7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
Look into Operation Northwoods.? It was a plan by the Us government to attack our own people, including crashing planes & substitution of planes mid-air as a pretext to start a war in Cuba.? It shows that they're willing to do such things.? It admits they've done it in the past, i.e. The Maine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This is the declassified document released under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf?
The PDF is a little hard to read in places, but you can get the relevant info if you stick with it.
I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.
Where's the plane?? I checked on an air disaster site:? http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it.? Where's the plane from flight 93??
Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
B.S. alert. The second airplane hit lower down the tower than the first one, thus leaving far more weight upon the structure of the tower. This is why it appeared to split in half when it collapsed, as opposed to the other tower that pancaked floor upon floor as it collapsed.
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
? Looking at the history of government conspiracy, from the lies surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, to the sinking of the Maine, to the Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, then on to the Bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kennedy assasinations, the MLK assasinations, and most recently the Weapons of Mass destruction, can anyone doubt the ability of Government to attempt something on the scale of 9-11?
I tend to read The New American -- a John Birtch Society publication -- and they have lots of information that doesn't quite make sence too.
I tend to read The New American -- a John Birtch Society publication -- and they have lots of information that doesn't quite make sence too.
The John Birch society is an organization of paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists of the Nixon/freemason/illuminati stripe. No credibility, IMO. And yes, I know Ron Paul is a part of it.
How many people would it take to pull off a conspiracy such as this
How many people would it take to pull off a conspiracy such as this?? How is it nobody has turned if that were the case?
What about WTC 7?
Larry Silverstein, who owned the WTC properties and purchased them several months before 9/11 even, was on PBS a year or two ago and sat right in that chair and admitted to the public that he had ordered FDNY to "pull" Building No. 7.
In other words, that building went down like a stack of um, well, floors used in a controlled demolition.
Use the photography, folks! Even the AP stuff, the CNN stuff, the Washington Post, Time Magazine stuff! You can't fit a commercial airliner into the hole that hit the Pentagon. There's? just no way. If a jetliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, where's the massive security camera footage of it all? We have yet to see one credible piece of footage that shows a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
That Cleveland, Ohio TV station's report about Flight 93 isn't credible? Give me a break! It landed two hours after we were "told" it crashed!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Not once has anyone said, "look at their organizations they're tied to." You don't think the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers...
...Skull & Bones and all those other "organizations" wouldn't put their agenda (i.e., Rockefellers, etc.) forward by putting a bunch of fruitcake figurehead politicians in power to carry it out? Come on!
LeRuineur, it doesn't bother you, even a little, that the people's representatives never bothered to look into the matter?? We have a Congressional inquiry into steroid use by baseball players, but not even a single congressional investigation into the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of the greatest terrorist attack on American soil?? That's what's frustrating to me.? The questioning is completely missing, and we are expected to believe what the government says, despite the fact that a) not only is the critical information all classified, but b) our elected representatives have never investigated the matter!? Granted, I want full disclosure, but I'd sure as hell feel a lot better if there were 535 people who all knew the truth and had seen all of the classified information.? Instead, all we have is the privileged "9-11 commission" with absolutely no accountability.? Why has the Congress been silent on this investigation?? Why has no one lost their job over the intelligence failures?? Heads should be rolling at Langley, but instead all we see is ass-covering.
Caleb
Of course this bothers me, but that does not make me susceptible to becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist like Nixon or Hitler.
You might call it an "intelligence failure" ... but shouldn't Congress at least investigate a failure of such a magnitude for possible intent?? They could have access to the classified information simply by issuing a Congressional subpeona.
Mike, or anyone else,
Do you believe in the existence of the Chautauqua movement? It meets the criteria of a conspiracy.
J. Edgar Hoover was involved in many conspiracies.
The Sons of Liberty was a conspiracy.
Conspiracies exist.
If all of what the conspiracy theorists holds is true, then why wouldn't these "people" make you disappear for attempting to expose them?
So shortly after being elected to office, George Bush murders 3000 + americans for what purpose again?
Much has been made about Bush's lack of reaction when he was told of the 9-11 attacks while in the kindergarten classroom. His reaction, to me, was entirely consistent with someone who knew it was going to happen, and what the ramifications would be. It is if he was pausing and thinking to himself, "So, it begins. Am I right?"
Again I ask, if these people who are such geniuses at manipulation as to convince us that it was terrorists who took out the towers in order to gather support for invading Iraq among other things, why the hell is Iraq so screwed up?
Hunter S. Thomson was working on an article on how 9-11 was an inside job when he "suicided".
I say your statements are no betters than walking up to the children of the people who died in those planes and pissing on them.? Your support of this conspiracy theory says their parents did not die in a horrible terrorist attack but were in on it and have abandoned them for the rest of their lives.
One of the main "inside job" theories has it that it was not the passenger jets that collided with the towers, but drones, meaning all those people missing from those flights had to go somewhere.? If they can't go home, then either the government executed them (and why not fly them into the towers if that's the case) or they were in on it.? Tom Clancy wrote about a fuel filled jumbo jet flying into a joint session of congress what, 10 years or more ago?? It wasn't a unique concept for them to come up with, the towers were built to take a 737 running into them.? They used a bigger jet, the damn things were built of mostly glass and steel, not concrete.? Once the heat from the fire weakened the supports holding the floors above it, they had nowhere to go but down, and momentum just took the rest with it.? The jet fuel helped, but office equipment isn't exactly non-flammable.? A lithium-ion battery will burn at 700 degrees Celsius when damaged.? Keep that in mind if you ever drop your notebook.
The promotion of these conspiracy theories dishonors the memory of every single person who died that day.
Your case adds up far less than that.? The fact that our government is run by morons doesn't take away from the fact that it was not Americans who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon.
Take a look at this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm
Some say that several witnesses were coerced to recant their testimony.
Penn & Teller did a Bullshit episode on this exact conspiracy theory, and I have to agree with them.? 100% bull fucking shit.? I have a much easier time believing our government was too incompetent to stop this than there is a cabal of people in America who decided murdering up to 50,000 Americans would be a good policy move.? If such a group exists, and were able to somehow, with nobody noticing, wire explosives into every floor, and pull off the most disturbing mass murder in American history without a single person defecting from their ranks in disgust and ratting them out, why in god's name would they let the Free State Project get moving?? That would be a direct threat against them.
This is the same government that couldn't keep an idiot break-in at a psychiatrist's office under wraps.? But I'm sure there's a good conspiracy theory on why they threw Nixon to the wolves as well.
The truth is terrorists from another country killed thousands of Americans on 9/11.? The only thing that was left to explore was why we didn't stop it ahead of time.? To suggest that someone inside the government could conceive of this and attempt to pull it off is ludicrous.? There may be someone in the intelligence community who suspected this would happen and was either unable or unwilling to raise the alarm, but how can you look at one of children of those victims and tell them to their face that it was really their government who did this with no =REAL= evidence of it?
That they had a wish list of police powers they would like to see enacted does not mean they perpetrated that attack.? It means they're opportunists.? That is not evidence, it is supposition.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
From Alex Jones's Prison Planet.com
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
Kevin and Mike,
I'm truly trying to understand where you're coming from here. I'm one whose mind is not made up on this issue yet. It seems difficult for me to believe that there was any sort of mass conspiracy.
But I have also been very troubled by the way that everything has been handled by the government. I simply ask myself, "What would I have done if I had been President ... " and what I would have done and what the government actually did are so far apart they can't even see each other.
Mike, are you happy with the government's response?
Kevin, are you?
Look at the huge volumes of information that is still classified. Why?
If the government wants these conspiracy theories to go away, all it has to do is declassify all the information and allow everyone access to investigate it as they wish.
...or accidentally shredded an original document...
I mean, if someone suggested that I personally was responsible for 9-11, I would laugh at it because its obviously foolish.
"People --good people, on our side-- die when certain things get declassified. Sources disappear, making the quest for truth rather impossible."That statement stood out like a red flag to me, too.
I don't think anyone on the inside is on my side .... I am on the outside
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I'm not at all impressed with the 9-11, In plane site video, and I believe the government did it!
And yet, if you were a government official and laughed it off, that denial would be "proof" for the conspiracy theorists.
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I'm not at all impressed with the 9-11, In plane site video, and I believe the government did it!
We watched Joey's CD the other day, and it wasn't the movie I was thinking of.? It's a good one.? I was doubtful about the flashes before the planes hit the towers.? I got the 9-11, America Remembers cd .... the CNN recap of the whole thing.? I watched it, slowing it down frame by frame in places....those flashes are clearly visible on the original CNN footage.? Not that that in itself means there was a conspiracy, but people have claimed that they used doctored footage, which as far as I can tell, they didn't.
Even if those enourmous steel support columns did somehow melt in one hour, how would that break them in the rest of the building?
Why weren't columns left standing way up in the air?
They weren't welded together?? ?:o
I think they depended on the outside of the building to hold up the inside.
Yep, that I can confirm from inside knowledge.
I think they depended on the outside of the building to hold up the inside.
Yep, that I can confirm from inside knowledge.
Brilliant! :P
With the help of his brother, Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of New York state at the time, David Rockefeller got The Port of New York Authority involved. The Port of New York Authority, now known as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a government institution that heads up public projects in the New York and New Jersey port area. While the Port Authority is a public organization, it functions like a private corporation -- it charges its "customers" directly and profits from investments, rather than taking tax money.http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc1.htm
Since its creation in 1921, the Port Authority had been concerned mainly with bridges, tunnels, airports and bus transportation. It had never undertaken anything near the scale of the World Trade Center before, but nonetheless, the organization was the most logical choice to head up the project. It had the rare combination of government connections, diverse resources and the power of eminent domain.
Rockefeller commissioned early designs for the WTC in 1958, the Port Authority got involved in 1960, and the initial plans were made public in 1961. Then things slowed down considerably. For years, the Port Authority slogged through fiscal problems, public relations debacles and legal wrangling, not to mention the unpopular task of evicting the hundreds of businesses and homes occupying the building site.
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/Painful_Deceptions.html
This hread title is ridiculous and insulting to Americans. :o
I'm still watching closely to see if conspiracy theorists come up with anything concrete.The concrete was blown up and the evidence carted away. All we have is tapes, photos and people's memories.
There are many Americans that are insulted that the government ignores their stories about what they saw and heard on 9/11 like basement explosions.
No offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :oI haven't found anything on prison planet that isn't true.
Basement explosions? Is that why the underground malls were all actually intact weeks after 9/11? I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11. Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.I haven't seen this footage or pictures. Can you point me to them?
How does a plane hit the pentagon without being shot down by its missle defenses? It is made to defend against a missle attack. How could it not stop a plane?The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Basement explosions? Is that why the underground malls were all actually intact weeks after 9/11? I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11. Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.Where did you see this footage?
And of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage. Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them. The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.Actually the damage to WTC 7 was far from enough to make it collapse - especially not the manner that it collapsed. But this is all moot, Larry Silverstein, controller of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided that the Solomon Bros building, commonly referred to as WTC 7, should be pulled - industry slang for demolished. The manner in which it "collapsed" was the best evidence of this.
No offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :oI agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose. It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work. The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time. Odd.
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose.? It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work.? The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time.? Odd.
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
The autopilot won't make such maneuvers.
It would be nice if someone who actually has a clue about this stuff, like Varrin, would join the conversation.
Kevin
Those little rectangles in the seatback in front of you . . . phones.
I once spent like $25 on one of those to cancel a hotel room for the guy who missed the flight.? If a plane were flying low enough, a cell might work as well, 35,000 feet, natch.
The autopilot won't make such maneuvers.That was a joke .... we were just talking about auto-pilot with Varrin at our meeting yesterday.
It would be nice if someone who actually has a clue about this stuff, like Varrin, would join the conversation.
Kevin
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Since he was flying from the West, why wasn't his target just the side facing him? Why would he circle, unless he missed the first time or something? It doesn't make any sense to me.
No offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :oI haven't found anything on prison planet that isn't true.
Are we only allowed to stray so far from political correctness? I used to think that alternate theories of 9/11 were not possible .... but after I looked at piles of evidence, I have changed my mind.
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :oI agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :oI agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Of course the official story is false.? But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that.? I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
QuoteAnd of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage.? Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them.? The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.
Actually the damage to WTC 7 was far from enough to make it collapse - especially not the manner that it collapsed.? But this is all moot, Larry Silverstein, controller of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided that the Solomon Bros building, commonly referred to as WTC 7, should be pulled - industry slang for demolished.? The manner in which it "collapsed" was the best evidence of this.
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :oI agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Of course the official story is false.? But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that.? I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
So, what do you believe happened on 9-11, if you believe the official version was false.
I won't attempt to draw conclusions. I'll just present the facts.Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose. It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work. The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time. Odd.
Yes, definitely odd. Why would terrorists attack the area of the Pentagon where there was no one, because of the construction?
And you know this because....Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Since he was flying from the West, why wasn't his target just the side facing him? Why would he circle, unless he missed the first time or something? It doesn't make any sense to me.
He was looking for the building.
Of course the official story is false. But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.No theory requires much of a leap of faith. A hypothesis, perhaps, but not a theory. A theory is supported by data, testing, and evidence. Of course the official story is false, and no, you shouldn't believe all the hyped up conspiracy stuff. But look at the data. Look at the evidence. Something fishy was definitely afoot, and the 9/11 commission existed just to whitewash the issue, as they failed to address any of the relevant questions (such as the logic/skill/performance of Mr. Hanjoor).
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that. I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.Yeah, it's a damn shame the amount of BS that this administration churns out.
Yeah, the fire department is trained in demolition work. ::)They made a decision, as they are authorized to do. They didn't do the demolition work.
They most likely decided to "pull" OUT of the area rather than trying to save the building.No, they pulled the building. The conversation was not about human presence in the area, it was about the building itself, continued use, liability, and best options for future use. Silverstein was the property owner, as such it was his call - human presence in the area would not have been his call.
Even if they did demolish the building, which they most likely did not considering the miniscule evidence in support of that theory and the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it was probably very seriously damaged and unsafe anyways, like all buildings in that area were, so I wouldn't even care.Where's this mountain of evidence to the contrary? The building was not damaged enough to warrant a fall, especially a picture-perfect four point fall.
I hear this "pulled" quote constantly, as though it is the bible of the conspiracy theorists.Or the truth.
But it proves nothing.Except that the property owner authorized with permission of NYC the demolition of a structure on his property.
So you believe the NY firemen decided to kill themselves and demolish a building they were still in?Please name one fireman who died on 9/11 in WTC 7.
Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?It does sound stupid, because I never claimed that the firemen demolished the building, and no firemen died in WTC 7 anyway.
In you desire to find a conspiracy, you step over the facts while denying them.Please list evidence that I have a desire to find a conspiracy.
These people are religious fanatics (see other thread on religion) that kill innocent people, torture their own, and abuse women as a sport...all in the name of god.? Amen.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?? Overtaxing is one thing, but we're talking treason by our own officials.
These people are religious fanatics (see other thread on religion) that kill innocent people, torture their own, and abuse women as a sport...all in the name of god. Amen.That is quite an accusation against most of our US Presidents.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
The next thing will be that OBL was just misunderstood, having had a troubled childhood. Jeesh!I think that OBL was part of the killing. He probably did have a troubled childhood .... no excuse.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
Yes.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
Yes.
Your response is a little startling.? But, I respect your expression as honest and even courageous.
I haven't gotten to that "place" yet.? Maybe I'm just hoping that if enough of our neighbors become elected to important positions, they'll do the "right" thing.? I'm hoping that the gov't can be reshaped into a more acceptable image and a more responsive body.
Have you given up on our govt completely and want to can it and start over?
Is there a better model out there that you can point to, or are you considering that it hasn't been developed or tried yet?
Or, is govt overthro the solution with anarchy the best and most free result?
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this? Overtaxing is one thing, but we're talking treason by our own officials.I think you're offending the 100 million people killed by their own governments during the 20th century. Why is America so immune to hidden agendas and shady leadership? I'm not saying anybody is guilty of treason, but its naive to think that we're somehow insulated from the possibility.
Police find explosives in world trade center:
Police find explosivesReporter says police found "suspicious device" in world trade center:
Do you know how many "suspicious devices" get blown up every year, which turn out to be completely benign? (Me either, but a helluva lot more than actual bombs!)
Police find explosivesReporter says police found "suspicious device" in world trade center:
Do you know how many "suspicious devices" get blown up every year, which turn out to be completely benign? (Me either, but a helluva lot more than actual bombs!)
And how many of those were found in buildings that blew up in the next hour?
Look at the Miami airplane incident yesterday: the crazy guy was already dead, no bombs were found... but three pieces of luggage were still blown up as "suspicious".
I would SO love to be proven wrong if a massive cover-up is blown wide open and it results in the end of the US government. But I very highly doubt I will be proven wrong.To this day, there's still no proof that Hitler burned down the Reichstag, even though many analysts agree that he was behind it. That's likely how we'll see this crisis in 60 years.
911 as a controlled demolition has finally hit the mainstream media:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/13760721.htm
Yea .... I think Billy was telling me some of his theories ..... one was that 9/11 was actually a botched attempt to do something else.Now there is something to think about... :o
I don't care whoThat is exactly how I used to feel. We know for sure that they have turned that event into a reason for a police state.burned down the Reichstagtoppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.
Perhaps, but none of them lead me anywhere near the conclusion that the government did it. There's not enough upside reward for the downside risk in my opinion.What downside risk are you talking about?
To Kevin,
Since you're such a believer in the government, please answer this simple question for me: Where was Donald Rumsfeld when flight 77 hit the Pentagon and shortly thereafter?
I don't care whoburned down the Reichstagtoppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.
Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
Isn't the government supposed to answer the people's questions? Some of their expanations either contradict or cannot be true. Do you not care if these people lie or tell the truth to us?
The Alex Jones school of conspiracy theory loves to throw out questions, as if the lack of definitive answers is proof of something. In reality, the proper response is usually, "So what?", "What difference does it make?", or "Who cares?"
You guys and the internet should have been around after the Kennedy Assasination.We are around after his assassination. ;)
You have no proof of this, merely speculation. You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved? Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?
You have no proof of this, merely speculation.
You have no proof of this, merely speculation. You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved? Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
[/quote
Read the book "Tragedy and Hope." Wrote in 1964 by Georgetown law professor Carroll Quigley, it gives an insider's view of the internationalist's plan make both political parties virtually the same, so when one party gets voted out, there will be no policy change when the new party came in. Take the beginning of 2000 when Bush was elected. No one would've believed that He could possibly out-spend Clinton like he did. Point being, the liberal was taken out of office and a neocon was installed and business continues as usual. Or worse.
PS: Checkout reopen9/11.org
QuoteYou have no proof of this, merely speculation.
www.st911.org
Its amazing how much "proof" there is.
Russell, perhaps if you had been abducted by aliens, you would see things the way I do too! ;)
There is using it and causing it ...... to me there is a big difference.
conspiracy theoryI love the use of this term, as it applies best to the official story of 9/11. The official story involves a plot by more than one individual that is supported by evidence but has yet to be proven, ergo, a conspiracy theory.
I love the use of this term
The history of how the idiom "conspiracy theory" became a part of our language is most interesting.
Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."
The Pentagon has plans to invade just about every country so that should not be suprising.Your tax dollars at work.
Must be something wrong with the software. These results just don't seem "fair and balanced". Better shut down the internet till we can find the "problem". :o
Wasn't microsoft trying to buy out google or something at one time? Did that ever go through? >.> seems irrelivant, sorry, haha, but could it be something like that going on?
How many insiders have to speak before folks begin to listen?As long as the corporate bankers run the media, no credence will be given to the 9-11 truth movement. The underground will have to make it happen.
Flight 93 confuses me. I don't know how you make a movie of it.... we don't know what happened.
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Only in a vertical dive.
Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
Does that look like a 757 to you?
Would you even think that unless someone told you to?
Does that look like a 757 to you?
It doesn't look like it's not a 757. It definitely doesn't look like a cruise missile, which would look more like a cigarette at that range. Insufficient data for a conclusion.QuoteWould you even think that unless someone told you to?I wouldn't think it was, or wasn't, whether anyone told me to, or not.
It's a one-frame blurr in a bad video. Insufficient data to say yea or nay. Anyone who claims proof either way is relying on a previous conclusion, not evidence as presented.
Kevin
How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Only in a vertical dive.
Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
Missiles don't carry jet fuel. High explosives don't produce big orange fireballs, but low-order flammables like JET-A do. A missile strike would produce a shock wave and a cloud of dust, with no visible flame or smoke. A plane crash would produce a big orange fireball and black smoke, exactly like is seen on the video.
Before everyone gets too worked up about the apparent size of the flying object that hits the Pentagon, please remember that both camera views are extreme wide angle, so that the farther away objects are, the smaller they appear.
Note: I'm not repeating the government line, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I want the truth, but "Truth" must be based on facts. When you argue against the government line, please do so with actual, verifiable facts. "I don't believe it, so they must be lying" doesn't constitute proof.
Kevin
The government's too stupid to come up with anything as ellaborate as controlled demolition.
Putting it past the government to use controlled demolitions to bring down the towers is bordering on naivete. They have more money than you can imagine at their disposal. Plus, they can spend money on classified projects and stear clear of the public eye.
So first I watched the gypsy lady video.
That led me to this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
Wow.... I have some research to do. :'(
saw another one of those non-existent whistleblowers
General Stubblebine
he said a plane did not make the whole in the Pentagon.
He didn't say he was selling a book or otherwise making money off of his statements. ;)
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket.
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket. A little too scary for some of us.
For most of the conspiracies to hold true litterally THOUSANDS had to be in on the planning and carrying out of what they think happened.
But to suggest Bush (the bumbling idiot who can't do much right) somehow pulled together this master plan
the thousands needed to be involved to carry it out without a single whistle blower is just insane.
... while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.
I'm not saying that is how it happened. Truth is, I don't know.
Those who buy the guvment's story like to ask people like me to explain every last little detail, while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.
What would it be like, KB, if you held the government to the same standards as you hold those who challenge it on the issue of 9/11?
KB ...
It's quite simple, really, and anyone with knowledge of criminal investigations can tell you
If you were an investigator, and found that one of the prime suspects was a) intentionally lying b) destroying evidence c) silencing witnesses d) obstructing the investigation what would be the natural conclusion?
Why won't you apply the same logic to the government? My answer (that you didn't like) is that you have emotional reasons for not wanting to accept it: namely, that it is a horrible thing to contemplate. But we should not let these emotional concerns keep us from objectively considering the evidence.
while you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist
from Republican to Libertarian to independent anarchist.
Good thing I qualify on that front. Do you?
I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.
Quotewhile you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist
Wow! Can't let you get away with that personal attack.
QuoteI am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.
Well, then why don't you just ignore these threads, KB? Frankly, you are the main person on this forum that likes to debunk other people's questions. ( . . . ) You can't let a 9/11 post go by without comment.
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket. A little too scary for some of us.
Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?
Well, Kevin, I apologize to you for the ad hominem attack too. I wasn't trying to demean you. I get sick of old, worn out, debunking sites, that are based on very old information that has been discredited.
Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?
I've read it online. Or, to be more accurate, I've read most of it, taking it in chunks, limited by my patience and the medium. A book-length work really doesn't lend itself to reading via a website. I do appreciate Gatto putting it online, and I've recommended it to others in debates about public/private/homeschooling.
Kevin
Hi Alan
Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?
Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?
Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate sending kids off to public schools with brutally killing 3,000 people?
And you're missing the point - whether they were "capable" of doing so, either intellectually or practically, has little bearing on whether they actually did except in the fever-swamps of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.
There are actually people who postulate that there were no airplanes, just missiles wrapped in "holograms." Does anyone here find that theory to be plausable, or are there limits to the absurdity?
Once I was passing a semi truck in a little blue Ford Escort, when a piece of the truck's tread flew off. It smacked into the pavement and bounced, and sounded like a rifle shot right next to the car. And after reading that, I have no doubt that the 9/11 theorists would be looking for bullet holes.
Yes, I've read parts of it.
I'll ask you the same question, again: SO WHAT?
Wow, lildog, so many errors in just a tiny little post. Where to begin?
Well, MV, the original question was addressed to Kevin. You haven't read it all, so there's no reason to continue discussing this with you.Uhh... wait. I thought we were discussing 9/11?
Now since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?
For instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives. I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories. Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?
The consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor -- serious as they were -- have been wildly exaggerated in other ways. And these exaggerations come originally from Axis propagandists; but they have been repeated, I regret to say, by Americans in and out of public life.
You and I have the utmost contempt for Americans who, since Pearl Harbor, have whispered or announced "off the record" that there was no longer any Pacific Fleet -- that the Fleet was all sunk or destroyed on December 7th -- that more than (1,000) a thousand of our planes were destroyed on the ground. They have suggested slyly that the Government has withheld the truth about casualties -- that eleven or twelve thousand men were killed at Pearl Harbor instead of the figures as officially announced. They have even served the enemy propagandists by spreading the incredible story that ship-loads of bodies of our honored American dead were about to arrive in New York harbor to be put into a common grave.
Almost every Axis broadcast -- Berlin, Rome, Tokyo -- directly quotes Americans who, by speech or in the press, make damnable misstatements such as these.
QuoteNow since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?
Not really, because there is no way to persuade you.
For instance, I could agree to the terms, with the caveat that you would have to apply the same techniques to the government's theories. Unfortunately, as we've been told, your opinion is that "the fact that the government lies doesn't implicate them". So there is no way for me to win. I've already told you that I don't know, exactly, how every detail was pulled off. I can tell you that the governments theories are BS.
The framework for the debate, therefore, has been set up by you in this way:
I POKE A HOLE IN YOUR THEORY = MEANINGLESS
YOU POKE A HOLE IN MINE = CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT COMPLICIT.
Sorry, but I don't like the terms of the debate, unless you can come around to some reasonable way in which you would accept damage to your theory as evidential that the underpinning assumptions might be false.
QuoteFor instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives. I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories. Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?
For one, the existence of thermate in structural steel residue from WTC.
For instance, two planes hit each of the two towers. That is fact. There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc. It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.
I ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, f-- it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."
look, it's not up to the people of america to do a indepth research into what happened on 9/11. but the research that several independent people and groups have done, WITHOUT the cooperation of MOST government officials, leads us to be able to very quickly point out not only holes in the official story, but a series of simply unexplained "coinicidences" that logically point to either the govt being complicit or actually organizing or even carrying out the attacks.
look, it's not up to the people of america to do a indepth research into what happened on 9/11. but the research that several independent people and groups have done, WITHOUT the cooperation of MOST government officials, leads us to be able to very quickly point out not only holes in the official story, but a series of simply unexplained "coinicidences" that logically point to either the govt being complicit or actually organizing or even carrying out the attacks.
Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened. The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.
I have yet to see where these holes are and I'm asked here for someone to walk me through the facts that show the government's claim of the events to be wrong. Since you beleive them to be wrong, can you show me to these facts that made you believe the way you do?
Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented.
there are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me. i dont know engineering.
Detainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.
QuoteDetainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.
There you go misrepresenting the facts again. I've provided the actual text from page 146 of the 9/11 Commission report so that everyone can compare what it really said to what you claimed it said and see the difference for themselves.
i havent versed myself in entire details because watching video of 9/11 causes flashback problems for me. the impact of the jets rocked my building. i saw the south tower collapse from a couple of blocks away. if you drop a large pen on my desk, i will duck every time.
there are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me.
another is the eyewitness accounts of a lot of people who heard explosions on the scene.
another is the fact that the pentagon plane supposedly disintegrated on impact, including 2 steel and titanium engines which their manufacturer (rolls royce) has said could not disintegrate in any kind of heat created by rocket fuel. and, this disintegrated jet, which is now simply dust, then, i think 3 internal rings away, supposedly sent its landing gear (rubber and steel which is the only thing that didnt "disintegrate") into a concrete re-inforced wall, creating a 16-foot hole.
the administration has lied about every single thing theyve done. congress is meaningless in this country. the democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.
the biggest reason there are holes in the alternative theories behind 9/11 is because they had limited access to government documents. the govt supplied images to popular mechanics in order to "debunk" the "theories" but those images are not available to the public.
why were they running false flag drills on the mornings of 9/11 and 7/7?
why did NORAD fail?
the 9/11 commission report does not answer these questions. until we have answers, the drive and desire and need of individuals in america to get to the truth, to have questions answered, is going to create speculation.
my only request to the government is that they give us something we can believe. if the govt wishes to reduce the nearly 40% of people in this country who believe that 9/11 was, to some degree, an inside job, they should answer and even work with the independent researchers, the scholars, the engineers and scientists who doubt some of the official details.
also, the bbc has reported that at least four of the 19 hijackers are still alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
this means either the govt named the wrong guys by mistaken identity, or that the individuals to whom they applied names simply had nothing to do with it.
the fbi acknowledges that the identity is in doubt.
i'm not satisfied with that answer. why should i be?
with publicly available information, we can prove operation northwoods, which has connections to the current administration, and goes to establish a pattern of military strategy that includes carrying out terrorist attacks in america in order to justify a war with another countyr.
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.
or when an infant needs to pass extra security because she shares a name with a "suspected terrorist"not doubting your claim here, just stating my disgust:
A fact is a fact is a fact. If something is factual there is no debating about it.
For instance, two planes hit each of the two towers. That is fact. There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc. It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.
They either refuse to debate, or they refuse to accept any evidence they dislike (usually trying to claim it?s fake) or they demand evidence that does exist.
Case in point, there is video showing the hijackers in an airport. One theorist I?ve tried to discuss this with said that isn?t proof that they boarded the plane, they in turn demanded video showing them actually boarding the plane. Now the commission report points out that there weren?t any security cameras set up to capture that. In fact there weren?t any beyond security, so they refused to even accept any discussions about terrorists boarding the plane unless I could somehow provide this video that didn?t exist. The insisted that the manifests were fake, the cell phone calls were somehow doctored, etc.
So I?m asking you to build your case, I?m the open minded jury here? convince me.
Why are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings? You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something. Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers. None were found during the clean up efforts. Why?
I assume using some super-secret Star Trek military technology that nobody realizes has been invented yet
Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened. The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.
OH, that again? Those four were later found to have been victims of identity theft. Try again. (referring to the hijackers who are still alive)
Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented. You have nothing but unproven allegations and a sheer lack of evidence to back them up.
Remember these weren?t blocks falling over, they were buildings whose insides were mostly empty air.
I know that many people love when Penn & Teller debunk myths.
What if the myth is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=bullshit&hl=en
I?ll agree that facts are facts. But not every fact can be known. That is why ?theories? are developed. Theories take known facts and attempt to suggest a rational explanation that includes all the facts.
It is interesting that you chose this particular ?fact?, because in a sense it undermines the government?s theory. You say that we have ?a list of those who were on the planes?. Unfortunately, that list has never included any of the hijacker?s names.
I didn?t refuse your debate, I said that I wouldn?t accept it on the terms offered. I basically challenged you to come up with some terms that would enable me to convince you, and asked you what that would be.
So what if the terrorists boarded a plane? I don?t think that is even in question. There were people who made calls to their family members saying that there were hijackers on board, so I?m certainly not disputing that there were hijackers.
It?s interesting that you mention this particular episode, however, because it, too, undermines the official story. Why would the hijackers fly to Maine, and then back again to Boston on that day? It doesn?t make any sense, EXCEPT if the purpose were to intentionally show up on a video monitor. But why would terrorists who were unaffiliated with the government want to do such a thing?
Well, keep in mind this is just a theory, but I like to apply Occam?s razor. I think there were terrorists and planes, frankly.
My rough outline would go something like this. The government (which has, by the way, thoroughly infiltrated Al Qaeda) finds out about an Al Qaeda plot to attack the WTC and several sites in Washington.
This would be sometime in about 1998. Rather than stop the plot, they decide it would be in their advantage to allow it to happen in a controlled way.
They infiltrate the cells with CIA operatives of Middle Eastern descent on stolen passports, (who incidentally, don?t know that it is a suicide mission, but think it is a routine hijack. This would explain the voice of the hijacker saying ?We?re going back to the airport?.
It also makes it far less complicated to explain why they were in strip clubs, etc. They weren?t particularly Islamic zealouts: They didn?t know they were going to die!)
The planes are controlled from the ground, out of the pilots? control. (The technology to do this existed at the time.) This explains a) why none of the pilots ever pressed the hijack button (they COULDN?T if the controls had been taken away) b) why hijackers were able to fly expertly when none of them were known to be expert flyers.
Here?s a link to a story about the thermate. It was done by a chemical analysis, according to the article. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
QuoteWhy are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings? You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something. Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers. None were found during the clean up efforts. Why?
Good questions, and frankly, I don?t know. I think you need far less thermate than thermite, for one. I think it would be relatively easy to plant them, since most people would simply assume that anyone they saw was with building maintenance, and it wouldn?t even occur to them otherwise, even afterwards. It would be easy enough for the government to secure whatever identification would be needed to have whatever access they wanted.
And David Ray Griffin has done precisely that. Have you read his book, ?The 9/11 Commission Report: Errors and Omissions??
To the contrary, the number of holes in the government?s story are so voluminous that it is overwhelming.
This is a very good point, and Error actually made my point for me: They were victims of identity theft! YES! EXACTLY! This is such a crucial point: They were victims of identity theft! Let?s all say it together: THEY WERE VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.
Error, don?t you see how significant that is? Actually, almost ALL the ?hijackers? had reported their passports lost or stolen in the years preceding 9/11. The four that are still alive (actually, its more like six or possibly seven) obviously did have their identity stolen. So ? WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE? The answer is, WE DON?T KNOW AND IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN?T COMPLICIT NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!!! All the government can say is that someone using such and such?s identity hijacked a plane. But who was the ultimate hijacker? It obviously wasn?t the person whose identity was stolen. And a real Muslim hijacker would have no reason to conceal his identity: he would want to get credit for his jihad after the fact. Someone has a vested interest, therefore, in convincing us that 19 Middle Eastern Muslim men (mostly of Saudi descent) hijacked the planes? But who?
Another interesting story about the hijackers involves ? Jeddeh, I think. I might have the wrong name. The interesting story here is that he WAS A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN! DOH! Whoever stole his identity sure screwed the pooch on that one; seems someone forgot that not all Middle Eastern men are Muslims.
Of course it isn?t evidential in this particular case, but it is evidential of the fact that the government WOULD do such a thing. In fact, Northwoods was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only reason it wasn?t implemented was because JFK pulled the plug on it. So, the argument that ?the US government just doesn?t think that way? is certainly invalid. Let?s call Northwoods what it is: It?s a character witness
YOU are mostly air. Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy. 99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.
Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.
YOU are mostly air. Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy. 99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.
Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.
Physics pro Tracy would probably correct you by saying that "air," consisting mainly of atoms of nitrogen and oxygen, is not the same thing as "empty space."
Correct, but then again, air actually provides some resistence, whereas "empty space" does not. Therefore, Lildog should be more likely to collapse into his own footprint than was WTC. ;)
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.
Digging for truth is not an insult to victims.
Moving the bar? Hell, all I wanted was a clear account of what the guy was saying, and Alex Jones is no journalist.That is a reason I like him.
Since when is Woodward a source we can trust?
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Yet another fake crashes and burns:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837
Reminds me of Jesse Macbeth.
Kevin
They're right. This document has been modified after being scanned.
They're right. This document has been modified after being scanned.
It's not even a good fake. For those of you who keep up with Alex Jones, has he addressed this development? Or glossed right over it? Or claimed it as evidence of a conspiracy shooting down a whistleblower? Anything?
::) As long as these major "9/11 Truth" folk are alive, I'm going to have trouble believing that a secret society/Jewish conspiracy/Masonic lodge/Rotary club/American government did this. If there's a super-powerful organization willing to slaughter thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of brown folk for oil, then you can bet it'll have no problem killing Russo. And where's all that oil we were promised from Iraq?
You put your fnger on it without realizing it. If Aaron Russo, et al, were to be killed, or mysteriously die or disappear, people would KNOW they were telling the truth. Too many people look at things staight on, and this is why the devious ones succeed.
You put your fnger on it without realizing it. If Aaron Russo, et al, were to be killed, or mysteriously die or disappear, people would KNOW they were telling the truth. Too many people look at things staight on, and this is why the devious ones succeed.
Ludicrous. Gary Webb is offed and they "KNEW" then. ::)
I have friends who were either in the WTC, across the street, or in Jersey City who would confirm the fact that two airliners hit the towers. These stupid conspiracy theories really bring your credibility into question Kat. :( :( :(But, no plane hit Building #7. Plenty of eyewitnesses heard explosions going off as the towers came down. Planes hitting the Towers only serves as the cover story. According to the above Russo story, I would say that this should serve as the straw that broke the camel's back. This shows the magnitude of the powers of the banking elite. In order for liberty to ever thrive, these people need to be exposed and stopped. Finally, these people should be relinquished of control over our lives.
But, no plane hit Building #7.
I have friends who were either in the WTC, across the street, or in Jersey City who would confirm the fact that two airliners hit the towers. These stupid conspiracy theories really bring your credibility into question Kat. :( :( :(When have you heard Kat say that she doesn't think 2 planes hit the towers?
Then there's the fact that there's no such thing as an "expert marksman" badge, and where "expert" was pasted in, there's still a remnant of the top of a slash.
I recall the Air Force had an expert marksman ribbon.
I don't see anything for the army here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/armyribs.php
But they do have the air force one here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/airforceribs.php
Then there's the fact that there's no such thing as an "expert marksman" badge, and where "expert" was pasted in, there's still a remnant of the top of a slash.
The link won't open up for me so I don't know the context that this statement was made in. But, if you're talking about military service there most certainly is such a thing as an "expert marksman" badge in the Army. I qualified for it every time while in the service. ;)
Planes hitting the towers were needed to cover the reality of the situation. Just like at the OKC bombing, the ampho bomb in the truck out front was needed to cover the shake charges that were placed in the building itself.But, no plane hit Building #7.
The falling towers did, though.
Kevin
the shake charges that were placed in the building itself.
Who was Gary Webb?
Things get really bizarre when you talk to some of them who embrace the idea of inaction as they believe the NWO is leading the world towards the return of Jesus. The essentially say to themselves that they shouldn't do anything so as to hasten "His" return.Especially when the Bible doesn't mention anything about cooperating with evil to speed up the process.
The CIA probably should be disolved.
But Americans are not responsible for planning or executing 9-11. Maybe inept, ignorant, slow to react to the threat, but complicity? Thats whak-o. You'd be better off spending your time looking for info on UFO cover-ups. They're more likely (though also assanine).
-Objectivist
The sinking of the Maine
and the Lusitania?
Pearl Harbor?
Gulf of Tonkin?
9-11 is the same.
I thought they already controlled most politicians.
Rockefeller told Russo that 9/11 would happen, 9 months before it did.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en
I thought they already controlled most politicians.
Yeah, most. But if the political revolution that Denis and the folks at the NHLA are planning occurs, then the NWO may have to use the threat of the weather weapon to get compliance from US politicians.
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
Exactly what we're already doing: downsize the government and reduce its power at all levels.
Who cares what the weather is. You can have a nonviolent revolution rain or shine! :)
Tornadoes and hurricanes in New Hampshire?! Since when?
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\a nonviolent way to no longer be a slave of the current ruling elite .... ideas from Jesus, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King:
All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
living absolutly debt free and make a plan to move to a simpler lifestyle obtainable at a moment of personal or society emergency.All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
I agree 100% about their goal to enslave me but what ways can I refuse? That's what I want to do but I don't understand how, maybe I'm so used to having a certain mind-set and I want to break free from it but what actions do I take?
Like when Rick goes to work they take taxes out already so I can't think of anything to do there.
My thoughts on not being a slave are this: Learn how to live off the grid but I need money to intiate this, alternative sources of energy cost money to set up, buying bulk foods cost money, would I have to give up a telephone and internet? I don't know. So Rick would have to continue to work to set this up, we'd have to move to a smaller, lower mortgage house (which is fine with me, if we could sell the house we have). Am I on the right track?
Cathleen said something awhile ago to me that makes perfect sense. She said to learn a tool that was in demand and trade services also. I'm pretty sure I have that right (what Cathleen said), so for weeks I thought about anything I have a talent in that would be beneficial and I honestly can't come up with any. I don't know how to sew good, I'm not a good writer (thought about writing a book), I am horrible in math blah, blah. I could clean people's houses though is that maybe something useful? I love kids and babies so I could babysit but I don't want to babysit for people I don't know because if the kid gets a bruise or falls I don't feel like getting sued or going to jail for something I didn't do.
I am sorry for all of the questions but I really want to learn so I have to ask all of these questions.
Looking at the history of government conspiracy, from the lies surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, to the sinking of the Maine, to the Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, then on to the Bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kennedy assasinations, the MLK assasinations, and most recently the Weapons of Mass destruction, can anyone doubt the ability of Government to attempt something on the scale of 9-11?
Although the events that followed the conspiracies you discribe, up to Tonkin, were horrible, the conspiracies themselves to actually pull off, were not of the scale of 911.
The government probably had nothing to do with the assasinations of R. Kennedy or MLK.
Even though Iraq's possesion of WMD's was none of our business and no excuse to invade, many experts in many countries assumed they had these weapons.
What about WTC 7?
Larry Silverstein, who owned the WTC properties and purchased them several months before 9/11 even, was on PBS a year or two ago and sat right in that chair and admitted to the public that he had ordered FDNY to "pull" Building No. 7.
In other words, that building went down like a stack of um, well, floors used in a controlled demolition.
Use the photography, folks! Even the AP stuff, the CNN stuff, the Washington Post, Time Magazine stuff! You can't fit a commercial airliner into the hole that hit the Pentagon. There's just no way. If a jetliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, where's the massive security camera footage of it all? We have yet to see one credible piece of footage that shows a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
That Cleveland, Ohio TV station's report about Flight 93 isn't credible? Give me a break! It landed two hours after we were "told" it crashed!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Not once has anyone said, "look at their organizations they're tied to." You don't think the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones and all those other "organizations" wouldn't put their agenda (i.e., Rockefellers, etc.) forward by putting a bunch of fruitcake figurehead politicians in power to carry it out? Come on!
This is all in plain view! I do believe a lot of folks in the libertarian community have very thick blinders on. Either you're just too trusting, or just won't pry open your brain a little to question everything you read or hear.
Must be the reporter in me.
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\a nonviolent way to no longer be a slave of the current ruling elite .... ideas from Jesus, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King:
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Readings%20for%20Civil%20Disobedience
The truth can set you free, but you have to take that next step that has been revealed to you. :)
Most people say that they feel like they are carrying a heavy burden. I say it is time for atlas to shrug.
Matthew 11:30 "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
http://www.911timeline.net/whatwouldyoudo.ra
It's funny that none of the anti-truthers from FTL ever chime in here on this post. They stay over at the BBS where they feel more at home. I have negative Karma over there (like I care) for just discussing the topic even though I'm a plat amplifier. Clearly the moderator over there is a hater. There's just too many teenagers over there that are so impressionable that they'll ride Ian's coattails on anything. And of course, it takes lots of time to sift through all the relevent info. What's even more funny is that they call anyone that peruses Jones' sites asshats. I mean Bush and co. could admit to wrong-doing and these juveniles still wouldn't believe it. When I move to NH this year, I think I'll be done with the FTL BBS.Maybe because for any complex organized plan to work it requires lots of data to be left around. No just some papers, but actual odd things like bills of sales, warehouse invoices, and other such stuffs. You make a complex story with no real paper trail to be found. Hell, we can find paper trails on Hoffa, J. Edgar Hoover, MK-Ultra, and other such government travesties, but we can't find a single decent speck of truth out of the 9/11 crackpottery. Not a tittle. If you can give me more than Loose Change and Alex "I hate gay people" Jones, then I'll listen. But if you can't then please keep your opinion to yourself or expect reprisals in kind.
P.S. as another example of these chumps immaturity, they'll hijack 9-11 truth threads and start chatting about cocks, assholes, who's gay and who isn't. These crybabies aren't the type of freedom folks that I want to work with. It's hard to apply the Zero-Aggress-Princ to annoying lowlifes like them
Seems like it makes sense to be reasonable about what is the truth about 9/11.
Seems like it makes sense to be reasonable about what is the truth about 9/11.
Idiotic government pencil necks setting us up for a fall due to 50+ years of aggressive foreign policy against brown people? Yeah, that's the most logical answer to it all, tbh.
-- Bridget
Yeah, you forgot utterly incompetent.everything is going as planned for the people who gw work for .
It's funny that none of the anti-truthers from FTL ever chime in here on this post. They stay over at the BBS where they feel more at home. I have negative Karma over there (like I care) for just discussing the topic even though I'm a plat amplifier. Clearly the moderator over there is a hater. There's just too many teenagers over there that are so impressionable that they'll ride Ian's coattails on anything. And of course, it takes lots of time to sift through all the relevent info. What's even more funny is that they call anyone that peruses Jones' sites asshats. I mean Bush and co. could admit to wrong-doing and these juveniles still wouldn't believe it. When I move to NH this year, I think I'll be done with the FTL BBS.everyone learns the truth at there own pace. unfortunatly our society teaches simplness and simple judgment calls that are kept as fact; and the door to learn more is closed for decades; if not a lifetime.
P.S. as another example of these chumps immaturity, they'll hijack 9-11 truth threads and start chatting about cocks, assholes, who's gay and who isn't. These crybabies aren't the type of freedom folks that I want to work with. It's hard to apply the Zero-Aggress-Princ to annoying lowlifes like them
Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
I agree 100% about their goal to enslave me but what ways can I refuse? That's what I want to do but I don't understand how, maybe I'm so used to having a certain mind-set and I want to break free from it but what actions do I take?
I'm in 0% denial of the truth of 9/11
I accept as fact with absolutely no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. This is after years of study and research. It's not a conclusion that's easy to come to or quick to come to. It takes some time for it to really "set in."
I'm offering my support for a solution to the problem by acknowledging the problem.
I would say it's a good idea to be prepared for defense, though. Soon they may decide to start killing us off in droves. They could nuke a city at any time and blame it on Iran. Those 600+ detention facilities in the country are ready for action.what is your plan for nuclear defense?
Gandhi may have won doing it his way, but I guarantee they let him win that one as well.
I don't have a plan for nuclear defense. I have a plan for nuclear prevention. That plan is simple -- make our move and take these SOBs out now.
Then why not start?
It seems right for me to follow a path of nonresistance to evil and one of the side benefits is that I can actually do it ... now. Jesus instructions are very powerful and can actually be followed.
Having a firearm is all well and good, but since you don't know WHO to shoot, and WHEN to shoot them, what have you accomplished?
And there's much more to it than just "shooting the bastards," anyway.
The person who said I was spitting on the graves of the 9/11 victims really should see this movie:That was a great documentary. It was from the point of view of the victims families and this guy who has done a decent timeline of all the media reports surrounding 9/11.
9/11 Press for Truth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kYEMu48apIA
9/11 Widows questioning what happened.
Any comments on the newest documents?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0315071pearl1.html?link=rssfeed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0314071gitmo1.html?link=rssfeed
Officials: Mohammed exaggerated claims
Terror Mastermind KSM is an Imposter - The Confession is Fake *PIC*
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=100966
See: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030309/world.htm
Note the heavy-set frame, the nearly closed eyes, and the grey sideburn in front of Qudoos right ear.
This is the caption to the photo of Qudoos: Ahmed Abdul Qadus (centre) is brought to an anti-terrorist court in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on Saturday. Qadus, an activist of the Jamat-e-Islami, was arrested earlier this month with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the USA. ? AP/PTI
Now compare that person's face with that of the alleged terror mastermind, KSM:
http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00158/Khalid_Sheikh_Moham_158759a.jpg
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.
Why did the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7 at all?
Why did the fema report (I think) only have one line about wtc7s collapse ... and that was about how their was no explanation of its collapse that was very likely?
Why did the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7 at all?
Why did the fema report (I think) only have one line about wtc7s collapse ... and that was about how their was no explanation of its collapse that was very likely?
You're talking about the same FEMA that performed so admirably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, right? And the 9/11 Commission which had as one of its members the person most directly responsible for the "wall" between the intelligence and law-enforcement communities which hobbled any possibility of identifying and preventing the attack, right?
The explanation for its collapse is right there in front of you in those three pictures - first it was "sandblasted" with hundred-ton chunks of steel and concrete flying at hundreds of kilometers per hour, then it burned for a while, the fires perhaps fed by pressurized generator fuel, and then it collapsed.
Kat's friend is so nice.thank you..
They're FEMA.
IF YOU ARE SOOOOOOO CONFIDENT THAT IT WAS MUSLIM JIHADISTS WITH BOX CUTTERS (aka the turban+box-cutter theory)
THEN WATCH THESE MOVIES. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE, RIGHT? IF THE FILMS ARE WRONG, THEN THEY CAN ONLY MAKE YOU LAUGH AT HOW RIDICULOUS THE POINTS THEY TRY TO MAKE ARE, RIGHT?
Every time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability.So you attack someone on technicalities like flavoraid and keffiyeh .... and then defend the federal government. What kind of heart attitude does that reveal?
Eyes wide shut. Watch some films about 9/11 for crying out loud. For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire. It didn't happen once, but 3 times.
Watch the collapses -- they are perfect demolitions.
Every time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability.So you attack someone on technicalities like flavoraid and keffiyeh .... and then defend the federal government. What kind of heart attitude does that reveal?
An attitude that is concerned with actual facts, not Truther nonsense.You attack those of us that want to dismantle the government.
And please point out where I've defended the federal government. Good luck in your search.
Eyes wide shut. Watch some films about 9/11 for crying out loud. For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire. It didn't happen once, but 3 times.
Yes, there was only a fire. No planes crashed into them and destroyed large percentages of the supporting structure first.
It's a very simple failure mode. Take out a chunk of the structure. Then heat the remaining structure with a fire. The steel is softened, and expands, as a result of the heat. The expansion shifts the loads onto the hottest, weakest elements. Those elements fail. Now there are fewer supporting elements, and they are taking even more load. They fail. It's a simple cascade failure, which any competent structural engineer can explain.
The steel does not have to be melted by the fire to fail, contrary to what the "armchair experts" in the conspiracy theories claim.Watch the collapses -- they are perfect demolitions.
Have you ever seen a tall building collapse any other way? See, there's this thing called gravity. Oddly enough, it's fairly strong. When you weaken a building that size to the point that it fails, the downward gravity vector is far stronger than any lateral loading, so the building drops straight - or almost straight - down. This is basic, basic physics. I suggest signing up for a few physics classes at a local college...
Joe
you are so full of shit.
there are highrise pictures abound that gut out completely by fire and the steel frame is still there.
next time i light my gas grill wich burns 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel and the grill grate does not melt...
...i will think how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent , paid to people like you to push out bullshit by, people who think they are part of the system.
you truly have no morals. you live a lie. you think you are better and smarter than us.
you are fake.
may god have mercy on your soul.
I do happen to have a fairly good understanding of engineering, and I call BS on anyone who believes conspiracy websites written by people who clearly don't even understand gravity.Some of these guys http://stj911.org/ spend a lot of time studying gravity. :)
you are so full of shit.
there are highrise pictures abound that gut out completely by fire and the steel frame is still there.
How many were struck by jet aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour, prior to the fire?
Of course, as I said, the fire did not melt the steel frame.next time i light my gas grill wich burns 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel and the grill grate does not melt...
Just how hot do you think the flame of an atmospheric LP burner is, actually? C'mon, let's hear a number......i will think how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent , paid to people like you to push out bullshit by, people who think they are part of the system.
Uh, who's paying these hundreds of millions of dollars? I could sure use hundreds of millions of dollars, right now. So far, all the government has ever done to me is take money.
For the record, I'm an anarchist; I'm not part of anyone's system. I do happen to have a fairly good understanding of engineering, and I call BS on anyone who believes conspiracy websites written by people who clearly don't even understand gravity.you truly have no morals. you live a lie. you think you are better and smarter than us.
you are fake.
may god have mercy on your soul.
Who is "us." I'm certainly "better and smarter" than many people. Define who this set called "us" is and I'll tell you if I'm better and smarter than everyone in it... ::)
Joe
realitycheck--I have no idea who you are, nor can anyone else by looking at your profile. You may be a troll or you may be sincere, but I can tell you this, that you are not going to win any heart or minds by insulting people on this board. Many of us have been posting for a number of years and have established relationships.point well taken. thank you.
No matter what the argument is, use some respect. There are reasons why your abrasive language and insults have earned you a negative rating.
For the record, I am a "9/11 Truther", whatever that may mean. I've serious misgivings about what the "official conspiracy theory" dictates, and am upfront about it on my MySpace profile. I'm also involved in some activism, but try to be pretty careful about what I say on a public forum. Word to the wise--Let facts speak for themselves without devolving in to elementary name-calling. The same goes for the rest of you!
An attitude that is concerned with actual facts, not Truther nonsense.You attack those of us that want to dismantle the government.
And please point out where I've defended the federal government. Good luck in your search.
You believe the governments story of 9/11 and attack those of us that would dare question it.
You aid the feds and take money from them. Your actions are even more important than your debates.
you can kiss my ass if you think i am gonna jump through your questions. you want answers go figure it out yourself.
if you just open up your mind you might be able to see the way reality really is.
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
you can kiss my ass if you think i am gonna jump through your questions. you want answers go figure it out yourself.
if you just open up your mind you might be able to see the way reality really is.
What makes you "better and smarter" than most people. genetics ? you prick.
You are either working for the government or you are ignorant. Which one?
Building # 7, the world trade centers 1 and 2 fell to the ground into the basement and you know it... Have you ever seen a building the has been prepped with explosives ?
remember they always showed buildings being taken down with explosives before 911 on local and national television, and now you do not ever see it. Why is that? Since then there has never been a demolition of a high rise building on television since. Why? Because it looks just like the buildings that were taken down on 911.... Wake up and see the truth... April 11 is comming up so join us as we expose the truth about 911. ya ever seen the movie the pianist"?
How do you live with your conscience, Russell? Or do you just ignore it and blow off anything that doesn't fit with your argument of the moment?If I had your job ... I would just have to quit.
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
I would have to use force to let people go. I'd have to use force against many people to let someone out the gate. Maybe you can help me narrow down the list of who should be "let go"; would you choose the cops who beat people and tortured false confessions out of them? Or the men who raped their stepdaughters and posted pictures on the internet? The nursing home attendant who beat and raped elderly patients?
And now for the reality check: how many of them would you welcome into your own home? If they're discharged from prison, would you offer them a room?
I have repeatedly said on this forum that I wish my job didn't exist. Eliminate unconstitutional laws, and my job wouldn't exist. But you don't argue for that; you prefer to accuse me of evil, when you'd do nothing to stop someone from raping your step-daughter in front of her mother, and would then protest any "government" that locked him up.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5:15
I do not believe "the government's story"; I believe what I saw. I do not attack anyone who questions the government's story, but I do question the integrity of those who propagate made-up theories as "truth" -- no matter whether those theories are the government's or those opposing the government.
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
I would have to use force to let people go. I'd have to use force against many people to let someone out the gate. Maybe you can help me narrow down the list of who should be "let go"; would you choose the cops who beat people and tortured false confessions out of them? Or the men who raped their stepdaughters and posted pictures on the internet? The nursing home attendant who beat and raped elderly patients?
And now for the reality check: how many of them would you welcome into your own home? If they're discharged from prison, would you offer them a room?
I have repeatedly said on this forum that I wish my job didn't exist. Eliminate unconstitutional laws, and my job wouldn't exist. But you don't argue for that; you prefer to accuse me of evil, when you'd do nothing to stop someone from raping your step-daughter in front of her mother, and would then protest any "government" that locked him up.
I agree with you KB Craig and I wouldn't want a murderer, rapist or child molester in my home let alone out of prison; it's where they belong. There are a lot of innocent people in prison but that's not KB's fault, he's not the prosecutor that perhaps overlooked facts on a particular case. Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with. The judgment written about here against KB is ignorant and cruel! How about some body pay his bills then and support his family? Sometimes life isn't as easy as you make it out to be Russell.
I don't think it's fair to call Kevin evil.
That's not an approval of his line of work. But if it is wrong to do something, that doesn't mean that someone who does that wrong thing is *evil*. If only evil people work the positions of power and violence, then we are hopelessly doomed.
Hello?First of all Powerchuter, your comments above are rude and demeaning so I won't waste my time commenting, live with your rude self, I don't care.
Is anybody in there!?!
(and I quote)
"Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with"
(end qote)
Hey Rainey...
My "job" is to hunt you down, kidnap you, and hold you until either you or Brian Severance tells the judge where David is... and if you resist I'll just have to use "superior force"(beat, spray, shock, stab, and/or shoot) to bring you in...dead or alive...
But...I'm not evil...hey...it's just my job...right!?!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en). This video was excellent and it makes some points that you don't really hear that much.
If only evil people work the positions of power and violence, then we are hopelessly doomed.Evil people are attracted to those positions .... or invent them.
Let me put it this way, maybe you'll understand ::), if someone broke into your home and tortured and murdered your family, would you want that someone out on the street free and clear? What you and Russell are saying is, open the prison doors and let these scumbags back on the street to hurt more people?Yes
... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
Kevin is almost completely a positive contributer to the forum. His sole liability is that he seems to have a burden in his heart to challenge everyone who doubts the official government story on 9/11. Ironically, he admits that he doesn't believe the government story. But he only seems to want people to go down certain paths or certain lines of inquiry.
In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
I wouldn't go that easy on him, he is, after all, a federal employee. He doesn't have a right to live at the expense of (net) taxpayers.
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
Lloyd that makes perfect sense. It's nice to see some non-judgmental, intelligent thought process here! :D... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Russell of course you know that your entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on this board. Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though? In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
Let me put it this way, maybe you'll understand ::), if someone broke into your home and tortured and murdered your family, would you want that someone out on the street free and clear? What you and Russell are saying is, open the prison doors and let these scumbags back on the street to hurt more people?Yes
I do not believe that powerchuter shares my thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers.
But I do agree with him that some jobs are not right to perform.
I do not believe "the government's story"; I believe what I saw. I do not attack anyone who questions the government's story, but I do question the integrity of those who propagate made-up theories as "truth" -- no matter whether those theories are the government's or those opposing the government.
So what do you believe happened on 9/11? I think that's the crucial point here. You can say, "I don't believe the government's story, and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists. I only believe what I saw with my eyes."
Kevin is almost completely a positive contributer to the forum. His sole liability is that he seems to have a burden in his heart to challenge everyone who doubts the official government story on 9/11.
Ironically, he admits that he doesn't believe the government story. But he only seems to want people to go down certain paths or certain lines of inquiry.
Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
Russell,Time to set the prisoners free. :)
I'm interested in clarifying the "yes" in your previous post and also desire to inquire about your thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers ...
Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
author=raineyrocks link=topic=1747.msg143047#msg143047 date=1175990607]... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...
There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Russell of course you know that your entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on this board. Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though? In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
This thread has so much crap in it, how can anyone stand it!?!
Rainey states "In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you"!?!?!
So, what I get from that is...
Kevin can continue to assist in the continued incarceration of both the innocent and the not so innocent...at the direct and indirect expense of those who pay taxes under threat of being incarcerated by the very system that keeps Kevin employed...
I'm with Russell and others in feeling that "the jailers" not only keep plenty of innocent political prisoners incarcerated, but also use aggression, incarceration, and lethal force to tax(steal) from the people to get their share of the loot.
Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
What is not fair is to use that dislike and distrust to believe that the government must have done this, and then search for supporting evidence while ignoring all contrary evidence. The same standard applies to the government apologists. Scientific evidence is politically neutral, and doesn't seek a pre-determined conclusion.
It involves many people over many years ... It's a conspiracy!Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
I did not know this, sorry! :)
That's what I used to think.What is not fair is to use that dislike and distrust to believe that the government must have done this, and then search for supporting evidence while ignoring all contrary evidence. The same standard applies to the government apologists. Scientific evidence is politically neutral, and doesn't seek a pre-determined conclusion.
Exactly.
I have no trouble swallowing the notion that certain elements of the US Government could fake a terrorist attack for political gain. What I do have trouble swallowing is the notion that they used complex and wholly un-necessary methods to do that, when the obvious method could easily accomplish the task, and would only require a tiny conspiracy to pull off.
That's what I used to think.
I didn't start looking into 9/11 until a year or so ago. But after a couple books and a bunch of videos, I am convinced that many people in/outside the government conspired to destroy those buildings and cover it up later ..... mostly to further their goals for a bigger US government empire.
New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin is a good resource.
New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin is a good resource.
But I do remember using a metaphor to describe what happened. I indicated to Jamie that the jet had become a weapon that day. I said it was like a cruise missile with wings. I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today.
The official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.
.. to use you as a tool in their self-promoting machine.That is a funny phrase. If you watched a presentation by Griffin .... he doesn't have much of a self-promoting machine. :)
How many other buildings damaged by severe, fuel-laden fires following the high-speed impact of a jetliner were constructed in just the same way as the WTC towers, with 110 acres of concrete stacked atop one another supported at their perimeters?None that I know of .... not even wtc7 :)
This is a link to a video of a real controlled demolition, (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/real-controlled-demolition.html) and the deafening cracks of the explosive charges set throughout the building drowned out the sound of the helicopter from which the demo was being filmed, and echoed around downtown Forth Worth.I thought many people in NYC used the term "explosions" when they describe the 9/11 collapses. Am I wrong?
It's pointless to argue about what really hit the Pentagon,
It's pointless to argue about what really hit the Pentagon,
We have an eyewitness who states that it was an American Airlines jet, and a list of 64 passengers and crew from American flight 77 and first-person accounts of two phone calls made from the plane, and we have people postulating that the video camera footage and photos of the scene were faked. Which explanation is more credible and likely?
I think that my point has been dismissed. Oh well ::)
That is a completely inappropriate response to a serious posting. Since you apparently can't factually contradict anything I said, though I will interpret it as an immature and amateurish lashing out against an idea which causes cognitive dissonance in your psyche.Ouch!
The events preceding, including and after 9/11 are far too serious to be relegated to this phony moonbat conspiracy theory-vs-mainstream media showdown.
The events preceding, including and after 9/11 are far too serious to be relegated to this phony moonbat conspiracy theory-vs-mainstream media showdown.
No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. Before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.
(http://www.rense.com/general76/CNNphoto.jpg)
Well there you go, proof doesn't get more solid then that. ::)
As interesting as arguments can be, I simply don't have the time or energy to try and convince those who choose to be willfully ignorant of easily verifiable facts. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but in a general sense.
"Mike Berger's program at U of Hartford, Holyoke, Northampton has been quite impressive.. in depth.. I expected MB to be one decent person, but hadn't expected the depth of his research and knowledge in connecting many of the dots around the events of 9/11."
I think we can all agree, no matter who was behind 9-11, what the government has done in reaction to it is unconscionable.
As interesting as arguments can be, I simply don't have the time or energy to try and convince those who choose to be willfully ignorant of easily verifiable facts. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but in a general sense.
How fascinating, because I feel exactly the same way about the Truthers.
I'd appreciate it if you name one easily-verifiable fact that you have in mind.
Insurgent often makes the point that it's very difficult or almost pointless to argue about how the collapse occurred, since the physical evidence was spirited away (and hence nothing to use as evidence in court) and there's hardly anything to go on but video evidence.
I can't emphasize enough how valuable an appearance this is for those in our area who are "9-11 curious" - Wednesday night in Concord at the Best Western. Come at 6PM to help set up, movie starts at 7PM, Q&A with Mike Berger afterwards. If you're truly a knowledge-seeker, this is a HUGE opportunity. Even if you are a skeptic and arguer, it's still an opportunity - to prove "9-11 Truthers" wrong by the force of your information and strong arguments, or to become better informed in your opinions by gleaning information from a top researcher. Methinks this forum (the movie showing / Q&A) would be THE place to become better informed to argue, if that is your choice of methods to deal with one of the greatest horrors and mysteries that we have ever seen and has shaped our world in the most profound way ("...the Demolition of Our Republic" as Michael Berger says).
Insurgent often makes the point that it's very difficult or almost pointless to argue about how the collapse occurred, since the physical evidence was spirited away (and hence nothing to use as evidence in court) and there's hardly anything to go on but video evidence.
People sure seem to have filled that void with a lot of notions of what happened...
I can't emphasize enough how valuable an appearance this is for those in our area who are "9-11 curious" - Wednesday night in Concord at the Best Western. Come at 6PM to help set up, movie starts at 7PM, Q&A with Mike Berger afterwards. If you're truly a knowledge-seeker, this is a HUGE opportunity. Even if you are a skeptic and arguer, it's still an opportunity - to prove "9-11 Truthers" wrong by the force of your information and strong arguments, or to become better informed in your opinions by gleaning information from a top researcher. Methinks this forum (the movie showing / Q&A) would be THE place to become better informed to argue, if that is your choice of methods to deal with one of the greatest horrors and mysteries that we have ever seen and has shaped our world in the most profound way ("...the Demolition of Our Republic" as Michael Berger says).
I think I would be a lot more inclined to attend something like this if I thought there would be anything new to hear. I wouldn't want to spend my time, just to listen to arguments that were old when they were new.
Joe
How about you, can you name one of the easily-verifiable facts that Insurgent referred to?
People sure seem to have filled that void with a lot of notions of what happened...I think it's pretty natural to speculate on what did happen, if one is not inclined for some reason or other to accept the standard story. I believe it's a bit of postulating a theory to explain observations, then following that with research to determine if that theory can be supported. There are some who are unscientific in their approach due to lack of training, but the movie coming up Wed. night, IC, interviews scientists, some involved with Scholars for 911 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/), and doesn't venture into any wild-eyed speculation.
I think I would be a lot more inclined to attend something like this if I thought there would be anything new to hear. I wouldn't want to spend my time, just to listen to arguments that were old when they were new.I believe what Mike Berger offers is very up-to-date research, so not a lot of "old" at this upcoming event. You'll probably be hearing a lot of stuff that is "hot off the press." Given that the 9-11 attacks are the nexus of the huge attacks on our liberties ("after 9/11, everything is different"), it's one of the most important things for libertarians to come to grips with. If it was an inside job, for example, it would be important to find out who were the insiders and bring them to justice. This would, of course, shake a lot of trees - as the possibility of it being an inside job shakes a lot of peoples' psyches. I'm still with the philosophy of "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." It will be worth your time, trust me.
You should come to this because there will be new information presented by experts that you likely haven't considered before.
I believe in this enough that I'll even offer a money-back guarantee. Since I booked the conference room and paid for it, I can do this! If you attend and feel it was a complete waste of time, I'll give you your $5 back Same goes for everyone else :)
Anyway, I'm not going to argue the point.
OK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
OK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
OK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
OK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Exactly! I can't understand how people can look at the same government that evicts Katrina survivors out of their trailers then turns around and has problems on how to deal with all the empty trailers they have which they are trying to give away ( http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8186.0 ) and suddenly think that in the case of 9-11 they suddenly gained competency.
It's a common error to point out the incompetence of government and conclude that therefore covert operations and conspiracies can't happen.
It is important to define, too what we mean by "an inside job".
And we certainly shouldn't then extend that assumed conspiracy to be mroe complex than needed to accomplish the supposed goal.
As for "thermite," Jaque, do you know what happens when aluminum from an airplane and gypsum interact chemically? Do you know whether the reaction between steam and steel is endothermic or exothermic, and what its byproducts are?
It is important to define, too what we mean by "an inside job".
Indeed. Do we mean that some elements within the government paid, convinced, brainwashed, or otherwise led a few individuals to hijack planes and crash them into buildings?
Or do we mean that a vast conspiracy planted demolitions charges in buildings days ahead of time, even though the buildings would have collapsed anyway, just to "frame the guilty" or somesuch, and detonated them with no apparent explosions?
And we certainly shouldn't then extend that assumed conspiracy to be more complex than needed to accomplish the supposed goal.
See that's the key problem with the conspiracy theories they are SOOOOO complex.
We have planes hitting buildings, which were also wired with explosives, then other unrelated buildings also wired with explosives (motivation for which is who know?), the missile supposedly used in Washington etc... I mean seriously, which is more likely... 19 guys hijack planes and fly them into buildings or this HUGE government conspiracy which would have needed hundreds if not thousands of people to pull off involving misery white planes, missiles, pre-planted explosives, remote control planes etc etc etc etc.
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
It looks like William Rodriquez will be coming to New-Hampshire 19 May [date not definite, but around this timeframe] to talk about this. He was the maintenance supervisor for the WTC 1-2 buildings and was the "last man out." He was recognized by George Bush for his bravery and his life saving. He was pulling injured people out of the buildings - injured by explosions in the basement! He also reports hearing some mysterious construction sounds going on certain floors [in the weeks before September 11th] (see this report in "911 Mysteries", probably on Google video).
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
Oh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
Oh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.You raise an interesting philosophical question here. Is the out right murder of thousands of innocent people the same as creating victimless crime laws which lead to countless deaths?
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.Yeah, darn free market!...these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
I'm going to back lildog up on this one.
...
Joe
Oh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.You raise an interesting philosophical question here. Is the out right murder of thousands of innocent people the same as creating victimless crime laws which lead to countless deaths?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally. Anything else would be like someone eating meat, but opposing the killing of animals.
Don't you think intention has a lot to do with it? After all in the case of 9-11 regardless of who you think actually pulled it off the intent was to murder. That was the goal.
In the case of drug laws, the intent is to save lives. Now we know in reality it doesn't but I would say this would be more like someone trying to disarm a bomb in the middle of a room full of people and having it go off early by mistake. If you just left the bomb alone the people most likely could have left the room in time to be ok.
Maineshark, I think you give the government far too much credit. I don't think the government as a whole is that smart in the least.
Don't you think intention has a lot to do with it? After all in the case of 9-11 regardless of who you think actually pulled it off the intent was to murder. That was the goal.
In the case of drug laws, the intent is to save lives. Now we know in reality it doesn't but I would say this would be more like someone trying to disarm a bomb in the middle of a room full of people and having it go off early by mistake. If you just left the bomb alone the people most likely could have left the room in time to be ok.
The intent of the Drug War is to destroy the last vestiges of the Bill of Rights and to raise the level of violence on the streets in order to justify a larger police presence. That is it. The people who push these laws have no interest in saving lives. Drops in crime rates give them ulcers. They want high crime and the ability to suspend the last restrictions that exist on the power of government.
There was no "drug problem" before they started prohibition. You could buy drugs at any pharmacy, without a prescription. Just walk in and ask for some heroin, cocaine, etc. The original laws were passed to target immigrants who used different drugs than the White majority, because the politicians knew they could get those laws to pass by claiming that marijuana makes Mexicans violent, and similar nonsense. The majority didn't much care for the rights of immigrants at that time, and they didn't know the drugs that the immigrants were using, so they couldn't refute the claims. The laws gradually encroached onto other things.
The purpose of the drug war is no different than the purpose of the September 11th attcks (regardless of who perpetrated them): to use violence against civilians in order to instill fear in people as a political tool.
Joe
We're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
There will be a caravan/carpool down to the Saturday night, Cambridge showing of Improbable Collapse, with a mini tour of Cambridge (OK, one eatery featured in Good Will Hunting).
We could do a more thorough tour of Cambridge if people wanted to leave more like noon-time, rather than the scheduled 4:45PM departure. It's a very cool place, especially in springtime with all the buskers around Harvard Square, where Bob Dylan and other notables used to perform for change.
Details at the thread about the movie: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7647.0
We're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.
We're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.
As I watched the events of 911 in "real time" there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever...
All three structures crumbled and were reduced to rubble at gravitational free-fall speed...
Buildings do not do this except during precision controlled demolitions...
There has never been a similarly constructed building that has done this "naturally"...
You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.
You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.
The folks who made Improbable Collapse are actually paid by the government to promote the notion that hijackers couldn't pull off such an attack, because people would demand to be armed while flying if they knew how simple it was for hijackers to take over planes and use them to destroy buildings. Guns in the hands of passengers would stop those sort of attacks, and the government doesn't want to allow that. So, they secretly pay people to make these movies that claim that only explosive charges could demolish buildings, to convince fence-sitters not to support arming passengers.
Really. I have all the documents, as well as experts who I've paid to testify that they personally talked to a hot dog vendor who knows this guy whose cousin once found a napkin in a bar that had strange writing on it which he translated using methods only he knows, and it said all that. Of course, he's not a linguist, but all the linguists are in a conspiracy to support Improbably Collapse, so they all say it was a ring from spilled beer, but we know they're just covering for the Improbable Collapse people.
Oh, and I can prove it. You just have to pay to attend my movie, which is 27 hours long, and the evidence is at the end, but it won't make any sense unless you watch from the beginning. If I have to pause it so you can go to the bathroom, I charge $9 per second, so go quickly.
C'mon, Insurgent. He asked a simple question, Consider it a teaser for the film.
Joe
Heh--I'll take that in good spirit.
My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing ::)
The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.
Heh--I'll take that in good spirit.
Good.My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing ::)
The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.
Well, why should we? He's telling us that "it couldn't have happened that way," when basic physics says it could. Heck, I knew those buildings were coming down the minute I saw the video footage on the news. And even if we were to say, "well, maybe even though it could, it still might not have," no one seems willing to provide any evidence to support that. You told mvpel that there were numerous easily-verifiable facts to support your claims, but you haven't been willing to share them. Saying "people benefitted from this" could be evidence that those people caused it, but it isn't evidence that they used some particular method to cause it.
As I said before, my time is valuable. If this film actually contains meaningful facts on the subject of the physical failure that people claim was caused by demolition charges, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I'm not interested in the rest. It's like framing the guilty. It's like someone announcing that they have proof that Hilter kicked a dog. The evidence might or might not hold up, and it's easy enough to believe that he did, but would it actually matter, with everything else he did?
The United States government burned men, women, and children to death on American soil on national television, admitted doing it, and blamed the victims for forcing them to do it. And what came of that? They put the survivors in prison and called it a day. A Federal sniper murdered a woman holding a child, and they gave him a medal for it. How many people do they kill and otherwise harm every year? Right here in America, and right in the public spotlight?
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks. It is plausible, but it wouldn't lower my opinion of them even if you could prove it. It's well within character.
What I take issue with is the claim that they did it by using demolitions charges or somesuch, rather than simply hiring people to fly the planes into the buildings, which would be more keeping with their typical methods. If you have evidence to support that claim, post it.
Joe
How about verifiable falsehoods?
[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?
[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?
The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
I wasn't talking about the movie.
Basic Physics says that it could, what? That buildings specifically built to withstand the crash of a comparable aircraft and associated fires would collapse at free-fall speed? Which law of Physics is that?
The statement that I made about verifiable facts was in reference to all of the events pertaining to 9/11, not just the building collapses. That being said, the one aspect that no skeptic will be able to explain is the speed at which the buildings fell--including Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. If one buys in to the "pancake theory" then explain why there was no resistance from the lower floors during the collapse.
Again, I need to point out that "the government" murdered the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge, as you referenced. "The government" did not orchestrate 9/11. This is what confuses many people and causes them to cast aside any "conspiracy theories". While we will likely never be able to finger every individual who was involved in the attacks, we can certainly point to rogue figures within the government and intelligence agencies.
The film does go in to great detail about the collapse of the buildings, shredding the "official story". It was a perfect opportunity to view it and take part in a q&a with the film maker afterwards. While that window has closed, the opportunity to watch the video still exists and I strongly encourage everyone to see it. There are few 9/11 "conspiracy videos" that I will recommend, but this is one that I will.
I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.
I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed? I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed? I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.
Were you the guy up in the balcony with his hand up waving it back and forth with your question in mind - and you never got called on?
Darn.
What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.
What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.
For something that's impossible to do, the conspiracy theorists certainly seem certain of the cause, despite physics.
Joe
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.
The claim is made by numerous individuals and groups that this was a demolition, and I want to see the proof of that.
Saying "there isn't evidence" isn't proof of that.
It's proof that people are making a lot of claims based on nothing.
Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact
, or due to demolition. Either is an option.
I've seen no evidence to indicate the latter. [demolition theory]
Joe
Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impactObviously, Physics and engineering don't "say" anything, but physical science should be used in the analysis of the evidence. As far as I know, and I'm no expert on this, no one is saying that WTC 1 & 2 fell due to impact of the airplanes, but due to the weakening caused by the combination of the structural breakage caused by the collision and by the ensuing fires. See FEMA and NIST reports, though they only weakly claim this.
Most of us won't get to see the evidence, other than the video evidence that is already all over the net. As I read it, your beef is with people who make exaggerated claims of knowledge. If you can identify those people, let's all get together, have a few beers and jointly vilify them (and then move on...please?).
Hopefully, this can be taken as positive suggestion - but criticism for criticism sake grates and doesn't advance the dialog. Repetition that something has not been proven to you doesn't improve the message, and besides, I don't really think you're claiming that someone has an obligation to convince you, are you?
I may have missed the first few dozen pages of this thread and someone may have made some claims that have truly rankled you. I hope you can learn to move on from your ranklement if you are interested in this issue and its impact on our world, so that the real evidence can be reviewed as it is discovered by researchers like Michael Berger. It's unfortunate that you missed the opportunity to hear him and talk to him over lunch or dinner - he was very accessible and the New-Hampshire contingent (at the Cambridge showing) got a special audience with him.
Well, let me ask you this: does he [Michael Berger] claim that the buildings could not have fallen as a result of the aircraft crashing into them and the ensuing fires?
Joe
News flash: gasoline melts concrete and steel! (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070429/D8OQG8600.html)
>:D
What most people are basing their conclusions on are videos, though there are so many interesting ones still coming out of the woodwork, esp. the one showing the molten metal flowing out of the side of one of the towers (shown in Improbable Collapse). I have to say that one was a stunner to me.
"It was massive," said Rodriguez, a 53-year-old sanitation supervisor at the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant. "It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted."
But it was no big slab of plastic. The overpass was a critical component of one of the Bay Area's busiest highway interchanges, the MacArthur Maze. The network of connector ramps merges the East Bay's three major highways: Interstates 80, 580 and 880.
The driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders. When the smoke cleared around daybreak Sunday, one ramp was draped like a comforter over the lower connector.
...No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then.
Engineers estimate Sunday?s flames reached close to 3,000 degrees. Here?s a breakdown of heat?s effects.
Molten lava: 3,140?
Iron melts: 2,797?
Steel melts: 2,750?
Gold melts: 1,947?
Silver melts: 1,763?
Steel loses half its rigidity: 1,000?
Lead melts: 622?
Water boils: 212?
Source: "Comparisons" by the Diagram Group and Chronicle research
And that's just gasoline burning freely on a freeway overpass, instead of inside a big chimney.
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_tanker.jpg)
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_caoak101.jpg)
Rosie O'Donnell on 9/11: "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."
Does that mean this is the second time?
Professor Steven Jones, a Ph.D. physicist and cold fusion expert...
Jones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible and that what actually happened was that thin supporting bolts were warped, resulting in the collapse of the bridge section.
In addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.
Building 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors.
In addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.
The freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt
Debunkers have also failed to acknowledge the fact that freeways in the San Francisco area have already been weakened by multiple earthquakes and regularly collapse entirely of their own accord by accident.
So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
"You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," said the steel expert.
However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
It wasn't necessary for the government to cause, enable, or look the other way.They thought it was necessary .... to have a pearl harbor type event .... as explained in their necon paper. So they did it.
So why do you spend time on this thread? You don't even think this topic is important enough to learn more about .... but you will argue with those that do.I believe in this enough that I'll even offer a money-back guarantee. Since I booked the conference room and paid for it, I can do this! If you attend and feel it was a complete waste of time, I'll give you your $5 back Same goes for everyone else :)
My time is worth more than $5.
Joe
Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."
My time is worth more than $5.So why do you spend time on this thread? You don't even think this topic is important enough to learn more about .... but you will argue with those that do.
Like I said, I agree that certain individuals within the government could have caused this event.
Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were in a negative frame of mind when you made this comment, and also give you the opportunity to retract it in order to save face.
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed?No
ok then ..... do you mind if the rest of us do?
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.
I didn't go to the World Trade Center on 9/11. I must be in on it!!!that is a possibility .... you do work for homeland stupidity :)
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.I don't think the government will give it to you .... and you are paying them. :(
And "controlled" demolition, yeah right:that is what a controlled demo would look like if you busted a plane into the side of the building first ..... it would come down .... just not quite as planned. :)
(http://www.poems2u.com/911/wtc1-3.jpg)
...paper by Prof. David Ray Griffin, May 2007 issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, The American Empire and 9/11 (PDF: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DavidRayGriffin911Empire.pdf)
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.ok then ..... do you mind if the rest of us do?
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.I don't think the government will give it to you .... and you are paying them. :(
I've read a lot of these posts on this thread and I'm still not sure who believes what.I don't think that is too important. :)
If you read the books mentioned in this thread, you will know a lot more. Researchers from outside the government keep getting closer and closer to the truth.
BTW .... why do you want to know more about what happened on 9/11?
I'll jump in and leave all of the steel beam and bomb stuff out of what I'm going to write. I am not making a statement of what I believe happened on 9/11 because I'm not sure but the first thing my brother and I said to each other on the phone that day was, "why aren't fighter jets surrounding the planes?". Also how can 3 or 4 airplanes just go anywhere they want on/off radar and no one was extremely alarmed until after the fact? :dontknow:
I've read conspiracy theories about the Pentagon, that it wasn't a real plane that flew into the Pentagon but it was a hologram. That kind of thing is hard to believe but who the heck knows?
Also how and why were the cell phone conversations taped on the plane that was supposedly taken over by the passengers and crashed in to the field? I mean I didn't know it was common practice to do that. My husband called me from a plane one time and it wasn't a clear, long conversation.
You do, assuming you have two brain cells to rub together.
Repeat after me: "GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS."
You said "who knows whether or not it was a hologram." I said, YOU know it.
I find it very hard to be nice when such patent absurdity is flying about, such as the absurdity of questioning the reality of the death of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer by postulating alien-technology holograms. I can put up with repeated pointless questions from my three year old, since I know he'll grow out of it, but nearly six years of it from full grown adults gets under my skin.
As for United 93 and the missile theory, close your eyes and think about what you would do if you were fighting with knife-wielding people trying to prevent you from unbuckling their harnesses and pulling them out of their seat at the controls taking over the plane. Think about what they would do. Think about the tight space between the head and the galley near the cockpit of a typical plane. Think about the width of the door. Think about the cramped quarters of the cockpit. Think about a dead body in that space. Think about how slippery great gouts of blood are. And watch "United 93" if you want to see one possible answer to whether the plane crashed or not. The final instants of that movie are overwhelming.
Plausible? Yes or no.
... but you or I don't know exactly what happened on United 93, is that plausible?
... but you or I don't know exactly what happened on United 93, is that plausible?
Yes, of course.
But in the field of diagnostics, there's a saying "when you hear hoofbeats, think 'horses,' not 'zebras.'"
And the 9/11 conspiracy theories involve not only zebras, but all too often unicorns, centaurs, and fauns.
The United 93 movie wasn't nearly so disturbing as the news footage. Over and over. BTW, I saw what happened to those people after they hit the ground. That's something I'll never forget.
I wasn't there. Was supposed to have been, being a tourist, but decided not to go. (My lizard friends in the NWO called and tipped me off.)
You said "who knows whether or not it was a hologram." I said, YOU know it.
I find it very hard to be nice when such patent absurdity is flying about, such as the absurdity of questioning the reality of the death of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer by postulating alien-technology holograms. I can put up with repeated pointless questions from my three year old, since I know he'll grow out of it, but nearly six years of it from full grown adults gets under my skin.
Did you know that steam and iron will burn at about 400 degrees? It's called pyrophoric oxidation. Gypsum in wallboard has a chemical composition of CaSO, about 17.6% sulfur, which would have become a source of sulfur for hydrogen-sulfide-driven pyrophoric oxidation of the steel.
Indeed, by pumping water for weeks into the rubble pile at Ground Zero, the NYFD was probably adding fuel to the fire as the steam reacted with the steel and released hydrogen to either combine with the sulfur in gypsum to burn violently with the steel or to burn with oxygen in the air.
As for United 93 and the missile theory, close your eyes and think about what you would do if you were fighting with knife-wielding people trying to prevent you from unbuckling their harnesses and pulling them out of their seat at the controls taking over the plane. Think about what they would do. Think about the tight space between the head and the galley near the cockpit of a typical plane. Think about the width of the door. Think about the cramped quarters of the cockpit. Think about a dead body in that space. Think about how slippery great gouts of blood are. And watch "United 93" if you want to see one possible answer to whether the plane crashed or not. The final instants of that movie are overwhelming.
Plausible? Yes or no.
What's funny is that by your own admission, the Pentagon plane was flying "fast and low" - the problem seems to be, from my perspective, that none of the pilots on board the plane were qualified to fly a plane in this fashion. I'm curious who the pilot was, aren't you?
"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
United 93 was a movie