throughout the western world soon after and the spreading paranoia that led to guards killing a man in a british underground station and other incidents.
[ QUOTE ]
and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was no "massive investigation," and several of the crazy people who allegedly hijacked the planes ARE STILL ALIVE, so excuse me if I'm just a bit skeptical of the official account of what went on.
Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all, then the wives and family members who were on the news whos families are now broken apart were lying. It's fine and great to question authority but calling these families liars is morally questionable in my opinion oh, don't tell me, thats what the government wants me to think, right?
[ QUOTE ]
To be honest, ElysiumGX, your "discussion" is much like the "discussion" going on about Intelligent Design and evolution. One is a crazy theory with no proof (or self-proclaimed proof which is really just distorted facts and pre-formed beliefs masquerading as proof) but strong believers, the other one has mountains of scientific
evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? I would like to see you argueing with all the intelligent people considering ID and then talking to guys who see conspiracies everywhere. I hope you'd notice the difference and comparing the 2 is so ignorant, even very convinced defender of any form of the theory of evolution wouldn't do it. Sorry for going offtopic, but this had to be said.
[ QUOTE ]
The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all,
[/ QUOTE ]
Auhh see. The problem was those were personal cell phone calls. They >werent< from satelite phones. Also, in no way did they commentor say the families were lying, what he was hinting at was those calls were faked. Watch the vid Bruticus (original), seriously!
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.
I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.
Yep Eric, that's exactly what I was getting at. I also PM'ed LordScottish if he's interested in debating this, I'd love to hear which "intelligent people" truly believe in ID as a scientific theory, if they haven't been fed misinformation or distorted/outdated theories.
I remember reading about this not too long ago. That judge really stuck it to them (especially considering that he's a right-wing, religious conservative himself). I liked how he pointed out their ignorance on the very subject they were trying to push into science classes (some of them didn't even know what it was called, and kept referring to it as, "Intelligence Design").
Yep, if you read the full court transcript it's pretty funny. The main scientific proponent of the ID argument admits that he hasn't read about 50 peer-reviewed papers debunking his outdated and incorrect theories, and when presented with them all he could say was "this isn't good enough"... so silly.
I think we have seen both extremes. The truth more than likely lays somewhere in the middle.
I'm pretty sure the goverment has some things its not sharing but I'm pretty sure they didn't mastermind a elaborate plot to kill thousands of the very same people that voted them into office. Look how badly they have bungled through the war in Iraq. These same brillant masterminds could have pulled off something much more stunning and put much more of a PR spin on the war if they had actually masterminded 9/11. Sure they are hiding something but it's because the truth is more embarrasing than thier PR spin.
I bet flight 93 was shot down, and they figured they would spin it to make them look like heros.
Replies
very scary.
Tin foil hat ain't gonna save you now!
I don't care enough to spend the time... I'm just poking a little because you guys are so serious about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Thats pretty much the saddest thing I have read in this thread. Humor at death (in either manner with/without the conspiracy people died in this event). Lovely Eric.
we have always been at war with eastasia
boot production is up ..
LordScottish: think about what it takes to feed, clothe, arm, and transport an army.
In the 80's it was common knowledge that if a foreign power wanted to own american jets like A4s or F-18s they would be locked into maintenance contracts with the manufacturer and its subsidiaries for parts replacement. i.e. For five bucks you'd get a pack of half a dozen washers inside two layers of sealed plastic satchels that had "Quality Assured - Military Grade" General Dynamics or McDonnell Douglas stickers on it. The same washers you could get from radio shack for a penny a handful.
WTC7 was almost certainly a demolition job, you can see that from the video and from on the spot news. WTC1&2 are debateable but I've been in my fair share of skyscrapers here in Tokyo, and it's kinda hard to believe that one colud just crumble like that.
Whatever the final reasons, or the intentions, the evidence coming out now really does point to premeditated foul play and not some planes simply whacking into buildings. WTC7 is almost evidence in its-self.
I urge anyone doubting this, before they reply, to watch this (realtime video of the whole lot, without whiney pre-grad voice over): http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3498980438587461603
It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.
Also in these videos, it clearly shows what appears to be a few missiles being fired from helicopters, or rather the white flashes of them being set off. I kid you not. Watch it. Could be flashes from sunlight though.
It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.
I saw plane, my co-workers saw plane. It was seen by hundreds of people at the navy annex/FOB2 as a plane. From my personal accounts, and the accounts of others, and things I can't even say, it was a plane.
Just because the government does'nt want to admit how little it knew at the time, does'nt mean it's a conspiracy. They had to rush handling the public relations of this event, not send scientists and investigators. It was clean up, and don't over react.
I'll watch the video later as I don't have that much spare time at work. I also can't attest for the trade center portion of this. Though, perhaps those 'missiles' you say are being fired, were to shoot the planes down?
It's called "911 eye witness" and is simply a video of the whole lot in realtime with radio from the day. People have seem to of forgotten about the explosions, which are in my mind the most important factor of the day, minus the planes.
Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.
It appears the motives are widening, from gold to data destrution. The bit about the HDD's being recovered and huge transations / share pushing is incredible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hawken, I swear, you want it to be true so badly that you easily believe these videos. They keep showing dust clouds at the bottom, and acting as if it's new each time. I never hear the explosions that they claim... Sounds more like the lenscover hitting the camera.
I see helicopters, but no missiles. Do you honestly think they would fire missiles at the towers in plain site of everyone? See them clearly? Not on google video compression
I need to stay away from these threads. They drive me nuts.
Oxy, haha, you proved my point better than I could myself.
In my opinion... if I can't laugh in the face of death, the ultimate injustice, then I'm taking life too seriously.
So did they investigate what provoked the attacks, or was it simply because "they hate our freedom?"
[/ QUOTE ]
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?
[ QUOTE ]
The only way to know the truth is to find the source, instead of being misled by Washington's buzzwords and catch phrases.
[/ QUOTE ]
Find the source? The source of what?
[ QUOTE ]
When a drunk starts a topic, everyone joins in. When anything political begins, people jump in to stop it. Why is it so important to derail the discussion?
[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.
[ QUOTE ]
Is it because you have nothing to contribute to serve as a counterpoint?
[/ QUOTE ]
No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.
[ QUOTE ]
You start quoting books few have read like they're the word of god.
[/ QUOTE ]
How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?
[ QUOTE ]
Many sections of the 9/11 Commission report are still kept in secret.
[/ QUOTE ]
What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?
[ QUOTE ]
Some people in the world act as a voice, others act as support. If you have nothing constructive to add, take Ror's example and step out.
[/ QUOTE ]
What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.
[ QUOTE ]
What can be accomplished is that people will ask questions. When claims were made of Iraq having WMD, questions were asked. Later we find the claim was false, and years later those questions are justified.
[/ QUOTE ]
Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.
[ QUOTE ]
The administration is now careful of it's activities because the people still play a role in choosing who governs them. Or at least we still hope so.
[/ QUOTE ]
You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?
The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.
As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.
Frank the Avenger
Also in these videos, it clearly shows a few missiles being fired from helicopters. I kid you not. Watch it.
[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't watch the whole thing, but to me it looked like those flashes are caused by the sun reflecting off of the tail portion of the helicopter (the reflection coming through the smoke causes a corona, which makes it appear to be a flash). After the helicopter comes out from behind the smoke (just before the camera cuts away), you can see a reflection "flash" from the tail for a second.
And besides, a missile wouldn't be able to collapse a building, unless it was a big fucking missile (in which case, you'd see an explosion bigger than the one caused by the airliner flying into the building).
KeyserSoze: Agreed, if those flashes were anything, they're much more likely to be flashes reflecting off the tail of the helicopter than 4 (count 'em!) missiles. How come we don't see this missile-firing from any other angle? Oh yeah... because the sun is at a different angle to the camera.
Also even if (huuuge damn if) those were missiles, why did the tower collapse from the base, they were fired at the top of the tower!
He also assumes a lot about those dust clouds. He suggests the bird is circling because it's a heated thermal cloud below. Funny, I've seen birds do that over an open field. Guess there was a small fire in the field that I missed.
His sound estimate is wrong also. If you listen to the footage, there isn't a 9 second lag between the time you see the tower collapsing and you hear it. You can see it falling into itself, and you hear the rumbling from it about a second or two later.... not 9 seconds.
He claims that the fire is out because it's black smoke. Black smoke? Maybe from his crack pipe. I see white/gray smoke. He even shows a fire coming out of the building, yet he claims nothing is on fire? He asks, what's burning? Maybe office equipment, wallpaper, files, carpet.... Wait, that doesn't fit his argument.
and yes, I agree, the flashes were the sun's reflection. It has also already been stated that they didn't rescue anyone because the heat rising was too great, and creating too much turbulance for the helicopters to get in there.
Edit: OMG!, they just completely took the history channel out of context. They left only the part where the guy stated the building was build to resist the IMPACT! The show later goes on to explain that it WASN'T design to withstand the HEAT and FUEL tunneling through the building.
All the different conspiracy theories i've heard completely contradict one another. And we have people who believe ALL of them? What is that?
Yeah when I first watched the world trade centre come down I thought WOW I can't believe one plane could take that entire building down after hitting it near the top. But when I seen that flash movie with the techno music I thought WOW a piece of the airplane proceeded through the pentagon and punched a small hole through the back wall of a building and some loser with a pirated copy of flash decided to put techno music with said image and try and sell it off as a missile exit hole and a conspiracy.
Black smoke? Maybe from his crack pipe.
[/ QUOTE ]
HAHAHA! Oh, man, that made me laugh so much. Good one
Bruticus - so what you're saying is that it must be true because someone added techno music to a jpg image and did a bad job?
[/ QUOTE ]
sorry, try again.
OK so bin Laden has been paid by the US government to pretend that he blew up the WTC? And these following video threats are also acting? So this is just like a big WWF match, they're all actors?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well, he was on the CIA payroll during the Afghan-Soviet war, but I'd say no. Osama bin Laden has denied his involvement in the attacks, so I don't understand what you mean by "pretending that he blew up the WTC." According to his account, he wasn't involved.
regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.
what i mean is his threats and their timing. but I admit I didn't even know he had denied it.
regardless there are A LOT of people who would be involved in this sham no? Helicopter pilots, onboard terrorists, wives saying they recieved cel phone calls from their husbands on the planes, pentagon employees, clean-up crews, air traffic control centers, news teams. And apparantly EVERYONE on this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=9&c=y list are on the american military's payroll as well.
[/ QUOTE ]
A lot of those points are addressed in the "Loose Change" video.
Well why don't you tell me, what's the govt's official explanation of why the towers were attacked? Or do you just assume the official claim is because 'they hate our freedom?' Are you too busy asking tough questions to see if the answers that are out there are in any way plausible?
Find the source? The source of what?
Obviously because we're part of the conspiracy, and we believe questioning the Great Leader is treason.
No, but you wouldn't listen anyway; you've already decided what happened.
How is that different from quoting some guy's video interpretation like it's the word of god?
What? Are there blacked-out bits in every copy printed and sold to the public? Or are you just assuming that it's censored?
What are you adding that's constructive? You posted the video, shouted 'rah rah, goverment bad' and have spent the rest of the thread implying we're all hardcore Bush supporters or just saying we know nothing. Is that your support? How about something from your side besides assumption and conjecture? I imagine you'll tell me to go watch the video and decide for myself, but you know what; I've seen a bunch of the conspiracy videos and decided for myself. But since I disagree with you, I'm just wrong. I will watch this one when I have time and if you like I will post my thoughts on it; but I'm pretty sure you won't listen to me.
