Www.911revisited.com

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Not the "oh, the government knows what is best for us" type attitude that I have found here.

 

You sound like a total dipshit.

[KT45]

Aaaand you want to trust this guy? A physics prof who wrote a paper evidencing Jesus be-bopping around America?

 

Have fun with that.

Well I said I trust him more than bored college students. But you made your point and he seems unrealiable. I do like some of the points he makes but I'll just stay neutral on the issue

 

WTC3 fell because it was hit by several thousand pound of FLAMING DEBRIS (ooooh, 400 feet away. Yeah, like that's SO HARD TO BRIDGE when we're talking about the collapse of buildings that were at least a thousand feet tall. I'd provide exact measurements, but I kinda have to leave for work in about, oh thirty seconds). The REST of the buildings fell due to damage and fire. Anyone who thinks that there's some massive "OMG CONSPIRACY" is the one who's "simplifying things to not have the complexity of real life".

 

Asshole.

Judging from the videos I saw WTC building 7 still seems like it fell a lot like a demolition building would. The amount of debris in the video didn't seem like enough to make it fall especially in the way that it did. I'm trying to be skeptical about a conspiracy so I have some minor questions. How did WTC 7 catch on fire? I'm guessing most will say that it was from "fiery" falling debris. If so then did other buildings fall due to falling debris besides the WTC7? I'm asking since I'm sure there are more buildings that are less than 400ft away to WTC 1 and 2. What's the explaination for why other buildings around the trade centers didn't fall like WTC7 due to debris? Are there other videos that better show it was caused by falling debris than the one below?

^^^^^^This one shows very little debris and looks like a demolition. Is this a bad angle? Is there a better clip?

[KT45]

In any case, I don't think Larry Silverstein meant "destroy it with explosives" when he said "pull it". I'm pretty sure he meant to evacuate the personnel. It makes no sense that this guy would fake the collapse of his building by fire for insurance fraud only to turn around and announce to the world on tv that that's what he did. That makes ZERO sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

 

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building

WOW...Good call Shiva!! "It" still seems like a weird word to use to tell the firefighters to get out.

[snookums]

Haven't read the entirel thread .....

funny - there was a bit in the local paper sometime ago about this kinda stuff....yeah in Australia...its old news....and I think anything to make the quota - these media people are lazy bastards...

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0...5003402,00.html

 

The only think that made sense to me....as skeptic and a realist..........is that sure....the US government lies.........what government doesn't...

 

What shits me...is the public have become so complacent about it......and accept it as a 'given'...

 

even the fuckwit things Pres Bush Jr...gets away with - amazing!

 

but the only 'conspiricy'....around for me.....is that the govenment not only lies...but creates news

 

A lot of spin doctoring going on...

but I don't think the Bush Admin have their shit together enough to manage that biggie!

but some say...

Katrina was 'gods will'......

maybe god didit....

sorry I'm past my usebydate...

*yawn*

[Guest Mr. XC]

jerkwad ... diseased brain ... total dipshit ... kindly go fuck yourself

I am very intimidated. I should go away so I do not get called any more names by this bad person, lest I poke any holes in his already threatened confidence that he seems to be very threatened about.

 

Or not.

 

I love the "Pod People" webpage. And who is complaining about making sweeping generalizations? I guess it is different when one of those generalizations are pointed at you. Plus, that website did not look very creditable. Lucky, you included that second link from abovetopsecret.com to make your reply a bit more useful to this discussion.

 

So, returning to the questions in which I did not get a direct response for, that even "after thousands of gallons of jet fuel explode in an enclosed space with the addition of shitloads of heat producing kinetic energy," (your words) parts of the plane did remain in this particular plane crash. I had figured that a person who has read in great detail both sides of this argument would have said something more factual. The photos that I have seen that cover engine parts come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a location where the general public did not have the ability to shoot pictures. So from a publicly verifiable standpoint the evidence of engine parts are not conclusive. Regardless of what hit the pentagon, how the WTC fell, and so on, we are still left with a plot that even science fiction writers would consider to be ridiculous.

 

Lets see,

1. Air Force wargames on 9/11 such as Vigilant Guardian (simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11), Vigilant Warrior, Northern Guardian (relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector), Northern Vigilance (ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast) all distract from the ability to defend the Whitehouse, pentagon, and WTC. How convenient for the terrorists and how incredibly idiotic of our government to leave us so totally defenseless.

 

2. Because if idiotic decision to move all aircraft capable of defending far, far away from WTC and the government, despite the initial crash at the WTC at 8:45 AM, flight 77 hit the pentagon almost one hour later without resistance from what is normally the most heavily protected airspace in the US. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Or as some would say, government generated plausible deniability. If the reason for this was incompetence, why was Dick Chaney (acting Commander in Chief on 9/11 for the wargames listed above) not reprimanded for this severe incompetence? Somehow, this all occurred despite warnings about terrorists attacks hitting American targets prior to this time frame.

 

3. The pentagon was struck in the only section that was renovated to withstand such a crash. On top of that, that section was less than a week from reopening. Oh, how convenient. There is only a 20% chance of this happening on its own, unless if you count the wedges on the corners of the pentagon, then it becomes only a 10% chance.

 

And these are just the obvious basics. There are other details out there that add to the strange plot that is 9/11.

 

The whole point to bringing up the pentagon crash was to display the suspicious activity around it so that it can be seen that the activity around the WTC should remain under suspicion and not be a closed case because there exists a theory that may explain how it happened according to the government.

[Guest Mr. XC]

In any case, I don't think Larry Silverstein meant "destroy it with explosives" when he said "pull it". I'm pretty sure he meant to evacuate the personnel. It makes no sense that this guy would fake the collapse of his building by fire for insurance fraud only to turn around and announce to the world on tv that that's what he did. That makes ZERO sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

 

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building

WOW...Good call Shiva!! "It" still seems like a weird word to use to tell the firefighters to get out.

See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...stein&hl=en

He was talking about demolishing a building in an interview with him.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

The whole point to bringing up the pentagon crash was to display the suspicious activity around it so that it can be seen that the activity around the WTC should remain under suspicion and not be a closed case because there exists a theory that may explain how it happened according to the government.

 

 

Seems like the whole point in bringing up the pentagon was to move from the idea of the WTC being bombed to the seemingly more obviously ominous lack of a plane at the pentagon. You linked to a section of Loose Change as your evidence that something was amiss. I did a quick google search for the first page refuting that claim that I could find. I though it funny that even you woowoos can't agree on many of the aspects of the conspiracy, so I posted the first page even though it's a conspiracy page. The pics were just as real. Let's see those FEMA pics you were talking about. I'm surprised you didn't post those instead of the Loose Change clip.

 

Lucky, you included that second link from abovetopsecret.com to make your reply a bit more useful to this discussion.

 

So did you read it? Care to comment?

 

The photos that I have seen that cover engine parts come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a location where the general public did not have the ability to shoot pictures.

 

Great. Look, I couldn't care less if you've looked at a few more conspiracy webpages than I have. So far all you've offered is easily debunkable stuff. Let's see whatever photos have convinvced you that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon. I have given links to photos that do show a plane wreckage, plus a detailed account of what physically happened in the crash. Clips from conspiracy videos aren't going to cut it.

 

 

 

In any case, I don't think Larry Silverstein meant "destroy it with explosives" when he said "pull it". I'm pretty sure he meant to evacuate the personnel. It makes no sense that this guy would fake the collapse of his building by fire for insurance fraud only to turn around and announce to the world on tv that that's what he did. That makes ZERO sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

 

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building

WOW...Good call Shiva!! "It" still seems like a weird word to use to tell the firefighters to get out.

See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...stein&hl=en

He was talking about demolishing a building in an interview with him.

 

Now you're just being retarded. Do you actually believe that Larry Silverstein admitted to demolishing WTC7 on television? How in the fuck does that make sense in your melon?

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

WTC7

[Guest Mr. XC]

The whole point to bringing up the pentagon crash was to display the suspicious activity around it so that it can be seen that the activity around the WTC should remain under suspicion and not be a closed case because there exists a theory that may explain how it happened according to the government.

 

 

Seems like the whole point in bringing up the pentagon was to move from the idea of the WTC being bombed to the seemingly more obviously ominous lack of a plane at the pentagon. You linked to a section of Loose Change as your evidence that something was amiss. I did a quick google search for the first page refuting that claim that I could find. I though it funny that even you woowoos can't agree on many of the aspects of the conspiracy, so I posted the first page even though it's a conspiracy page. The pics were just as real. Let's see those FEMA pics you were talking about. I'm surprised you didn't post those instead of the Loose Change clip.

