Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
911 - Points to discuss
Options
Comments
-
"It really depends on your definition. Security around people like Kerry is a tad more severe than you or I. "
so who you are around will determine whether or not you get tazered and assaulted, regardless of the fact that its illegal, is that what you're saying?
i bet you love bill o reilly0 -
He was supposed to ask one question, he was asked to surrender the mike and refused.
It really depends on your definition. Security around people like Kerry is a tad more severe than you or I.
Lecturing a former presidental candidate about election results is a bit like a passerby telling Roger Federer about his backhand or Tiger Woods about his follow through.Veni Vedi Vici wrote: »Well, I guess he screwed himself there. Maybe he should have made the Skull & Bones question his first.Oh sweet ****ing hell. Should I ask the Mods to lock this thread? Start a new one if you want to go on about this.
And seriously a college society?!?! I was in a 'gang' when I was younger and we were always trying to take over the world. :rolleyes:Bubba HoTep wrote: »"It really depends on your definition. Security around people like Kerry is a tad more severe than you or I. "
so who you are around will determine whether or not you get tazered and assaulted, regardless of the fact that its illegal, is that what you're saying?
i bet you love bill o reillyBubba HoTep wrote: »true, its go off topic a fair bit...
Lads please stay on topic. If I have to lock the thread to clean it up then I might just have to start handing out infractions for breach of the charter.0 -
we have all gone off topic a bit here and there during the thread,
but its beginning to feel a bit like an intelligent design/creationist Vs evolution thread, the creationists being those that believe the official story
because even tho the net is spilling over with the amount of proof that the official story is wrong/misleading/lies, people seem to be afraid to admit to themselves that there are criminal elements in governments,and not just the US goverment,
and if they do admit this to themselves, their world view of government being the goodguy, looking out for the intrest of its people, and protecting them from harm by terrorists (or whatever the threat at the time is) comes falling down, and thats scary
and honestly i dont blame them, its easier, and you'll sleep better at night
but its a fairytale. everybody loves a fairytale, but it will get you nowhere, and if you rely on fairytales, in the end you will wish you hadn't0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »but its beginning to feel a bit like an intelligent design/creationist Vs evolution thread, the creationists being those that believe the official story
I don't personally care about who's version it is as long as we can show the proof backs up the hype. The CT sites are full of stuff that is blatantly untrue/misleading. The thing is it's very difficult to tell that, they all repeat it and not one of them seems interested in balance. The idea that those who believe the official story are like creationists is utterly ridiculous. The sceptics are the ones you are most happy to use logic and evidence to tell if something is 'truth'. I personally had no idea what or who caused 911 until after I spent time reading up on it. And then double checking what I read. But many CT'ers have admitted in here to believing it was an inside job before they even checked.Bubba HoTep wrote: »because even tho the net is spilling over with the amount of proof that the official story is wrong/misleading/lies, people seem to be afraid to admit to themselves that there are criminal elements in governments,and not just the US goverment,
The web is full of stuff that I'm happy to show isn't the 'truth' at all. Which is why I started this whole process so we could all check the fine details. So let's check these fine details because if what you believe is true I'll be quickly shown to be wrong. So far I haven't seen that happen.Bubba HoTep wrote: »and if they do admit this to themselves, their world view of government being the goodguy, looking out for the intrest of its people, and protecting them from harm by terrorists (or whatever the threat at the time is) comes falling down, and thats scary and honestly i dont blame them, its easier, and you'll sleep better at night
I never suggested that governments didn't lie, in fact I'm fairly confident they do. But I'm also sure that the so called 'truth' movement lies too and lies often. We are told government=bad but I know it isn't that sample. It seems perfectly okay to assume the government are lying but at the exact same time assume the 'truth' movement isn't. Seriously naive IMO. And to be honest it worries me even more that people will believe almost anything of their government just cause.Bubba HoTep wrote: »but its a fairytale. everybody loves a fairytale, but it will get you nowhere, and if you rely on fairytales, in the end you will wish you hadn't
But I want the truth even if it's bad. Do you really want the truth? If you do then let's get back to the fine details.0 -
@meglome
great post!
"The CT sites are full of stuff that is blatantly untrue/misleading."
i agree that some are, as far i can tell there seems to be 4 types of CT sites, there are the genuine sites where they believe the official story to be a lie and honestly want to get the truth.
there are the alex jones type sites ,where there is some truth here and there, but ultimately they fluff things up with outrageous claims, tabloid style, to shock, anger and scare, in order to sell dvds etc.
there are the fake CT sites, that are purposefully filled with bull**** and lies in order to hinder and make the genuine truth seekers look like the tin foil hat gang.
lastly there are the nut job sites that will apply conspiracy to anything and everything
"I personally had no idea what or who caused 911 until after I spent time reading up on it. And then double checking what I read."
i, and people that share my view that the official 911 is wrong, have done this also, and yet we are still on opposite sides of the fence
"The web is full of stuff that I'm happy to show isn't the 'truth' at all. Which is why I started this whole process so we could all check the fine details. So let's check these fine details because if what you believe is true I'll be quickly shown to be wrong. So far I haven't seen that happen."
i feel the same, and heres the thing, anything CTers have offered up, your side say bollocks, and anything you guys have offered up so far, ive said bollocks. for example, anything that comes from a government agency offered as a fact, im compelled not to accept, not only because its usually bull****, its these very agencies that are suspected in being involved in the whole thing to begin with...
"I never suggested that governments didn't lie, in fact I'm fairly confident they do."
i wasnt saying that *you* suggested they didnt lie, but official story believers generally think that they dont
"We are told government=bad but I know it isn't that sample. It seems perfectly okay to assume the government are lying but at the exact same time assume the 'truth' movement isn't. Seriously naive IMO. And to be honest it worries me even more that people will believe almost anything of their government just cause."
i agree 100%0 -
Advertisement
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ
ANYONE WANT TO CHECK THIS OUT AND GIVE OPINIONS ?
I was going to post it on the Physics/Chemistry page but I thought I might get brow beaten off by those lads... although their insight would be useful because they would more likely have a more scientific perspective on it - especially if they're new to the subject - what do yee reckon?0 -
It looks and acts like a controlled collapse IMO. It goes down evenly in freefall and the corners stay right in line. If it was an accident then the odds on it being so must be phenomenal I think.0
-
@ Bonkey
"So basically...if we assume there is something being covered up, we can conclude there is something being covered up. We have no evidence of this coverup."
there is *huge* amounts of evidence for a coverup (and no im not going to link to *every* piece, as we all know the net is bursting with it)
You seem to have mistaken me.
You picked the question of the video tapes to concentrate on. My statement was made with this focus in mind. We've discussed the question of CCTV, and the furthest we've gotten is along the lines that "of course its there". No-one here has offered no evidence of the existence of these cameras.
So regarding the question of videos of the Pentagon impact, my statement currently reflects the level of detail we've manged to get to in this thread. People have insisted the cameras exist, but have supplied no evidence. We must assume that they exist, and assume that there is taped records of their coverage, assume that this record shows something, and assume that it has been suppressed. Having made all of these assumptions, we can conclude that there is something going on. If any of those assumptions are false, then the conclusion of a cover-up of video evidence doesn't hold. In short, we assume there is something suspicious here to conclude that there is somethign suspicious here.
Going back to the idea of "drilling in" to small points, this is exactly the idea. We start with something that someone insists is suspicious, and we see how far we get. On this topic - which I remind you was your choice - we get to the point where everything hands on proving the existence of cameras to take the footage that is allegedly being suppressed....and we have no evidence.
Now...I'm more than happy to continue discussing the topic, if you feel that I'm trying to draw it to a premature conclusion. By all means...show me the evidence we all need to establish that its not just a chain of "if we assume cameras exist, then videos exist, then videos are being suppressed, so something is fishy". Alternately, we should at least agree that we've drilled into this topic to the point where it hinges on the existence of the cameras, which hasn't been proven, but which you believe to be true.
Hold on a sec...
the people that believe in the official story are the minority, not the other way 'round, because the amount of evidence that is there for a cover up *is* convincing, and appeals to most peoples common sence
You picked the topic to discuss. Given a choice of all the possible issues, you picked one which has so far only boiled down to a case of "we don't have the evidence we need in order to establish that there is something suspicious...but I believe there is anyway".
Now, having reached that point, you're trying to make the point that there are other aspects where there is evidence for a cover up.
I have only one question in response: Why didn't you pick one of these aspects to begin with?
Why did you pick something which boils down to a lack of evidence, when you're clearly of the opinion that there is no shortage of evidence elsewhere?
If you were trying to take it easy on me, I appreciate the gesture...but seriously...take your best shot. Pick the slam-dunk case....or whatever you believe you have that is closest to one.
Incidentally, the number of people who believe in a conspiracy are also in the minority. Personally, though, I don't like to argue on weight-of-numbers, so I won't ask you to accept that being in the minority makes you wrong."Almost all of the people who saw something flying towards the Pentagon agree that it was a plane."
yes they most likely did, however it didnt hit the pentagon, it launched the rocket
Is this what you want to discuss as yoru next topic? You want to move from the video accounts to the eye-witness accounts, to argue that there was a rocket? Is this where some of that "evidence of a cover-up" is?
I'll await your answer, before responding to your claim.0 -
So I'll answers my own questions.
<snip>- ...
- No one in 'truth' movement has ever shown that 'Pull it' is a term used in controlled demolition. Yes they say it is but never seem to be able to prove it. You'd think after more then seven years it would be easy to prove, right?
You're technically wrong on that one meglome.
The term "pull" is most definitely used in controlled demolition. It is used when cables are tied to the top of a structure, and it is physically pulled off center-of-balance, causing it to collapse.
In many of the "Silverstein did it" youtubery, there are a number of shots included about the demolition of WTC 6, where it is clear that the term "pull" is being used to describe the demolition.
Of course, the wreckage 6 was pulled. As described above, they tied cables to the top of the remaining structure, and physically pulled it off balance until it collapsed.
So yes...pull is used in controlled demolition. It is not used with regard to controlled explosive demolition.0 -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ
ANYONE WANT TO CHECK THIS OUT AND GIVE OPINIONS ?
I was going to post it on the Physics/Chemistry page but I thought I might get brow beaten off by those lads... although their insight would be useful because they would more likely have a more scientific perspective on it - especially if they're new to the subject - what do yee reckon?
great video, very well explained, more should have a look at it. you don't need a more scientific perspective, most intelligent people should understand this...
come on guys, what do you think??0 -
Advertisement
-
WT7 was without question a a controlled explosion dont think there is any questiona bout that for one second..
that then begs the question how did they do this..well it was organised well in advance
And who heard of Osama Bin Laden before 9/11?0 -
O'Coonassa wrote: »It looks and acts like a controlled collapse IMO. It goes down evenly in freefall and the corners stay right in line. If it was an accident then the odds on it being so must be phenomenal I think.
agree with that statement.0 -
@bonkey
"We've discussed the question of CCTV, and the furthest we've gotten is along the lines that "of course its there". No-one here has offered no evidence of the existence of these cameras."
"People have insisted the cameras exist, but have supplied no evidence. We must assume that they exist, and assume that there is taped records of their coverage, assume that this record shows something, and assume that it has been suppressed."
there are wild assumptions and logical assumptions. to say that the pentagon has cctv is a logical one, *every* building of any value or of any importance has cctv, this is a logical assumption, so why would the pentagon, *especially* the pentagon, not have any?
its been said "but it has armed guards, no need for cctv", once again *this is the pentagon* it should have both guards *and* cctv
the only "proof" that it doesnt have cctv is mr.this or mrs.that from *some government agency* saying it doesnt. but these agencies are involved to begin with as far as the CT is concerned, so they wont do
so i dont see how we can move on from this unless there is other proof you can point to?
on to WTC7, have you watched this video posted by soretoe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ
opinions?0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »@bonkey
"We've discussed the question of CCTV, and the furthest we've gotten is along the lines that "of course its there". No-one here has offered no evidence of the existence of these cameras."
"People have insisted the cameras exist, but have supplied no evidence. We must assume that they exist, and assume that there is taped records of their coverage, assume that this record shows something, and assume that it has been suppressed."
there are wild assumptions and logical assumptions. to say that the pentagon has cctv is a logical one, *every* building of any value or of any importance has cctv, this is a logical assumption, so why would the pentagon, *especially* the pentagon, not have any?
its been said "but it has armed guards, no need for cctv", once again *this is the pentagon* it should have both guards *and* cctv
the only "proof" that it doesnt have cctv is mr.this or mrs.that from *some government agency* saying it doesnt. but these agencies are involved to begin with as far as the CT is concerned, so they wont do
so i dont see how we can move on from this unless there is other proof you can point to?
on to WTC7, have you watched this video posted by soretoe? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rP9Qp5QWRMQ
opinions?
very good thread and have to agree.
Like this is discussion forum after all I wont agree with everyone and that makes these things interesting and all but I have read one or two comments in here and there telling me where is my proof but there giving me no proof of there own there telling me they saw vidoes well what videos?...
As I have stated before once I see a "Plane" hit the Pentagon cctv or whatever then I will happy to accept that I was wrong and stupid but till then its game time.
its amazing that nobody took a vidoe or photo of plane as it hit or heading towards the building after all there was supposed to be loads of eyewitness0 -
I don't think we're quite done with the Pentagon.
So the argument is: I've not seen any footage of the plane hitting the building therefore it couldn't have been a plane? Even though it's been claimed that such footage exists and is being held by the FBI?
Not very convincing.
But how do you know it was a missile when there is even less of for that than a plane?0 -
I don't think we're quite done with the Pentagon.
So the argument is: I've not seen any footage of the plane hitting the building therefore it couldn't have been a plane? Even though it's been claimed that such footage exists and is being held by the FBI?
Not very convincing.
But how do you know it was a missile when there is even less of for that than a plane?
well have you seen a plane hit the Pentagon? What makes you think it was a plane?
there is no evidence of plane hitting the building from what pictures I have seen..
seen the photos and even though they are parts of planes these were taken well after 9/11 (seem remember they were taken on 23rd september) plenty of time for them to revise there plans for photo action..0 -
Bubba HoTep wrote: »great video, very well explained, more should have a look at it. you don't need a more scientific perspective, most intelligent people should understand this...
come on guys, what do you think??
We'll overall I have no issue with the video, and certainly I'm not an engineer so I'm only taking an informed layman's view. If the building is in catastrophic collapse then given the massive weight of the building I don't see why it couldn't fall at near free-fall speeds and NIST does say the collapse is caused by failure lower down the building. The video notes that the building has started collapsing before the catastrophic collapse, you can see that movement at the penthouse. You see this is why I don't believe it was controlled demolition, there's a obvious shift in the building without any sounds of explosives going off, a building that has been making some very unhealthy noises for a while before, and then a catastrophic collapse. Given the unique design of this building I don't see how this is unlikely at all.
If the guys who made this video were really interested in the truth they would model the building based on this unique design instead of saying that it fell at feel-fall speeds just like controlled demolition. When pretty much everyone is already aware that the building fell like controlled demolition.
And I don't even want to get started on how you can, in practice, plant explosives in full building and not one person would see it. There would be cables running all over the place. I've yet to hear anyone give a plausible explanation as to how that's gonna work.0 -
Mainly because I don't see a conspiracy everywhere.adrian280582 wrote: »well have you seen a plane hit the Pentagon? What makes you think it was a plane?
there is no evidence of plane hitting the building from what pictures I have seen..
seen the photos and even though they are parts of planes these were taken well after 9/11 (seem remember they were taken on 23rd september) plenty of time for them to revise there plans for photo action..
Also the sheer amount of corroborating evidence.
Lamppost damage, eyewitnesses, debris, the missing plane and so on.
And what evidence do you have that it was a missile?0 -
Mainly because I don't see a conspiracy everywhere.
Also the sheer amount of corroborating evidence.
Lamppost damage, eyewitnesses, debris, the missing plane and so on.
And what evidence do you have that it was a missile?
there was also Eyewitnesses that said it was missile...
I knew somebody would think I love conspiracy theories just because I'm not with what the book says, Trust me im against most but in this case I think it is more ouside the box then simple black and white so no point going down that road again0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »well have you seen a plane hit the Pentagon? What makes you think it was a plane?
- We'll almost two hundred people say they saw some sort of plane, and most thought is was a big jet. Look earlier in the thread.
- The lamp posts are knocked down exactly where people saw this plane. They are knocked down to the exact width of a 757. They have dints at the tops of them where something hit them very hard. Look at the pictures and video earlier in the thread.
- This damage to the building is exactly where the plane damage should be.
- Nearly all the people who responded to the scene report seeing bits of plane and bodies. See info earlier in the thread.
- There are pictures of bits of plane.
All this can be shown, so seriously wtf do you need?adrian280582 wrote: »seen the photos and even though they are parts of planes these were taken well after 9/11 (seem remember they were taken on 23rd september) plenty of time for them to revise there plans for photo action..
Give me a break, what about all the eye witness reports, many hundreds of people?
And the CT sites are full of pictures making points about 911 but taken well after the day itself.
Can anyone explain it to me when there is almost overwhelming evidence that a plane hit the pentagon that people don't believe it was a plane?0 -
Advertisement
-
Link? All the eye witness testimony seems to be either "I didn't see what hit the pentagon" or "I saw a plane."adrian280582 wrote: »there was also Eyewitnesses that said it was missile...
Do you have anything to back up a missile?
But any evidence supplied against the conspiracy you see as evidence for a cover-up.adrian280582 wrote: »I knew somebody would think I love conspiracy theories just because I'm not with what the book says, Trust me im against most but in this case I think it is more ouside the box then simple black and white so no point going down that road again0 -
adrian280582 wrote: »there was also Eyewitnesses that said it was missile...
So don't how many people said it was a missile? And I don't mean the people who said it was like a missile. I have no problem imagining that a big silver plane travelling at a few hundred miles an hour would be like a missile.0 -
- We'll almost two hundred people say they saw some sort of plane, and most thought is was a big jet. Look earlier in the thread.
- The lamp posts are knocked down exactly where people saw this plane. They are knocked down to the exact width of a 757. They have dints at the tops of them where something hit them very hard. Look at the pictures and video earlier in the thread.
- This damage to the building is exactly where the plane damage should be.
- Nearly all the people who responded to the scene report seeing bits of plane and bodies. See info earlier in the thread.
- There are pictures of bits of plane.
Give me a break, what about all the eye witness reports, many hundreds of people?
And the CT sites are full of pictures making points about 911 but taken well after the day itself.
Can anyone explain it to me when there is almost overwhelming evidence that a plane hit the pentagon that people don't believe it was a plane?
take deep breath get real
who took the report that said 200 people saw the plane hit?
Ya I have seen the reports and the pictures and likewise explained why i think its not correct0 -
Not really all you've shown so far is there isn't any good footage of the plane hitting the building, that some people didn't see what hit the pentagon, and the idea that the airplane wreckage was placed there afterwards but haven't backed that up. Not very convincing and certainly not proof of a missile.adrian280582 wrote: »
Ya I have seen the reports and the pictures and likewise explained why i think its not correct0 -
But any evidence supplied against the conspiracy you see as evidence for a cover-up.
This is the problem I have.
I keep getting told that 911 was an inside job.
So the conversation goes something like this.
Me... hang on, how likely is it to be an inside job given the large number of people what would need to be involved. Surely someone would spill the beans especially after this amount of time.
CT'er... Ah you see there wouldn't need to be many people involved at all so it's very possible.
Next conversation.
Me... So how do you explain x?
CT'ers... Well obviously they were in on it.
Next conversation.
Me... So how do you explain y?
CT'ers... Well obviously they were in on it.
Next conversation.
Me... So how do you explain z?
CT'ers... Well obviously they were in on it.
And in no time flat the CT'ers are telling you there were loads of people involved and at the same time telling you there wasn't. So which is it?0 -
Link? All the eye witness testimony seems to be either "I didn't see what hit the pentagon" or "I saw a plane."
Do you have anything to back up a missile?
But any evidence supplied against the conspiracy you see as evidence for a cover-up.
give me indepdent source to say it was 200 eyewitnesses saw plane hit the building?
anything to back up a missle well take a look at the photos of the building of the day of 9/11 it was not plane thats0 -
I never claimed that. You claimed there was eyewitnesses saying that it was a missile can you provide a link to this?adrian280582 wrote: »give me indepdent source to say it was 200 eyewitnesses saw plane hit the building?
And yes the damage is consistent with a plane (or a plane sized missile with no explosives.) How exact does the damage indicate a missile?adrian280582 wrote: »anything to back up a missle well take a look at the photos of the building of the day of 9/11 it was not plane thats0 -
Not really all you've shown so far is there isn't any good footage of the plane hitting the building, that some people didn't see what hit the pentagon, and the idea that the airplane wreckage was placed there afterwards but haven't backed that up. Not very convincing and certainly not proof of a missile.
I could say the exact same back to you on your points...where is the proff of a plane. we saw engine that photo could have been anywhere. debris notice how they had to show it with letters on side of plane ..niceeeeee work....you have given me no proof what so ever either.0 -
I never claimed that. You claimed there was eyewitnesses saying that it was a missile can you provide a link to this?
And yes the damage is consistent with a plane (or a plane sized missile with no explosives.) How exact does the damage indicate a missile?
aaa funny that because you have a post saying it..
plane size funny that you mention that but its well highlighted that the size of the explosion shouls have been much gretaer then what the dameage was done if it was plane..its on youtube ill check it up..0 -
Advertisement
-
adrian280582 wrote: »I could say the exact same back to you on your points...where is the proff of a plane. we saw engine that photo could have been anywhere. debris notice how they had to show it with letters on side of plane ..niceeeeee work....you have given me no proof what so ever either.
Ah the classic "you too" defense.
Yes we have supplied evidence: eyewitness testimony photos of the wreckage, the flight path of the plane and so on.
Your defense has been solely: the wreckage is there as a cover up. Can you back this up in anyway?0
Advertisement