Um...so? All that was accomplished is those that asked the questions can jump around going 'we told you so!' The govt still got what it wanted.
You think this administration is capable of engineering the WTC attacks in near-total secrecy but is going to be careful because some guy with a microphone is asking questions about it?
The biggest reason those of us that disagree with you don't bother to argue with facts is simply that you have already decided that GW and his cronies did it, and nothing we can say or prove will change your mind. You know what happened and are just looking for proof of it. You see missles fired from helicopters and claim the buildings were demolished from the inside (if they demod it why would they do something so stupidly obvious as fire missles in front of everyone?? They wouldn't need to!) when nobobdy else sees those things. But it's because you know.
As a wise man once said, you can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into in the first place. So we don't bother to try.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, Franky, I'd like to thank you taking the time to insult me for words I haven't said, and for opinions I don't have.
We all know the governments explaination for the attacks, atleast those of us who have paid attention since the attacks, so why should I have to tell you? In fact the operation after the attacks was called "Operation Enduring Freedom". The president has, numerous times, stated that the terrorist attacks were an attack on our freedoms.
This is a blanket over events that have progressed since the end of the second world war. It's a tactic to blind those from questioning whether our actions played a role in provoking the attacks. It's evident by being called unpatriotic simply for questioning authority. And if I knew the exact source of the attacks, I wouldn't be questioning...so how could I tell you? Is it wrong to have doubt and suspicion?
Considering all these points, it seems you are the one who won't listen. I doubt you read my replies to understand my point, but rather to place me in the crosshairs.
I have not already decided what happened. I do not know. I've said many time my only option is to question. And I do not interpret this video as the word of god, I only take the aspect I believe is plausible. In fact, my own take on the attacks is not reflected in any explaination from either side, as they only see black or white.
It is known that there are sections of the 9/11 Commission kept in secret because over time declassifed excerpts from those sections have been released. And against your assumption, I do not believe our current adminstration played a direct role in the attacks.
If you read the commission itself, there are sections detailing how the government in fact ignored all warnings. It even took steps to increase the chances of the attack being successful. I see this as "allowing" them to take place. That still falls under involvement.
In fact, I believe (i don't know) there was a third party not connected to the US government or terrorist groups. But a group working for the benefit of the governments interest (and Israel's) to frame terrorist organizations. This is also suggested in evidence found during the anthrax scare. Do you even remember that?
I do not see or care about missles and strange helicopters and all that other childish bullshit, but you are quick to label me with those supporters....no matter how many time I try to clearly explain my position.
Therefore I ask you get your facts straight before turning this discussion you have no role in, into personal insults. I didn't even post the video. You couldn't get that right. But I doubt I can reason with you.
And it's no surprise MoP praises you for taking the time to do what you do best.
Im as open minded as the next guy, but honestly people, If you want to believe something you really will. Nothing I watched in either video shows me anything to prove foul play (well, apart fron that conducted by the perpetrators of course!). But the second one? Man thats just annoying. 'Explosions' are well, you know, shit exploding from the extreme heat. Or debris falling down and dust rising from them, WHITE smoke billowing up from the ground is the same, flashes from planes or helicopters are (as already explained) quite , *quite* clearly sunlight glints. Missiles?! C'mon people! But more than anything, I am sorry, but there is no way I am going to ever believe what a man with a mullet tells me! THERE IS JUST NO WAY.
Im sure Rick Siegel is doing very nicely thankyou out of selling his little DVD to mugs like you! LOOK, just $19.95!!111
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.
Awesome response Elysium! Thanks for doing that.
[ QUOTE ]
Honestly! Like I said, Im open, and detest the bush administration just as much as the next guy but there is just nothing here of substance.
[/ QUOTE ]
Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.
There, I've said my piece.
This guy really seems like someone that exploits the internet for financial gain and that's it. I damn near punched my screen though when he took off his glasses to emphasize his statement in the video.
r.
Sure, you can "discuss" all you like, but the majority is bullshit. One side says light flashes are missiles fired from helicopters and shadows cast in a certain directions are weapons pods attached to military planes, and they have the backing of a man with a mullet in crappy glasses trying to sell his own home video to anyone who'll believe that the aliens are at Roswell, and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.
Now tell me what you're having is a discussion? Excuse me while I go and "discuss" that Elvis is living in my basement, honestly I saw the sunlight reflect off his glasses and sequin-studded suit!
edit: oXYnary: I was on a flight a few months back where they had phones built into the back of every seat, and you could make calls to anywhere from these.
So again I ask.. with the first original video.
" please tell me who has accounted for the cell phone calls? How did they take place? "
Mop do you think people really want to believe this? I don't. But there are too many questions left unanswered (via the first more relevant video).
If those attacks were targeting our freedoms then they were really effective, considering all the insane yet ineffective anti-terror laws passed throughout the western world soon after and the spreading paranoia that led to guards killing a man in a british underground station and other incidents.
and the other side says some crazy people hijacked a plane or three and flew them into some buildings, backed up by a massive investigation, several eyewitness reports and all sorts of forensic evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
There was no "massive investigation," and several of the crazy people who allegedly hijacked the planes ARE STILL ALIVE, so excuse me if I'm just a bit skeptical of the official account of what went on.
Daz, which video did you watch? The first or the second. I still have seen no response to the point scientifically the cell phone calls that supposedly took place could not at that height.
[/ QUOTE ]
The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all, then the wives and family members who were on the news whos families are now broken apart were lying. It's fine and great to question authority but calling these families liars is morally questionable in my opinion oh, don't tell me, thats what the government wants me to think, right?
My response, have a heart people.
To be honest, ElysiumGX, your "discussion" is much like the "discussion" going on about Intelligent Design and evolution. One is a crazy theory with no proof (or self-proclaimed proof which is really just distorted facts and pre-formed beliefs masquerading as proof) but strong believers, the other one has mountains of scientific
evidence.
[/ QUOTE ]
Are you serious? I would like to see you argueing with all the intelligent people considering ID and then talking to guys who see conspiracies everywhere. I hope you'd notice the difference and comparing the 2 is so ignorant, even very convinced defender of any form of the theory of evolution wouldn't do it. Sorry for going offtopic, but this had to be said.
The thing is, phone calls CAN be made from the onboard satelite phones on every seat. And if the phone call wasn't made at all,
[/ QUOTE ]
Auhh see. The problem was those were personal cell phone calls. They >werent< from satelite phones. Also, in no way did they commentor say the families were lying, what he was hinting at was those calls were faked. Watch the vid Bruticus (original), seriously!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
The fundamental argument of ID proclaining itself to be a scientific theory is thoroughly explored and debunked. The court seemed to me to have quite a sound argument.
I'm not saying ID isn't true. Instead each person needs to make a personal decision as to what they believe. In this regard, conspiracy theories in general are on the same ground as ID. They lack credible peer-reviewed and experimentable scientific data.
LordScottish, this might be an interesting read.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html
[/ QUOTE ]
I remember reading about this not too long ago. That judge really stuck it to them (especially considering that he's a right-wing, religious conservative himself). I liked how he pointed out their ignorance on the very subject they were trying to push into science classes (some of them didn't even know what it was called, and kept referring to it as, "Intelligence Design").
Anyway, I'll stop derailing this now...
I'm pretty sure the goverment has some things its not sharing but I'm pretty sure they didn't mastermind a elaborate plot to kill thousands of the very same people that voted them into office. Look how badly they have bungled through the war in Iraq. These same brillant masterminds could have pulled off something much more stunning and put much more of a PR spin on the war if they had actually masterminded 9/11. Sure they are hiding something but it's because the truth is more embarrasing than thier PR spin.
I bet flight 93 was shot down, and they figured they would spin it to make them look like heros.