 

Lucky, you included that second link from abovetopsecret.com to make your reply a bit more useful to this discussion.

 

So did you read it? Care to comment?

 

The photos that I have seen that cover engine parts come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency at a location where the general public did not have the ability to shoot pictures.

 

Great. Look, I couldn't care less if you've looked at a few more conspiracy webpages than I have. So far all you've offered is easily debunkable stuff. Let's see whatever photos have convinvced you that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon. I have given links to photos that do show a plane wreckage, plus a detailed account of what physically happened in the crash. Clips from conspiracy videos aren't going to cut it.

 

 

 

In any case, I don't think Larry Silverstein meant "destroy it with explosives" when he said "pull it". I'm pretty sure he meant to evacuate the personnel. It makes no sense that this guy would fake the collapse of his building by fire for insurance fraud only to turn around and announce to the world on tv that that's what he did. That makes ZERO sense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Silverstein

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. Dara McQuillan, later explained:

 

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

McQuillan said that by "it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building

WOW...Good call Shiva!! "It" still seems like a weird word to use to tell the firefighters to get out.

See http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7...stein&hl=en

He was talking about demolishing a building in an interview with him.

 

Now you're just being retarded. Do you actually believe that Larry Silverstein admitted to demolishing WTC7 on television? How in the fuck does that make sense in your melon?

 

Let me reiterate my point here, which is in my original post:

What is wrong with this picture? Planes collide with high profile buildings, no fighter jets were scrambled, even though they are typically scrambled for something as small as an unruly passenger. When Bush hears the news, he has the most unsurprised look upon his face. If that dumb ass of a president had not already known of the plan to strike the towers, he would be at least a little surprised. With that, and the dozens of other suspicious events around 9/11, and a building like the WTC collapses so perfectly deserves much suspicion.

In my latter messages, I listed the reasons for the suspicion of events around 9/11. The point being that even the events around the WTC should not be dismissed because the government approved message "makes sense."

 

The FEMA pics are in the second link that you gave me. Here is the link that you have me:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pe...e_evidence.html

Open that link and search for the text "Aux Power Unit" (minus the quotes). The FEMA pictures are above the paragraph that contains that text. How do I know they came from FEMA? Because under the picture is a link called "(source)". If you click it, it goes to www.photolibrary.fema.gov. The picture has now been removed or moved from the website, so you get a file not found error, but the URL clearly indicates that the source was fema.gov. Anyway, the type of Aux Power Unit found indicates that the engine was a Rolls-Royce RB211, which is consistent with a engine used for a 757.

 

And I read the entire page, other pages that it linked to, and other pages that discuss similar topics.

 

When you gave me those links, you did not give me any details about why you are giving them to me, so I was assuming they were to address my questions. But I read them in detail anyway, and did my own research. I did respond about the "Does jet fuel and kinetic energy melt titanium" question by stating that the only known facts concerning the titanium (which is used in the engine) is that FEMA released pictures that showed parts of the aircraft intact.

 

There is a photo of part of the engine, but extra skepticism should be applied because of its source:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Search for "Piece of engine debris photographed at the Pentagon"

 

There exists plenty of plane wreckage from more creditable sources, but more creditable does not mean absolutely creditable. Do I think a plane hit the pentagon? Highly likely, but not 100% certain. And the suspicion is warranted because of what Dick Chaney did that day.

 

As for "pull it" meaning remove firefighters from the building, firefighters were already out of the building at that time. So of course it makes perfect sense for Silverstein to say "the firefighters are already out of the building, but get them out of the building."

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

 

What's your point? You said to look for a plane at the pentagon. I found one and now you're saying there was a plane. How have you not wasted my time?

 

As for "pull it" meaning remove firefighters from the building, firefighters were already out of the building at that time. So of course it makes perfect sense for Silverstein to say "the firefighters are already out of the building, but get them out of the building."

 

How do you know there were no firefighters in the area at the time? And, fuck that question....

 

Why in the world would Silverstein contradict the official conspiracy and reveal to the world on television that he destroyed his own building, with the help of the NY fire dept, no less? Do you think it was just a slip up, or did he not get the memo telling him he needed to keep the conspiracy on the downlow for more than a few weeks. Why would the insurance company pay him a cent if they had any proof that he destroyed his own building. Why would Silverstein think the world would assume that a demolition could be rigged in an afternoon amid an inferno? There is no good reason to believe that Silverstein, working with the NYC fire department, demolished wtc7 in blatant contradiction to every educated finding, and with the cooperation of the NYC Fire Department? What's your theory? Firefighters planted the requisite bombs inside a burning building? Did you look at my last link?

[Guest Mr. XC]

 

What's your point? You said to look for a plane at the pentagon. I found one and now you're saying there was a plane. How have you not wasted my time?

 

As for "pull it" meaning remove firefighters from the building, firefighters were already out of the building at that time. So of course it makes perfect sense for Silverstein to say "the firefighters are already out of the building, but get them out of the building."

 

How do you know there were no firefighters in the area at the time? And, fuck that question....

 

Why in the world would Silverstein contradict the official conspiracy and reveal to the world on television that he destroyed his own building, with the help of the NY fire dept, no less? Do you think it was just a slip up, or did he not get the memo telling him he needed to keep the conspiracy on the downlow for more than a few weeks. Why would the insurance company pay him a cent if they had any proof that he destroyed his own building. Why would Silverstein think the world would assume that a demolition could be rigged in an afternoon amid an inferno? There is no good reason to believe that Silverstein, working with the NYC fire department, demolished wtc7 in blatant contradiction to every educated finding, and with the cooperation of the NYC Fire Department? What's your theory? Firefighters planted the requisite bombs inside a burning building? Did you look at my last link?

As I stated in my prior points, my point was to show that a high amount of suspicion is warrented due to Dick Chaney's command of the wargames and surrounding events. I am sorry that I have mislead you.

 

If you had researched everything so well to begin with, finding evidence to support your claim would be trivial and not have consumed much of your time at all. Only if you had not researched everything in advance should you have spent time on this. Anyway, I have spent a good amount of time researching this today. Anyway, I was about to concede with you on the fact that Silverstein meant getting meant "pulling the firefighters out of there" but your rudeness toward me today prevented me from returning that favor. I will let you fault me for that, if you wish.

 

But I think other people will agree that some of the insults displayed here discourages other people from the discussion. Unless your goal is to reduce the amount of discussion going on (thus forcing you to do more work to push the discussion on due to less people involved), I suggest toning down the language. But you are welcome to do as you would like. I figured you might want to know some of the consequences involved here. You may have noticed that you are the only person "attacking" me. I generally respond better towards more constructive forms of criticism. But I can take what is thrown at me.

 

Silverstein had purchased insurance for terrorism, and I would say it is a safe claim that the building was fully depreciated (had no financial value) due to terrorism when he gave the order to "pull it." So no, the insurance company would still likely pay him many cents for that building even if he did aid in bringing it down.

 

As to why Silverstein would think that the NYC fire department could bring the building down, pulling a building that is burning sometimes means pulling a structural member out as to allow the building to collapse in on itself. WTC7 was already in a weakened state to allow this to happen, although its size would have made this a more complex task unless they were aware of the remaining structural members supporting the building.

 

By the way,

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt

states that it was much later on in the day between the time it took for the firefighters got out and when the building came down.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

By the way, I speak of you in obviously disparaging tones because to do otherwise I feel would be dishonest. I don't respect you, for the simple fact that you have represented an outlandish position seemingly without a thorough understanding, and denegrated those who might disagree with you out of hand. For those reasons I do not deem you a person worthy of rhetorical respect.

 

As Zoe pointed out, you are no different than the buffoon who tries to convince the credulous public that the moon landings were faked in the Nevada desert. As time goes on and every significant event is documented more and more thoroughly, it seems that conspiracy theories will abound more and more. In the case of the moonlanding, it's tha abundance of evidence that gives the conspiracy theorist fodder for their presentation. If an event is documented with thousands of photos it becomes easy to cull from the pile a few that you can misrepresent to the innocently credulous.

 

In all conspiracy theories, it's the presentation of the evidence to the uninformed that gives it power. No physicist has ever heard the case for the moon hoax and agreed. It's always people with no training, no special knowledge, nothing more than a general distrust for the status quo(and who can blame them) and a desire to be some special kind of savior, the deliverer of the truth to the blind and asleep.

 

I say all of this because I know Bart Sibrel, one of the premier carriers of the moon hoax torch, and producer of a few incredibly specious videos about the appollo program. Those who follow the news might recall he was punched by Buzz Aldrin. I think I understand where conspiracy theories come from, because i feel their appeal, inwardly. But I feel the appeal of truth more, and so I take everything with a grain of salt. In the case of 911 I donbt believe it was all a govt conspiracy. I might be persuaded that the gov was aware of the attacks in advance in some way. The evidence I've seen suggests this possibility, but the outright demolition of the towers or building 7 just seems daffy to me, especially when you include the fir depts involvement. Seriously, were they all given yachts for their silence or killed off in fires?

 

 

What's your point? You said to look for a plane at the pentagon. I found one and now you're saying there was a plane. How have you not wasted my time?

 

As for "pull it" meaning remove firefighters from the building, firefighters were already out of the building at that time. So of course it makes perfect sense for Silverstein to say "the firefighters are already out of the building, but get them out of the building."

 

How do you know there were no firefighters in the area at the time? And, fuck that question....

 

Why in the world would Silverstein contradict the official conspiracy and reveal to the world on television that he destroyed his own building, with the help of the NY fire dept, no less? Do you think it was just a slip up, or did he not get the memo telling him he needed to keep the conspiracy on the downlow for more than a few weeks. Why would the insurance company pay him a cent if they had any proof that he destroyed his own building. Why would Silverstein think the world would assume that a demolition could be rigged in an afternoon amid an inferno? There is no good reason to believe that Silverstein, working with the NYC fire department, demolished wtc7 in blatant contradiction to every educated finding, and with the cooperation of the NYC Fire Department? What's your theory? Firefighters planted the requisite bombs inside a burning building? Did you look at my last link?

As I stated in my prior points, my point was to show that a high amount of suspicion is warrented due to Dick Chaney's command of the wargames and surrounding events. I am sorry that I have mislead you.

 

If you had researched everything so well to begin with, finding evidence to support your claim would be trivial and not have consumed much of your time at all. Only if you had not researched everything in advance should you have spent time on this. Anyway, I have spent a good amount of time researching this today. Anyway, I was about to concede with you on the fact that Silverstein meant getting meant "pulling the firefighters out of there" but your rudeness toward me today prevented me from returning that favor. I will let you fault me for that, if you wish.

 

But I think other people will agree that some of the insults displayed here discourages other people from the discussion. Unless your goal is to reduce the amount of discussion going on (thus forcing you to do more work to push the discussion on due to less people involved), I suggest toning down the language. But you are welcome to do as you would like. I figured you might want to know some of the consequences involved here. You may have noticed that you are the only person "attacking" me. I generally respond better towards more constructive forms of criticism. But I can take what is thrown at me.

 

Silverstein had purchased insurance for terrorism, and I would say it is a safe claim that the building was fully depreciated (had no financial value) due to terrorism when he gave the order to "pull it." So no, the insurance company would still likely pay him many cents for that building even if he did aid in bringing it down.

 

As to why Silverstein would think that the NYC fire department could bring the building down, pulling a building that is burning sometimes means pulling a structural member out as to allow the building to collapse in on itself. WTC7 was already in a weakened state to allow this to happen, although its size would have made this a more complex task unless they were aware of the remaining structural members supporting the building.

 

By the way,

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyreg...ski_Richard.txt

states that it was much later on in the day between the time it took for the firefighters got out and when the building came down.

 

Blah, blah, blah. I suggest researching both sides of the claim on your own before you go prancing about declareing your dissenters to be head buried ostriches with fundy hangovers. You've backed up so many times in this thread that I have no idea where you really stand, except that I'm sure you'll ignore whatever truth comes your way and move on to the next tidbit of bullshit still yet unrefuted enough to you to give you a chubby.

[Guest Mr. XC]

By the way, I speak of you in obviously disparaging tones because to do otherwise I feel would be dishonest. I don't respect you, for the simple fact that you have represented an outlandish position seemingly without a thorough understanding, and denegrated those who might disagree with you out of hand. For those reasons I do not deem you a person worthy of rhetorical respect.

 

As Zoe pointed out, you are no different than the buffoon who tries to convince the credulous public that the moon landings were faked in the Nevada desert. As time goes on and every significant event is documented more and more thoroughly, it seems that conspiracy theories will abound more and more. In the case of the moonlanding, it's tha abundance of evidence that gives the conspiracy theorist fodder for their presentation. If an event is documented with thousands of photos it becomes easy to cull from the pile a few that you can misrepresent to the innocently credulous.

 

In all conspiracy theories, it's the presentation of the evidence to the uninformed that gives it power. No physicist has ever heard the case for the moon hoax and agreed. It's always people with no training, no special knowledge, nothing more than a general distrust for the status quo(and who can blame them) and a desire to be some special kind of savior, the deliverer of the truth to the blind and asleep.

 

I say all of this because I know Bart Sibrel, one of the premier carriers of the moon hoax torch, and producer of a few incredibly specious videos about the appollo program. Those who follow the news might recall he was punched by Buzz Aldrin. I think I understand where conspiracy theories come from, because i feel their appeal, inwardly. But I feel the appeal of truth more, and so I take everything with a grain of salt. In the case of 911 I donbt believe it was all a govt conspiracy. I might be persuaded that the gov was aware of the attacks in advance in some way. The evidence I've seen suggests this possibility, but the outright demolition of the towers or building 7 just seems daffy to me, especially when you include the fir depts involvement. Seriously, were they all given yachts for their silence or killed off in fires?

 

Blah, blah, blah. I suggest researching both sides of the claim on your own before you go prancing about declareing your dissenters to be head buried ostriches with fundy hangovers. You've backed up so many times in this thread that I have no idea where you really stand, except that I'm sure you'll ignore whatever truth comes your way and move on to the next tidbit of bullshit still yet unrefuted enough to you to give you a chubby.

I understand that you think my positions are outlandish, but consider this. He who controls the information of the public controls the public. Unfortunately, Americans are conditioned to believe everything that comes across their TVs and newspapers. These sources (the newspapers especially) are considered scholarly and fit for use for recording history and debating. Thanks to the consolidation of media companies, the reliability of these sources to provide unbiased news is failing. I forget the exact event, but it was years ago. Basically, Bush did something extremely stupid (surprise) and the news agency that reported it was punished (I forget exactly how, but I think it was that they could no longer cover certain Whitehouse events for a period of time). So now that large news companies care about profits, they are more picky with what they report.

 

We had those rules because we had problems with big media due to issues of honesty and now that we have severely relaxed those rules, we have the same issue again. Surprise! History repeats itself. Who would have thunk? You know, a few hundred years ago, the church was considered the "scholarly" source for information. You think we have come along way from that? Well, yes, we did; until we replaced the church with big media plus a corrupt Whitehouse.

 

So now here we are. You trusting the "big news" and me not trusting it so easily. I have conceded with you on what the "big news" reports for the sake of a "fair" argument for arguments sake. It was not so much as not having researched both sides before posting, but rather not taking what is spoon feed to me so easily. I have not personally conceded with everything you have said because I am doing so simply because I have no other choice but base things off of "scholarly" sources. I have conceded on some things, such as the "pull it" quote.

 

You cannot compare every conspiracy theory to the moon landing. Sure the moon landing was legit, does that make all conspiracies false? It would be a logical fallacy to say yes.

 

So my positions may not be so outlandish after all. History has proven what corrupt governments do to big media. Why not give a little room for that possibility in your arguments? As someone who is familiar with the tactics of fear to give up reason (as you may have observed, religion does this well), and the use of this fear in the US, I have much suspicion about what is truly going on. National ID, illegal phone tapping, reduced free speech, Free Speech Zones, presidential election issues, unsubstantiated wars, and the list just keeps going. All this because of 9/11, and the sheep of America are letting the US turn itself into a police state. Our founding fathers would not be pleased. So please keep 9/11 an open case for suspicion.

 

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

This sounds like something that can only survive on the particular atmosphere within a paper bag. Here's a fun time for you. Try to punch your way out of it.

[Asimov]

Not only that but he jumps around in his arguments like a kangaroo on acid.

[LadyFeline]

Sure the moon landing was legit

Just out of curiosity (and to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here) how do you know? Were you there when they launched? Did you see it happen?

 

Even better, did you go to the moon with them?

 

If you say "no" to any of those, then you can't prove that the moon landing wasn't faked.

 

My entire class watched those towers fall. Many of my friends watched those towers fall. Several of my friends were practically at Ground Zero. For fuck's sake, my art teacher's HUSBAND is a pilot for United, and called her, AT SCHOOL, AS THE ATTACK WAS TAKING PLACE to tell her that his plane had been grounded because two airliners had just hit the WTC. ALL of these people are more trustworthy than the news - yet the stories line up, independantly, WITH the "OMG EVUL GUBBERMINT-CUNTROLED MEEDIUH". Which is more than I can say for the crackpot conspiracy theories whining and shrieking about how "OMG TEH GUBBERMINT DID IT TEH GUBBERMINT BLU UP TEH WERLD TRAYD CENTUR!!!"

 

Of course, your'e just going to come back with more of your crackpot conspiracist crap, so I think it's safe to say that I, at least, am done listening to your nonsense.

[Asimov]

Sure the moon landing was legit

Just out of curiosity (and to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here) how do you know? Were you there when they launched? Did you see it happen?

 

Even better, did you go to the moon with them?

 

If you say "no" to any of those, then you can't prove that the moon landing wasn't faked.

 

My entire class watched those towers fall. Many of my friends watched those towers fall. Several of my friends were practically at Ground Zero. For fuck's sake, my art teacher's HUSBAND is a pilot for United, and called her, AT SCHOOL, AS THE ATTACK WAS TAKING PLACE to tell her that his plane had been grounded because two airliners had just hit the WTC. ALL of these people are more trustworthy than the news - yet the stories line up, WITH the "OMG EVUL GUBBERMINT-CUNTROLED MEEDIUH" independantly. Which is more than I can say for the crackpot conspiracy theories whining and shrieking about how "OMG TEH GUBBERMINT DID IT TEH GUBBERMINT BLU UP TEH WERLD TRAYD CENTUR!!!"

 

Of course, your'e just going to come back with more of your crackpot conspiracist crap, so I think it's safe to say that I, at least, am done listening to your nonsense.

 

Argumentum ad Numerum!!! THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE saw Jesus rise from the dead! How come YOU'RE not a Christian?

 

Haha...you're so stupid....

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Sure the moon landing was legit

Just out of curiosity (and to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here) how do you know? Were you there when they launched? Did you see it happen?

 

Even better, did you go to the moon with them?

 

If you say "no" to any of those, then you can't prove that the moon landing wasn't faked.

 

My entire class watched those towers fall. Many of my friends watched those towers fall. Several of my friends were practically at Ground Zero. For fuck's sake, my art teacher's HUSBAND is a pilot for United, and called her, AT SCHOOL, AS THE ATTACK WAS TAKING PLACE to tell her that his plane had been grounded because two airliners had just hit the WTC. ALL of these people are more trustworthy than the news - yet the stories line up, WITH the "OMG EVUL GUBBERMINT-CUNTROLED MEEDIUH" independantly. Which is more than I can say for the crackpot conspiracy theories whining and shrieking about how "OMG TEH GUBBERMINT DID IT TEH GUBBERMINT BLU UP TEH WERLD TRAYD CENTUR!!!"

 

Of course, your'e just going to come back with more of your crackpot conspiracist crap, so I think it's safe to say that I, at least, am done listening to your nonsense.

 

Argumentum ad Numerum!!! THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE saw Jesus rise from the dead! How come YOU'RE not a Christian?

 

Haha...you're so stupid....

 

Argumentum ad Cocksuckorum. You friggin fag!

[Asimov]

Argumentum ad Cocksuckorum. You friggin fag!

 

Uh...I don't wanna sound like a queer or nothing, but you have a really nice ass.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I keep my ass in a garage in Sacramento. Did you feed it? It'll tell you anything you wanna hear if you give it a burrito.

[Guest Mr. XC]

I keep my ass in a garage in Sacramento. Did you feed it? It'll tell you anything you wanna hear if you give it a burrito.

Thanks for letting the viewers know who the children are on this thread.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

I keep my ass in a garage in Sacramento. Did you feed it? It'll tell you anything you wanna hear if you give it a burrito.

Thanks for letting the viewers know who the children are on this thread.

 

ZING! That makes up for several posts of misinformation.

[Guest Mr. XC]

Sure the moon landing was legit

Just out of curiosity (and to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here) how do you know? Were you there when they launched? Did you see it happen?

 

Even better, did you go to the moon with them?

 

If you say "no" to any of those, then you can't prove that the moon landing wasn't faked.

 

My entire class watched those towers fall. Many of my friends watched those towers fall. Several of my friends were practically at Ground Zero. For fuck's sake, my art teacher's HUSBAND is a pilot for United, and called her, AT SCHOOL, AS THE ATTACK WAS TAKING PLACE to tell her that his plane had been grounded because two airliners had just hit the WTC. ALL of these people are more trustworthy than the news - yet the stories line up, independantly, WITH the "OMG EVUL GUBBERMINT-CUNTROLED MEEDIUH". Which is more than I can say for the crackpot conspiracy theories whining and shrieking about how "OMG TEH GUBBERMINT DID IT TEH GUBBERMINT BLU UP TEH WERLD TRAYD CENTUR!!!"

 

Of course, your'e just going to come back with more of your crackpot conspiracist crap, so I think it's safe to say that I, at least, am done listening to your nonsense.

Sorry, I do not feel like making moon landing arguments for arguments sake.

 

Yes, and the company that I worked for had two consultants who could not fly home because of 9/11. But that, or these independent stories that you listed do not prove the motives behind 9/11 or why Dick Chaney left the sky's wide open over our most sensitive airspace. Which again, and again, I point back to and no good explication has been given for it besides Bush and Chaney are stupid.

 

Listen to who you wish. Selective hearing makes for ... oh fuck it ... I am tired of talking to the deaf.

 

...posts of misinformation...

I call it discussion. You know, a place were people bounce ideas off of each other and learn. Crazy concept. Or is this a playground to you where we all must agree and make fun of the "other people?"

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

Sure the moon landing was legit

Just out of curiosity (and to play a bit of Devil's Advocate here) how do you know? Were you there when they launched? Did you see it happen?

 

Even better, did you go to the moon with them?

 

If you say "no" to any of those, then you can't prove that the moon landing wasn't faked.

 

My entire class watched those towers fall. Many of my friends watched those towers fall. Several of my friends were practically at Ground Zero. For fuck's sake, my art teacher's HUSBAND is a pilot for United, and called her, AT SCHOOL, AS THE ATTACK WAS TAKING PLACE to tell her that his plane had been grounded because two airliners had just hit the WTC. ALL of these people are more trustworthy than the news - yet the stories line up, independantly, WITH the "OMG EVUL GUBBERMINT-CUNTROLED MEEDIUH". Which is more than I can say for the crackpot conspiracy theories whining and shrieking about how "OMG TEH GUBBERMINT DID IT TEH GUBBERMINT BLU UP TEH WERLD TRAYD CENTUR!!!"

 

Of course, your'e just going to come back with more of your crackpot conspiracist crap, so I think it's safe to say that I, at least, am done listening to your nonsense.

Sorry, I do not feel like making moon landing arguments for arguments sake.

 

Yes, and the company that I worked for had two consultants who could not fly home because of 9/11. But that, or these independent stories that you listed do not prove the motives behind 9/11 or why Dick Chaney left the sky's wide open over our most sensitive airspace. Which again, and again, I point back to and no good explication has been given for it besides Bush and Chaney are stupid.

 

Listen to who you wish. Selective hearing makes for ... oh fuck it ... I am tired of talking to the deaf.

 

Are you tired of being a dickweed? That would seem the more productive weariness to embrace.

 

Just a suggestion for the next time you try to smear your ignorance on a seemingly fresh slate - try not to assume that the people you're talking to are ignorant government shills and that you are their savior, especially on an xc board. Saviors are for pussies.

 

 

I call it discussion. You know, a place were people bounce ideas off of each other and learn. Crazy concept. Or is this a playground to you where we all must agree and make fun of the "other people?"

 

Must you continue to prove that you're full of shit? I encourage you to look at your own posts and decide if you were just up for "discussion".

[Guest Mr. XC]

I call it discussion. You know, a place were people bounce ideas off of each other and learn. Crazy concept. Or is this a playground to you where we all must agree and make fun of the "other people?"

 

Must you continue to prove that you're full of shit? I encourage you to look at your own posts and decide if you were just up for "discussion".

A discussion goes both ways. I conceded to a plane at the pentagon and the "put it" thing. You have preached the same thing without budging, so I would think again before saying that it was I who was not willing to discuss things. Besides, who is the one who repeatedly ignores the question of why was the airspace over the Whitehouse and pengagon left unguarded for so long?