#41  
Old 07-19-2009, 05:40 PM
anybody who believes 9/11 was an inside job thinks too highly of the American government.

The government is not competent enough to pull of such a thing all the while keeping it a secret, especially when it was under Bush. They couldn't get a helicopter in a stadium during Katrina, what makes you think they could pull off something like 9/11?

Last edited by APzombie; 07-19-2009 at 05:43 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07-19-2009, 06:10 PM
Great thread!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brendan M. View Post
This one is my favorite:

MOTHMAN

Read on here:

http://www.prairieghosts.com/moth.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by jackson13 View Post
I own John Keel's book that chronicals all of the events. Very, very, different than what was adapted into the movie, but a very good read as well. I dont believe in much, but after reading about those people, all of their stories, everything that happened and was documented....I'm a believer.
John Keel's book is the shit--I grew up around & went to college just hours from the area (Point Pleasant). That was a book I was pretty creeped out to read alone at home at night, and I'm someone that doesn't get easily creeped out or scared by horror stuff.

They did indeed cut out many passages of the book for the movie, especially the UFO sightings in the area at the time, which play into the Mothman mythology pretty significantly. The UFO stuff is all well documented and was seen by hundreds living in the town. Keel is much like Jacque Vallee, the French UFO researcher, in approach. He gives you so much anecdotal evidence of UFO encounters that it becomes almost boring. There have been literally millions of some kind of UFO / alien encounters documented around the world.

My theory? The government could've been testing some kind of mind control substance (not unlike the well documented MK-Ultra experiments) in the Ohio Valley region back then in the late 60's. That could account for the mass hallucinations, if that's what they were.

Anyway, I love a good conspiracy story but they start to make me feel schizo after awhile...

Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07-19-2009, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
anybody who believes 9/11 was an inside job thinks too highly of the American government.

The government is not competent enough to pull of such a thing all the while keeping it a secret, especially when it was under Bush. They couldn't get a helicopter in a stadium during Katrina, what makes you think they could pull off something like 9/11?
Not to double post--but I was of the mind at the time of the Bush administration that the image of them as ineffective was one played for effect, that GW Bush was set up as the bumble-fuck in charge, while old-schoolers from the depths of the GOP, Cheney, Rumsfeld, among them, were effective, ruthless, connected, and had motive to parlay the 9/11 attacks into a war on Iraq. Whether they caused said attacks or even allowed them to happen is open for debate.

There's just too much shit involved with 9/11 that doesn't make sense--I think it's still too big and traumatizing for people to get their heads around.

Also--what makes you think they wanted to get a helicopter into a stadium during Katrina? The Bush admin. were content to let those people drown in the mud for 4 or 5 days for fuck's sake.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07-19-2009, 07:39 PM
It wasn't just a fire that knocked down the twin towers. I mean a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour, exploding, and spreading hot jet fuel through the hole building isn't a normal occurance, so that may be why more buildings haven't fallen.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 07-19-2009, 07:45 PM
Has anyone heard the theory that Candlejack is really a government agent and whenever you mention his na-
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07-19-2009, 07:50 PM
In the early 60's, JFK was pressured into following orders from the heads of U.S oil companies -- to go all out against Soviet Russia. The other "enemy" in America and Europe's fight for the Caspian Sea was Iran, and they were already under thumb since the '53 coup d'tat. So the only remaining obstacle was Soviet Russia.

JFK refused to co-operate with the oil companies. Instead he wanted peace talks, putting an end to the arms race, and also wanted to deny Israel nuclear weapons. Of course Soviet Russia would not give up their control of the Caspian Sea. The oil companies wanted, and still want, the Caspian Sea. And force was, at the time, the only way they would get it.

F.B.I informant and mobster Mickey Cohen had setup JFK with Marilyn Monroe. A sex tape was made to blackmail JFK (and also Bobby), but JFK would still not give in. He was eventually murdered by mossad agents -- if any gunmen were caught, they were to be described as gangsters working for Meyer Lansky (another FBI informant and mobster), and obviously Jack Ruby (who killed Oswald) was an underling of Lansky's.

Kennedy's successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, was only too happy to co-operate.

In recent years it looks likely that America and Europe can access the Caspian Sea with a Trans-Caspian Pipeline, bypassing Russia and Iran. Whether or not it will end peacefully, I don't know for sure, though I'm predicting WWIII.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07-20-2009, 12:14 AM
As much as I'd love to believe that United Flight 93 crashed via heroism(and I really would), I definitely think that it was shot down.

And I also very vividly remember on 9/11 a very brief mention of a fifth plane; but the reporters suddenly ceased in mentioning it.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07-20-2009, 08:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_rambo View Post
It wasn't just a fire that knocked down the twin towers. I mean a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour, exploding, and spreading hot jet fuel through the hole building isn't a normal occurance, so that may be why more buildings haven't fallen.
Planes travel at an average top speed of something like 250 mph. Larger planes like the ones that hit the towers can travel a top speed up to 300 mph, but neither plane was traveling near those speeds at the time of the crash. Planes that big can't bank at the angles they did to hit the towers at top speeds. That is why planes slow down a hundred miles before they get near their airport they are landing on.

On the day of 9/11 people were standing in the hole the plane made. You can clearly see this. Some jumped. If the fire so was hot as to melt metal, how can people stand the heat to stand in the very spot where the plane crashed?

Jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt metal. It might have burned hot enough to bend metal though, but there is no way it towers would have fallen so perfectly like it did.

Watch the clips please.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07-20-2009, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
Jet fuel does not get hot enough to melt metal. It might have burned hot enough to bend metal though, but there is no way it towers would have fallen so perfectly like it did.
Quote:
"Melted" Steel
Claim: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800 to 1500F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800 it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
source: "Debunking 9/11 Myths", Popular Mechanics.com
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07-20-2009, 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotis View Post
Yeah, I read that already. These are also the people who said we would be flying around with jet packs or flying cars too. There are also lots of articles with the opposite view too.

Common sense to me, boils down I do not believe for one second that both buildings would fall like they did. All the other issues brought up in the clips can not be ignored. It is all way too convenient for me.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07-20-2009, 09:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
As much as I'd love to believe that United Flight 93 crashed via heroism(and I really would), I definitely think that it was shot down.

And I also very vividly remember on 9/11 a very brief mention of a fifth plane; but the reporters suddenly ceased in mentioning it.
In the clips, Chaney made the slip of tongue saying it was shit down. I never bought the crap that terrorists took over planes with box cutters. I also never bought the fact that we knew who all the 9/11 terrorists were in like 48 hrs. Then knew the history of their lives with a week.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-20-2009, 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
In the clips, Chaney made the slip of tongue saying it was shit down. I never bought the crap that terrorists took over planes with box cutters. I also never bought the fact that we knew who all the 9/11 terrorists were in like 48 hrs. Then knew the history of their lives with a week.
So it's more possible that it was a huge conspiracy within our own government? That's more believable than the government being able to find out who got on what planes?

Trust me man. Go buy a plane ticket, then get on it and start some shit. It's much easier to identify a passenger through the process of elimination than it is to concoct a global para-military conspiracy leading to a new world order.

I'd start to worry about the state of my mind if the the former started to seem more plausible.

Just sayin.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-20-2009, 01:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralEye View Post
So it's more possible that it was a huge conspiracy within our own government? That's more believable than the government being able to find out who got on what planes?

Trust me man. Go buy a plane ticket, then get on it and start some shit. It's much easier to identify a passenger through the process of elimination than it is to concoct a global para-military conspiracy leading to a new world order.

I'd start to worry about the state of my mind if the the former started to seem more plausible.

Just sayin.
In a word, yes. But, you don't need to believe. I do.

Did you fly before and after 911? I did. Much harder and longer process now.

What is the political result of 9/11? The Patriot Act and Homeland Security.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-20-2009, 01:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
In a word, yes. But, you don't need to believe. I do.

Did you fly before and after 911? I did. Much harder and longer process now.

What is the political result of 9/11? The Patriot Act and Homeland Security.
Ok, you need to believe it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yes, I flew before and after 9/11. A month and a half before and a month after. And yes, it's more of a process now. Know why? Because they don't want people flying into buildings with them any more. It's a leap in logic, I know. And are you implying that airport security was non-existent before 9/11? Because I remember it quite differently.

And yes, I know that the patriot act and homeland security were a result of what happened. Has knee-jerk incompetence ever entered your mind when it comes to the Bush administration? Bush can barely tie his shoes, for god's sakes. Anyone who thinks people like him can be a part of some well-kept global conspiracy agenda worries me.

You worry me, Abbie.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-20-2009, 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralEye View Post
Ok, you need to believe it. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Yes, I flew before and after 9/11. A month and a half before and a month after. And yes, it's more of a process now. Know why? Because they don't want people flying into buildings with them any more. It's a leap in logic, I know. And are you implying that airport security was non-existent before 9/11? Because I remember it quite differently.

And yes, I know that the patriot act and homeland security were a result of what happened. Has knee-jerk incompetence ever entered your mind when it comes to the Bush administration? Bush can barely tie his shoes, for god's sakes. Anyone who thinks people like him can be a part of some well-kept global conspiracy agenda worries me.

You worry me, Abbie.

Flying was not the same before and after 911.

That is sad. You buy the BS that Bush was an idiot. You should be questioning why an idiot can become President. He was a puppet to more powerful people like the VP. The whole concept behind the Patriot Act and Homeland Security was not a knee jerk thing. It was to further take our our freedoms and putting us under tighter control.

Spiral, you need to start questioning things. When it comes to anything political follow the money. Riddle me this, lots of money was made the days after 911 as a result of things that were done before 911. Who were those people? Why hasn't anyone investigated this? Some people (other than Bin Laden) knew this was coming and took action to make sure they made money after it happened. Never fully investigated who were these people.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-20-2009, 03:50 PM
http://www.alternet.org/story/100688...._matt_taibbi/

That's the best read I've found (not for Taibbi's meager, immature, intellectually shallow contributions, but rather Griffin's thorough and measured recitation of fact) on the subject. There's so much crap out there, it's hard to sort through. Griffith, despite his politics, has produced much of the best, most researched and scholarly findings on the subject, including "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" which lays to waste much of the Popular Mechanics counter-arguments.

I'm in the camp of people who want a new and genuine independent investigation because the 9/11 Commission Report contains many verifiably false and contradictory assertions. That doesn't mean I believe in any counter-theory, there hasn't been one proposed by anyone I've seen or heard that is plausible, logically sound, and stands up to intense scrutiny precisely because there has been no independent investigation by an appropriate body, so most "truthers" throw out a bunch of guesswork and speculation, assuming motive means guilt and presuming things just as implausible if not more than the official story because they don't have the facts either and can't discover them on their own. These people give those with more serious, scientific concerns about what happened a bad name and allow the majority to dismiss anyone who doesn't believe the official story as a tinfoil hat wearing loon. Like the JFK Assassination, there is no one certain affirmative theory, but it is undeniable that the Warren Commission Report is filled with BS and there's no way Oswald acted alone. The fact is we still don't really know just what happened, whether some in the government were involved or just grossly incompetent, contradictions could be the result of something sinister or just commonplace CYA saving face, but there are tons of unanswered questions left in the wake of a rushed and sloppy investigation of the government by itself that disregarded information that didn't fit into to the established grander narrative. The fact is, it was a very major attack on American civilians with widespread ramifications, so we deserve to have the whole truth.

I'm not one who subscribes to most of the purely speculative hogwash out there, but there are a few things that are undeniable:

Of the 19 alleged hijackers, at least 5 are still alive and well: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm. This means, at the least, that the government has the wrong guys. Being unable to identify who it was actually responsible for the attacks should be a pretty big deal.

The Commissions and its government sources have changed their story on key facts more than a dozen times since they reported their findings in light of contradictory facts coming to light. They do not, however, offer an explanation or justification of why simple and important facts (like what time key people were notified, where they were, whether fighter jets were near the hijacked planes and able to shoot them down or not) were initially and for years thereafter reported erroneously.

FEMA’s BPAT Report documents steel samples showing rapid oxidation, sulfidation, and intergranular melting, which go a long way toward explain the building's unusual collapse. A liquid eutectic mixture, including sulfur from an unknown source, caused intense corrosion of the steel, gaping holes in wide flange beams, and the thinning of half-inch-thick flanges to almost razor-sharpness in the World Trade Center 7 steel. The New York Times called this “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.” The government, Scientific American, and official sources do not dispute this, do not claim it was the result of fire of jet fuel, yet is apparently not concerned enough about it to re-investigate or attempt to explain.

Building 7's highly unusual collapse was not investigated by the 9/11 Commission Report. FEMA's investigation concluded "the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue" and NIST's subsequent investigation's final findings (it took 5 years) were still essentially speculative, offering no explanation for the presence of destructive chemicals, finding that jet fuel and falling pieces of the other two towers were not the cause of collapse, and chalking everything up to fire, despite their finding that fires burned out after no more than 20 minutes in any one location and the fact that massive steel structures do not collapse due to fire alone.

Those are simple, verifiable facts. Recognizing them requires no more than becoming aware of them and looking into them yourself. There are other unanswered questions and contradictory facts, but that should be enough to convince anyone that at the least the official story is flawed and there is a lot left we don't know. This doesn't mean some New World Order or Illuminati or Dick Cheney or whatever else was behind it, but it means that the 9/11 Commission Report in and of itself is a fallacious conspiracy theory and we don't yet know the whole story, which we should demand considering its importance.

I don't think those who believe the official story are "kool-aid drinkers" or anything of the sort, I just think they haven't really looked into it for themselves or were quickly dissuaded by all the crap out there. The mainstream media is lazy and corporate run, so it has little interest in taking the issue seriously too, leading to a widespread sense of derision for any suggestion that the Commission Report has major flaws and gaps in logic. Despite this, 45% of Americans want a reinvestigation of the attacks and 42% believe there was some degree of government cover-up involved (http://www.zogby.com/features/features.cfm?ID=231), so it's also hardly a fringist view.

As for other "conspiracy theories" I believe, I think the findings of the Church Committee were just the tip of the iceberg and that programs like COINTELPRO and other covert government surveillance, harassment, intervention, assassination, control, and counter-democratic domestic activities by intelligence agencies continues today, though I don't really consider that a conspiracy so much as common sense.

Last edited by QUENTIN; 07-20-2009 at 04:12 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-20-2009, 03:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
You buy the BS that Bush was an idiot. You should be questioning why an idiot can become President. He was a puppet to more powerful people like the VP.
Though Bush being a puppet for his daddy's cronies does not not make him an idiot. Nor does being an idiot mean he was without balls, his level of incompetency can only be achieved by being either an aberration of nature or, more the likely, the dangerous combination of ignorance and brass balls. "Where fools rush in" ... Bush led the way.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-20-2009, 03:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lotis View Post
Though Bush being a puppet for his daddy's cronies does not not make him an idiot. Nor does being an idiot mean he was without balls, his level of incompetency can only be achieved by being either an aberration of nature or, more the likely, the dangerous combination of ignorance and brass balls. "Where fools rush in" ... Bush led the way.
Well put. I giggled.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-20-2009, 04:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
Flying was not the same before and after 911.

That is sad. You buy the BS that Bush was an idiot. You should be questioning why an idiot can become President. He was a puppet to more powerful people like the VP. The whole concept behind the Patriot Act and Homeland Security was not a knee jerk thing. It was to further take our our freedoms and putting us under tighter control.

Spiral, you need to start questioning things. When it comes to anything political follow the money. Riddle me this, lots of money was made the days after 911 as a result of things that were done before 911. Who were those people? Why hasn't anyone investigated this? Some people (other than Bin Laden) knew this was coming and took action to make sure they made money after it happened. Never fully investigated who were these people.
I know flying wasn't the same before and after. Already said that. It's tighter security. Again, to keep more people from trying to do bad things with planes. If you are trying to make some other point about how it's different now, then make it.

And no, I don't buy ant BS about Bush being an idiot. It doesn't need to be sold to me. He's an idiot. Are you saying he's actually a super-genius in hiding? Because that's completely asinine. And as to how an idiot can become President...if you don't understand that it can, does, and will happen again, then you're too far gone to have a rational debate anyway.

Yes, the patriot act and homeland security further limit our rights and freedoms. But your view is that 9/11 was a a staged event to enact those programs. That's what I disagree with completely. I don't buy that the effect is actually the cause. Our government is incompetent at the highest levels.

I do question things. Everything. No, I don't believe we know the whole 9/11 story. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-20-2009, 05:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralEye View Post
I do question things. Everything. No, I don't believe we know the whole 9/11 story. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy.
Actually, by definition it is regardless of who did it or what happened unless you think only one person was responsible for everything. This is one of those misnomers that damage the credibility of legitimate arguments.

A conspiracy is merely an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. Whether the 19 hijackers alleged by the government to be responsible (at least 5 of whom are still alive and leading normal lives, have been interviewed by reputable news agencies and are not dead in a plane crash) are responsible or any other proposed or unknown possibility, it is a conspiracy.
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 07-20-2009, 05:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralEye View Post
And no, I don't buy ant BS about Bush being an idiot. It doesn't need to be sold to me. He's an idiot. Are you saying he's actually a super-genius in hiding? Because that's completely asinine. And as to how an idiot can become President...if you don't understand that it can, does, and will happen again, then you're too far gone to have a rational debate anyway.

Yes, the patriot act and homeland security further limit our rights and freedoms. But your view is that 9/11 was a a staged event to enact those programs. That's what I disagree with completely. I don't buy that the effect is actually the cause. Our government is incompetent at the highest levels.

I do question things. Everything. No, I don't believe we know the whole 9/11 story. But that doesn't make it a conspiracy.
Bush is a puppet of smarter people. I said that once before.

To find the truth in most matters, all you have to do is find out who profited the most. So who profited the most?
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 07-20-2009, 05:34 PM
If you have a lot of spare time, this one is a sort of interesting attempt to link George H.W. Bush to the Kennedy assassination...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...24059102108031
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 07-20-2009, 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
Bush is a puppet of smarter people. I said that once before.

To find the truth in most matters, all you have to do is find out who profited the most. So who profited the most?
Who profited the most? Every person in the entire world who hated America, justifiably or not. And the wealth keeps growing as we make bonehead move after bonehead move in regard to the rest of the world.

Question: Why do you (as you previously stated) feel the "need to believe"? Just curious.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 07-20-2009, 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanb View Post
If you have a lot of spare time, this one is a sort of interesting attempt to link George H.W. Bush to the Kennedy assassination...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...24059102108031
this is one of the best jfk doc ever made. I saw it last year and was blown away. a must see if you have an hour and a half to spend.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 07-20-2009, 08:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiralEye View Post
Who profited the most? Every person in the entire world who hated America, justifiably or not. And the wealth keeps growing as we make bonehead move after bonehead move in regard to the rest of the world.

Question: Why do you (as you previously stated) feel the "need to believe"? Just curious.
How about a real monetary answer now?

To answer your question: watch all the clips from the link I had previously provided and you have some of your answers.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 07-20-2009, 11:35 PM
This video alone is enough to question the official 9/11 report.
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

I don't buy into any conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11 (ie. Bush using 9/11 as a springboard into global domination...intriguing, but far-fetched), but I, like so many others, cannot accept anything from the 9/11 report.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 07-21-2009, 07:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by john_rambo View Post
Subject: The Moon Landing

The Theory: It never happened

The Evidence:

- The Shuttle left no imprint when taking off

- The Flag waves despite no air on the moon

- Many photo's appear to be doctored

- There were many deaths of key detractors of NASA and the Apollo Missions

-More on the theory http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

Do I Believe It?

I think we landed, I think weird stuff goes out in space, though I do think Nasa could have doctored photos, not to cover up a hoax, but to make them more "sexy".

You Got Any?
What about this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200907...restorescopies

I'm not saying that I believe this conspiracy, but NASA claiming to have lost the master footage seems fishy as hell. So you make history by landing on the moon and then you record over all the master footage of this historic landing? Seriously!? NASA can send people to the moon, but can't afford extra video tape? I would like to think that rocket scientists couldn't be this stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 07-21-2009, 09:01 AM
Do people who doubt the moon landing doubt all moon landings or just the first one?
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 07-21-2009, 09:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
This video alone is enough to question the official 9/11 report.
Downward Acceleration of the North Tower

I don't buy into any conspiracy theory surrounding 9/11 (ie. Bush using 9/11 as a springboard into global domination...intriguing, but far-fetched), but I, like so many others, cannot accept anything from the 9/11 report.
I am sorry. What are you trying to say? Seems like a mixed message.

According to the clip, the "block" could not have fallen at near free fall speed and destroy the rest of the building unless something happened below. But then you say you don't buy any conspiracy. Then what or who did something to the bottom of the tower to make it fall like it did?


BTW Wells and Halladay to the Yanks for Phil Hughes and a couple other B level prospects?
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 07-21-2009, 09:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
Do people who doubt the moon landing doubt all moon landings or just the first one?
Good question. What about space programs in general? Sputnik? What about Mir and Int'l space stations?
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 07-21-2009, 10:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
I am sorry. What are you trying to say? Seems like a mixed message.

According to the clip, the "block" could not have fallen at near free fall speed and destroy the rest of the building unless something happened below. But then you say you don't buy any conspiracy. Then what or who did something to the bottom of the tower to make it fall like it did?
What I'm saying is I believe in the science that something did happen below the top section of the tower to make it fall at free-fall speed and in a direct motion. The most likely explanation being planned explosive charges. But, I will not speculate as to who did it. There are dozens of culprits that had a motive to carry this out and easily blame it on "al-Qaeda". But jumping to conclusions as to who did it is careless without a proper investigation.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 07-21-2009, 10:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
BTW Wells and Halladay to the Yanks for Phil Hughes and a couple other B level prospects?
Hm, maybe. You can take Wells but we can't get rid of Halladay.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 07-21-2009, 10:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
What I'm saying is I believe in the science that something did happen below the top section of the tower to make it fall at free-fall speed and in a direct motion. The most likely explanation being planned explosive charges. But, I will not speculate as to who did it. There are dozens of culprits that had a motive to carry this out and easily blame it on "al-Qaeda". But jumping to conclusions as to who did it is careless without a proper investigation.
OK. I respect your thoughts. Is it fair to say that some people very high up the Fed Govt food chain could be considered suspect?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
Hm, maybe. You can take Wells but we can't get rid of Halladay.
Gee thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 07-21-2009, 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefanb View Post
If you have a lot of spare time, this one is a sort of interesting attempt to link George H.W. Bush to the Kennedy assassination...

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...24059102108031
I really hate shit like this. Granted they account for all the logical bullshit written in the warren commission but they use it as a spring board for a 9/11 conspiracy.

I'm not discrediting Bush Sr.'s involvement in the C.I.A. before he was it's head, thats a different argument, but what fucking irks me is how so many conspiracy theorists use the proof and validity of one conspiracy as a legitimate argument that their other theories must also be correct. "let me show you how a magic bullet is impossible, i didn't figure this out myself, but i'm spreading the word... believe me? good. Then you better believe what else i tell you."

JFK's assassination is covered in lies. There is a legitimate conspiracy there. Wether or not it's a greater evil or simply the government covering up the possibility that even they don't know what the hell happened or who the other shooter was is besides the point. Acknowledging that doesn't give your assumptions on 9/11, Roswell or The Alaskin Blob more validity. The 9/11 Commission Report is full of holes, yes, but spring boarding them to correspond to wild theories really discredits the holes and everything else that holds weight with them.

I wonder if the lies regarding JFK would have been more acknowledged if people didn't always link it to bullshit theories, same with the holes in The Commission Report. It doesn't help that shit like 'loose change' gets the most attention with the public, a film school reject who legitimately believed that the 747's shot missiles mile-seconds before impact in his first edit. After that everything he says, valid or not, will be taken with a pound of salt.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 07-21-2009, 11:33 AM
The 9/11 conspiracy is an interesting one, but the Popular Mechanic article disproves much of it.

Even after watching the conspiracy videos and reading the different theories out there, common sense makes me tap the brakes before I start accusing those in our own government of pulling something off of this magnitude and keeping it a secret. Yea...not buying it.

I also do believe we went to the moon. My biggest question is why they enormous gap, why don't we make trips there all the time? Some say because there's nothing there worth looking at, but I don't believe that. We should have a moon base up there already. I mean why the hell not?
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 07-21-2009, 11:41 AM
About the moon landing: If we were out to fake it, there sure was a lot of overkill. It wasn't the only reported moon landing... We stopped at Apollo 17, if I remember correctly.
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 07-21-2009, 12:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
JFK's assassination is covered in lies. There is a legitimate conspiracy there. Wether or not it's a greater evil or simply the government covering up the possibility that even they don't know what the hell happened or who the other shooter was is besides the point. Acknowledging that doesn't give your assumptions on 9/11, Roswell or The Alaskin Blob more validity. The 9/11 Commission Report is full of holes, yes, but spring boarding them to correspond to wild theories really discredits the holes and everything else that holds weight with them.
I am not sure if you know what the CIA has done over the course of their history, but their job was do anything and everything to get their objectives done aboard and done secretly. With the history they have I don't know why you can't even conceive that there are people in the US gov't that are capable of killing JFK or 911 and get away with it.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 07-21-2009, 12:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preston_79 View Post
The 9/11 conspiracy is an interesting one, but the Popular Mechanic article disproves much of it.
There are articles in other magazines that say they can prove smoking is good for you. Please see above for the same question.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 07-21-2009, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abbie Normal View Post
There are articles in other magazines that say they can prove smoking is good for you. Please see above for the same question.
and I'll read those supposed articles and have a good laugh.


I'm aware that there are different opinions out there. Like I stated, I've watched the videos and read articles that believe in the conspiracy of 9/11. I'll take Popular Mechanic over some crack pot opinion any day though. A government responsible for bringing down the twin towers in not inconceivable, just totally unlikely by any stretch of the imagination. I'm totally open to hearing more theories I just haven't heard one that makes any sense when trying to pin this on our own government.

Last edited by Preston_79; 07-21-2009 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 07-21-2009, 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by APzombie View Post
I really hate shit like this. Granted they account for all the logical bullshit written in the warren commission but they use it as a spring board for a 9/11 conspiracy.
I didn't make it, or even say I believe it, or that I believe anything it springboards towards. I just found it very interesting.

I've seen supposed JFK autopsy photos that CLEARLY show the back of his head still in tact, from what I could see. Not sure what to make of that.



...but then you see something like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btPXzX1DtJE

...so who's credible? Certainly draws a lot of neat-o circumstantial evidence (or do I mean "accusations"???) to G.H.W.Bush.

As for 9/11... I think the Loose Change people have gone WAY WAAY WAAAAAAAY too far WAY WAAY WAAAAAY too many times to be a credible source of anything other than good discussion material. That said, I saw video of Building #7 collapsing as over 80 steel box-columns appeared to go out absolutely simultaneously. I'm not laying an accusation against ANYONE, and I'm not blaming the gov't, the CIA, Israeli intelligence, terrorists, or ANYONE ELSE... I'm just saying over 80 steel box-columns don't give out all at the same time very often and someone needs to give me a better explanation before I swallow the official story either. Confused, but knowing for certain the whole truth has yet to be told.

Moon Landing... NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, launched on June 18th, 2009 has (according to wikipedia):

Quote:
A new set of images published by NASA in July 2009, taken by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission, show lunar landers (including that of Apollo 11) standing on the surface, science experiments and, in one case, astronaut footprints in a line between the Apollo 14 lander and a nearby science experiment. These images are the most effective proof to date that the "landing hoax" theory is not grounded in fact.[5]

[5] "NASA's LRO Spacecraft Gets its First Look at Apollo Landing Sites" (website). LRO pages. NASA. July 2009. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/main/index.html. Retrieved on 2007-07-18. "NASA's Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, has returned its first imagery of the Apollo moon landing sites. The pictures show the Apollo missions' lunar module descent stages sitting on the moon's surface, as long shadows from a low sun angle make the modules' locations evident."
I think that ends the intelligent discussion on the moon landings, doesn't it?

The Death Star... WAS CLEARLY AN INSIDE JOB!

READ:
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/...eath_star.html

As per point #7: Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?

OPEN YOUR EYES PEOPLE!

Last edited by stefanb; 07-21-2009 at 12:45 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

You Rated this Thread: