Watch.
[LINK BROKEN]
[LINK BROKEN]
Last edited by a moderator:
9/11 Mysteries
- Thread starter iwant8inches
- Start date
-
- Tags
- average circulation depression educated effective enormous equipment exercise extreme gain gaining gains growing growth hands hanging ide implant larger load loads massive mental health penis posts question recovery research results review short skin sleeve stories stretched support tender tension thick uti vacuum video wide
I'll have to check this out this weekend.
Seen it few months ago. Yes we have been lied to, open your eyes.
Some of the 9/11 conspiracy advocates are nut jobs, particularly the ones that would have you believe al-Qaeda terrorists did not actually even hijack the planes. But there are a number of troubling questions raised. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle and it is valuable to a free society that such things are questioned if there are strange circumstances, regardless of the conclusion. I'm not talking phonies like Michael Moore, or similar partisan hacks, but honest evaluation. As to whether some people in power within our country would ever do such a thing, well Northwoods has been documented.
the gov has something to do with it. bush was both being seen as an asshole cheating retard of a president who weasled his way into office, and hungry and aching with the intent of capturing sadam..that he needed the US in his corner. what better way to arrange/allow an attack on the US. the series of events that followed afterwards just points to the fact that this is all for oil and vengence. as a result, iraq gets fucked, and we get fucked. my wallet gets violated every passing day...thanks bush
samzman said:
Oh well. Did u know it costs the cartel bankers 6.5 cents to make a US nickel?
The US dollar is goin down by design and the solution will be the Amero and merging of Canada,US and Mexico.
s'up people.
thought i'd chip in coz i love this shit...
9/11 = 'false flag' terrorism, it's been a slieght of hand for years. Genuine terrorism seldom exists. the elected government create a problem then offer their solutions which always result in citizens relinquishing their liberties/freedoms in the name of security(incrementalism). "control out of chaos". Hitler and his cronies were the trailblazers(Riechstag fire) this is now the familiar format.
if this shit intrests you, you should really take a peek into the whys? and see just how far the rabbit hole goes... Blame the mother fuckin' super bankers; Rothchild et al.
9/11 is indeed al[CIA]-da at work... if you'll bear with me i'll state what i think is the plainest smoking gun of 9/11(i do love this shit)
world trade centre 7 -
search the net for wtc7 to witness the most blatent controlled demolition known to man, and couple that with the irrefutible facts that hundreds of sites offer and you're already asking questions... but heres what its really about...
Larry Silverstein.
this guy is globle elite(New World Order) no bones about it. worth billions. one of the biggest real estate investors/developers in the US. he was the lease holder of wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7, the only 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11. 7 weeks before 9/11 Larry secured the lease of wtc1 & wtc2 in a deal for aroundabout $3.2 billion. this was the 1st time in its 31 year history that ownership changed hands. he insured the properties and now stands to gain $5billion in coverage.
now thats a tidy sum for fuck all work and a shed load of "luck"!
remember, in the entire history(thousands) of steel frame buildings burning and collapsing as a result of fire a mere 3 have been recorded... and we know which ones they are.
here's the money shot, and for me the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job of sorts:
if i say to you to "pull it" when refering to a building, what do you think that means? i know what it means and its a universal term.
on a PBS doc, Larry "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
in construction "pull it" is used by EVERYBODY when talking demolition!!!
it would take a crack team of super-pro's at least 2 weeks to prep & rig a 47 storey building for a sucessful demolition... what is being layed on the table is that this was done in the few hours after the 1st plane strike. FUCK OFF!!! NOT IMPROBABLE, IMPOSSIBLE.
this is just the surface. wana know more and i'll point you in the right direction. if you have read the above i hope you do something with it.
im done.
keep pushing
thought i'd chip in coz i love this shit...
9/11 = 'false flag' terrorism, it's been a slieght of hand for years. Genuine terrorism seldom exists. the elected government create a problem then offer their solutions which always result in citizens relinquishing their liberties/freedoms in the name of security(incrementalism). "control out of chaos". Hitler and his cronies were the trailblazers(Riechstag fire) this is now the familiar format.
if this shit intrests you, you should really take a peek into the whys? and see just how far the rabbit hole goes... Blame the mother fuckin' super bankers; Rothchild et al.
9/11 is indeed al[CIA]-da at work... if you'll bear with me i'll state what i think is the plainest smoking gun of 9/11(i do love this shit)
world trade centre 7 -
search the net for wtc7 to witness the most blatent controlled demolition known to man, and couple that with the irrefutible facts that hundreds of sites offer and you're already asking questions... but heres what its really about...
Larry Silverstein.
this guy is globle elite(New World Order) no bones about it. worth billions. one of the biggest real estate investors/developers in the US. he was the lease holder of wtc1, wtc2 and wtc7, the only 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11. 7 weeks before 9/11 Larry secured the lease of wtc1 & wtc2 in a deal for aroundabout $3.2 billion. this was the 1st time in its 31 year history that ownership changed hands. he insured the properties and now stands to gain $5billion in coverage.
now thats a tidy sum for fuck all work and a shed load of "luck"!
remember, in the entire history(thousands) of steel frame buildings burning and collapsing as a result of fire a mere 3 have been recorded... and we know which ones they are.
here's the money shot, and for me the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job of sorts:
if i say to you to "pull it" when refering to a building, what do you think that means? i know what it means and its a universal term.
on a PBS doc, Larry "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
in construction "pull it" is used by EVERYBODY when talking demolition!!!
it would take a crack team of super-pro's at least 2 weeks to prep & rig a 47 storey building for a sucessful demolition... what is being layed on the table is that this was done in the few hours after the 1st plane strike. FUCK OFF!!! NOT IMPROBABLE, IMPOSSIBLE.
this is just the surface. wana know more and i'll point you in the right direction. if you have read the above i hope you do something with it.
im done.
keep pushing
samzman said:
I think Bush is an asshole, but don't be suckered by partisan crap. If the government was in on 9/11, it came from way higher than Bush.
Duppi_Krizzle said:
True. <
You guys have a lot of faith in the government - in fact too much. Amazing that they can keep all the thousands of people and the enormous paper trail created by the "inside job/conspiracy" from ever coming to light. Bush can't even string a sentence together, Cheney can't operate a shotgun properly, and Rumsfield was repeatedly bested by infantry soldiers in press conferences. You think these are the kind of guys that engineered or condoned the most vast and enormous pullover in the history civillization? C'mon . . . I have to say, I know a few family members of 9/11 victims and they really hate to hear all this conspiracy internet garbage about one of the worst days in American history.
I never understand the point of obsessing over these quack theories. Very few people have the expertise to know much about what they're reading when it comes to this stuff, so they're basically just selling themselves wholesale to a marginally well put together presentation. It seems like people are very willing to abandon all logic and reason when embracing conspiracy theories.
I never understand the point of obsessing over these quack theories. Very few people have the expertise to know much about what they're reading when it comes to this stuff, so they're basically just selling themselves wholesale to a marginally well put together presentation. It seems like people are very willing to abandon all logic and reason when embracing conspiracy theories.
stridge said:
I laughed hard at your post!
yet you seem to believe that its comprehensible that men in caves(exaggeration) have the deft ability to mastermind such an attack.
when terrorism is encountered 1st you should always question 'who stands to gain?'.
"islamic extremists" that are pissed off at america coz they've got freedom in their country... FUCK ME is that the lamest excuses anyones ever sold, but still that was the linchpin reason we were fed.
or
the military industrial complex that bulldoze into the middle east, claim the oil and wage war[OIL & ARMS thats who funds America]. And of course the blueprint of incrementalism(the murder of your liberties in the name of terror) which is indeed the bigger picture.
"quack theories" there are of course many. but im sure you haven't done your research because the evidence is overwhelming. the internet is the saving grace in freedom of speech and associated news(the purest news availible), however when the internet 2 hits and everything is acutely monitored by the government, and placing a link on a website to another website is made illegal, closing Google et al; then you'll know about it, and the neocons have won.
i suppose your up for ID cards and microchips as well?
keep pushing
stridge said:
Have you ever read the official story? My eyes leapt from their sockets in search of water as they were burning from the lack of logic and reason.
So, what do the people who watched 9/11 Mysteries think? The molten metal at Ground Zero should be enough to deduce that something other than a plane brought down such a structure. The official story just doesn't hold up against physics.
http://www.debunking911.com/
There are plenty more articles and websites where this came from. First rule on anything, expose yourself to both sides of the argument before making a decision- I've read your posts, you're a smart guy - don't let yourself start believing in things without collecting as much information as possible.
Also, the various "physics" problems and such that that the conspirasts bring up do little to address the point I brought up: just how do they continue to manage to keep all of this a secret with not one tiny shred of documentation or evidence emerging from the thousands of people that would have been involved in the conspiracy - and where the hell did they find these people? It's just preposterous when you really think about it.
There are plenty more articles and websites where this came from. First rule on anything, expose yourself to both sides of the argument before making a decision- I've read your posts, you're a smart guy - don't let yourself start believing in things without collecting as much information as possible.
Also, the various "physics" problems and such that that the conspirasts bring up do little to address the point I brought up: just how do they continue to manage to keep all of this a secret with not one tiny shred of documentation or evidence emerging from the thousands of people that would have been involved in the conspiracy - and where the hell did they find these people? It's just preposterous when you really think about it.
Here's a list of the number of people that would need to have been involved in this to make it work, taken from the link I posted above. I'd also point out that Noam Chomsky, somebody that I assume you probably admire, doesn't buy into the idea of conspiracy one bit - primarily for this reason. Even disregarding all the half-assed, poorly reasoned physics the conspirasts use, this stuff alone proves it beyond any doubt for me. It's just common sense in some respects.
______________________________
-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/mosdvd.htm]DVD[/words] sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...
Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026
Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.
-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?
-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.
-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.
-NORAD
-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists never existed.
-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.
-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
-People who detonated the buildings"
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
______________________________
-The Bush Administration, who failed at everything they ever did. Yet all of them and the people below are helping him cover up the largest mass murder in US history... Some of them like Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil have come out for less.
-The NYC Fire fighters who know more about building collapses than most, if not all, of them. It's their LIFE to know. Literally! Yet they don't call for an investigation into the MASS MURDER of over 300 of their brothers... Why? (The twisting of these peoples’ statements for donations and [words=http://www.mattersofsize.com/mosdvd.htm]DVD[/words] sales sickens me.) We have uncovered the myth about a gag order imposed on all fire fighters. Only 9/11 conspiracy sites say this. ONE person who sued Bush for not taking action before the event is ordered by the court not to speak to the media about the case. This is not imposing a gag order on the whole fire department as some of these sites claim. They are lying to cover up this mass murder by the government or the building owner. Why? They don't even know...
Conspiracy theorists bring up an article in Fire House magazine which says the fire department wanted to stop the steel from being sold in order to test the fire proofing and other non-bomb/controlled demolition related investigations. They twist the article’s context to make it seem like the firefighters questioned the idea that fire brought down the towers.
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=
OnlineArticles&SubSe%20ction=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=
25&ARTICLE_ID=131225
http://fe.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=OnlineArticles&
SubSection=Display&PUBLICATION_ID=25&ARTICLE_ID=130026
Many of these men and women come from the military, yet we are to believe they are so afraid they rather die in the government’s next mass murder than come out and expose this.
-The courts for imposing a gag order [SEE above]
-The NYC Police department who lost over 20 lives. They didn't ask for an investigation. Motive? None...
-The NYC port Authority who lost personnel. Motive?
-All the people in the Pentagon who have not called for an investigation. Many who are liberal and centrist. They did or said nothing while people supposedly trucked in airplane parts to cover the crime. Why? Again, no answer...
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11 who would rather have investigations of the decisions which led to the terrorist getting away with this. They don't want to waste time investigating the mass murder of their loved ones. Even the Jersey Girls. Why? They say it's the money... [note: Whenever killing someone, pay off the relative. They won’t say anything.]
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history. It seems no one wants a Nobel prize for journalism. Not only the American media but foreign press like the BBC and Al Jazeera. Why? No answer here either...
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns. These photos support the NIST hypothesis that the sagging trusses lead to the collapse. Some photos also show the core intact shortly after collapse which also not only support the NIST hypothesis but discredits the "Controlled demolition" account.
-Popular Mechanics who debunked these sites are also helping Bush commit the biggest mass murder in history.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
-PBS Nova since they created a documentary explaining in detail how and why the buildings fell. None of it said bomb.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history. This independent organization doesn't have a moral person in hundreds of employees because not one has come out exposing this so called "Conspiracy". In fact, the hundreds of scientist who signed onto the report are willing to not only lie for Bush but cover up the largest mass murder in American history. Some suggest only a handful can do the job but that's simply impossible. The team in charge of the computer modeling has to be in sync with the team of structural engineers and so on. There are hundreds involved in this investigation and every team has to work with other teams using the same evidence and specifications.
-NY Governor Pataki because he sold steel from the WTC for the construction of the USS New York. If the argument is the government sold the steel in order to cover up the crime then Pataki is one of the criminals.
-The NY city scrap yards because they also sold steel to China before all of it was tested. Bush would have needed to call them up and tell them to sell it before they could have investigated every beam. A task which would have taken years and years not to mention millions more. Ironically the republican Mayor Bloomberg could not be involved since he asked the scrap yards not to sell the steel on behalf of the firefighters.
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD who doesn't write a paper for a mainstream peer reviewed journal saying the towers were brought down and could not have fallen due to fire. If laymen can prove things just by looking at videos and reading interviews out of context, then all those structural engineers MUST be working for Bush right? Even the ones in other countries. Why? The answer they give is that the engineers don't know about Jones’ work. So in all this time no one has e-mailed Jones' work to any structural engineer?
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. (Like me) They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation’s history. Why? No clue...
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what Conspiracy Theorists say is impossible is possible.
-NORAD
-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists never existed.
-The Silverstein Group who they say got together with Bush to blow up the building for insurance money.
-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein. Why? Conspiracy Theorists say the insurance company just wants to pass on the bill to the public but they already fought Silverstein in a number of law suits concerning the amount.
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
-People who detonated the buildings"
-anyone who thinks the conspiracy is a diversion to take liberal activist focus off of real crimes.
Even conspiracies with a few people are doomed. Look at Enron and Watergate. The more people you involve, the more likely the conspiracy will fall apart. The amount of people needed for this conspiracy could fill one of the towers. It's absurd to think this many people could keep a mass murder for Bush secret for this long. Absurd...
Stridge -
i appreciate your lengthy post, but clearly we will never see eye to eye.
9/11 isn't what i give a fuck about, i give a fuck about incrementalism. i give a fuck about a government controlled computer network database that knows everything about who you are, and what you do, and when and how you do it.
i give a fuck about having to flash an ID card/retina scan/micro chip that evidents my personal details everytime i want to go out of town, or into a shop, or when a law enforcement officer demands i do.
when YOU are what it says on a computer screen, you can be switched off in a breath. thats what i give a fuck about coz its so dangerous for me and you.
"terrorism" is the guise to rewrite the constitution and bill of rights so the above will come into effect. how many times have you heard "we need to take this liberty to protect you and your family" since 9/11? countless.
thats incrementalism, thats how it works.
'if your liberties are taken by force you can get them back by force. if they are given up consentually then you can never get them back'
9/11 is the catalyst, and be rest asured the next scenario is being engineered.
why haven't the Bush administration been held to account? COZ WHO THE FUCK DOES IT??? America is the super-power thats why.
fuck me, you've been paying an illegal income tax for nigh-on a century; they kept that underwraps by imprisioning anyone that doesn't pay it... go ask the IRS wheres the law that says i have to pay income tax? and i'll give you my fucking house if they show it to ya coz it don't exist.
you can't impose a levy on labour in the US of A.
for that matter, wheres all the income tax go? every last cent gets pumped into the military.
and i've read debunking books aplenty and similar on the net and they never hold up. never.
you spoke of FEMA, just a little insight for you to chew on, you can find it all over the net. 9/11 happened on tuesday... when asked, live on a news broadcast at groundzero on tuesady evening a FEMA representative said, "to be absolutely honest we arrived late last night and didn't get to work until a short while ago"(or something to that effect - importance note is the time faux pas)
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
watch 'police state 1, 2, and 3' on google video and if you still don't see it then good luck.
keep pushing
i appreciate your lengthy post, but clearly we will never see eye to eye.
9/11 isn't what i give a fuck about, i give a fuck about incrementalism. i give a fuck about a government controlled computer network database that knows everything about who you are, and what you do, and when and how you do it.
i give a fuck about having to flash an ID card/retina scan/micro chip that evidents my personal details everytime i want to go out of town, or into a shop, or when a law enforcement officer demands i do.
when YOU are what it says on a computer screen, you can be switched off in a breath. thats what i give a fuck about coz its so dangerous for me and you.
"terrorism" is the guise to rewrite the constitution and bill of rights so the above will come into effect. how many times have you heard "we need to take this liberty to protect you and your family" since 9/11? countless.
thats incrementalism, thats how it works.
'if your liberties are taken by force you can get them back by force. if they are given up consentually then you can never get them back'
9/11 is the catalyst, and be rest asured the next scenario is being engineered.
why haven't the Bush administration been held to account? COZ WHO THE FUCK DOES IT??? America is the super-power thats why.
fuck me, you've been paying an illegal income tax for nigh-on a century; they kept that underwraps by imprisioning anyone that doesn't pay it... go ask the IRS wheres the law that says i have to pay income tax? and i'll give you my fucking house if they show it to ya coz it don't exist.
you can't impose a levy on labour in the US of A.
for that matter, wheres all the income tax go? every last cent gets pumped into the military.
and i've read debunking books aplenty and similar on the net and they never hold up. never.
you spoke of FEMA, just a little insight for you to chew on, you can find it all over the net. 9/11 happened on tuesday... when asked, live on a news broadcast at groundzero on tuesady evening a FEMA representative said, "to be absolutely honest we arrived late last night and didn't get to work until a short while ago"(or something to that effect - importance note is the time faux pas)
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
watch 'police state 1, 2, and 3' on google video and if you still don't see it then good luck.
keep pushing
Uh, well, I see you're intensely parnoid and displeased with government, but this isn't really all that uncommon.
If you read the debunking site, I'd be curious to hear how you feel that it doesn't hold up. As the site and Popular Mechanics articles mention, virtually every structural engineer or those with specialized knowledge (not anonymous video makers on the internet) discredit the conspiracy information. Also, I hate to keep repeating it, but nothing in your post really disputes the enormously unlikely scenario that all those thousands of people are keeping their mouths shut about a planned mass murder against their own country.
Frankly, I'll take the word of expert physicists and engineers, as well as common sense, over some internet viral videos that string together some loose and comletely unsubstantiated conspiracy ideas.
So far as income tax and such, most of us are aware of the poor legal grounding, I believe I first heard about in my middle school civics class. However, you will see that very few people have been successful at legally challenging the income tax and not paying it. In addition, our economy pretty much can't function without it, so it serves a decent purpose. Two things in life are certain - death and taxes. If you hate paying taxes, please refrain from driving on the roads, using any public utilities, sending your children to public schools, using any government services, etc. They're not stealing your money bro . . . we all pay too.
And, on the note that there's not Constitutional language specific to an income tax - there also isn't any specific language regarding privacy. Yet, we expect this and have established our right to it through a long process of case law. That's how things work in this country - you can't have it both ways and stick to the Constitution on taxes but demand a right to privacy from the state as well. Just some food for thought.
I'd suggest checking out some books on these topics more than relying on internet propaganda - unless you enjoy living a paranoid lifestyle, which no offense intended, it certainly seems that you do.
If you read the debunking site, I'd be curious to hear how you feel that it doesn't hold up. As the site and Popular Mechanics articles mention, virtually every structural engineer or those with specialized knowledge (not anonymous video makers on the internet) discredit the conspiracy information. Also, I hate to keep repeating it, but nothing in your post really disputes the enormously unlikely scenario that all those thousands of people are keeping their mouths shut about a planned mass murder against their own country.
Frankly, I'll take the word of expert physicists and engineers, as well as common sense, over some internet viral videos that string together some loose and comletely unsubstantiated conspiracy ideas.
So far as income tax and such, most of us are aware of the poor legal grounding, I believe I first heard about in my middle school civics class. However, you will see that very few people have been successful at legally challenging the income tax and not paying it. In addition, our economy pretty much can't function without it, so it serves a decent purpose. Two things in life are certain - death and taxes. If you hate paying taxes, please refrain from driving on the roads, using any public utilities, sending your children to public schools, using any government services, etc. They're not stealing your money bro . . . we all pay too.
And, on the note that there's not Constitutional language specific to an income tax - there also isn't any specific language regarding privacy. Yet, we expect this and have established our right to it through a long process of case law. That's how things work in this country - you can't have it both ways and stick to the Constitution on taxes but demand a right to privacy from the state as well. Just some food for thought.
I'd suggest checking out some books on these topics more than relying on internet propaganda - unless you enjoy living a paranoid lifestyle, which no offense intended, it certainly seems that you do.
stridge said:
Popular Mechanics only went after fringe theories about 9/11, they didn't discredit ANY of Alex Jones' views, or any of his physicist, etc. colleagues. I was listening to a radio program where this guy was interviewing a guy who did the PM article, and the PM guy was getting torn up on "facts" and "evidence" that he claimed "wasn't public."
I'll try and find the link, but I'm not sure it's on http://www.infowars.com anymore.
Actually, here's evidence debunking much, if not all, of the PM article: http://www.freedomisforeverybody.org/debunkPopMech.php
The Constitution, also, does include the right to privacy: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
stridge -
do ya homework and find out who popular mechanics are in cahoots with. i've read the book and its a joke. discredit they do not do, they lie and they fabricate... and many people do speak out about what happened on 9/11, what they saw, but more often than not they get shot down, they get branded as unpatriotic and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families. only recently have more folk stepped forward coz they feel there is shift in opinion in the truth behind 9/11. And absolutely the CIA & FBI would stamp threating muzzle orders on those who might speak out, where do you think the Maffia, Triads etc learnt there trade, there ethos.
As for income tax -
watch freedom to fascism on google vid and im sure you won't be filing.
and as i stated, every cent of income tax goes into the military machine.
the economy as you put it functions on the million other taxes in place; fuel tax, road tax, clothes tax, food tax, heating tax, electricity tax... you see where im going.
if i were you i wouldn't pay it. simple as.
the term smoking gun is used all the time when talking "conspiracy", the smoking gun of 9/11 is without question WT7. i don't care what you've read or seen it is a lie or its plain wrong.
wtc.net - it covers every facet about your FEMA's, structural engineer supremo's, independant reports and offical and the like... you can't refute it. i challenge you to do so, accept it please.
keep pushing
do ya homework and find out who popular mechanics are in cahoots with. i've read the book and its a joke. discredit they do not do, they lie and they fabricate... and many people do speak out about what happened on 9/11, what they saw, but more often than not they get shot down, they get branded as unpatriotic and disrespectful to those that lost their lives and their families. only recently have more folk stepped forward coz they feel there is shift in opinion in the truth behind 9/11. And absolutely the CIA & FBI would stamp threating muzzle orders on those who might speak out, where do you think the Maffia, Triads etc learnt there trade, there ethos.
As for income tax -
watch freedom to fascism on google vid and im sure you won't be filing.
and as i stated, every cent of income tax goes into the military machine.
the economy as you put it functions on the million other taxes in place; fuel tax, road tax, clothes tax, food tax, heating tax, electricity tax... you see where im going.
if i were you i wouldn't pay it. simple as.
the term smoking gun is used all the time when talking "conspiracy", the smoking gun of 9/11 is without question WT7. i don't care what you've read or seen it is a lie or its plain wrong.
wtc.net - it covers every facet about your FEMA's, structural engineer supremo's, independant reports and offical and the like... you can't refute it. i challenge you to do so, accept it please.
keep pushing
Guys, thanks for replying, I like to see a healthy debate over the subject, but before we go on, can either of you offer definitive proof that any of the evidence from the debunking site I listed is wrong?
I don't want to be snide here, but literally thousands of mechanical, structural, and material engineers have confirmed that the collapses of the buildings was not only as we currently understand it to be, but almost impossible to be otherwise. Withstanding your currant biases, these people are independent professionals, not affiliated with the much alligned US government or otherwise. You'll find all this information and more if you simply google "9/11 debunking" or even check out the link I posted, which is a fairly broad overview, including peer-reviewed research. I mention peer-reviewed, because that means that the contnets have been checked and re-checked by indpendent academics that are experts in their fields. These people would be discredited in their porfessions, teaching posts, and overall laughed at if their publishing didn't meet the consenus of other trained experts in their fields. Frankly, I'll take that any day over anonymously authored internet propaganda. Someobdy mentioned the internet as being a bastion of freedom - it's also a place where people can get away with a huge amount of bullshit and unsubstantiated garbage because there is no base level for standards.
As I mentioned before, one of the heroes of liberal thought and leftist history, rehtoric, and interpretation, Noam Chomsky, a man I greatly enjoy and admire, thinks that the idea of 9/11 conspiracy is ridiculous. I don't form my opnions based on his, but he is a person infinately more learned and also more deeply opposed to the Bush administration, corporatism, and capitalist currutption than any of us.
Also, nobody seems to be addressing the points I orginally mentioned; the fact that nobody from the thousands of people in dozens of private and government outfits would have to be deliberately covering up an enormous planned murder of thousands of innocents and a vast conspiracy operation. Where is the paper trail? Where are the people from all the organizations I listed? Are they paid off? Are there no investigative journailists that can find one tiny single shred of evidence of this giganctic cover-up? Of all the professional and indepdendent researchers, why can't we find one receipt for the many tens, maybe more thousands of receipts that would be needed to detonate the towers, the other Trade Center building, the pentagon, and the plane that crashed?
No offense, but I'd like to hear some better arguements against the links and info I've already offered than. "Some people have come forward." Charlie Sheen isn't a credible expert in my book. And, if you check the link I originially posted, it has hard scientific evidence debunking the physics that are purported by conspiracy advocates. Please show me some credible arguments that disprove that simple math and physics at the root of the debunking side - otherwise we're just twiddling our thumbs here.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but I feel like you guys are ignoring plain basic sense in some respects, while refusing to even acknowledge any facts taht are contary the very unprobably and concenient conspiracy argument.
If I can get on my horse for a moment, let me just say that conspiracy junk acrguemtns are detremental because the distract from the real failings of government and leadership, namely that the Bush administration ignored good intelligence about 9/11 and essentially facilitated preexisting insitutional screw-ups in our intelligence system with their lack of concern and compitence. It's a gross injustice and a terrible tragedy caused by institutional failings that were fostered by the current administration. I feel like this is the salient point.
The idea that we're being subjected to some wild science fiction mass conspiracy plot only distracts us from focusing on this much more proufund lapse in government.
Please, at least read through the website and show me how the physics and material elements that are painstakingly explained therein are wrong before you respond - if one part of the conspiracy is incorrect by way of conrete math and physics, than it's all wrong. You can't have just one piece seem sort of accurate on limited presentation of facts by a non-expert and just qualify the totalist of an argument. Not to be redundent, but when the overwhelming logic of scientifically verified facts (again, the website), and common sense are weighed, I fail to see how anybody can buy the conspiracy story.
And if I may add, there is a conspiracy "governmetn collusion/anti-public" conspiracy for almost every goddamned bad thing that has ever happened in American history during the 20th century. So has the government been plotting to enslave and destory the population with the help of big business since the inception of America? C'mon guys, think critically, not fictionally.
I don't want to be snide here, but literally thousands of mechanical, structural, and material engineers have confirmed that the collapses of the buildings was not only as we currently understand it to be, but almost impossible to be otherwise. Withstanding your currant biases, these people are independent professionals, not affiliated with the much alligned US government or otherwise. You'll find all this information and more if you simply google "9/11 debunking" or even check out the link I posted, which is a fairly broad overview, including peer-reviewed research. I mention peer-reviewed, because that means that the contnets have been checked and re-checked by indpendent academics that are experts in their fields. These people would be discredited in their porfessions, teaching posts, and overall laughed at if their publishing didn't meet the consenus of other trained experts in their fields. Frankly, I'll take that any day over anonymously authored internet propaganda. Someobdy mentioned the internet as being a bastion of freedom - it's also a place where people can get away with a huge amount of bullshit and unsubstantiated garbage because there is no base level for standards.
As I mentioned before, one of the heroes of liberal thought and leftist history, rehtoric, and interpretation, Noam Chomsky, a man I greatly enjoy and admire, thinks that the idea of 9/11 conspiracy is ridiculous. I don't form my opnions based on his, but he is a person infinately more learned and also more deeply opposed to the Bush administration, corporatism, and capitalist currutption than any of us.
Also, nobody seems to be addressing the points I orginally mentioned; the fact that nobody from the thousands of people in dozens of private and government outfits would have to be deliberately covering up an enormous planned murder of thousands of innocents and a vast conspiracy operation. Where is the paper trail? Where are the people from all the organizations I listed? Are they paid off? Are there no investigative journailists that can find one tiny single shred of evidence of this giganctic cover-up? Of all the professional and indepdendent researchers, why can't we find one receipt for the many tens, maybe more thousands of receipts that would be needed to detonate the towers, the other Trade Center building, the pentagon, and the plane that crashed?
No offense, but I'd like to hear some better arguements against the links and info I've already offered than. "Some people have come forward." Charlie Sheen isn't a credible expert in my book. And, if you check the link I originially posted, it has hard scientific evidence debunking the physics that are purported by conspiracy advocates. Please show me some credible arguments that disprove that simple math and physics at the root of the debunking side - otherwise we're just twiddling our thumbs here.
I hate to keep beating the same drum, but I feel like you guys are ignoring plain basic sense in some respects, while refusing to even acknowledge any facts taht are contary the very unprobably and concenient conspiracy argument.
If I can get on my horse for a moment, let me just say that conspiracy junk acrguemtns are detremental because the distract from the real failings of government and leadership, namely that the Bush administration ignored good intelligence about 9/11 and essentially facilitated preexisting insitutional screw-ups in our intelligence system with their lack of concern and compitence. It's a gross injustice and a terrible tragedy caused by institutional failings that were fostered by the current administration. I feel like this is the salient point.
The idea that we're being subjected to some wild science fiction mass conspiracy plot only distracts us from focusing on this much more proufund lapse in government.
Please, at least read through the website and show me how the physics and material elements that are painstakingly explained therein are wrong before you respond - if one part of the conspiracy is incorrect by way of conrete math and physics, than it's all wrong. You can't have just one piece seem sort of accurate on limited presentation of facts by a non-expert and just qualify the totalist of an argument. Not to be redundent, but when the overwhelming logic of scientifically verified facts (again, the website), and common sense are weighed, I fail to see how anybody can buy the conspiracy story.
And if I may add, there is a conspiracy "governmetn collusion/anti-public" conspiracy for almost every goddamned bad thing that has ever happened in American history during the 20th century. So has the government been plotting to enslave and destory the population with the help of big business since the inception of America? C'mon guys, think critically, not fictionally.
The Constitution, also, does include the right to privacy: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
This doesn't contradict what I said at all. And, if you asked several of our sitting Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito primarily, there shouldn't be any sort of Constitutionally defined right to privacy. Obviously this isn't in keeping with our current views, nor debatabley the views of the founders, but regardless, any legal interpertation of the Constitution is that - an interpretation. Funny thing about law, it's matter of consensus, standard, popular opinion, history, written coda, and interpretation. How it's presented and adminstered is much more important.
Regardless, the brief article points out one interpretation - one I happen to agree with - with my previous post I was merely pointing out that many thins that are Constitutionally implied these days aren't actually specifically mentioned in articulate language in the Constitution. The founders, in their limited but nonetheless brilliant foresight, invisioned the document as maliable and open to the whims of the day as a matter of necessity and insitutional survival. No great epiphany there.
This doesn't contradict what I said at all. And, if you asked several of our sitting Supreme Court judges, Samuel Alito primarily, there shouldn't be any sort of Constitutionally defined right to privacy. Obviously this isn't in keeping with our current views, nor debatabley the views of the founders, but regardless, any legal interpertation of the Constitution is that - an interpretation. Funny thing about law, it's matter of consensus, standard, popular opinion, history, written coda, and interpretation. How it's presented and adminstered is much more important.
Regardless, the brief article points out one interpretation - one I happen to agree with - with my previous post I was merely pointing out that many thins that are Constitutionally implied these days aren't actually specifically mentioned in articulate language in the Constitution. The founders, in their limited but nonetheless brilliant foresight, invisioned the document as maliable and open to the whims of the day as a matter of necessity and insitutional survival. No great epiphany there.
"the economy as you put it functions on the million other taxes in place; fuel tax, road tax, clothes tax, food tax, heating tax, electricity tax... you see where im going.
if i were you i wouldn't pay it. simple as."
Um, well, I won't go into specifics here, but you may wish to google "US economy AND taxes" or some such term to get the breakdown on taxes and their neccesity. Most of the taxes you mention are actually state imposed, meaning if you have a problem with them, move somewhere else. I suggest New Hampshire or Vermont. Both fine areas with a strong libertarian streak that fundamentally dislikes any extravagent taxation. Taxes are collected and emploted at the county, state, and federal level. I fail to see why people single out income tax for bitching. I hate to bring up basics, but when you live in society, you enter into something that some dead philosophers identify as the 'social contract.' That is, when you live in society and enjoy its benefits of security, service, convenience, etc, you also abide by its laws by default. This means paying the taxes imposed upon you wherever you choose to live. If you think the government shouldn't be able to charge you for its services, well, I suppose you'll need to find someplace on earth that agrees with you and charges zero or minimum taxes. I doubt there is such a place as organized society can't really function on volunteerism alone unless you're planning on joining up with a hunter-gatherer egalitarian tribal group, but let me know if you find one. In the mean time, I humbly resuggest some of our fine states in more Northern New England.
It's a very blunt and ill informed thing to say that an income tax isn't needed. Our economy has developed while utalizing an income tax, and its prompt non-payment would tank us like a lead weight in a pond. Consitutional language or not, its here and its necessary now, and micro taxation on usage won't compensate for the massive amount of government revenue created by income tax, so I must implore you to get used to it. If you choose not pay it, I'll be enjoying reading your posts from a federal penitentary. I'm no expert on macro economics, but I tihnk I understand the basics. If you doubt me, I highly enourage you to email a local, or really any university professor in the feild of economics or even political science. I'm sure they'll be happy to explain in further and far more articulate detail.
if i were you i wouldn't pay it. simple as."
Um, well, I won't go into specifics here, but you may wish to google "US economy AND taxes" or some such term to get the breakdown on taxes and their neccesity. Most of the taxes you mention are actually state imposed, meaning if you have a problem with them, move somewhere else. I suggest New Hampshire or Vermont. Both fine areas with a strong libertarian streak that fundamentally dislikes any extravagent taxation. Taxes are collected and emploted at the county, state, and federal level. I fail to see why people single out income tax for bitching. I hate to bring up basics, but when you live in society, you enter into something that some dead philosophers identify as the 'social contract.' That is, when you live in society and enjoy its benefits of security, service, convenience, etc, you also abide by its laws by default. This means paying the taxes imposed upon you wherever you choose to live. If you think the government shouldn't be able to charge you for its services, well, I suppose you'll need to find someplace on earth that agrees with you and charges zero or minimum taxes. I doubt there is such a place as organized society can't really function on volunteerism alone unless you're planning on joining up with a hunter-gatherer egalitarian tribal group, but let me know if you find one. In the mean time, I humbly resuggest some of our fine states in more Northern New England.
It's a very blunt and ill informed thing to say that an income tax isn't needed. Our economy has developed while utalizing an income tax, and its prompt non-payment would tank us like a lead weight in a pond. Consitutional language or not, its here and its necessary now, and micro taxation on usage won't compensate for the massive amount of government revenue created by income tax, so I must implore you to get used to it. If you choose not pay it, I'll be enjoying reading your posts from a federal penitentary. I'm no expert on macro economics, but I tihnk I understand the basics. If you doubt me, I highly enourage you to email a local, or really any university professor in the feild of economics or even political science. I'm sure they'll be happy to explain in further and far more articulate detail.
stridge said:
every cent of income tax gets funnelled into the military, what part of that are you missing.
income tax in America is Illegal - how lucid do you want it.
the points you make about cover ups are valid.
how do thousands of children and adults still work in slavery-esque conditions to meet the output demand of the clothing conglomerates?
how the fuck have they gotten away with putting flurid in the water?
how do drug cartels manage to fucnction?
how can the Red Cross retain its known corruption levels?
(there are of course many more - this is an overveiw)
each is unique, but you can still apply your train of thought and mussings to the above.
and do you have any idea how vast the employee pit is for the CIA, FBI combined. hundreds of thousands accross the globe, many wouldn't batter an eye lid to what they were apart to coz they would have known what was in the oven and were told to do their job.
how do you explain away when the FED's admitted in 97' they tried to blow up the trade centre 1?
how do you explain away Donald Rumsfelds paper he wrote in 2000 where he wrote that America needs a massive terrorist incident to help push the agenda in the middle east? read it!!!
you still haven't explained away wt7. no plane struck it, purportedly material from the falling towers caused fire, but it was contained through out its burning duration. and then the building comes down in the most blatent, text book demolition you will ever see - tell me that isn't controlled demolition, and explain away... and naturally Larry.
its esaier to give links because the info is markedly more indepth than what i can write - http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
that link has your beloved FEMA's joke book report along with other "independant bodies". its the entire report. refute away.
i've searched the net my man, and i don't see where you have located all these structural engineers saying that it is not possible these buildings came down by dint of an inside job. other than in debunking literature and sites with an overt affinity to this literature.
anywho WTC7!!! Larry Silverstien!!!
keep pushing
REDZULU2003
Well-known member
Has anyone got books on this subject that discuss this conspiracy that I can get my hands on?
REDZULU2003 said:
trust, the debunking books are farcical, save your pennies. associated press and dedicated websites are the the ground for the walk.
http://www.infowars.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/video/261105.htm
http://www.rense.com/
http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/
http://www.fark.com/
http://www.drudgereport.com/
http://www.wtc7.net/
not sure if this helps or you know the above already, but if you get the oppertunity try and catch Alex Jones films free on Google video. they're listed on infowars.com.
keep pushing
"every cent of income tax gets funnelled into the military, what part of that are you missing."
I couldn't quickly find any resources substantiating this online aside from some pie charts devised on some website titled "the war resister's league," that frankly didn't impress me much. Since the government files extensive reports on what they do with taxes, I could probably find out easily enough, but I don't have time to start combing through elaborate federal reports just now. A few things though - first, it's not uncommon for taxes to fund one thing specifically. For instance, local property taxes generally all go to funding education, something unfortunately creates some of the imbalances in our educational system. Another thing to keep in mind - the huge amount we spend on defense and defense related inudstries is a large and integral part of the economy in and of itself. The US didn't become the most powerful nation in the world by not having a large and well financed military industrial complex. I'm not sure what income taxes go towards funding affects their validity or necessity. Also, how does this apply to state income tax and such?
Also, as I mentioned before, their legal foundation is a matter of interpretation. I would say that no serious student of Consitutional law would take the frequent libertarian claim against the Consitutional validity of income taxes as anything more than a fringe argument. Many much more learned and knowledgable people than you and I have looked into this from both sides, and it seems that the vast majority understands that the tax is both legal and serves a purpose. Does this automatically make me correct? No, but it does suggest that the fring minority that feel its illegal have never been able to really promote their point of view as it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. And, it's not like something such as an income tax is very popular, I'm sure plenty people would be all for its abolisHydromaxent if they could find a legitimate reason to do so. Unless I'm misinterpretating your argument, I see nothing Lucid about the argument that the government has no power to collect an income tax just because it does not explicitly say so in the Constitution.
"the points you make about cover ups are valid."
Which ones? My main points to consider at this point are that there is a conspiracy theory, or in many cases multiple conspiracy theories that are argued for passionately by their proponents who claim to have rock solid evidence in every example (this are nearly always easily disproved when an expert examines their "argument," or it is revealed that their theory is ignoring any information that contradicts the loose association of circumstances that are the bread and butter of conspiracy theories). This goes for Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Kennedy, Lincoln, Other terrorist attacks, pretty much anything that happens eventually has a conspiracy come around sooner or later. Thanks to the internet as well as the day's immense tragedy, 9/11 has many.
"how do thousands of children and adults still work in slavery-esque conditions to meet the output demand of the clothing conglomerates?
how the fuck have they gotten away with putting flurid in the water?
how do drug cartels manage to fucnction?
how can the Red Cross retain its known corruption levels?
(there are of course many more - this is an overveiw)
each is unique, but you can still apply your train of thought and mussings to the above."
I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at with this. Those are mostly just unfortunate circumstances and instiutional failings (drugs, child labor, etc). So far as I know, flouride is harmless and is put in tap water for dental health. I recall a statistic showing an alarming decrease in the numbers of overall cavities reported at dental offices in the first cities where they did this.
"and do you have any idea how vast the employee pit is for the CIA, FBI combined. hundreds of thousands accross the globe, many wouldn't batter an eye lid to what they were . . . "
I'm also not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. What exactly is the employee pit? If you refer to the number of potential employees for these organizations, you are in correct. It is actually very difficult to get hired into the FBI or the CIA, and they're extremely selective.
And, your belief that all the people in government organizations would simply do as they were told and comply with a plot to murder thousands of innocent fellow citizens just to launch us into a phony war because they are either brainwashed or worried about losing thier jobs is rather insulting, at least to those people. So there isn't one upstanding or patriotic citizen amongst them that would blow the whistle on this massive conspiracy? Once again, it seems that you conveniently explain away common sense as it seriously interferes with the cogence of your arguements.
"how do you explain away when the FED's admitted in 97' they tried to blow up the trade centre 1?"
I wasn't aware that (I assume you mean the federal government by FED's) this happened. Don't you think that if there was any single shred of credibility to this story, it would have been a major news event and widely known? Don't you think real journalists, reporters, watchdog groups, etc, would have looked into such a claim and the story would have literally been earth-shaking in its remifications of true? Once again, you have suspended your normal operating knowledge of how the world works to allow yourself to buy into the conspiracy. It was Al Qaeda operatives, imprisoned, confessed, and well documented, that attempted to blow up the Trade Center previously. There is a mountain of evidence verifying this. And frankly, if our own government had wanted to do it back then, wouldn't they have used something a little more advanced than a truck bomb that woefully failed at its task? Afterall, you claim that these are the same people who managed to take out both towers and another buliding, plus the pentagon, plus crash another plane (apparently for no reason) just a few years later and keep the whole thing completely secret from the entire world. Pretty good improvement this time around then?
"how do you explain away Donald Rumsfelds paper he wrote in 2000 where he wrote that America needs a massive terrorist incident to help push the agenda in the middle . . . "
Never heard of it, got a link? I couldn't find a thing googling. But I will say this. I was a political science major and the idea that crisis incidents are often needed to prompt government action in the wake of public indifference is neither a new idea, nor was it unique to Rumsfeld at the time. I fail to see how him advocating this policy view somehow means that 9/11 was an inside job. And, if it is a conspiracy, why would Rumsfeld telgraph the conspirasists intentions and implicate himself or the Bush administration by writing a paper that might be construed as favorable to the events of 9/11? They would obviously have had to have been in the advanced planning stages in 2000 (another error of the 9/11 conspiracy people is to believe that a group as incompitnet as the Bush administration and whoever else where able to organize all this in as short a time period that they would have had to - if you buy into the conspiracy, than you must believe Clinton got the ball rolling for Bush then handed off the Tower destruction project, what a nice guy!), so why would he do such a thing? Once again, the conspiracy logic contradicts itself and ignores all elements of the real world.
"you still haven't explained away wt7. no plane struck it, purportedly material from the falling towers caused fire, but it was contained through out its burning duration. and then the building comes down in the most blatent, text book demolition you will ever see - tell me that isn't controlled demolition, and explain away... "
Here is a link from the website I listed before - painstakingly explains the physics and data surrounding WT7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Their explanation makes the conspiracy ideas seem pretty silly, and in the interests of fairness I have looked at some of the conspiracy sites. Virtually every explanation on the conspiracy sites that I found was easily debunked. At least have a look at it, although I feela bit like I'm pissing in the wind if I ask that you keep an open mind.
So far as the link you provided, here's an example of the kind of analysis offered there, with my own comments added to show what I think of it:
"Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building. Apparently, it was trapped in the southern side of the building. Yet this fire raged so furiously that it warped the steel in the southern side of the building to the point where the whole building collapsed.
**{My comments: They present this fact is if it were impossible, with little or no explanation. I know for a fact, and you can confirm this with any local firefighter or perhaps a web search, that large and very hot fires do often self contain or only affect one side of a building, particularly a very large steel framed building that, like most modern structures, was probably built with fire danger and compartmentalization in mind. The author clearly knows nothing about fire science or serious structure fires, but this doesn't stop him from deciding that the facts he has read are impossible based on his completely amateur and uninformed judgement. A person who had never seen a plane fly before would think it impossibel to hear that a giant multi-ton tube of steel and plastic and hurtle half way around the globe because they don't a think about aviation or planes. Doesn't mean that planes don't fly.}**
"To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires, had a dividing wall that ran across the building. This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it. And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition."
**{Again, they speak from a position of expertise without offering any information or explanation. The debunking site never did this so far as I could tell - they explain all of their statements very carefully. Here, the ubsubstatiation begins immediately, such as "This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it." Really? How is it such a transparent lie? Where they involved in the construction of the building? From what I can tell, their evidence is based from the schematics in part of the FEMA report, which were not necessarily drawn from the final building plan or master copies, and often things such as 'dividing walls' come and go within the interior of buildings. Either way, their evidence that is supposedly so strong as to make it "impossible" to believe such a "transparent lie" (notice how coersive the language is. One thing I've noticed about the conspiracy sites is that they're littered with diction that constantly screams impossiblity, outrage, lies, etc. Its a bit of latent word programming to start conditioning you to believe the argument while you're reading it - good argumentative writers employ this sort of tactic to maximal effect to start persuading the reader subconsciously before they even realize it. If you do thi in an academic setting, however, you'll be laughed at and written off before anybody gets very far into your writing).
The final explanation of how the building fell, as I understand it, has to do with the significant weakening from debri falling and fire. As admitted by the FEMA report and conspiracists alike, the exact total of overall internal damage is only an estimate based on obersvable evidence - yet the author's final comment ignores these facts, alluded to elsewhere in his statements, in order to make the point he was writing stronger at the time. Very bizarre, but not atypical from what I have read on the conspiracy sites. Regardless, it seems the tactic by conspiracy writers is to sound as if you're very certain about a lot of things, without actually saying anything that really is certain about much at all.
"i've searched the net my man, and i don't see where you have located all these structural engineers saying that it is not possible these buildings came down by dint of an inside job. other than in debunking literature and sites with an overt affinity to this literature."
I've read numerous engineers of all stripes quoted on various websites addressing the conspiracy theories, and they say that the science used by conspiracists is just plain bad or even made-up. Some of the anti-conspiracy sites are even authored and maintained by engineers or physicists. They seem to feel an obligation to refute the conspiracy claims due to the fact that they do distort facts so often to suit their agendas. Also, I believe that if you do a Lexus Nexus search, or any other academic search database of peer reviewed articles, you'll find that many independent academics have explained why the "controlled demolition" theories, as well as all the others (fighter jets/rocket pods being the most hilarious) are completely impossible when held under the scrutiny of real expertise.
Let me put it this way - if these controlled demolition claims are so plain as day for even the layman to see - then why don't a few engineering and physicis experts take notice, or really all of them? If there is hard scientific data to back up the conspiracy, then why isn't it presented and argued for passionately by the many thousands of qualified people out there who recognize it? If the controlled demolition theory is really indidputable and mind-bogglingly obvious, why are its only proponents simply in the far corners of the internet?
Are all the qualified engineering and physics experts in on the scheme as well, along with tens of thousands of government and private employees, and many more regular folkds as well that would have had some form of contact with the conspiracy? What interest does this untold number of people have in keeping a lid on things. Obviously, there's nothing to keep a lid on.
"Larry Silverstien"
I'm not sure why the fact that he owned the buildings, had them insured, etc is significant in any way. Wouldn't his real estate be more profitable in the long run as a functioning entity rather than a one time payout, which surely he would have realized would have been tied up in courts and settlements for many, many years? I deal with commercial real estate and other large holdings a bit, and to simplify by saying that when you get onto the scale of billions of dollars, it isn't the same thing as torching your car for a little bit of insurance money. I think its hilarious that people equate it this manner.
Similar to the Rumsfeld "smoking gun" type of idea you mentioned before, Larry Silverstein really doesn't matter. To the conspiracy geared mind, coincidence automatically equals fact. It must be very confusing walking through life with that sort of mindset.
I believe I addressed all of you points, but you still fail to answer to mine. Silverstein, WT7, all that business aside, how are they keeping everybody that would have to be involved in this massive conspiracy quiet? We can't find one reciept, one scrap of paper, memo, fax, email? Do you realize all the money, resources and manpower that would have gone into this? A Planned murder of thousands of US citizens, and everybody just went a along with happily, whistling Dixie? You're ignoring these facts entirely.
In the end, people that want to believe in conspiracies, especially one as batshit insane as the many 9/11 conspiracy angles, don't believe because the evidence and theories are so compelling. They believe in them because they want to believe in them, hence their extremely low standards for burden of proof and general refusal to acknowledge anything contrary to the flimsy nature of the conspiracy. Maybe I'm the foolish one for even trying to argue the point with a dyed in the wool true believer . . .
I couldn't quickly find any resources substantiating this online aside from some pie charts devised on some website titled "the war resister's league," that frankly didn't impress me much. Since the government files extensive reports on what they do with taxes, I could probably find out easily enough, but I don't have time to start combing through elaborate federal reports just now. A few things though - first, it's not uncommon for taxes to fund one thing specifically. For instance, local property taxes generally all go to funding education, something unfortunately creates some of the imbalances in our educational system. Another thing to keep in mind - the huge amount we spend on defense and defense related inudstries is a large and integral part of the economy in and of itself. The US didn't become the most powerful nation in the world by not having a large and well financed military industrial complex. I'm not sure what income taxes go towards funding affects their validity or necessity. Also, how does this apply to state income tax and such?
Also, as I mentioned before, their legal foundation is a matter of interpretation. I would say that no serious student of Consitutional law would take the frequent libertarian claim against the Consitutional validity of income taxes as anything more than a fringe argument. Many much more learned and knowledgable people than you and I have looked into this from both sides, and it seems that the vast majority understands that the tax is both legal and serves a purpose. Does this automatically make me correct? No, but it does suggest that the fring minority that feel its illegal have never been able to really promote their point of view as it doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. And, it's not like something such as an income tax is very popular, I'm sure plenty people would be all for its abolisHydromaxent if they could find a legitimate reason to do so. Unless I'm misinterpretating your argument, I see nothing Lucid about the argument that the government has no power to collect an income tax just because it does not explicitly say so in the Constitution.
"the points you make about cover ups are valid."
Which ones? My main points to consider at this point are that there is a conspiracy theory, or in many cases multiple conspiracy theories that are argued for passionately by their proponents who claim to have rock solid evidence in every example (this are nearly always easily disproved when an expert examines their "argument," or it is revealed that their theory is ignoring any information that contradicts the loose association of circumstances that are the bread and butter of conspiracy theories). This goes for Pearl Harbour, 9/11, Kennedy, Lincoln, Other terrorist attacks, pretty much anything that happens eventually has a conspiracy come around sooner or later. Thanks to the internet as well as the day's immense tragedy, 9/11 has many.
"how do thousands of children and adults still work in slavery-esque conditions to meet the output demand of the clothing conglomerates?
how the fuck have they gotten away with putting flurid in the water?
how do drug cartels manage to fucnction?
how can the Red Cross retain its known corruption levels?
(there are of course many more - this is an overveiw)
each is unique, but you can still apply your train of thought and mussings to the above."
I'm not sure that I understand what you're getting at with this. Those are mostly just unfortunate circumstances and instiutional failings (drugs, child labor, etc). So far as I know, flouride is harmless and is put in tap water for dental health. I recall a statistic showing an alarming decrease in the numbers of overall cavities reported at dental offices in the first cities where they did this.
"and do you have any idea how vast the employee pit is for the CIA, FBI combined. hundreds of thousands accross the globe, many wouldn't batter an eye lid to what they were . . . "
I'm also not entirely sure what this is supposed to mean. What exactly is the employee pit? If you refer to the number of potential employees for these organizations, you are in correct. It is actually very difficult to get hired into the FBI or the CIA, and they're extremely selective.
And, your belief that all the people in government organizations would simply do as they were told and comply with a plot to murder thousands of innocent fellow citizens just to launch us into a phony war because they are either brainwashed or worried about losing thier jobs is rather insulting, at least to those people. So there isn't one upstanding or patriotic citizen amongst them that would blow the whistle on this massive conspiracy? Once again, it seems that you conveniently explain away common sense as it seriously interferes with the cogence of your arguements.
"how do you explain away when the FED's admitted in 97' they tried to blow up the trade centre 1?"
I wasn't aware that (I assume you mean the federal government by FED's) this happened. Don't you think that if there was any single shred of credibility to this story, it would have been a major news event and widely known? Don't you think real journalists, reporters, watchdog groups, etc, would have looked into such a claim and the story would have literally been earth-shaking in its remifications of true? Once again, you have suspended your normal operating knowledge of how the world works to allow yourself to buy into the conspiracy. It was Al Qaeda operatives, imprisoned, confessed, and well documented, that attempted to blow up the Trade Center previously. There is a mountain of evidence verifying this. And frankly, if our own government had wanted to do it back then, wouldn't they have used something a little more advanced than a truck bomb that woefully failed at its task? Afterall, you claim that these are the same people who managed to take out both towers and another buliding, plus the pentagon, plus crash another plane (apparently for no reason) just a few years later and keep the whole thing completely secret from the entire world. Pretty good improvement this time around then?
"how do you explain away Donald Rumsfelds paper he wrote in 2000 where he wrote that America needs a massive terrorist incident to help push the agenda in the middle . . . "
Never heard of it, got a link? I couldn't find a thing googling. But I will say this. I was a political science major and the idea that crisis incidents are often needed to prompt government action in the wake of public indifference is neither a new idea, nor was it unique to Rumsfeld at the time. I fail to see how him advocating this policy view somehow means that 9/11 was an inside job. And, if it is a conspiracy, why would Rumsfeld telgraph the conspirasists intentions and implicate himself or the Bush administration by writing a paper that might be construed as favorable to the events of 9/11? They would obviously have had to have been in the advanced planning stages in 2000 (another error of the 9/11 conspiracy people is to believe that a group as incompitnet as the Bush administration and whoever else where able to organize all this in as short a time period that they would have had to - if you buy into the conspiracy, than you must believe Clinton got the ball rolling for Bush then handed off the Tower destruction project, what a nice guy!), so why would he do such a thing? Once again, the conspiracy logic contradicts itself and ignores all elements of the real world.
"you still haven't explained away wt7. no plane struck it, purportedly material from the falling towers caused fire, but it was contained through out its burning duration. and then the building comes down in the most blatent, text book demolition you will ever see - tell me that isn't controlled demolition, and explain away... "
Here is a link from the website I listed before - painstakingly explains the physics and data surrounding WT7. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Their explanation makes the conspiracy ideas seem pretty silly, and in the interests of fairness I have looked at some of the conspiracy sites. Virtually every explanation on the conspiracy sites that I found was easily debunked. At least have a look at it, although I feela bit like I'm pissing in the wind if I ask that you keep an open mind.
So far as the link you provided, here's an example of the kind of analysis offered there, with my own comments added to show what I think of it:
"Now get this: the fire burnt for about 7 hours. During this seven hours, the fire never managed to reach the northern side of the building. Apparently, it was trapped in the southern side of the building. Yet this fire raged so furiously that it warped the steel in the southern side of the building to the point where the whole building collapsed.
**{My comments: They present this fact is if it were impossible, with little or no explanation. I know for a fact, and you can confirm this with any local firefighter or perhaps a web search, that large and very hot fires do often self contain or only affect one side of a building, particularly a very large steel framed building that, like most modern structures, was probably built with fire danger and compartmentalization in mind. The author clearly knows nothing about fire science or serious structure fires, but this doesn't stop him from deciding that the facts he has read are impossible based on his completely amateur and uninformed judgement. A person who had never seen a plane fly before would think it impossibel to hear that a giant multi-ton tube of steel and plastic and hurtle half way around the globe because they don't a think about aviation or planes. Doesn't mean that planes don't fly.}**
"To explain this, we have been told that two floors (floors 5 and 6), on which there were no known fires, had a dividing wall that ran across the building. This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it. And, in any event, if the steel on only one side of the building warped, leading to collapse, then the building would have fallen like a tree and would not have collapsed in the manner of a controlled demolition."
**{Again, they speak from a position of expertise without offering any information or explanation. The debunking site never did this so far as I could tell - they explain all of their statements very carefully. Here, the ubsubstatiation begins immediately, such as "This is such a transparent lie, it is impossible that a reasonable person believe it." Really? How is it such a transparent lie? Where they involved in the construction of the building? From what I can tell, their evidence is based from the schematics in part of the FEMA report, which were not necessarily drawn from the final building plan or master copies, and often things such as 'dividing walls' come and go within the interior of buildings. Either way, their evidence that is supposedly so strong as to make it "impossible" to believe such a "transparent lie" (notice how coersive the language is. One thing I've noticed about the conspiracy sites is that they're littered with diction that constantly screams impossiblity, outrage, lies, etc. Its a bit of latent word programming to start conditioning you to believe the argument while you're reading it - good argumentative writers employ this sort of tactic to maximal effect to start persuading the reader subconsciously before they even realize it. If you do thi in an academic setting, however, you'll be laughed at and written off before anybody gets very far into your writing).
The final explanation of how the building fell, as I understand it, has to do with the significant weakening from debri falling and fire. As admitted by the FEMA report and conspiracists alike, the exact total of overall internal damage is only an estimate based on obersvable evidence - yet the author's final comment ignores these facts, alluded to elsewhere in his statements, in order to make the point he was writing stronger at the time. Very bizarre, but not atypical from what I have read on the conspiracy sites. Regardless, it seems the tactic by conspiracy writers is to sound as if you're very certain about a lot of things, without actually saying anything that really is certain about much at all.
"i've searched the net my man, and i don't see where you have located all these structural engineers saying that it is not possible these buildings came down by dint of an inside job. other than in debunking literature and sites with an overt affinity to this literature."
I've read numerous engineers of all stripes quoted on various websites addressing the conspiracy theories, and they say that the science used by conspiracists is just plain bad or even made-up. Some of the anti-conspiracy sites are even authored and maintained by engineers or physicists. They seem to feel an obligation to refute the conspiracy claims due to the fact that they do distort facts so often to suit their agendas. Also, I believe that if you do a Lexus Nexus search, or any other academic search database of peer reviewed articles, you'll find that many independent academics have explained why the "controlled demolition" theories, as well as all the others (fighter jets/rocket pods being the most hilarious) are completely impossible when held under the scrutiny of real expertise.
Let me put it this way - if these controlled demolition claims are so plain as day for even the layman to see - then why don't a few engineering and physicis experts take notice, or really all of them? If there is hard scientific data to back up the conspiracy, then why isn't it presented and argued for passionately by the many thousands of qualified people out there who recognize it? If the controlled demolition theory is really indidputable and mind-bogglingly obvious, why are its only proponents simply in the far corners of the internet?
Are all the qualified engineering and physics experts in on the scheme as well, along with tens of thousands of government and private employees, and many more regular folkds as well that would have had some form of contact with the conspiracy? What interest does this untold number of people have in keeping a lid on things. Obviously, there's nothing to keep a lid on.
"Larry Silverstien"
I'm not sure why the fact that he owned the buildings, had them insured, etc is significant in any way. Wouldn't his real estate be more profitable in the long run as a functioning entity rather than a one time payout, which surely he would have realized would have been tied up in courts and settlements for many, many years? I deal with commercial real estate and other large holdings a bit, and to simplify by saying that when you get onto the scale of billions of dollars, it isn't the same thing as torching your car for a little bit of insurance money. I think its hilarious that people equate it this manner.
Similar to the Rumsfeld "smoking gun" type of idea you mentioned before, Larry Silverstein really doesn't matter. To the conspiracy geared mind, coincidence automatically equals fact. It must be very confusing walking through life with that sort of mindset.
I believe I addressed all of you points, but you still fail to answer to mine. Silverstein, WT7, all that business aside, how are they keeping everybody that would have to be involved in this massive conspiracy quiet? We can't find one reciept, one scrap of paper, memo, fax, email? Do you realize all the money, resources and manpower that would have gone into this? A Planned murder of thousands of US citizens, and everybody just went a along with happily, whistling Dixie? You're ignoring these facts entirely.
In the end, people that want to believe in conspiracies, especially one as batshit insane as the many 9/11 conspiracy angles, don't believe because the evidence and theories are so compelling. They believe in them because they want to believe in them, hence their extremely low standards for burden of proof and general refusal to acknowledge anything contrary to the flimsy nature of the conspiracy. Maybe I'm the foolish one for even trying to argue the point with a dyed in the wool true believer . . .
In the words of George W. Bush (from Southpark Season 10) "It was the most elaborate and flawlessly executed plain ever, ever!".
There was no conspiracy. It's one thing to believe, and it is very likely, that JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed by the government. It is a whole other ball of wax to believe that the government would be able to execute a plan such as the one proposed by these conspiracy websites. It's really just not possible nor is it likely. I could see something, possibly, involving a biological attack and a cure suddenly appearing (V for Vendetta) but not an all out attack on your own soil. This to me is like someone saying that Pearl Harbor wasn't the Japanese. It's just plain ignorant.
There was no conspiracy. It's one thing to believe, and it is very likely, that JFK and Martin Luther King Jr. were killed by the government. It is a whole other ball of wax to believe that the government would be able to execute a plan such as the one proposed by these conspiracy websites. It's really just not possible nor is it likely. I could see something, possibly, involving a biological attack and a cure suddenly appearing (V for Vendetta) but not an all out attack on your own soil. This to me is like someone saying that Pearl Harbor wasn't the Japanese. It's just plain ignorant.
It is my understanding that numerous cops, firefighters, etc, came out saying that they saw bombs, knew something was happening before the attack, and other things.
If there is one important thing I have learned from all this is that the government is evil and will be the most dangerous entity that I will ever have to face, quoting Alex Jones.
If there is one important thing I have learned from all this is that the government is evil and will be the most dangerous entity that I will ever have to face, quoting Alex Jones.
10inchadvantage said:
Well, I would ask then, show me the quotes and explanations of this supposed forknowledge by our public employees from credible news sources (i.e. not conspiracy websites). And, I'd also ask, if they knew in advance, then why did they let so many of their fellow firefighters, police officers, and other emergency personnel climb to their deaths in the towers and usrrounding area that day? Why would the emergency services crowd even be in on the pre-planning? Their services wouldn't really be needed and in fact would just compromise the security of the operation.
So far as other people hearing explosions during the falling of the towers, this has been capably explained on dozens of websites. People calling from the towers, as well as those attempting to rescue people in them, were subject to numerous explosions, loud noises, flashes, etc. This is to be expected when a huge skyscraper is on fire as energy transformers and various other building componenets catch on fire, explode, fall through floors, wires short out, and any number of other things. Lets remember that a commercial jetliner crashed into these buildings - do you really think it odd that people heard a few booms and crashes during this time?
The reports of exploding noises were steading from the time the planes hit all the way through to the end. If they were related to a controlled demolition, they would have been nearly simaltaneous and in sequence just as the towers went down, not randomly scattered throughout the events before either tower fell. Also, why would emolitionists bother to hide numerous small and useless bombs at locations all throughout the building?
One again, the conspiracy thinking is completely removed from all rational thought if you take an even slightly closer look at it. Nothing adds up, no evidence is produced, just conjecture and hearsay that is somehow taken as proof. Conspiracists have never produced one single shred of evidence in all these years that implicates a single person, company, or anything else in these attacks aside from the terrorists we already know to be responsible. Nthing. Zip. Zilch. Nada. And yet they persist . . .
And, no offense to his many fans, but Alex Jones is a quack and he makes a nice living off of his fans paranoia and anti-federal fervor. A friend of mine is a resident of Austin and used to listen to Jones' radio show, mostly for a laugh I gather. On the show, Jones introduced his guest, Charlie Sheen, as one of the truly great leaders and corageous voices of our generation. Charlie freakin' Sheen? Even if he's not a lame-brained pseudo-celeb, he is certainly an unapologetic ass-kisser. The guy proliferates poorly supported conspiracy ideas across the internet on a range of topics. Never taught at a university, never written anything substantiated or serious, never worked as a serious journalist or writer - its all pop entertainment for the paranoid.
He actually produced a video about the weekend opening ceremony at Bohemian Grove as if it were some kind of super-secret and evil undertaking (it's not. It's more or less public knowledge and has been witnessed by tens of thousands. It's basically a yearly mock-play ceremony for the fun of the club members - but Jones portrays it as the height of evil elite - a fact that I've heard is rather hilarious to Bohemians).
Think about it. Alex Jones stops producing alarming internet videos and making "bold proclamations" about the evils of the US government and pretty much all of human civillization, and then his cashflow and livelihood die down. Hence, the ever more hystrionic tone of his output. Like I said, the guy is cashing in on a crowd of people that don't hold him to a very high standard.
Still waiting to hear how the tens of thousands have been kept silent, all the reciepts, emails, everything, swept under the rug. This must truly have been the world's most complicated and devious plot, all carried out by the Bush administration in a short period of time . . . Somebody?
A little more food for thought on the logistics of controlled demolition. The following is taken from a debunking site (where else would you find such a thing) that directly deals with one of the 9/11 conspiracy videos circulating on the web.
_______________________________________________
People do not understand the work involved in a controlled demolition. I have copied the information below from Controlled Demolition Inc's website. It shows the work involved in their world record (in terms of building height - 439 feet, or 134 meters), demolition of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:
Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns
weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Of course, the Twin Towers destroyed everything around them. I suppose the CD advocates would say that this is because it didn't matter how the towers fell.
What none of them has been able to explain is how the work could have been accomplished, how it could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html
_____________________________________________________
On top of everything else that really isn't logistically possible, even the physical possiblity of getting in there and setting up the demolitions and then having them work properly after the airline crashes is pretty silly.
_______________________________________________
People do not understand the work involved in a controlled demolition. I have copied the information below from Controlled Demolition Inc's website. It shows the work involved in their world record (in terms of building height - 439 feet, or 134 meters), demolition of the J.L. Hudson building in Detroit:
Homrich/NASDI's 21 man crew needed three months to investigate the complex and four months to complete preparations for CDI's implosion design. During that period, the lower two basements of the structure were filled with engineered fill and the perimeter basement walls bermed to 1st basement level with soil to support perimeter walls which would surely have failed under soil and hydrostatic loads once the horizontal support of the Hudson's internal structure was removed by the implosion.
Double column rows installed in the structure between vertical construction phases, internal brick shear walls, x-bracing, 70 elevators and 10 stairwells created an extremely stiff frame. Columns
weighing over 500 lb/ft, having up to 7.25 inch thick laminated steel flanges and 6 inch thick webs, defied commercially available shaped charge technology. CDI analyzed each column, determined the actual load it carried and then used cutting torches to scarf-off steel plates in order to use smaller shaped charges to cut the remaining steel. CDI wanted to keep the charges as small as possible to reduce air over pressure that could break windows in adjacent properties.
CDI's 12 person loading crew took twenty-four days to place 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system, some to create the 36 primary implosion sequence and another 216 micro-delays to keep down the detonation overpressure from the 2,728 lb of explosives which would be detonated during the demolition.
Of course, the Twin Towers destroyed everything around them. I suppose the CD advocates would say that this is because it didn't matter how the towers fell.
What none of them has been able to explain is how the work could have been accomplished, how it could have remained unseen, and how it could have withstood the damaged caused by the airplane crashes, explosions and fires.
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html
_____________________________________________________
On top of everything else that really isn't logistically possible, even the physical possiblity of getting in there and setting up the demolitions and then having them work properly after the airline crashes is pretty silly.
I think on Terrorstorm they show video from CNN and other networks. You have cops telling people "the building is going down, move on", etc. How did they know the building was going to fall at that particular time(minutes before it fell)? There is no way all of those floors could have collapsed in unison. Also, there are temperatures of thermite found in mass that would be possible only if certain explosives were set off(ie. not from a plane or its fuel).
As someone else said, WTC 7 was the smoking gun. http://www.wtc7.net/
It is admitted fact that it was "pulled" by explosives. How were these flawless explosives made to work so perfectly given only about 2 hours, which would normally take weeks to get right in the field? Same thing with WTC 1 and 2. Pre-planned explosives, probably put in months in advance.
I am a big Alex Jones fan and I haven't given him $.01. All of his stuff he puts out there for free. I have thought about buying one of his great products like Terrorstorm(available for free) to help support him in his mission against the globalists, whom everyone should oppose except for die-hard soulless authoritarian capitalists(fascists).
As someone else said, WTC 7 was the smoking gun. http://www.wtc7.net/
It is admitted fact that it was "pulled" by explosives. How were these flawless explosives made to work so perfectly given only about 2 hours, which would normally take weeks to get right in the field? Same thing with WTC 1 and 2. Pre-planned explosives, probably put in months in advance.
I am a big Alex Jones fan and I haven't given him $.01. All of his stuff he puts out there for free. I have thought about buying one of his great products like Terrorstorm(available for free) to help support him in his mission against the globalists, whom everyone should oppose except for die-hard soulless authoritarian capitalists(fascists).
"You have cops telling people "the building is going down, move on", etc. How did they know the building was going to fall at that particular time(minutes before it fell)? There is no way all of those floors could have collapsed in unison."
I sincerely hope this video or whatever kind of thing it is (nice name, Terrorstorm, doesn't portray a very objective agenda) gives exact timecoding and location for the interview footage.
Police and firefighters were well aware for a long time that WT7 was going to collapse due to the obviously sagging and bowing nature of the building. Additionally, once the first tower came down, there were incredibly busy moving everybody they could out of the area and surrounding blocks. It is completely unsurprising that there is footage of emergency personel telling people to get out of there and that the buildings are coming down.
How is that in any way a form of proof of foreknowledge of 9/11 (nobody answered my question about why police and firefighters would know and still go to their deaths in the first place - does this make any sense whatsoever? For godssakes, think about it for a moment. Hundreds of them died). Some clips of police and firefighters clearing people at unidentified times and places around the attack site is about as comically flimsy proof as I could come up with - yet this stuff is the intelletual currency of conspiracy theorists. Incredible.
"Also, there are temperatures of thermite found in mass that would be possible only if certain explosives were set off(ie. not from a plane or its fuel)."
Neither you, nor myself, are experts on 'thermite,' jet fuel ignition, or melting point temperatures, but I would encourage you to at least read the other side of this before deciding the conspirasists have got it all figured out. This succinct debunking page covers the basics, and there are far more detailed and scientific breakdowns of why the "conspiracy science" is just plain wrong if you care to serach further: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
It only takes a few moments to read, give it a shot.
"It is admitted fact that it was "pulled" by explosives."
No such thing was ever admitted - it has just been portrayed this way by conspiracy people. Larry Silverstein used the phrase "just pull it" in reference to a firefighting contingent in WT7 in an interview many months later. Similar to the Rumsfeld thing, apparently conspiracy theorists think that its common place for these people to plan incredibly elaborate and evil schemes, and then publicly screw up on national television. Here is some explnatation to the the "pull it" business is dishonest and misrepresented, plus the usual link:
--------------------------------
Claim
This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demoltion of WTC 7.
Fact
Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.
The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.
"Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".
His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.
FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.
FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:
"I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]
Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.
"Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street." [2]
Command and control
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people. — Chief Daniel Nigro
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center
_________________________
As usual, there is no evidence offered by conspiracy theorists about "pull it" being a common term in large scale bilding demolition - in fact the only reference anybody seems able to find is to the old-time actual wire based triggers a la most frequently seen in cartoons. Interestingly, many conspiracy sites claim its a common and universal term without one shred of evidence to substantiate this.
Once again, this is in no any kind of credible evidence of forknowledge, collusion, or demolition. It's just a quote, deliberatley taken out of context and misrepresented, of which the conspiracy model is then fixed around.
If this were a murder trial, not one thing presented by conspiracy advocates so far would stand before the court - in fact it would be laughable. All circumstance, conjecture, with not one concrete element or compelling statement, and frequently just wrong or poorly reasoned.
"How were these flawless explosives made to work so perfectly given only about 2 hours, which would normally take weeks to get right in the field? Same thing with WTC 1 and 2. Pre-planned explosives, probably put in months in advance."
Uhh, clearly you didn't read my other posts. One thing I have argued is that this would have had to have been planned for a very long time and the process would be insanely elaborate. The long quote I pasted in a previous post details the difficulty of setting up the demolition of a much smaller building. I suggest you go back and actually read it. It states that significant modifications had to be made to the building over a long period of time as a large crew filled the subbasements, sawed in structural supports, and laced several floors with charges.
How did they accomplish this at the Trade Centers without anybody knowing? One of many questions I'm sure nobody will even bother to attempt to answer.
"I am a big Alex Jones fan and I haven't given him $.01. All of his stuff he puts out there for free. I have thought about buying one of his great products like Terrorstorm(available for free) to help support him in his mission against the globalists, whom everyone should oppose except for die-hard soulless authoritarian capitalists(fascists)."
I never suggested that you ahve personally sent the guy a check, but you would be foolishly to deny that he makes a living from selling his "evil big brother government/facist apocolypse/ security state material." Therefore, good old Alex Jones has a vested interest in making sure people are good and terrified by his videos and such, but also entertained enough that they'll want more.
I don't begrudge the guy for making a buck and acting as a radical (if he were a true radical he wouldn't sell any of his products at all, but whatever), but I dislike that his parnoid, bordering on science fiction depictions of American society and beyond distract from the real problems that we have.
The world is full atrocities and suffering right now, and we're in the midst of an unwinnable and terminally weakening war. The environment is still in serious trouble, and the risk of infectious diseases and crop stagnation are extremely high. Starvation and lack of basic necessities killes millions elsewhere.
Somehow, I see these things as more pressing issues for young people and acitivists than Alex Jones' "police state/be afraid/evil one world government/the facists are coming" prostyletizing. No offense, but the intellectual, historical, and sociological level of his arguments and media are on about the same level as a stoned graduate student waaxing philosophical on his couch. The real world is far more complicated and interesting than neophyte charliatans like Jones make it out to be.
I sincerely hope this video or whatever kind of thing it is (nice name, Terrorstorm, doesn't portray a very objective agenda) gives exact timecoding and location for the interview footage.
Police and firefighters were well aware for a long time that WT7 was going to collapse due to the obviously sagging and bowing nature of the building. Additionally, once the first tower came down, there were incredibly busy moving everybody they could out of the area and surrounding blocks. It is completely unsurprising that there is footage of emergency personel telling people to get out of there and that the buildings are coming down.
How is that in any way a form of proof of foreknowledge of 9/11 (nobody answered my question about why police and firefighters would know and still go to their deaths in the first place - does this make any sense whatsoever? For godssakes, think about it for a moment. Hundreds of them died). Some clips of police and firefighters clearing people at unidentified times and places around the attack site is about as comically flimsy proof as I could come up with - yet this stuff is the intelletual currency of conspiracy theorists. Incredible.
"Also, there are temperatures of thermite found in mass that would be possible only if certain explosives were set off(ie. not from a plane or its fuel)."
Neither you, nor myself, are experts on 'thermite,' jet fuel ignition, or melting point temperatures, but I would encourage you to at least read the other side of this before deciding the conspirasists have got it all figured out. This succinct debunking page covers the basics, and there are far more detailed and scientific breakdowns of why the "conspiracy science" is just plain wrong if you care to serach further: http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
It only takes a few moments to read, give it a shot.
"It is admitted fact that it was "pulled" by explosives."
No such thing was ever admitted - it has just been portrayed this way by conspiracy people. Larry Silverstein used the phrase "just pull it" in reference to a firefighting contingent in WT7 in an interview many months later. Similar to the Rumsfeld thing, apparently conspiracy theorists think that its common place for these people to plan incredibly elaborate and evil schemes, and then publicly screw up on national television. Here is some explnatation to the the "pull it" business is dishonest and misrepresented, plus the usual link:
--------------------------------
Claim
This claim was bolstered by a comment made by Larry Silverstein on a PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, where he uttered the phrase "pull it". Conspiracy theorists claim that this is slang term used in building implosions, and that with those words, Silverstein was authorizing the demoltion of WTC 7.
Fact
Controlled demolition experts reject the notion that "pull it" is a term used in building implosions.
The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.
"Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".
His spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said that by "it", Silverstein was referring to the contigent of firefighters in WTC 7.
FDNY interviews available on the New York Times website also shed light on the use of "pull" in firefighting on 9/11, and help address the question of whether firefighters were in WTC 7 in the afternoon.
FDNY Captain Ray Goldback:
"I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse." [1]
Firefighter Richard Banaciski was in the Verizon Building, adjacent to WTC7.
"Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street." [2]
Command and control
The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldnít lose any more people. — Chief Daniel Nigro
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=7_World_Trade_Center
_________________________
As usual, there is no evidence offered by conspiracy theorists about "pull it" being a common term in large scale bilding demolition - in fact the only reference anybody seems able to find is to the old-time actual wire based triggers a la most frequently seen in cartoons. Interestingly, many conspiracy sites claim its a common and universal term without one shred of evidence to substantiate this.
Once again, this is in no any kind of credible evidence of forknowledge, collusion, or demolition. It's just a quote, deliberatley taken out of context and misrepresented, of which the conspiracy model is then fixed around.
If this were a murder trial, not one thing presented by conspiracy advocates so far would stand before the court - in fact it would be laughable. All circumstance, conjecture, with not one concrete element or compelling statement, and frequently just wrong or poorly reasoned.
"How were these flawless explosives made to work so perfectly given only about 2 hours, which would normally take weeks to get right in the field? Same thing with WTC 1 and 2. Pre-planned explosives, probably put in months in advance."
Uhh, clearly you didn't read my other posts. One thing I have argued is that this would have had to have been planned for a very long time and the process would be insanely elaborate. The long quote I pasted in a previous post details the difficulty of setting up the demolition of a much smaller building. I suggest you go back and actually read it. It states that significant modifications had to be made to the building over a long period of time as a large crew filled the subbasements, sawed in structural supports, and laced several floors with charges.
How did they accomplish this at the Trade Centers without anybody knowing? One of many questions I'm sure nobody will even bother to attempt to answer.
"I am a big Alex Jones fan and I haven't given him $.01. All of his stuff he puts out there for free. I have thought about buying one of his great products like Terrorstorm(available for free) to help support him in his mission against the globalists, whom everyone should oppose except for die-hard soulless authoritarian capitalists(fascists)."
I never suggested that you ahve personally sent the guy a check, but you would be foolishly to deny that he makes a living from selling his "evil big brother government/facist apocolypse/ security state material." Therefore, good old Alex Jones has a vested interest in making sure people are good and terrified by his videos and such, but also entertained enough that they'll want more.
I don't begrudge the guy for making a buck and acting as a radical (if he were a true radical he wouldn't sell any of his products at all, but whatever), but I dislike that his parnoid, bordering on science fiction depictions of American society and beyond distract from the real problems that we have.
The world is full atrocities and suffering right now, and we're in the midst of an unwinnable and terminally weakening war. The environment is still in serious trouble, and the risk of infectious diseases and crop stagnation are extremely high. Starvation and lack of basic necessities killes millions elsewhere.
Somehow, I see these things as more pressing issues for young people and acitivists than Alex Jones' "police state/be afraid/evil one world government/the facists are coming" prostyletizing. No offense, but the intellectual, historical, and sociological level of his arguments and media are on about the same level as a stoned graduate student waaxing philosophical on his couch. The real world is far more complicated and interesting than neophyte charliatans like Jones make it out to be.
And, just to repeat, anybody care to tackle my most fundamental question? As I've said, put aside all the quibling over ignission temperatures, quotes, explosions heard, blah, and just answer this most basic question:
There would have had to have been tens of thousands of people in government and non-government agencies involved with this for a very long period of time, and millions of dollars expended along with an enormous number of memos, phone calls, emails, reciepts, etc. Why can the conspiracy crowd not produce one shred of any of this? Why has not one person stepped forward to spill the beans on a massive planned mass murder of their fellow citizens? Not one honest soul among them all?
or, if you choose to keep ignoring that, take this idea into account:
Of all the structural and mechanical engineers in the world, not one has written a peer-reviewed and sceintifically supported paper substantiating any of the conspiracy claims (one materials engineer at BYU tried, and he was relieved of his job when the department reviewed his work and found the quality embrassing and unprofessional).
If the conspiracy is so obvious that a bunch of kids and non-experts sitting in front of their computers can easily discern it from a few grainy photos, then why don't the engineers and experts of the world unite to shed light on this, given that its so obvious and easily provable, as conspiracy advocates claim? Is every engineer in the world in on the conspiracy as well?
Simply put, the conspiracy stuff does not stand up to expert and informed scrutiny - it relies on deception and misrepresentation of limited elements of what happened, as well as just plain shabby investigating, in order to present its ideas. Like I said before, people don't believe in this gargabe because its so compelling or well reasoned. They really WANT to to believe in it for some reason, and so they'll take nearly anything as credible proof of something unbelievably preposterous, of which there is no credible evidence to support. It's rather interesting.
There would have had to have been tens of thousands of people in government and non-government agencies involved with this for a very long period of time, and millions of dollars expended along with an enormous number of memos, phone calls, emails, reciepts, etc. Why can the conspiracy crowd not produce one shred of any of this? Why has not one person stepped forward to spill the beans on a massive planned mass murder of their fellow citizens? Not one honest soul among them all?
or, if you choose to keep ignoring that, take this idea into account:
Of all the structural and mechanical engineers in the world, not one has written a peer-reviewed and sceintifically supported paper substantiating any of the conspiracy claims (one materials engineer at BYU tried, and he was relieved of his job when the department reviewed his work and found the quality embrassing and unprofessional).
If the conspiracy is so obvious that a bunch of kids and non-experts sitting in front of their computers can easily discern it from a few grainy photos, then why don't the engineers and experts of the world unite to shed light on this, given that its so obvious and easily provable, as conspiracy advocates claim? Is every engineer in the world in on the conspiracy as well?
Simply put, the conspiracy stuff does not stand up to expert and informed scrutiny - it relies on deception and misrepresentation of limited elements of what happened, as well as just plain shabby investigating, in order to present its ideas. Like I said before, people don't believe in this gargabe because its so compelling or well reasoned. They really WANT to to believe in it for some reason, and so they'll take nearly anything as credible proof of something unbelievably preposterous, of which there is no credible evidence to support. It's rather interesting.
First off let me state that I thought 9/11 Truthers were "crazy" in the claims they made. It wasn't until I saw an Alex Jones video no it and did the wtc7 research that flags started going off in my head.
As far as the "pull it" thing goes, yes that explaination that they were just pulling the fire fighters is logical. However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?
Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?
Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff.
As far as the government pulling outrageous stunts, I sure as hell can believe it, seeing how they did the whole Iran-Contra thing(and still do have a hand in drug business), the Nicaragua thing, etc. The scary thing is, if the government wants something done, they can probably do it.
Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions.
I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy.
As far as the "pull it" thing goes, yes that explaination that they were just pulling the fire fighters is logical. However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?
Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?
Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff.
As far as the government pulling outrageous stunts, I sure as hell can believe it, seeing how they did the whole Iran-Contra thing(and still do have a hand in drug business), the Nicaragua thing, etc. The scary thing is, if the government wants something done, they can probably do it.
Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions.
I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy.
"First off let me state that I thought 9/11 Truthers were "crazy" in the claims they made. It wasn't until I saw an Alex Jones video no it and did the wtc7 research that flags started going off in my head."
I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else is somehow brainwashed or incapable of critical thinking (not that you said those things either). Just to be clear, what I am suggesting is that you guys are ignoring some pretty basic facts and questions. In some cases, such being persuaded by the Alex Jones video, you're basing your conception of the truth on a piece of media that somebody has produced specifically to lead you to the conclusion you now hold. Alex Jones videos aren't arbitrary, unbiased documentations of fact - they're making a very specific argument, and as such they ignore, distort, and mispresent things to make their point appear stronger.
I actually enjoy Michael Moore for his humor and gusto, but they guys reporting and investigating is crap. I say this as an avowed liberal and longtime Bush critic that agrees with most of Moore's points - but I still know he's blowing a lot of smoke.
It seems that fans of Jones and all the other 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry people don't apply any standards or burden of proof. One such very popular video from the conspiracy industry (and it is an industry, there are hundreds of books, websites, videos - people really do make money from selling conspiracy ideas, and if you don't believe that, then I fail to see how you are willing ot believe our own government killed thousands of its citizens on purpose on the off chance that it would drum up publiuc support for Iraq) is called 'Loose Change,' and has been so hiliriously debunked and shown to be shoddily constructed and deceitful that it amazes me that people still take any of this stuff seriously. I suggest watching 'Loose Change,' after which I'll direct you to the frame by frame debunking guide - the film covers most of the conspiracy angles that have been mentioned so far.
The fact that conspiracists call themselves the "truth movement" is very annoying to me. These people aren't interested in the truth. If they were, they would conduct solid and exhaustive research with objectivity in mind. They are not searching for any kind of truth, they are manipulating facts and information in any way possible in order to substantiate a conspiracy which they already believe exists. That has nothing to do with any kind of truth.
"However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?"
The whole 'free fall speeds' stuff is straight out of the conspiracy stuff. Simply put (and I'll include a link), it has been shown repeatedly that the building was structurally different and much different in terms of size than those around it, and was significantly weakened by falling debris and mulptiple very hot fires. It didn't free fall, nor did it come down in a fashion consistent with controlled demolition. There are hundreds of quotes from emergency personel and others that day that could literally see the building sagging and slumping from the structural stress it was under - hence the evacuation of the building and the area around, fortunately resulting in casualties. The conspiracy sites offer none of this information.
Please, have a look at this:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Go towards the bottom where they walk through step-by-step why the idea that it fell "symetrically" like a controlled demolition is patently false. Most of the page also addresses in far greater detail the oft-cited "Silverstein" angle of the conspiracy. The information takes what conspiracists say, and progressively shows how it is misrepresenting by omission and distortion what actually happened in order to support their idea.
In addition - this goes back to my earlier question. There is numerous data on this event. Why has not one engineer stood up and said "yep - controlled demolition right there?" Or a controlled demolitione expert for that matter.
Not one person with actual expertise can look at the same evidence that conspiracy advocates say is plain as day and come to the same conclusion that they do? Is every engineer on the planet, every demolitions guy, in on the conspiracy as well? Please ask yourself these questions. The simple answer is that engineers and experts think the 'controlled demolition' idea is nuts and the conspiracy theories do not hold up to scrutiny from people that actually know what they're talking about.
"Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
This link will thoroughly explain the comletely erroneous idea that forknowledge somehow manifested in the markets. And non that note, think about this is in real world terms for a moment: so thousands of airline company stockholders got some kind of secret email or warning that air travel was going to tank out for a while? How come all airline stocks didn't take a hit? How come tourism and hotel stocks didn't slump in accordance with restricted travel? And really, with all these additional folks being warned, what is our conspiracy size up to now? More than hundreds of thousands? The slightest amount of critical thinking just lays this stuff to waste.
And for the Silverstein thing (whatever your source was about "re-insuring is just plain wrong): http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
It's interesting to note that Silverstein, as a typically stingy billionare, wanted to insure the towers for much less than he ended up doing and had to compromise with his financeers to a higher amount. Like I said before, its hilarious that conspiracy forumlators think that insurance and properties worth billions of dollars is really worth it for the owners to just destroy for a payout. That's not how money works on a large scale - its frankyl a little ridiculous that they even put this accross.
Why would he go to the trouble of securing the deal, and then turn around and agree to destroy his material holdings? A man with his experience (or really any experience) would know that his finances would then be tied up in disputes, lawsuits, and rebuilding efforts for years, over the course of which he could have made much more borrowing and investing against his actual holdings. Insurers don't just handle people a check for a few billion dollars and tell them best of luck. This is not how the real world works.
"Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff."
I'm sure he said he did. What a genius - why didn't he try harder to warn us then? This is the same guy who suggested Bohemian Grove was the height of some eveil one-world cult when in fact its just a bunch of wealthy old geezers, musicians and professors getting loaded out in the redwoods and putting on plays.
You can also find quotes from this guy after the Patriot Act Reknewal stating that we would be living under a facist police state inside of six months. Yet somehow, democracy continues despite his, uh, expertise. I realize you enjoy the guy's videos, but I find him to be a joke. His work is entirely dependent on fear, hystrionics, and misrepresentation of facts to support his ideas. Interestingly, this is the kind of BS he accuses pretty much everybody else of employing.
"Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions."
If he really believes that, then why doesn't he do some closer investigating himself? Nearly all the so-called "evidence" he presents in his video is debunked emperically all over the web, and he offers no real substantial evidence for his theory besides the usual coincidence, distortion, circumstantial insinuation, etc. If he wishes he were, wrong, he's not trying very hard to find out if that's actually the case.
It's easy to make a few bucks from selling people a massive and sinister government conspiracy and making them feel as if their privelage to some special and secret knowledge in an "us against them" struggle of valiance with a corrupt system. It's not so easy to make money by admitting the facts of the truth - which are absolutely overwhelming in every respect - which is that we suffered a terrible terrorist attack in which many people died, and it was partly due to our own policy and intelligence failings. Hard to make a really nifty internet video out of that one, let alone attract hits for your conspiracy website.
"I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy."
Thanks for keeping an open mind. Nearly all of the debunking websites directly address the claims made on conspiracy websites, videos, articles, etc. Conspiracy stuff feeds off each other, so at this point they all pretty much say the same thing. The debunkers are responding directly to conspiracy ideas, and explain them in detail while showing that they're false or dishonest. In this sense, any debunking website is going to have both sides of the story.
I have yet to come accross a conspiracy website that does things in this fashion - for the most party they suggest that debunkers and anybody that questions the conspiracy are in on it, neo-conservative bastards, or otherwise out to get them. Not much in the way of facts though. Including the rebuttal of the Popular Science article - which admittedly attacks the most whacky conspiracy theories, but nonetheless was not fundamentally disproved in any way.
I'm not suggesting that you or anybody else is somehow brainwashed or incapable of critical thinking (not that you said those things either). Just to be clear, what I am suggesting is that you guys are ignoring some pretty basic facts and questions. In some cases, such being persuaded by the Alex Jones video, you're basing your conception of the truth on a piece of media that somebody has produced specifically to lead you to the conclusion you now hold. Alex Jones videos aren't arbitrary, unbiased documentations of fact - they're making a very specific argument, and as such they ignore, distort, and mispresent things to make their point appear stronger.
I actually enjoy Michael Moore for his humor and gusto, but they guys reporting and investigating is crap. I say this as an avowed liberal and longtime Bush critic that agrees with most of Moore's points - but I still know he's blowing a lot of smoke.
It seems that fans of Jones and all the other 9/11 conspiracy cottage industry people don't apply any standards or burden of proof. One such very popular video from the conspiracy industry (and it is an industry, there are hundreds of books, websites, videos - people really do make money from selling conspiracy ideas, and if you don't believe that, then I fail to see how you are willing ot believe our own government killed thousands of its citizens on purpose on the off chance that it would drum up publiuc support for Iraq) is called 'Loose Change,' and has been so hiliriously debunked and shown to be shoddily constructed and deceitful that it amazes me that people still take any of this stuff seriously. I suggest watching 'Loose Change,' after which I'll direct you to the frame by frame debunking guide - the film covers most of the conspiracy angles that have been mentioned so far.
The fact that conspiracists call themselves the "truth movement" is very annoying to me. These people aren't interested in the truth. If they were, they would conduct solid and exhaustive research with objectivity in mind. They are not searching for any kind of truth, they are manipulating facts and information in any way possible in order to substantiate a conspiracy which they already believe exists. That has nothing to do with any kind of truth.
"However, how would a simple fire cause the building to collapse perfectly at free-fall speeds?"
The whole 'free fall speeds' stuff is straight out of the conspiracy stuff. Simply put (and I'll include a link), it has been shown repeatedly that the building was structurally different and much different in terms of size than those around it, and was significantly weakened by falling debris and mulptiple very hot fires. It didn't free fall, nor did it come down in a fashion consistent with controlled demolition. There are hundreds of quotes from emergency personel and others that day that could literally see the building sagging and slumping from the structural stress it was under - hence the evacuation of the building and the area around, fortunately resulting in casualties. The conspiracy sites offer none of this information.
Please, have a look at this:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
Go towards the bottom where they walk through step-by-step why the idea that it fell "symetrically" like a controlled demolition is patently false. Most of the page also addresses in far greater detail the oft-cited "Silverstein" angle of the conspiracy. The information takes what conspiracists say, and progressively shows how it is misrepresenting by omission and distortion what actually happened in order to support their idea.
In addition - this goes back to my earlier question. There is numerous data on this event. Why has not one engineer stood up and said "yep - controlled demolition right there?" Or a controlled demolitione expert for that matter.
Not one person with actual expertise can look at the same evidence that conspiracy advocates say is plain as day and come to the same conclusion that they do? Is every engineer on the planet, every demolitions guy, in on the conspiracy as well? Please ask yourself these questions. The simple answer is that engineers and experts think the 'controlled demolition' idea is nuts and the conspiracy theories do not hold up to scrutiny from people that actually know what they're talking about.
"Also, why, days before the attacks were there something like millions of dollars in purchases in air liner stock(or something like this)? Also, Larry Silverstein happened to, that year, buy a major increase on his insurance for WTC7?"
http://www.911myths.com/html/put_options.html
This link will thoroughly explain the comletely erroneous idea that forknowledge somehow manifested in the markets. And non that note, think about this is in real world terms for a moment: so thousands of airline company stockholders got some kind of secret email or warning that air travel was going to tank out for a while? How come all airline stocks didn't take a hit? How come tourism and hotel stocks didn't slump in accordance with restricted travel? And really, with all these additional folks being warned, what is our conspiracy size up to now? More than hundreds of thousands? The slightest amount of critical thinking just lays this stuff to waste.
And for the Silverstein thing (whatever your source was about "re-insuring is just plain wrong): http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
It's interesting to note that Silverstein, as a typically stingy billionare, wanted to insure the towers for much less than he ended up doing and had to compromise with his financeers to a higher amount. Like I said before, its hilarious that conspiracy forumlators think that insurance and properties worth billions of dollars is really worth it for the owners to just destroy for a payout. That's not how money works on a large scale - its frankyl a little ridiculous that they even put this accross.
Why would he go to the trouble of securing the deal, and then turn around and agree to destroy his material holdings? A man with his experience (or really any experience) would know that his finances would then be tied up in disputes, lawsuits, and rebuilding efforts for years, over the course of which he could have made much more borrowing and investing against his actual holdings. Insurers don't just handle people a check for a few billion dollars and tell them best of luck. This is not how the real world works.
"Supposedly Alex Jones predicted 9/11 right before it happened, although I don't know as I have only been recently turned on by his stuff."
I'm sure he said he did. What a genius - why didn't he try harder to warn us then? This is the same guy who suggested Bohemian Grove was the height of some eveil one-world cult when in fact its just a bunch of wealthy old geezers, musicians and professors getting loaded out in the redwoods and putting on plays.
You can also find quotes from this guy after the Patriot Act Reknewal stating that we would be living under a facist police state inside of six months. Yet somehow, democracy continues despite his, uh, expertise. I realize you enjoy the guy's videos, but I find him to be a joke. His work is entirely dependent on fear, hystrionics, and misrepresentation of facts to support his ideas. Interestingly, this is the kind of BS he accuses pretty much everybody else of employing.
"Personally, I don't want 9/11 to have been caused by governments. Alex Jones has stated he WANTS to be wrong about his assertions."
If he really believes that, then why doesn't he do some closer investigating himself? Nearly all the so-called "evidence" he presents in his video is debunked emperically all over the web, and he offers no real substantial evidence for his theory besides the usual coincidence, distortion, circumstantial insinuation, etc. If he wishes he were, wrong, he's not trying very hard to find out if that's actually the case.
It's easy to make a few bucks from selling people a massive and sinister government conspiracy and making them feel as if their privelage to some special and secret knowledge in an "us against them" struggle of valiance with a corrupt system. It's not so easy to make money by admitting the facts of the truth - which are absolutely overwhelming in every respect - which is that we suffered a terrible terrorist attack in which many people died, and it was partly due to our own policy and intelligence failings. Hard to make a really nifty internet video out of that one, let alone attract hits for your conspiracy website.
"I'll take a look at that thermite website, I skimmed it and it looks very noteworthy. Too bad some independant website doesn't put an explanation by one side and the rebuttal by the other. That'd make everything nice and easy."
Thanks for keeping an open mind. Nearly all of the debunking websites directly address the claims made on conspiracy websites, videos, articles, etc. Conspiracy stuff feeds off each other, so at this point they all pretty much say the same thing. The debunkers are responding directly to conspiracy ideas, and explain them in detail while showing that they're false or dishonest. In this sense, any debunking website is going to have both sides of the story.
I have yet to come accross a conspiracy website that does things in this fashion - for the most party they suggest that debunkers and anybody that questions the conspiracy are in on it, neo-conservative bastards, or otherwise out to get them. Not much in the way of facts though. Including the rebuttal of the Popular Science article - which admittedly attacks the most whacky conspiracy theories, but nonetheless was not fundamentally disproved in any way.
Here are some interesting videos which also show a bomb going off:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_true_lies_of_911.htm
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_true_lies_of_911.htm
Oh man . . . c'mon. These videos are exactly the kind of drivel I'm talking about. They're actually more poorly done than most of the junk out there and make such a weak case that I'm suprised that these are the ones you chose to post - nice to see they hawking that Terrostorm video right underneath them as well).
These videos had me chuckling with how fully it filled the usual cliches with these things Imagine . . . [screen fades in from black - several evil-ish sounding quotes from government officials - ominous conspiracy music plays in the background]. I have to say, after about 30 sec I almost stopped watching as the video stated that 'on the morning of September the 11th a 757 jetliner crashed into the world trade center 1- OR DID IT?' That's right folks, the video suggests there might not have even been a plane, but then immediately goes on to offer no no discussion or proof of this whatsoever. It's hard to keep an open mind when watching something so poorly done and disjointed.
The remainder of the video consists of clips of various people talking about explosions. As I mentioned before, no timecode or locationd ata is given for any of them. Now, we've already discussed explosions, and you can read more about them here: http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
Why people find it even mildly interesting or even surprising that there were explosions heard at various points during the day is beyond me. So fas the mysterious 'van' that found its way into some news reports - I actually remember watching these at the time. As soon as it was apparent that these were attacks and not a horrible accident (meaning after the second towers was hit), reports about suspicious activity and terrorists were flooding in. Those of us watching that day will also probably remember that there were reports coming in of terrorist Jiihad soldiers on the streets, terrorists vans in New York and Chicago, and various other suspicious activities. The scene was one of chaos, confusion, and fear.
I didn't watch the second video, but I gather that it's about the Pentagon. This one has been more hilariously debunked than most anything, but I won't bother to include a link as I get the feeling you're not actually reading any of this, and the other fellow seems to have given up entirely.
Let me just say reiterate that there isn't one single tiny molecule of evidence of any kind of conspiracy in that first video - just some scary music and a bunch of contextless media clips from scared people taken that day.
How does this refute any of my questions about the size, intricacy, and difficulty of this plot? How does it refute my questions about no credible engineers in the world demonstrating that the controlled demolition theory is plausible (while many papers have been written, peer-reviewed by unbiased experts, and published), demonstrating the contrary?
That video, cliched as it is in presentation, fulfills the ultimate cliche. It provides no evidence nor a complete view of what happened. It's just a bunch of clips strung together with scary music in the background. It offers no analysis or hard information - just some news clips from a lot of scared and confused people who didn't know exactly what was happening at the time. I gather you're a college student - I can't honestly believe you find this level of stuff convincing in any way in terms of critical thinking.
As always, my previous questions still stand.
These videos had me chuckling with how fully it filled the usual cliches with these things Imagine . . . [screen fades in from black - several evil-ish sounding quotes from government officials - ominous conspiracy music plays in the background]. I have to say, after about 30 sec I almost stopped watching as the video stated that 'on the morning of September the 11th a 757 jetliner crashed into the world trade center 1- OR DID IT?' That's right folks, the video suggests there might not have even been a plane, but then immediately goes on to offer no no discussion or proof of this whatsoever. It's hard to keep an open mind when watching something so poorly done and disjointed.
The remainder of the video consists of clips of various people talking about explosions. As I mentioned before, no timecode or locationd ata is given for any of them. Now, we've already discussed explosions, and you can read more about them here: http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
Why people find it even mildly interesting or even surprising that there were explosions heard at various points during the day is beyond me. So fas the mysterious 'van' that found its way into some news reports - I actually remember watching these at the time. As soon as it was apparent that these were attacks and not a horrible accident (meaning after the second towers was hit), reports about suspicious activity and terrorists were flooding in. Those of us watching that day will also probably remember that there were reports coming in of terrorist Jiihad soldiers on the streets, terrorists vans in New York and Chicago, and various other suspicious activities. The scene was one of chaos, confusion, and fear.
I didn't watch the second video, but I gather that it's about the Pentagon. This one has been more hilariously debunked than most anything, but I won't bother to include a link as I get the feeling you're not actually reading any of this, and the other fellow seems to have given up entirely.
Let me just say reiterate that there isn't one single tiny molecule of evidence of any kind of conspiracy in that first video - just some scary music and a bunch of contextless media clips from scared people taken that day.
How does this refute any of my questions about the size, intricacy, and difficulty of this plot? How does it refute my questions about no credible engineers in the world demonstrating that the controlled demolition theory is plausible (while many papers have been written, peer-reviewed by unbiased experts, and published), demonstrating the contrary?
That video, cliched as it is in presentation, fulfills the ultimate cliche. It provides no evidence nor a complete view of what happened. It's just a bunch of clips strung together with scary music in the background. It offers no analysis or hard information - just some news clips from a lot of scared and confused people who didn't know exactly what was happening at the time. I gather you're a college student - I can't honestly believe you find this level of stuff convincing in any way in terms of critical thinking.
As always, my previous questions still stand.
In hindsight, it's so easy to see that what happened on 9/11 was a pre-planned domestic operation, that claims to the contrary are just downright silly. Silly! I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how people can cling to the most irrational arguments when trying to justify the official myth. There are so many legitimate scientific questions surrounding what happened on that day, it's ridiculous. Yet they all go completely unanswered. Especially anything concerning the 3 building collapses, something that's unprecedented in the history of the world. Ever single credentialed person who's come forward to counter the official bunk- and there are many of them- has lost their job and had their reputation destroyed. Purposefully destroyed. Few others are brave enough to come forward in fear of being targeted and having the same thing happen to them.
Different standards- much lower standards- of truth and the law are being applied to 9/11 compared with any other crime or event. That's why this problem exists. If 9/11 were treated as any other crime- war crime or otherwise- then the truth would be known by now. Unfortunately, people's emotions are clouding their judgement, the truth is being willfully supressed and a fucked up/controlled media complex is constantly fueling the fire and propagating the myth. Yet, despite all this, the truth will eventually be known. This is because WAY too many people are affected by this coverup. It isn't just a simple assassination, which affects really only the person killed and their family. This affects nearly 3000 people and their families. And the families are still fighting for the truth. Every day.
I'm done. There are so many sites which detail all this stuff scientifically, I don't even know where to start. I guess just head to a (scientifically vetted) site like http://911research.wtc7.net/ and start reading. There's a lot of bullshit and disinformation out there, too. Don't fall for it.
Different standards- much lower standards- of truth and the law are being applied to 9/11 compared with any other crime or event. That's why this problem exists. If 9/11 were treated as any other crime- war crime or otherwise- then the truth would be known by now. Unfortunately, people's emotions are clouding their judgement, the truth is being willfully supressed and a fucked up/controlled media complex is constantly fueling the fire and propagating the myth. Yet, despite all this, the truth will eventually be known. This is because WAY too many people are affected by this coverup. It isn't just a simple assassination, which affects really only the person killed and their family. This affects nearly 3000 people and their families. And the families are still fighting for the truth. Every day.
I'm done. There are so many sites which detail all this stuff scientifically, I don't even know where to start. I guess just head to a (scientifically vetted) site like http://911research.wtc7.net/ and start reading. There's a lot of bullshit and disinformation out there, too. Don't fall for it.
stridge said:
I don't see why it'd take even hundred of people to pull this off. Just takes time with a few talented people in the know(CIA is known for this stuff).
There are WAY too many coincidences and red flags for me to ever believe the government conspiracy theory.
"I don't see why it'd take even hundred of people to pull this off. Just takes time with a few talented people in the know(CIA is known for this stuff)."
A few hundred? To steal the planes, train pilots, plant the demolitons in the buildings, tip off all the business interests, commit fraud with Larry Silverstein and is insurers (who, by the way, would have investigated any chance of fraud harder thany anybody as they're not likely to want to pay - and guess what, yep, they found nothing), all the police and firefighters you guys claim were in on it, all the people that handled all teh creative accounting and billing for the expenses of planning, manpower, and materials, all the consultants, experts, contractors, etc - plus all the people that work closely with them, family members, and however else. Then there are the thousands of people that work for NIST, FEMA, the NSA, Congress, and all the other government agencies that have conducted thorough reviews and research into 9/11. Yep, they're all on the take as well.
Sure guys, it was just a few sneaky CIA agents. That's all it took to arrange and pull off this whole thing and fool the entire world for the last six years. But somehow, a bunch of anonymous internet quacks have cracked the case, which is made all the more amazing by the fact that they can't present one credible peice of evidence for their argument. This goes beyond lack of critical thinking to lack of any thinking in general.
And, there isn't one receipt anywhere, one meme, one email, fax, check carbon, sticky note, nothing? I really can't say it anymore clearly and my questions are being didged rather than answered, so I guess I'll quit asking them - but they still stand.
"There are WAY too many coincidences and red flags for me to ever believe the government conspiracy theory."
Like what? If you take 15 minutes and investigate the other side of the many 'red flags' that the conspiracy sites have sold you on, you'll find that there is clear and well-documented explanation for anything you can think of. Put, as I now see, you're on the conspiracy bandwagon.
It seems some people really enjoy believing that a conspiracy was in place, and no matter how solid the evidence to the contrary (in the this case a veritable mountain of evidence), they refuse to acknowledge the possiblity that it was just a boring old terrorist attack. After all the links, information, and questions I've put forth, if you still just think the fact that is "seems fishy" to you is a strong burden of proof, then I give up.
Good old reality and solid investigation just can't compete with ominous videos and scary music I guess.
A few hundred? To steal the planes, train pilots, plant the demolitons in the buildings, tip off all the business interests, commit fraud with Larry Silverstein and is insurers (who, by the way, would have investigated any chance of fraud harder thany anybody as they're not likely to want to pay - and guess what, yep, they found nothing), all the police and firefighters you guys claim were in on it, all the people that handled all teh creative accounting and billing for the expenses of planning, manpower, and materials, all the consultants, experts, contractors, etc - plus all the people that work closely with them, family members, and however else. Then there are the thousands of people that work for NIST, FEMA, the NSA, Congress, and all the other government agencies that have conducted thorough reviews and research into 9/11. Yep, they're all on the take as well.
Sure guys, it was just a few sneaky CIA agents. That's all it took to arrange and pull off this whole thing and fool the entire world for the last six years. But somehow, a bunch of anonymous internet quacks have cracked the case, which is made all the more amazing by the fact that they can't present one credible peice of evidence for their argument. This goes beyond lack of critical thinking to lack of any thinking in general.
And, there isn't one receipt anywhere, one meme, one email, fax, check carbon, sticky note, nothing? I really can't say it anymore clearly and my questions are being didged rather than answered, so I guess I'll quit asking them - but they still stand.
"There are WAY too many coincidences and red flags for me to ever believe the government conspiracy theory."
Like what? If you take 15 minutes and investigate the other side of the many 'red flags' that the conspiracy sites have sold you on, you'll find that there is clear and well-documented explanation for anything you can think of. Put, as I now see, you're on the conspiracy bandwagon.
It seems some people really enjoy believing that a conspiracy was in place, and no matter how solid the evidence to the contrary (in the this case a veritable mountain of evidence), they refuse to acknowledge the possiblity that it was just a boring old terrorist attack. After all the links, information, and questions I've put forth, if you still just think the fact that is "seems fishy" to you is a strong burden of proof, then I give up.
Good old reality and solid investigation just can't compete with ominous videos and scary music I guess.
"In hindsight, it's so easy to see that what happened on 9/11 was a pre-planned domestic operation, that claims to the contrary are just downright silly."
This is a little disappointing - always thought your posts were pretty intelligent and rational. Show me anything that you think is downright "silly" and we can discuss why you think this is the case.
"Ever single credentialed person who's come forward to counter the official bunk- and there are many of them- has lost their job and had their reputation destroyed. Purposefully destroyed. Few others are brave enough to come forward in fear of being targeted and having the same thing happen to them."
Got any proof of this? Who are these "credentialed people?" How is the conspiracy suppressing the people that have since retired, or don't care about losing their jobs? There isn't one person that wanted to come clean about a planned murder of several thousand American citizens and the enormous cover-up?
"Different standards- much lower standards- of truth and the law are being applied to 9/11 compared with any other crime or event. That's why this problem exists."
Really? Explain to me how higher standards are being applied by the conspiracy crowd. So far as I can tell, conspiracy advocates have the lowest standards I've ever seen (some of the reserach wouldn't cut it on a junior high science project), and often information seems to have been deliberately ommitted/not considered in their arguements. How are the standards of the real investigation so low exactly? Why aren't other people complaining about this except the internet conspiracy crowd?
"Yet, despite all this, the truth will eventually be known. This is because WAY too many people are affected by this coverup. It isn't just a simple assassination, which affects really only the person killed and their family. This affects nearly 3000 people and their families. And the families are still fighting for the truth. Every day."
Again, I'm not aware of any contingent of victim's families that believe their loved ones were the victim of a government conspiracy. It's been six years - nobody has uncovered anything?
I do know that some of the members of the "9/11 Truth Movement" (I feel grossed out even typing that) regularly protest at ground zero during memorials and other activities, and they also showed up at premiers of Flight 93 all over the country to protest and hand out literature, even at screenings where victims families were present. There was an article in the NY Times around then discussing how annoyed the families were at the NY premier to have conspiracy people getting in their faces and shouting that they need to "demand the truth."
There is plenty of scientific and well reserached info on the 9/11 myths out there - start by looking at these two sites. None of your companions in conspiracy-snooping seemed to bother to take a look at ANYTHING I linked, so maybe you'll prove to have a little bit more or an open mind, although I get the feeling you enjoy the conspiracy mongering as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
The following link is a scene by scene examination of one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy videos (there are many to choose from). The video covers all the most up to date and most frequently sited 9/11 conspiracy ideas, and the guide meticulously addresses all the information they present - I found it very enlightening
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
One thing I've noticed about the 9/11 conspiracy cult (and it is cultish, if you don't believe me look up cult and take a look at the whole 'truth movement') is that they're unconditional believers. That is, much like Christian philosophy, when anything that doesn't jove with their ideas, contradicts their beliefs, or they simply can't explain rolls around, they just shake their heads and say "it's the huge and evil government - they can do anything." What a cop out.
It's also interesting that the entire 9/11 thing seems to be most interesting to and propigated by younger males. This isn't a widespread thing in society by any means. It's primarily young men in their late teens and twenties (and Charlie Sheen, who is mentally in that age range so we'll count him as well), and primarily internet based. The people involved generally have zero expertise, experience, or investigative knowledge besides what they see and swap on the internet, and yet they feel their evidence is rock solid. It's almost bizarre in a sense, and as I've said before, rather offensive in some ways.
Frankly, I just hate to see people buying into any kind of horseshit - which the 9/11 conspiracy most certainly is.
I'll also add that people like Noam Chomsky - a guy a lot smarter than any of us - think that the idea of conspiracy is stupid.
This is a little disappointing - always thought your posts were pretty intelligent and rational. Show me anything that you think is downright "silly" and we can discuss why you think this is the case.
"Ever single credentialed person who's come forward to counter the official bunk- and there are many of them- has lost their job and had their reputation destroyed. Purposefully destroyed. Few others are brave enough to come forward in fear of being targeted and having the same thing happen to them."
Got any proof of this? Who are these "credentialed people?" How is the conspiracy suppressing the people that have since retired, or don't care about losing their jobs? There isn't one person that wanted to come clean about a planned murder of several thousand American citizens and the enormous cover-up?
"Different standards- much lower standards- of truth and the law are being applied to 9/11 compared with any other crime or event. That's why this problem exists."
Really? Explain to me how higher standards are being applied by the conspiracy crowd. So far as I can tell, conspiracy advocates have the lowest standards I've ever seen (some of the reserach wouldn't cut it on a junior high science project), and often information seems to have been deliberately ommitted/not considered in their arguements. How are the standards of the real investigation so low exactly? Why aren't other people complaining about this except the internet conspiracy crowd?
"Yet, despite all this, the truth will eventually be known. This is because WAY too many people are affected by this coverup. It isn't just a simple assassination, which affects really only the person killed and their family. This affects nearly 3000 people and their families. And the families are still fighting for the truth. Every day."
Again, I'm not aware of any contingent of victim's families that believe their loved ones were the victim of a government conspiracy. It's been six years - nobody has uncovered anything?
I do know that some of the members of the "9/11 Truth Movement" (I feel grossed out even typing that) regularly protest at ground zero during memorials and other activities, and they also showed up at premiers of Flight 93 all over the country to protest and hand out literature, even at screenings where victims families were present. There was an article in the NY Times around then discussing how annoyed the families were at the NY premier to have conspiracy people getting in their faces and shouting that they need to "demand the truth."
There is plenty of scientific and well reserached info on the 9/11 myths out there - start by looking at these two sites. None of your companions in conspiracy-snooping seemed to bother to take a look at ANYTHING I linked, so maybe you'll prove to have a little bit more or an open mind, although I get the feeling you enjoy the conspiracy mongering as well.
http://www.debunking911.com/
http://www.debunk911myths.org/
The following link is a scene by scene examination of one of the most popular 9/11 conspiracy videos (there are many to choose from). The video covers all the most up to date and most frequently sited 9/11 conspiracy ideas, and the guide meticulously addresses all the information they present - I found it very enlightening
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
One thing I've noticed about the 9/11 conspiracy cult (and it is cultish, if you don't believe me look up cult and take a look at the whole 'truth movement') is that they're unconditional believers. That is, much like Christian philosophy, when anything that doesn't jove with their ideas, contradicts their beliefs, or they simply can't explain rolls around, they just shake their heads and say "it's the huge and evil government - they can do anything." What a cop out.
It's also interesting that the entire 9/11 thing seems to be most interesting to and propigated by younger males. This isn't a widespread thing in society by any means. It's primarily young men in their late teens and twenties (and Charlie Sheen, who is mentally in that age range so we'll count him as well), and primarily internet based. The people involved generally have zero expertise, experience, or investigative knowledge besides what they see and swap on the internet, and yet they feel their evidence is rock solid. It's almost bizarre in a sense, and as I've said before, rather offensive in some ways.
Frankly, I just hate to see people buying into any kind of horseshit - which the 9/11 conspiracy most certainly is.
I'll also add that people like Noam Chomsky - a guy a lot smarter than any of us - think that the idea of conspiracy is stupid.
Yeah, I'm disappointed too. <stridge said:
I only wish the official story contained even a hint of logic within it, so I could buy into it.Okay. You know what I consider "silly"? How the official story that holds that 2 planes, weighing less than a combined 400 tons in all, brought down 3 steel-framed skyscrapers weighing in excess of a combined 600 THOUSAND tons in all- with one of the skyscrapers not even being hit by a plane. Sorry, but I just won't buy it- particularly given the total absence of any evidence which proves it to be the case. The only thing the government has ever brought to the table is the NIST collapse hypothesis. Not a theory (which is backed by evidence). Not a law. Just a hypothesis, backed only by a closed computer model which was endlessly tweaked and massaged to "prove" the official concoction of lies. But you're certainly free to believe it, if you want.stridge said:
Ummm... Professor Steven Jones? Kevin Ryan? Those are just two quick names off the top of my head. But there are many, many others.stridge said:
This is ridiculous. Ask yourself: how many lives (foreign or domestic) have US covert operations cost over the years? Then ask yourself: how many people have come forward exposing the worst of the worst of these operations over the years? I'll help you: you can't even use all the fingers on one hand to count them. Better yet, ask yourself: what kind of protection do whistleblowers get for exposing such crimes? What whistleblower has ever personally benefited from exposing a high (government) crime? Why don't you go ask Daniel Ellsberg or Bunny Greenhouse? No, all they get in return is a lost job, lost house, lost credit, lost marriage, lost life. Even a nice little indictment, if they're lucky. What a sweet deal! I'm gonna go blow the whistle on something right now!stridge said:
Nice. Real nice. You're lumping all the "conspiracy theorists" under one umbrella and demeaning them all under the lowest common denominator. Some jackasses claiming to be 9/11 skeptics swear that aliens using "space beams" destroyed the World Trade Center. Others are convinced that the whole thing was an elaborate illusion, formed by using CGI and holograms. I guess then, using your logic, EVERY 9/11 skeptic automatically subscribes to these insane hypotheses because all 9/11 skeptics, as you imply, are united in their beliefs. What a joke!!! And here I was, expecting to have a decent argument/conversation with someone here about this. You just took it down a few notches. Very, VERY disappointing.stridge said:
I guess you really aren't aware of these things because if you were, you would've heard of these people- http://www.911independentcommission.org/stridge said:
They even made a movie about it. But who cares, right?
I know. I believe everything reported by the mainstream media, too.stridge said:
lolstridge said:
You gotta love those sites! I mean, they really have some big balls to support all sorts of ideas about what happened on 9/11 that even the government won't touch. Don't believe me? Take a quick look at the two debunking sites above. Then read the NIST reports, presentations and Q&A over at http://wtc.nist.gov
It's really amazing of the kind of stuff they come up with, especially regarding WTC 7. They still even support the WTC truss theory of collapse, which was abandoned long ago by the government. Unbelievable! I guess that's what happens when the shills get desperate. Try this debunking site instead.
About the Loose Change guide, here's an even better one.
There you go again! You just can't help but lump everyone together under one umbrella, all using the lowest common denominator, can you? Tell me, stridge: am I an unconditional believer, too?stridge said:
Fucking tell me about it! The greatest propagator of all of the "entire 9/11 thing", David Ray Griffin, is clearly a 20-something trapped inside the body of a 67 year old man. The same thing applies to all the ex-government officials who propagate the same nonsense, right?stridge said:
I know. Steven Jones, the credentialed idiot that he is, actually had the gall to write a scientific paper and start up his own website using the scientific method. But, as we all know, in a post-9/11 world if anyone with a PhD ever says anything, their word is not to be questioned by anyone of lesser credentials. "The People" don't know shit anymore, right? Whoever gave them the right to question authority?! Oh wait... it's a little thing called the fucking constitution. Remember that? Obviously, you don't.stridge said:
And I'm with ya on the offensive intrusions by 9/11 skeptics in all this, sticking their noses where they don't belong. I'm all for banning whatever is deemed "upsetting" or "offensive" by "people", especially during any kind of criminal investigation or prosecution. Yeah, that's it!
Absolutely smack, bang on! 19 Muslim extremists who "hate America and our freedoms" overwhelmed NORAD, the FAA, the DOD, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the Secret Service and the multi-trillion dollar military apparatus of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, with box cutters, taking down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes and impacting the most heavily defended building on the face of the earth with another- all without ever being intercepted, let alone shot down, by any of the hundreds of military jets stationed throughout their flight paths. The mother of all conspiracy theories. Horseshit, I tell you! roflstridge said:
Gotta love ole Noam!stridge said:
I'm sorry man but the whole thing doesn't fit. Every site that I've ever read or anything I've ever watched online just seems like a bunch of scared and paranoid people out to find something in everything. I'm not one to take what the mainstream media says at all but this underground conspircay theory stuff is just going a bit too far out for me to go along with.
This is a very good reply, but I unfortunately don't have time to go through it point by point or thoroughly check out any of the links for a while, but a few things that I can respond to quickly are:
"Okay. You know what I consider "silly"? How the official story that holds that 2 planes, weighing less than a combined 400 tons in all, brought down 3 steel-framed skyscrapers weighing in excess of a combined 600 THOUSAND tons in all- with one of the skyscrapers not even being hit by a plane."
Look, the towers coming down from the damage caused by the planes and the collapse of WT7 are the easiest conspiracy stuff to debunk of all. Search around to some debunking sites - there are peer-reviewed, academically creditied papers written by experts that explain this. It seems crazy to me that a whirling metal blade can a make a helicopter fly - that doesn't mean that it doesn't actually work by physics instead of magic (or controlled demolition in your case).
Here is the link to a website (on one of the sites that you blow off - but it just contains links so don't freak out) that contains numerous papers written by *ghasp* actual experts in engineering and structural collapse. These people are credited experts in structure science, and I feel they're better qualified to explain it you than I am. Of course, if you think a bunch of engineering nerds from MIT and Northwestern are part of big brother's monster conspiracy as well, then I guess this won't go far (just kidding, I hope) . . . http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
"Ummm... Professor Steven Jones? Kevin Ryan? Those are just two quick names off the top of my head. But there are many, many others."
And on that note . . . http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
For those that don't care to check out the link, the venerated Dr. Jones (Indiana?) has no expertise whatsoever in structural engineering or collapse. He actually deals with nuclear physics, so I assume he's fairly intelligent (although he does teach at BYU, so, uh, he likely believes he's also going to be moving to his own solar system to play cards with Joseph Smith after he dies or whatever that whole deal is), but he has no real ability to comment on one of the largest and most complicated structure collapses in history. His paper about the subject was ridiculed by his peers in his own department for containing shoddy and unsubstantiated research (guess they're in on the conspiracy too, damn this thing is huge!).
If Kevin Ryan is who I think he is, then he's a young guy that worked in a water standards testing department or something and basically had no qualifications to comment on the collapse/conspiracy either, as he dealth with neither. He lost his job for writing public letters implicating his employers in a cover-up if I'm remembering correctly.
So before I think you said that there were lots and lots of they really credible guys standing up all over the the place to blow the lid off this thing, these aren't really the best examples. I'll look up old Kevin to be sure when I have more time.
"This is ridiculous. Ask yourself: how many lives (foreign or domestic) have US covert operations cost over the years? Then ask yourself: how many people have come forward exposing the worst of the worst of these operations over the years? I'll help you: you can't even use all the fingers on one hand to count them. Better yet, ask yourself: what kind of protection do whistleblowers get for exposing such crimes? What whistleblower has ever personally benefited from exposing a high (government) crime? Why don't you go ask Daniel Ellsberg or Bunny Greenhouse? No, all they get in return is a lost job, lost house, lost credit, lost marriage, lost life. Even a nice little indictment, if they're lucky. What a sweet deal! I'm gonna go blow the whistle on something right now! "
Uh, I don't know, how many lives? Isn't the point of covert ops that they're covert. I'm just joking there, but basically what you're suggesting here is the "men in black" type idea that if you take a stand against the government, you'll have your bank account erased and they'll pay you a visit in the middle of the night.
Frankly, the completely unsubstantiated idea that government goons will come after you if you tell the truth or bring evidence forward isn't really going to cut it for me. The two examples you mention are nice in that you bothered to list something at all, but also problematic as they don't fit. Ellsberg, as I recall, actually took those papers illegaly and it was rather scandalous. I respect the guy for what he did in a lot of ways, but there was going to be some fallout from dispatching a thousands of pages of classified documents about a current war to the NY Times. Greenhouse was the victim of some nasty, good 'ol boy backbiting for calling attention to the honey deal they had going with the government.
It's unfortunate, but the fact that she got unfairly knocked at work because she called attention to some fairly standard bullshit no-bid arrangements with the government really necessarily equates to the thousands of people remaining in silence even as they're complicit with a planned murder of thousands of their own citizens?
Sorry guy, once again this is no kind of proof, nor is it actually too convincing. It's a better try than most though.
"Nice. Real nice. You're lumping all the "conspiracy theorists" under one umbrella and demeaning them all under the lowest common denominator"
You're right about this, I shouldn't do that. Some are definately more qualified candidates for the tin foil hat than others. When you see it from my persepective, however, controlled demolition and government collusion are dman near as whacky as space aliens and holograms, so I'm prone to generalize when talking about conspiracists.
To be fair, for anybody reading, there is a pretty large number of different conspiracy theories about 9/11, and lots of them don't agree and even bicker with each other. Fascinating in some ways, but this is the case for most other conspiracy theories as well so its not unique.
"Very, VERY disappointing."
Geez, sorry . . .
"I guess you really aren't aware of these things because if you were, you would've heard of these people- http://www.911independent . . . "
There's no way to say this without being trite, but from what I could see from the link, there are twelve people listed as group members there.
Your statement seemed to suggest (and maype I misinterpreted) that its a common thing amongst the thousands and thousands of family members of 9/11 victims to buy into the "truth movement" idea. As I said, there was an article in the NY Times a while back about how annoyed some of them were with it, but that doesn't mean that's the majoirty feeling either.
I'd say the majority probably has no opinion/awareness of the conspiracy thing, and if they were introduced to it they wouldn't be any more or less likely than anybody else to be sold on the conspiracy angle. My guess is they really don't care all that much because they lost somebody they loved a short while ago and it probably seems rather trivial whether there was signifigant amounts of berrillium in the tower wreckage.
"I know, I believe everything reported by the mainstream media too."
Uh-oh, we got a media conspiracist here too! I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but seriously, how am I going to debate you if you think the media AND the government, and ostensibly over other institution is on some sinister plot against all the normal folks out there. Like I said, then its like arguing with a dogmatically religious person.
"Why is this like this then?"
"Because God said so."
"But that doesn't explain this contradiction."
"God is mysterious"
"But that makes no sense!"
"We can't understand God."
See what I'm getting at? If the fall back is ever-grander and more intricate conspiracies, then I should quit right now, and you should nail the door shut and oil up the 12 gauge, because eventually you're going to be the only one left who's not in on it.
On that note, things like public appearance and direct quotes from people, plus pictures, in the most widely read newspaper on the planet, plus information you can find on conspiracy websites where they brag about showing up to the premeirs, doesn't really add up to a strong case that the NY Times was just pulling this one out of their asses. But believe as you like . . .
"You gotta love those sites! I mean, they really have some big balls to support all sorts of ideas about what happened on 9/11 that even the government won't touch. Don't believe me? Take a quick look at the two debunking sites above. Then read the NIST reports, presentations and Q&A over at http://wtc.nist.gov
It's really amazing of the kind of stuff they come up with, especially regarding WTC 7. They still even support the WTC truss theory of collapse, which was abandoned long ago by the government. Unbelievable! I guess that's what happens when the shills get desperate. Try this debunking site instead.
About the Loose Change guide, here's an even better one."
Don't have time to examine the links now, but I will, so I'll hold my comments until I can give them a fair shake.
One thing though, are you suggesting you've actually read the NIST report? That thing is 10,000 fucking pages long. Who in the government abandoned the truss thing? What does NIST say? Is that they're up to date position? Are you taking this stuff from direct sources or repeating stuff from conspiracy blogs and websites? Inquiring minds want to know . . .
If the government doesn't care and was in on the whole thing anyways, why are they spending mroe time and effort and deviating from the NIST data? What do they say that the government won't touch exactly? I haven't seen as much of this as you apparently, but I'd be curious to know some specifics here.
"Fucking tell me about it! The greatest propagator of all of the "entire 9/11 thing", David Ray Griffin, is clearly a 20-something trapped inside the body of a 67 year old"
Now you're putting words in my mouth fella. I said mostly and generally, never said all. I never really said it was the demographic of the leaders, but rather the people most interested and taken with the whole conspiracy thing. Not to call steretypes, and it seems you're much more wrapped up in the whole conspiracy world than I am, but do you notice lots and lots of women around on the boards and blogs? Mothers with children? More older guys than younger guys? I don't know this to be a fact, but you seem objective on some things, and I think you'd agree that there's some general commonalities of who this conspiracy stuff really hits home with (and don reply "yeah, intelligent and observent truthseekers" and then slap on a smileface - it's just too easy).
It certainly doesn't seem to have universal appeal amongst everyone. Two common draws are a few older men that hate and despise the government for various reasons, and younger guys who are intensley paranoid and buy into the whole "new world order" fear that has been circulating around for decades. They're probably the same kind of person in different stages of their life you ask me.
"And I'm with ya on the offensive intrusions by 9/11 skeptics in all this, sticking their noses where they don't belong. I'm all for banning whatever is deemed "upsetting" or "offensive" by "people", especially during any kind of criminal investigation or prosecution. Yeah, that's it!"
Never said they weren't fully within their rights to look into it - I'm as big a proponent of free speech and information as you'll find. In fact sonny, I've worked for the ACLU in my day and focused on Constitutional issues in my government studies as an undergrad while being advised by one of the greatest living and most published scholars of civil liberties. So don't give me all that junk.
There are thing that I find offensive about the "truth movement" (such as calling themselves a 'truth' organization in the first place when so many are clearly not interested in real explanations, as you yourself mentioned), such as the protesting, the loud, crass tactics, the shoddy research, and the suggestion by some, even on this thread, that firefighters and police had knowledge of what was coming and let their fellow public servents rush to their deaths anyway. I think you could see how that's insulting to some.
And frankly, as somebody who has also worked for and around the government and Washington, I know most of the people that work for the government are good and decent civil servents and burearucrats that work long hard hours at difficult jobs and don't make nearly as much money doing it as they could in the private sector, because they believe in public service and our collective values. Wishy washy as that may be, it tends to piss me off when a punch of angry crackpot anonymous internet conspiracy mongers start suggesting that thousands of these people are cowardly monsters complicit in the murder of thousands of innocents. The "us against them" mentality towards the government doesn't shown keen awareness or healthy skepticism, it shows a serious naivety about how the government acutally operates and the people that make it function. Go intern on the Hill for a summer and tell me if you still think that the country is crawling with ominous government "operatives."
"Absolutely smack, bang on! 19 Muslim extremists who "hate America and our freedoms" overwhelmed NORAD, the FAA, the DOD, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the Secret Service and the multi-trillion dollar military apparatus of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, with box cutters, taking down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes and impacting the most heavily d . . . "
Well obviously you haven't looked into this. Most heavily defended building? What you talkin' about. Hundreds of jets? What are we on cold war red alert here? Not even close - have a look at this, then talk to me:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD
Goes through and explains in detail exactly what our defense capability and options were with the planes.
So far as duping the CIA and the FBI, and why not? Stuff slips past out intelligence all the time, and if you'll take a look the failings of 9/11 caused a massive investigation and paradigm shift on how intelligence is managed and filtered. We dropped the ball, things happened because of it.
So far as Arabs with box cutters - I always hear this, I don't get it. Did the people on the planes really know that's all they actaully had? How do you think terrified people are prone to react in that kind of situation? Certainly the pilots and stewardesses are told to do nothing, and the average person is going to sit tight and pray for dear life. The hijackers didn't plan and execute this whole scheme themselves, they just carried out the final leg of a very crafty and complicated terrorist attack that turned out to be the largest and most shocking in modern history. Not so improbable sounding when you portray the situation a little more accurately.
"Gotta love ole Noam!"
Ohh boy. Well, if you actually also buy into this kind of conspiracy, then this 9/11 stuff is just small potatoes for you. If you want to keep debating these points, I'm more than happy too as well, but this is some wild stuff.
I'll check your links when I have time to actually look over them - meanwhile I'll be with my Jewish banker friends plotting to take control of the UN and overthrow the government so we can unite the planet once and for all under our iron fist of globalism.
No offense, but the whole 'gatekeepers of the left' thing is about the dumbest crap around. It's just a way for the hardcore conspiracy nuts can dismiss any liberal and leftist thinkers that aren't willing to buy into their stuff as tools of whatever this supposed massive global plot. Guess what, this conspiracy and many, many different evolutions of it have been around for a pretty long time, and nothing seems to really be happening. If there is a conspiracy of this kind around, I wouldn't worry because the people pulling the strings seem to be pretty shitty at getting things done.
"Okay. You know what I consider "silly"? How the official story that holds that 2 planes, weighing less than a combined 400 tons in all, brought down 3 steel-framed skyscrapers weighing in excess of a combined 600 THOUSAND tons in all- with one of the skyscrapers not even being hit by a plane."
Look, the towers coming down from the damage caused by the planes and the collapse of WT7 are the easiest conspiracy stuff to debunk of all. Search around to some debunking sites - there are peer-reviewed, academically creditied papers written by experts that explain this. It seems crazy to me that a whirling metal blade can a make a helicopter fly - that doesn't mean that it doesn't actually work by physics instead of magic (or controlled demolition in your case).
Here is the link to a website (on one of the sites that you blow off - but it just contains links so don't freak out) that contains numerous papers written by *ghasp* actual experts in engineering and structural collapse. These people are credited experts in structure science, and I feel they're better qualified to explain it you than I am. Of course, if you think a bunch of engineering nerds from MIT and Northwestern are part of big brother's monster conspiracy as well, then I guess this won't go far (just kidding, I hope) . . . http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm
"Ummm... Professor Steven Jones? Kevin Ryan? Those are just two quick names off the top of my head. But there are many, many others."
And on that note . . . http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
For those that don't care to check out the link, the venerated Dr. Jones (Indiana?) has no expertise whatsoever in structural engineering or collapse. He actually deals with nuclear physics, so I assume he's fairly intelligent (although he does teach at BYU, so, uh, he likely believes he's also going to be moving to his own solar system to play cards with Joseph Smith after he dies or whatever that whole deal is), but he has no real ability to comment on one of the largest and most complicated structure collapses in history. His paper about the subject was ridiculed by his peers in his own department for containing shoddy and unsubstantiated research (guess they're in on the conspiracy too, damn this thing is huge!).
If Kevin Ryan is who I think he is, then he's a young guy that worked in a water standards testing department or something and basically had no qualifications to comment on the collapse/conspiracy either, as he dealth with neither. He lost his job for writing public letters implicating his employers in a cover-up if I'm remembering correctly.
So before I think you said that there were lots and lots of they really credible guys standing up all over the the place to blow the lid off this thing, these aren't really the best examples. I'll look up old Kevin to be sure when I have more time.
"This is ridiculous. Ask yourself: how many lives (foreign or domestic) have US covert operations cost over the years? Then ask yourself: how many people have come forward exposing the worst of the worst of these operations over the years? I'll help you: you can't even use all the fingers on one hand to count them. Better yet, ask yourself: what kind of protection do whistleblowers get for exposing such crimes? What whistleblower has ever personally benefited from exposing a high (government) crime? Why don't you go ask Daniel Ellsberg or Bunny Greenhouse? No, all they get in return is a lost job, lost house, lost credit, lost marriage, lost life. Even a nice little indictment, if they're lucky. What a sweet deal! I'm gonna go blow the whistle on something right now! "
Uh, I don't know, how many lives? Isn't the point of covert ops that they're covert. I'm just joking there, but basically what you're suggesting here is the "men in black" type idea that if you take a stand against the government, you'll have your bank account erased and they'll pay you a visit in the middle of the night.
Frankly, the completely unsubstantiated idea that government goons will come after you if you tell the truth or bring evidence forward isn't really going to cut it for me. The two examples you mention are nice in that you bothered to list something at all, but also problematic as they don't fit. Ellsberg, as I recall, actually took those papers illegaly and it was rather scandalous. I respect the guy for what he did in a lot of ways, but there was going to be some fallout from dispatching a thousands of pages of classified documents about a current war to the NY Times. Greenhouse was the victim of some nasty, good 'ol boy backbiting for calling attention to the honey deal they had going with the government.
It's unfortunate, but the fact that she got unfairly knocked at work because she called attention to some fairly standard bullshit no-bid arrangements with the government really necessarily equates to the thousands of people remaining in silence even as they're complicit with a planned murder of thousands of their own citizens?
Sorry guy, once again this is no kind of proof, nor is it actually too convincing. It's a better try than most though.
"Nice. Real nice. You're lumping all the "conspiracy theorists" under one umbrella and demeaning them all under the lowest common denominator"
You're right about this, I shouldn't do that. Some are definately more qualified candidates for the tin foil hat than others. When you see it from my persepective, however, controlled demolition and government collusion are dman near as whacky as space aliens and holograms, so I'm prone to generalize when talking about conspiracists.
To be fair, for anybody reading, there is a pretty large number of different conspiracy theories about 9/11, and lots of them don't agree and even bicker with each other. Fascinating in some ways, but this is the case for most other conspiracy theories as well so its not unique.
"Very, VERY disappointing."
Geez, sorry . . .
"I guess you really aren't aware of these things because if you were, you would've heard of these people- http://www.911independent . . . "
There's no way to say this without being trite, but from what I could see from the link, there are twelve people listed as group members there.
Your statement seemed to suggest (and maype I misinterpreted) that its a common thing amongst the thousands and thousands of family members of 9/11 victims to buy into the "truth movement" idea. As I said, there was an article in the NY Times a while back about how annoyed some of them were with it, but that doesn't mean that's the majoirty feeling either.
I'd say the majority probably has no opinion/awareness of the conspiracy thing, and if they were introduced to it they wouldn't be any more or less likely than anybody else to be sold on the conspiracy angle. My guess is they really don't care all that much because they lost somebody they loved a short while ago and it probably seems rather trivial whether there was signifigant amounts of berrillium in the tower wreckage.
"I know, I believe everything reported by the mainstream media too."
Uh-oh, we got a media conspiracist here too! I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but seriously, how am I going to debate you if you think the media AND the government, and ostensibly over other institution is on some sinister plot against all the normal folks out there. Like I said, then its like arguing with a dogmatically religious person.
"Why is this like this then?"
"Because God said so."
"But that doesn't explain this contradiction."
"God is mysterious"
"But that makes no sense!"
"We can't understand God."
See what I'm getting at? If the fall back is ever-grander and more intricate conspiracies, then I should quit right now, and you should nail the door shut and oil up the 12 gauge, because eventually you're going to be the only one left who's not in on it.
On that note, things like public appearance and direct quotes from people, plus pictures, in the most widely read newspaper on the planet, plus information you can find on conspiracy websites where they brag about showing up to the premeirs, doesn't really add up to a strong case that the NY Times was just pulling this one out of their asses. But believe as you like . . .
"You gotta love those sites! I mean, they really have some big balls to support all sorts of ideas about what happened on 9/11 that even the government won't touch. Don't believe me? Take a quick look at the two debunking sites above. Then read the NIST reports, presentations and Q&A over at http://wtc.nist.gov
It's really amazing of the kind of stuff they come up with, especially regarding WTC 7. They still even support the WTC truss theory of collapse, which was abandoned long ago by the government. Unbelievable! I guess that's what happens when the shills get desperate. Try this debunking site instead.
About the Loose Change guide, here's an even better one."
Don't have time to examine the links now, but I will, so I'll hold my comments until I can give them a fair shake.
One thing though, are you suggesting you've actually read the NIST report? That thing is 10,000 fucking pages long. Who in the government abandoned the truss thing? What does NIST say? Is that they're up to date position? Are you taking this stuff from direct sources or repeating stuff from conspiracy blogs and websites? Inquiring minds want to know . . .
If the government doesn't care and was in on the whole thing anyways, why are they spending mroe time and effort and deviating from the NIST data? What do they say that the government won't touch exactly? I haven't seen as much of this as you apparently, but I'd be curious to know some specifics here.
"Fucking tell me about it! The greatest propagator of all of the "entire 9/11 thing", David Ray Griffin, is clearly a 20-something trapped inside the body of a 67 year old"
Now you're putting words in my mouth fella. I said mostly and generally, never said all. I never really said it was the demographic of the leaders, but rather the people most interested and taken with the whole conspiracy thing. Not to call steretypes, and it seems you're much more wrapped up in the whole conspiracy world than I am, but do you notice lots and lots of women around on the boards and blogs? Mothers with children? More older guys than younger guys? I don't know this to be a fact, but you seem objective on some things, and I think you'd agree that there's some general commonalities of who this conspiracy stuff really hits home with (and don reply "yeah, intelligent and observent truthseekers" and then slap on a smileface - it's just too easy).
It certainly doesn't seem to have universal appeal amongst everyone. Two common draws are a few older men that hate and despise the government for various reasons, and younger guys who are intensley paranoid and buy into the whole "new world order" fear that has been circulating around for decades. They're probably the same kind of person in different stages of their life you ask me.
"And I'm with ya on the offensive intrusions by 9/11 skeptics in all this, sticking their noses where they don't belong. I'm all for banning whatever is deemed "upsetting" or "offensive" by "people", especially during any kind of criminal investigation or prosecution. Yeah, that's it!"
Never said they weren't fully within their rights to look into it - I'm as big a proponent of free speech and information as you'll find. In fact sonny, I've worked for the ACLU in my day and focused on Constitutional issues in my government studies as an undergrad while being advised by one of the greatest living and most published scholars of civil liberties. So don't give me all that junk.
There are thing that I find offensive about the "truth movement" (such as calling themselves a 'truth' organization in the first place when so many are clearly not interested in real explanations, as you yourself mentioned), such as the protesting, the loud, crass tactics, the shoddy research, and the suggestion by some, even on this thread, that firefighters and police had knowledge of what was coming and let their fellow public servents rush to their deaths anyway. I think you could see how that's insulting to some.
And frankly, as somebody who has also worked for and around the government and Washington, I know most of the people that work for the government are good and decent civil servents and burearucrats that work long hard hours at difficult jobs and don't make nearly as much money doing it as they could in the private sector, because they believe in public service and our collective values. Wishy washy as that may be, it tends to piss me off when a punch of angry crackpot anonymous internet conspiracy mongers start suggesting that thousands of these people are cowardly monsters complicit in the murder of thousands of innocents. The "us against them" mentality towards the government doesn't shown keen awareness or healthy skepticism, it shows a serious naivety about how the government acutally operates and the people that make it function. Go intern on the Hill for a summer and tell me if you still think that the country is crawling with ominous government "operatives."
"Absolutely smack, bang on! 19 Muslim extremists who "hate America and our freedoms" overwhelmed NORAD, the FAA, the DOD, the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, the Secret Service and the multi-trillion dollar military apparatus of the most powerful nation in the history of the planet, with box cutters, taking down 3 skyscrapers with 2 planes and impacting the most heavily d . . . "
Well obviously you haven't looked into this. Most heavily defended building? What you talkin' about. Hundreds of jets? What are we on cold war red alert here? Not even close - have a look at this, then talk to me:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=NORAD
Goes through and explains in detail exactly what our defense capability and options were with the planes.
So far as duping the CIA and the FBI, and why not? Stuff slips past out intelligence all the time, and if you'll take a look the failings of 9/11 caused a massive investigation and paradigm shift on how intelligence is managed and filtered. We dropped the ball, things happened because of it.
So far as Arabs with box cutters - I always hear this, I don't get it. Did the people on the planes really know that's all they actaully had? How do you think terrified people are prone to react in that kind of situation? Certainly the pilots and stewardesses are told to do nothing, and the average person is going to sit tight and pray for dear life. The hijackers didn't plan and execute this whole scheme themselves, they just carried out the final leg of a very crafty and complicated terrorist attack that turned out to be the largest and most shocking in modern history. Not so improbable sounding when you portray the situation a little more accurately.
"Gotta love ole Noam!"
Ohh boy. Well, if you actually also buy into this kind of conspiracy, then this 9/11 stuff is just small potatoes for you. If you want to keep debating these points, I'm more than happy too as well, but this is some wild stuff.
I'll check your links when I have time to actually look over them - meanwhile I'll be with my Jewish banker friends plotting to take control of the UN and overthrow the government so we can unite the planet once and for all under our iron fist of globalism.
No offense, but the whole 'gatekeepers of the left' thing is about the dumbest crap around. It's just a way for the hardcore conspiracy nuts can dismiss any liberal and leftist thinkers that aren't willing to buy into their stuff as tools of whatever this supposed massive global plot. Guess what, this conspiracy and many, many different evolutions of it have been around for a pretty long time, and nothing seems to really be happening. If there is a conspiracy of this kind around, I wouldn't worry because the people pulling the strings seem to be pretty shitty at getting things done.