250+ 9/11 Smoking Guns

Kernel

Killtown has put out 250+ smoking guns pointing to something rotten with regard to the official story of 9/11. Interesting reading. All referenced.

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

No doubt the pseudo-skeptics and debunkers will hone in on one or two points and bombard truthers into exasperation with lengthy essays and sniping (so I've had a pre-emptive snipe myself).

toiletduck

Just looking at the "PLANNED BEFORE / FUTURE IDEAS" and "PRIOR KNOWLEDGE / PREPARATION" could you point out one smoking gun?

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Killtown has put out 250+ smoking guns pointing to something rotten with regard to the official story of 9/11. Interesting reading. All referenced.

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

No doubt the pseudo-skeptics and debunkers will hone in on one or two points and bombard truthers into exasperation with lengthy essays and sniping (so I've had a pre-emptive snipe myself).

So the creators of the X-Files were in on the plot?

Filming begins for The Lone Gunmen's 'Pilot' episode that depicts a US plot to crash an electronically hijacked Boeing 727 into WTC and blame foreign terrorists to provoke war and increase military's budget

How big is this conspiracy kernel?

Incidentally, Killtown for those not in the know is an anonymous internet coward who has repeatedly harassed Shanksville resident Val Mc Clatchy, claiming that she faked her photograph of the smoke plume taken seconds after the crash of United 93.

But hey, way to go in not ruining your near perfect record of posting a link, or a reference, adding an ad homien and then running away.

Kernel

toiletduck wrote: »

Just looking at the "PLANNED BEFORE / FUTURE IDEAS" and "PRIOR KNOWLEDGE / PREPARATION" could you point out one smoking gun?

If you cannot see the mountain before you, I can hardly show you. Circumstantial evidence - good enough for court, but not good enough for toiletduck?

diogenes wrote:

So the creators of the X-Files were in on the plot?

ah, as I predicted, pick a point and hone in on it. Believe it or not, I even expected that point to be the lone gunmen one. So, what about the other 250+?

diogenes wrote:

How big is this conspiracy kernel?

Who knows? Could be perpetrated by a few, but the net results are widely felt throughout the world.

diogenes wrote:

Incidentally, Killtown for those not in the know is an anonymous internet coward who has repeatedly harassed Shanksville resident Val Mc Clatchy, claiming that she faked her photograph of the smoke plume taken seconds after the crash of United 93.

Classic disinfo/pseudo-skeptic reply. Attack the character of the person, and then attempt to make an illogical assumption that the information is worthless as a result. Do you realise that you are doing it? I was aware that killtown has enemies, but I don't automatically assume his work is bunk as a result.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Circumstantial evidence - good enough for court

Circumstantial evidence is not good enough for a conviction, however. It is admissable in court, only to add weight to an argument which relies on more concrete evidence as its core.

So, what about the other 250+?

How about this...pick the one point amongst those 250 which you feel is the most iron--clad, irrefutable proof that there's something kooky there. One smoking gun is all you really need, if it really is a smoking gun.

If you can pick one, which shows that it can only have been an inside job, then the rest of the 250+ are unnecessary.

If you can't pick one, but are instead relying on the "throw enough mud so some sticks" approach, where it can easily be shown that some are complete fiction then that in itself is an admission that the list is made artificially large with non-arguments just to make complete refutation too much effort.

We saw the same thing in the mega-911 thread from last year (or 2006, or whenever it was). Believers came out with the "but you can't explain....(drumroll)....THIS!!!". Then the "THIS" in question was explained....and a new "THIS" was produced with some notion that it was even better than the last thing that had been explained.

I was aware that killtown has enemies, but I don't automatically assume his work is bunk as a result.

Killtown was the source of one of the so-called "frozen videos" which was presented here previously (by CB_Brooklyn, if memory serves), which - when analyzsed by a poster here (OscarBravo, I think) - was shown in short order to be nothing of the sort.

There is simply no way that Killtown managed to slow-down real-time video to give his "frozen effect" without being aware that the real-time copy of the same footage showed his claims to be false.

This leaves two possibilities - Killtown took someone else's work, passed it off as his own, and never researched the claims that he then presented as his own.....or Killtown knowingly faked evidence and made a claim he knew to be false.

Either of those possibilities is sufficient reason to consider anything he says as being automatically suspect.

Diogenes

Kernel;

I picked the lonegunmen episode as it's at the top of list, if you can explain it's significance please do so, because I'm at a loss to see what the point is.

I can go further down the list if you'd care to rise to Bonkey's challenge.

oscarBravo

Heh. Looking at the list, it's quite funny to see points 101-103 described as smoking guns. For those not familiar with DC geography:



Yeah, the Pentagon being prepared for a plane crash is really strange...

oscarBravo

Actually, scanning the list, the one thing that really stands out is how strongly it emphasises the point I've repeatedly made about there being nothing remotely resembling a coherent hypothesis surrounding the events of that day. One entry claims that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland, whereas another claims Rumsfeld says it was shot down.

"Smoking guns" be damned - those of you who don't accept the only coherent explanation that's been put forward to date, why can't you come up with one of your own?

bonkey

oscarBravo wrote: »

Actually, scanning the list, the one thing that really stands out is how strongly it emphasises the point I've repeatedly made about there being nothing remotely resembling a coherent hypothesis surrounding the events of that day.

I assume you mean a coherent alternate hypothesis?

Incidentally, if one looks at that diagram you posted, one will see a runway running roughly top-left to bottom right (with the top-left point meeting the highway where the 'o' in 'George' is written). Follow this runway up and left, and look what it leads almost directly over.

oscarBravo

bonkey wrote: »

I assume you mean a coherent alternate hypothesis?

Correct.

bonkey wrote: »

Incidentally, if one looks at that diagram you posted, one will see a runway running roughly top-left to bottom right (with the top-left point meeting the highway where the 'o' in 'George' is written). Follow this runway up and left, and look what it leads almost directly over.

Precisely: runway 15/33. In the interests of accuracy, it should be pointed out that it's not the primary runway for the airport (01/19 is), but it is available for use, and as such its flightpath is a potential cause of concern for the Pentagon.

Of course, if a plane is going to crash it's not necessarily on-course at the time, so even traffic for the primary runway is a potential concern.

Edit: it has also been noted that some pilots have mistaken runway 15 for runway 19. Make of that what you will.

toiletduck

Kernel wrote: »

If you cannot see the mountain before you, I can hardly show you. Circumstantial evidence - good enough for court, but not good enough for toiletduck?

So no you won't point out one, will I therefore assume that you stand by all the "smoking guns"?

The rejected plan from 40 years ago, an unsuccessful tv show pilot, Larry Silverstein having a doctors appointment, a few accusations thrown at Israelis, etc etc. Wow, great smoking guns...

CCCP^

I'm sure you have all noticed this by now, but alot of the points conflict or contradict each other. For example, but this is a minor thing -

USA TODAY reporter Richard Benedetto says aircraft he saw hit the Pentagon 'sounded like an artillery shell.'

Pentagon Renovation project coordinator Michael DiPaula says aircraft that hit the Pentagon 'sounded like a missile.' (Baltimore Sun)

Space News editor Lon Rains was 'convinced a missile' hit the Pentagon by the way it sounded and how fast it flew in. (Space News)

Pentagon network engineer Tom Seibert said he heard what 'sounded like a missile' crash into the building. (Guardian)

Steve Patterson says aircraft he saw crash into pentagon appeared to hold about '8 to 12 people' and sounded like a 'fighter jet.' (Washington Post)

USA Today Editor Joel Sucherman says he saw the body and tail of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon, but 'did not see the engines.' (CNN video)

These people I assume were at the Pentagon when the aircraft crashed into it? I mean come on, if this is a conspiracy, and George Bush and Co. have already smashed two planes into the WTCs, then why skimp on a third into the Pentagon?

I think 9/11 was a conspiracy of gross negliance.

Diogenes

CCCP^ wrote: »

These people I assume were at the Pentagon when the aircraft crashed into it? I mean come on, if this is a conspiracy, and George Bush and Co. have already smashed two planes into the WTCs, then why skimp on a third into the Pentagon?

Not to mention the conspiracy theorist mindset that doesn't seem to understand what a simile is.

meglome

March '00 - Filming begins for The Lone Gunmen's 'Pilot' episode that depicts a US plot to crash an electronically hijacked Boeing 727 into WTC and blame foreign terrorists to provoke war and increase military's budget (KC Star), March '01 - 'Pilot' episode airs on FOX TV, 6 months before attacks (TV Guide), Lone Gunmen co-producer hopes WTC attack wasn't 'somehow inspired' by anything they did. (KC Star)

Funnily I saw Frank Spotnitz, one of the writers of this Lone Gunman episode interviewed a while back. He totally rubbished any idea that this was anything other than fiction. Seriously I've read hundreds of books, law of averages says that something will happen in real life that was first written about in one of these books. I'm not seeing the conspiracy. Some epic muck throwing yes.

meglome

CCCP^ wrote: »

I'm sure you have all noticed this by now, but alot of the points conflict or contradict each other.

These people I assume were at the Pentagon when the aircraft crashed into it? I mean come on, if this is a conspiracy, and George Bush and Co. have already smashed two planes into the WTCs, then why skimp on a third into the Pentagon?
.

Exactly.

CCCP^ wrote: »

I think 9/11 was a conspiracy of gross negligence.

This would cover what I believe to be true as well.

Offalycool

I would guess it is much harder to hit a building like the pentagon with an airliner. Its not very tall. I would imagine there would be a large chance of the target being missed.

Diogenes

Offalycool wrote: »

I would guess it is much harder to hit a building like the pentagon with an airliner. Its not very tall. I would imagine there would be a large chance of the target being missed.

The pentagon is one of the largest office buildings in the world. It houses 23,000 people. It covers 29 acres of ground. Each side is 281m long and 24m tall.

It's hardly targeting womp rats in a T-16, now is it Offalycool?

If AA 757 didn't hit the pentagon Offalycool, what did? And what did the hundreds of witnesses see instead?

Offalycool

24m tall is not exactly a skyscraper. the plane could easily have crashed into the ground upon its approach, or not fully collided with the pentagon. It might have been a chance terrorists would have taken (and been extremely lucky) but I doubt the military would take the chance. The probability of success goes up if there is a missile strike. Plains in the area help to muddy the water.

oscarBravo

Offalycool wrote: »

24m tall is not exactly a skyscraper. the plane could easily have crashed into the ground upon its approach, or not fully collided with the pentagon. It might have been a chance terrorists would have taken (and been extremely lucky) but I doubt the military would take the chance. The probability of success goes up if there is a missile strike. Plains in the area help to muddy the water.

Taking this post in its entirety, which hypothesis do you think it better supports: (lucky) terrorists crashed an airliner into the Pentagon; or the military fired a missile, hundreds of people who thought they saw an AA airliner were mistaken or misled by holographic projection, and the airliner wreckage, FDRs and bodies recovered at the scene were planted?

Offalycool

I don't know which happened. I guess it is more likely that a plain was used as a missile (or carrying a missile) Plains could be remotely controlled, which might make for a higher chance of success also. I find it hard to believe a hijacked plain was involved because these guys would not have the experience, and the such a big airliner would have to come in quite low for some distance in order to hit its target. Something professional pilots doubt they could do it. (I believe)

The whole 9/11 thing comes across to me like some kind of opera. It's got staged written all over it, from the media quick reactions, to NORAD's complete failure. I think its tragic people died in this but the towers represented business, pentagon represents government, and the average Joe can make a difference through the ultimate sacrifice. It smacks of motivation for war, not terrorists who want America to bomb the crap out of the middle east. America has always behaved this way. War is Business, and if you need some doe, mobilise the war machine.

bonkey

Offalycool wrote: »

24m tall is not exactly a skyscraper.

If one assumes that only a hit on the front wall was considered a hit, then yes, 24m isn't all that big.

On the other hand, if you consider that had the pilot come in at an angle which would have caused him to pass over the top of the face of the building, whilst still losing altitude, then he'd have hit the roof....and the Pentagon covers a huge area, so there's a lot of roof there.

the plane could easily have crashed into the ground upon its approach,

If you leave out the word "easily" (because I don't believe you or I have the qualification to meaningfully say what is and isn't easy in this respect), I agree totally. It could have crashed into the ground on its approach. As it was, it hit several lamp-posts, and a large container.

It might have been a chance terrorists would have taken (and been extremely lucky)

Yes, I believe it was a chance they took, but I again do not believe that you nor I have the qualifications to say that the amount of luck involved would be extreme.

The probability of success goes up if there is a missile strike.

Does it? Can you identify a missile with the necessary explosive power and target-acquisition capabilities? I ask, because unless you can, then your argument becomes that the probability of success goes up if we assume a missile exists which could lock on to the Pentagon and inflict the type of damage done, and this was used.

Plains could be remotely controlled, which might make for a higher chance of success also.

It might...if someone could show that planes can be more accurately controlled remotely than by someone sitting in the pilot's seat.

I find it hard to believe a hijacked plain was involved because these guys would not have the experience,

Although I'm certain that the following (if nothing else in this post) will bring cries of outrage and no end of refutation from those who disagree with the point, the most qualified and experienced pilot amongst those identified as the hijackers was flying that plane.

and the such a big airliner would have to come in quite low for some distance in order to hit its target.

It would, and it did. Is this a problem? If so, can you explain why?

You should consider the speed it was travelling, and how much time it would take to cover the "some distance" you think it would have needed to cover. You might be surprised at how short a period of time that is.

You should also consider that its quite common at airshows for commercial airplanes of comparable size to do low-level flybys

Something professional pilots doubt they could do it. (I believe)

Some professional pilots have said they doubt it could be done. This is true.
Some more professional pilots have been misquoted and selectively quoted to make it look like they said it couldn't be done, whereas they said nothing of the sort.
Some professional pilots claim that the black-box evidence found proves the plane couldn't have hit the Pentagon and that the flight-path followed was physically impossible for the plane in question.

In all cases, more pilots than have made the claims of impossibility have disagreed and said that it most certainly is possible.

I also recall that someone got some people with comparable levels of training and ability to the pilots, and were put in simulators to see if they could repeat the achievements of 911. I can't remember if it was the Pentagon or the towers, but in both cases, there are pilots (typically the same pilots for each case, strangely) who insist that hte hijackers couldn't have done it. These test-subjects fell into the "no possible way they could do it" category. In professional flight simulators, they managed this "no possible way" feat every single time. There used to be a video of it, but the links I had for it are dead. I'll see if I can find more info over the weekend....I can't go hunting for it right now.

Offalycool

I don't have any particular missile in mind. I assume flying low would affect how the plain handles not to mention obstacles. Defiantly some stuff to think about there. I still find the the general motive theory compelling, even if I cant account for all the details.

meglome

Offalycool wrote: »

I don't have any particular missile in mind. I assume flying low would affect how the plain handles not to mention obstacles. Defiantly some stuff to think about there. I still find the the general motive theory compelling, even if I cant account for all the details.

I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. With the well documented facts below how can you explain it wasn't a plane? (other than a gut feeling)

So lets look at this objectively...
1. Literally hundreds of people say they saw a plane.
2. Exactly where the plane was supposed to come in from the lamp posts are smashed to the ground... exactly. There are pictures and video of this.
3. Most of these lamp posts have nice dints near the top where something hit them hard. Check the pictures/video.
4. The generator in front of the building has a nice chunk out of it just where the plane would have come through. Again it's on the pictures and video.
5. There is a chunk out of the concrete right in front of the building just where a plane engine would have hit, and it's a semi circular chunk missing. Pictures and video.
6. Hundreds maybe thousands of people worked on the site after the event and there is testimony after testimony of plane wreckage and bodies.

oscarBravo

Offalycool wrote: »

I don't have any particular missile in mind.

I do: an American Airlines 757. The beauty of it is, it fits the observable facts.

Offalycool wrote: »

I assume flying low would affect how the plain handles not to mention obstacles.

It would. As for obstacles, several were damaged, notably light poles.

Offalycool

meglome wrote: »

I'm going to quote myself here from another thread. With the well documented facts below how can you explain it wasn't a plane? (other than a gut feeling)

Please read the thread.

Offalycool wrote: »

I don't know which happened. I guess it is more likely that a plain was used as a missile (or carrying a missile) Plains could be remotely controlled, which might make for a higher chance of success also. I find it hard to believe a hijacked plain was involved because these guys would not have the experience, and the such a big airliner would have to come in quite low for some distance in order to hit its target. Something professional pilots doubt they could do it. (I believe)

meglome

Didn't Bonkey point out some of these same pilots who didn't think it was possible were able to do it on a simulator?

Offalycool

Offalycool wrote: »

Defiantly some stuff to think about there. I still find the the general motive theory compelling, even if I cant account for all the details.

Think I addressed my lack of answers. :rolleyes:

Offalycool

bonkey wrote: »

If one assumes that only a hit on the front wall was considered a hit, then yes, 24m isn't all that big.

On the other hand, if you consider that had the pilot come in at an angle which would have caused him to pass over the top of the face of the building, whilst still losing altitude, then he'd have hit the roof....and the Pentagon covers a huge area, so there's a lot of roof there.

Something struck me about your observation.
Why would the terrorists make a death star style run when they could have just landed the thing on top of the pentagon? It seems the roof would have been (possibly) the most vulnerable and obvious target.

oscarBravo

Offalycool wrote: »

Why would the terrorists make a death star style run when they could have just landed the thing on top of the pentagon? It seems the roof would have been (possibly) the most vulnerable and obvious target.

How do you know that's not what they were trying to do, but missed?

Offalycool

I don't. Bad luck to hit the one reinforced wall though, guess God was on the pentagons side.

bonkey

Offalycool wrote: »

I don't. Bad luck to hit the one reinforced wall though, guess God was on the pentagons side.

Bad luck for them. Good luck for the inhabitants of the Pentagon.

I've seen analysis at some point which suggests that that wall was chosen because there were notable landmarks which could be used to set the approach.

As for why they wouldn't land on the roof...I don't know what they were aiming at.

I would guess that hitting a wall straight on would inflict more damage than crashing down into the roof. It would also allow for the possibility that a miss might still allow a second pass (if you overshot), whereas a steep dive into the roof wouldn't.

But that whole line of thinking reminds me of the piece by Douglas Adams (I think) about the puddle which forms in a hole. If it could think, mightn't it be amazed at how the hole was formed just right to fit it.

All we know is the outcome. We can relatively safely assume that the Pentagon really was the target. After that...why you'd come from a certain angle, or why you'd try hitting it a certain way, or why it was hit how it was actually hit....can only ever be idle speculation.

Offalycool

Idle speculation, true. But its not sound to just dismiss something as coincidence just because you will never have absolute concrete proof. If humanity demanded absolute proof there would never be theory, we would not have the benefits of theoretical speculation. Benefits everyone enjoys more or less.

Sometimes you have to look at a complex situation and ask yourself what dots can I join. The supposed fact that a plain made it through the best defences, hijackers were not overpowered, struck the relatively low pentagon on the one face recently redesigned to withstand such force and vanished into thin air as soon as the authorities showed up; never mind the fact it was subsequently used by the same authorities to push for a war that had no credible link with any of this. The dots tells me a lot about a situation I will never get to the bottom off.

I know what my good sense tells me, and I don't need conclusive (nor will we ever get it) proof of the theory of gravity, it just fits the bill and explains more or less how this force affects my life.

oscarBravo

Offalycool wrote: »

Idle speculation, true. But its not sound to just dismiss something as coincidence just because you will never have absolute concrete proof. If humanity demanded absolute proof there would never be theory, we would not have the benefits of theoretical speculation. Benefits everyone enjoys more or less.

bonkey, Diogenes and I have repeatedly made the point that theoretical speculation is useful only insofar as it conforms to the scientific method: a theory is utterly useless unless it's falsifiable, and explains all the observed facts.

Offalycool wrote: »

Sometimes you have to look at a complex situation and ask yourself what dots can I join.

The problem with most conspiracy theories is that they blithely ignore dots that don't fit, preferring to pretend that they're not there.

Offalycool wrote: »

The supposed fact that a plain made it through the best defences...

What defences?

Offalycool wrote: »

...hijackers were not overpowered...

Why would they be? Up until 9/11, it was never the intention of hijackers to crash the plane. The passengers' (and crew's) best chance of survival lay in co-operation.

Offalycool wrote: »

...struck the relatively low pentagon on the one face recently redesigned to withstand such force...

It didn't exactly "withstand" the impact; it was rather badly damaged.

Offalycool wrote: »

...and vanished into thin air as soon as the authorities showed up;

What vanished? The plane certainly didn't.

Offalycool wrote: »

...never mind the fact it was subsequently used by the same authorities to push for a war that had no credible link with any of this. The dots tells me a lot about a situation I will never get to the bottom off.

The last "dot" I won't argue with, but it's easier to believe a tragedy was used as an excuse than that it was engineered as one.

Offalycool wrote: »

I know what my good sense tells me, and I don't need conclusive (nor will we ever get it) proof of the theory of gravity, it just fits the bill and explains more or less how this force affects my life.

The nice thing about the theory of gravity is that it's testable, falsifiable, and explains the observed facts.

Offalycool

oscarBravo wrote: »

The last "dot" I won't argue with, but it's easier to believe a tragedy was used as an excuse than that it was engineered as one.

Ok.. the points I used are not watertight. I find it funny that it would be easier to believe terrorist were responsible for the attacks though. I mean who would have thought it before 9/11 such a bold plot could be so successful. I find it easer to believe such an plan would have a much higher degree of success if the administration were behind it.

Only the administration could cut funding in the most vulnerable places and focus the defences of the country away at just the precise moments. Furthermore it was the administration who used this as an opportunity to change all kinds of laws that threaten there grip on power; who pushed for a war that pulled Americas economy out of recession and land foreign policy squarely in the middle east.. home to vast energy and drug supply's. Are we really to believe if no terrorist attack occurred Bush and co. would sit on there hands and twiddle there thumbs while most Americans couldn't stand the sight of him and didn't understand how he swindled the election in the first place.

Givin the situation before 9/11 and the events that have occurred I find it hard to believe it was anybody else but the administration and corporate entities. What did terrorists have to gain. What did Al-Qaeda have to gain by bringing the wrath of America on them?

meglome

Offalycool wrote: »

Ok.. the points I used are not watertight. I find it funny that it would be easier to believe terrorist were responsible for the attacks though. I mean who would have thought it before 9/11 such a bold plot could be so successful. I find it easer to believe such an plan would have a much higher degree of success if the administration were behind it.

Only the administration could cut funding in the most vulnerable places and focus the defences of the country away at just the precise moments. Furthermore it was the administration who used this as an opportunity to change all kinds of laws that threaten there grip on power; who pushed for a war that pulled Americas economy out of recession and land foreign policy squarely in the middle east.. home to vast energy and drug supply's. Are we really to believe if no terrorist attack occurred Bush and co. would sit on there hands and twiddle there thumbs while most Americans couldn't stand the sight of him and didn't understand how he swindled the election in the first place.

Givin the situation before 9/11 and the events that have occurred I find it hard to believe it was anybody else but the administration and corporate entities. What did terrorists have to gain. What did Al-Qaeda have to gain by bringing the wrath of America on them?

I have no problem with any of your opinions on what happened on 911, you're fully entitled to any opinion you want to express. But it all boils down to the fact you have a feeling that something happened in a particular way on 911 which there is no real evidence to support. The provable facts support the official version of events. No one has all the answers, there are plenty of questions about the whole day but as has been repeatedly said, lack of evidence isn't evidence of anything.

Don't kid yourself here, the republican party had a firm grip on power around 911. Bush was popular with high approval ratings in the polls at the time. It was the war that made him unpopular. And really they didn't need to go half this far to start a war. It just doesn't make sense.

jessop1

meglome wrote: »

And really they didn't need to go half this far to start a war.

yeah but starting a war was far from the only benefit they reaped from 911. draconian legislation, international laws and surveillance of society in general/securocracy were all progressed massively as a result of 911

meglome

jessop1 wrote: »

yeah but starting a war was far from the only benefit they reaped from 911. draconian legislation, international laws and surveillance of society in general/securocracy were all progressed massively as a result of 911

I agree many people gained from the event and draconian laws were passed. I just think that they jumped on the bandwagon, not that they planned the whole thing.

jessop1

how convenient it all was.

meglome

jessop1 wrote: »

how convenient it all was.

Yup it was reasonably convenient alright. Does that prove something or just raise some suspicion?

oscarBravo

jessop1 wrote: »

how convenient it all was.

I don't think the thousands of people who died on the day found it particularly convenient. Leaving that aside, I refer you to bonkey's "puddle" analogy above.

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

I don't think the thousands of people who died on the day found it particularly convenient. Leaving that aside, I refer you to bonkey's "puddle" analogy above.

Mere thousands of people are inconsequential to the NWO or the US government (if you don't believe in a NWO). Millions have died to forge the world as they want it.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

Mere thousands of people are inconsequential to the NWO or the US government (if you don't believe in a NWO). Millions have died to forge the world as they want it.

And yet you live and get to expose them on the internet, and Alex Jones has his radio show.


Not doing a very good job are they?

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

And yet you live and get to expose them on the internet, and Alex Jones has his radio show.


Not doing a very good job are they?

Why would they bother to kill myself and Alex Jones? Sure we're untrustworthy quacks aren't we?

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Why would they bother to kill myself and Alex Jones? Sure we're untrustworthy quacks aren't we?

True but you might convince others to believe so you'd be dangerous and would need to be silenced.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

True but you might convince others to believe so you'd be dangerous and would need to be silenced.

It's already out there, and I'm a poor proponent of most of the theories. I merely share the knowledge that others have uncovered.

I'm just a smalltown girl, living in a lonely world.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

It's already out there, and I'm a poor proponent of most of the theories. I merely share the knowledge that others have uncovered.

Or others have made up.

Kernel wrote: »

I'm just a smalltown girl, living in a lonely world.

you go sister.

Seriously Kernel do you ever consider that maybe since you're so willing to believe these conspiracies that maybe you need to have a look at you? You ask why don't us sceptics believe but we ask why do you believe so much. Some of these conspiracies are very patchy indeed yet you still seem to believe them.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Or others have made up.

Well, I like to think of myself as fairly discerning with a functioning bull**** detector built in.

meglome wrote: »

Seriously Kernel do you ever consider that maybe since you're so willing to believe these conspiracies that maybe you need to have a look at you? You ask why don't us sceptics believe but we ask why do you believe so much. Some of these conspiracies are very patchy indeed yet you still seem to believe them.

I have considered it, of course. But I digest a lot of material on such things (it's a hobby, always has been), I don't believe everything (I disbelieve more than I believe - by a good margin), but what I do believe satisfies my criteria for belief. There are other conspiracy theories on which I am undecided, but I often present the arguments for them, since they are there are cannot be ignored. Doesn't mean I've made my mind up 100%, just means I present the idea in this forum.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

Well, I like to think of myself as fairly discerning with a functioning bull**** detector built in.

I have considered it, of course. But I digest a lot of material on such things (it's a hobby, always has been), I don't believe everything (I disbelieve more than I believe - by a good margin), but what I do believe satisfies my criteria for belief. There are other conspiracy theories on which I am undecided, but I often present the arguments for them, since they are there are cannot be ignored. Doesn't mean I've made my mind up 100%, just means I present the idea in this forum.

Okay but what major conspiracy don't you believe?

meglome

For instance I was talking to a friend the other night and he was saying that he reckons the Americans might have looked the other way when it came to 911. I'd like to think they didn't but there's no evidence either way so both our opinions are equally valid. What concerns me is that time and time again we go through stuff in here which is more often than not shown to not be based in fact. But no matter how many ways it's shown to be incorrect or not add up none of the CT's will accept it.

tunaman

meglome wrote: »

For instance I was talking to a friend the other night and he was saying that he reckons the Americans might have looked the other way when it came to 911. I'd like to think they didn't but there's no evidence either way so both our opinions are equally valid. What concerns me is that time and time again we go through stuff in here which is more often than not shown to not be based in fact. But no matter how many ways it's shown to be incorrect or not add up none of the CT's will accept it.

So what about these multiple warnings they received in the months before 9/11?

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&complete_911_timeline_key_events=complete_911_timeline_key_warnings

What about the secret military program codenamed "able danger"?

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

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and those of four others, Able Danger had identified the September 11, 2001, attacks leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's other 19 hijackers, as possible members of an al Qaeda cell linked to the '93 World Trade Center bombing.

This theory was heavily promoted by Republican Representative Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services and House Homeland Security committees. In December 2006, an investigation by the US Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that those assertions were unfounded. It rejected as untrue "one of the most disturbing claims about the Sept. 11 terrorist strikes."[3] The committee has published a letter to its members as a result of these hearings, dated December 22, 2006. However, witness testimony from these hearings is not publicly available.

So the story is that a US senate committee which was set up concluded that these claims were unfounded. What a surprise, just makes the cover-up that little bit bigger.

Here is a very short video, which shows footage of the Lt. Col. testifying and a congressman getting incredibly angry about the cover-up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsM3oCsEJOE

Whistleblowers...

Who needs them?

oscarBravo

"Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity."