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
Jim Corr is talking about the New World Order right now!
Options
Comments
-
So what is wrong with people watching the actual footage of the buildings coming down, especially wtc 7?
Its not the actual footage. Its a low-quality reproduction of the actual footage, and in many cases, its posted either in an edited (abridged) format, without sound or with modified sound, with accompanying commentary telling you what to think etc.
The original-quality video of the collapses, from before the start to after the end, with the original soundtrack, and no additional commentary....that would be worthwhile, if you could verify that it was just that.
Of course, without access to the original footage, you can't verify that...and if you had access to the original footage, you wouldn't need youTube.
So no...for research purposes, its not particularly useful.
Again...its a low-quality reproduction of the original footage, and to be frankly honest, it tells us little more than what could be summed up in two or three sentences.What about footage of Bush sitting in a classroom of kids while CNN was showing footage of the WTC on fire?
Without comparing it to the full and complete transcripts, there's no way of knowing whether or not it has been reproduced in its entirety. With the transcripts, I don't need the video, except possibly to confirm that the transcripts are accurate.What about the testimony of 9/11 whistleblowers?
The transcripts are arguably preferable for research, because they remove the potential for bias from irrelevant factors (like what someone looks like, or how they speak).
As I've just pointed out to Kernel....I made it clear I was referring to youTube et al in terms of doing research, not in terms of becoming casually informed.Are people not supposed to watch what happened and form their own opinions, without the government telling them what really happened?
In the latter case, however, I would go back to the point that was made previously about the uncontrolled bias on youTube. Without carefully looking to get a balanced set of opinions covering the entire spectrum, you will be as misled from the popularity of conspiracy-based videos on youTube as you claim people are by mainstream media.
I don't know if you think that this is preferable, but from my perspective, I don't really care who is misinforming the public. I don't think Joe Q Bloggs is better off being misled by the likes of Dylan Avery than he is being misled by Fox News.
People who haven't got time or interest are not those who are doing research, which is who I made clear I was talking about.Most people haven't got time or enough interest in reading hundreds of pages of government funded experts, paid to tell them what to think.
As for your assertion that government-funded experts are "paid to tell them what to think"...thats entirely accurate. The government pays experts to apply their expertise and tell the government what to think.0 -
So Bonkey, you admit then, that the government 'pays' experts to tell them what the goverment 'wants' to hear, good! We're getting somewhere!If you'd prefer a different argument...who stands to gain financially from the myriad of conspiracy theories that have sprung up about 911? Follow the money, and its blatantly obvious who has benefited. Explain to me why this isn't proof that they're just making Conspiracy Theories up to profit from them?
Throw the argument back in his face and call it proof for no reason, why dont you. Can't you just answer the question instead of turning it around to suit yourself? Where does the money from 911 lead to? Haliburton, Blackwater, Carlyle Group and a few others. You selectively choose to omit these points from your argument when they are the basic reason why Cheney has orchestrated this, money money money and power. The longer they stay in Iraq, the more money they make through those companies and others! Cant you see that? All at the expense of the American tax payer who just wants the countries money spent on better education and health.
Take all the 911 documentaries or any of the New World Order documentaries, who is making money off these documentaries when they are being given away for FREE in their entirety on sites like Google Video? How do you make money off something you're giving away for FREE???? You are a ridiculous individual.
It even says at the start and end of some of those documentaries, "PLEASE SPREAD THIS DOCUMENTARY AND FEEL FREE TO COPY IT AND DISTRIBUTE TO YOUR FRIENDS, RELATIVES ETC. WE NEED MORE PEOPLE TO SEE THIS INFORMATION AND WAKE UP!" Yeah, sounds like they're trying to screw us for money... There are some of them that IF YOU WANT A DVD of the documentary, they'll ask for the money to cover printing and postage, which is damn fair. You still get to watch it for FREE on Google Video, or am i imagining this?
How many times have you paid to see information on 911? None? Yeah, me neither. So, stop with the retarded arguments that only help to make you look like a bigger fool.
Answer the original question and tell us, in all your researching, where have you found the money from 911 leading to?
You see, 911 is one part of a much bigger pie and until you research The Illuminati, New World Order, Freemasons, Symbology, The Occult, The International Bankers & a few more subjects, you are NEVER going to see the connection that 911 has to all of these subjects. But when you do research those things, the big picture becomes obvious and very bloody scary.
Here are some names to research for some TRUTH information:
Jordan Maxwell
Noam Chomsky
George Green
George Carlin
Aaron Russo
Greg Palast
John Pilger
Adam Curtis
Anthony J Hilder
Michael Tsarion
William Cooper (some people think this guy is a fake but he still has some interesting info nonetheless)
Stephen Bassett
Steven Greer
Dr. Robert C. Beck
Phil Schneider (some people think this guy is a fake too but again, interesting info for the bigger picture)
Richard Hoagland
Well there's a short list off the top of my head of researchers that ive researched myself, not a deifinitive list, there are MANY more. Forget about disproving the authenticity of YouTube and Google Videos etc. Thats just childish and you're wasting our time with that, its not our primary source of information like i already stated. The above names have some YouTube videos which compliment the websites, documents and audio interviews that they also present. So, instead of trying to prove us wrong, prove them wrong instead and see how far you get!
Hey, try and disprove the Disclosure Project if you dare. This collection of people come from all sides of the US goverment, over 250 of them from high up positions in the different US government agencies. They have their documents and EVERYTHING to back up what they're saying, it is true or false?0 -
Here's a trend that ive noticed about believers and non believers of the official 911 story and i thought i'd put it to the board to see if it has any merit, could be wrong, but would be interesting to see...
I have mates ive talked to about this who are under 26 and mates ive talked to about it that are over 26 and what ive noticed is that the under 26 year olds all have problems believing most parts of this and look for any excuse to ridicule it, and you, for believing it. They are very close minded to even the possbility that this could be true.
On the other hand, the over 26 year olds ive talked to about this all have an open mind and tend to want to know more about it and educate themselves on the subject, 99% of whom end up taking the side of the "truth seekers".
Now it also must be noted that the people that jump ship from not believing to believing, they do NOT turn back, ever. There are ONLY people going FROM the non believer side TO the believer side, NOT the other way around. More and more people are waking up according to the "conspiracy theorists".
The reason why i believe the above could be true is this. People that are under 26 are probably still in college studying, doing exams, learning other stuff. Therefore, they dont really have enough time to look at anything other than the odd snippet of info on the subject.
Whereas the people that are all over 26 are working in jobs now and dont have homework or studying to do and therefore have a lot more time to research the subjects in question. So they do, and then they realise and begin the process of waking up.
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...0 -
Where did he say that??So Bonkey, you admit then, that the government 'pays' experts to tell them what the goverment 'wants' to hear, good! We're getting somewhere!
He never said that.
You are twisting his words. Now THAT is a trend that I have noticed with conspiracy theorists.
You clearly have not even readwhat he wrote.
Calm down and read it a little slower...then come back to us.
What you just said is called a THEORY.Throw the argument back in his face and call it proof for no reason, why dont you. Can't you just answer the question instead of turning it around to suit yourself? Where does the money from 911 lead to? Haliburton, Blackwater, Carlyle Group and a few others. You selectively choose to omit these points from your argument when they are the basic reason why Cheney has orchestrated this, money money money and power. The longer they stay in Iraq, the more money they make through those companies and others! Cant you see that? All at the expense of the American tax payer who just wants the countries money spent on better education and health.
Aha....the conspiracy grows and grows and grows.How many times have you paid to see information on 911? None? Yeah, me neither. So, stop with the retarded arguments that only help to make you look like a bigger fool.
Answer the original question and tell us, in all your researching, where have you found the money from 911 leading to?
You see, 911 is one part of a much bigger pie and until you research The Illuminati, New World Order, Freemasons, Symbology, The Occult, The International Bankers & a few more subjects, you are NEVER going to see the connection that 911 has to all of these subjects. But when you do research those things, the big picture becomes obvious and very bloody scary.
Is this your way of saying that you are not able to present us with any evidence??
Oh I'm really glad you just posted this!Here are some names to research for some TRUTH information:
Jordan Maxwell
Noam Chomsky
George Green
George Carlin
Aaron Russo
Greg Palast
John Pilger
Adam Curtis
Anthony J Hilder
Michael Tsarion
William Cooper (some people think this guy is a fake but he still has some interesting info nonetheless)
Stephen Bassett
Steven Greer
Dr. Robert C. Beck
Phil Schneider (some people think this guy is a fake too but again, interesting info for the bigger picture)
Richard Hoagland
See the name I highlighted there?
It's Noam chomsky.
Do you know what chomskys views are on 9-11??
Well, he doesnt really support the conspiracy theorists at all. in fact, he believes they are extremely dubios.
What are your views on that??
I have just exposed the incredible flaws of 2 of the MAIN THEORIES THAT THE 9-11 CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT RELY ON. OR DIDN'T YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS??
Well there's a short list off the top of my head of researchers that ive researched myself, not a deifinitive list, there are MANY more. Forget about disproving the authenticity of YouTube and Google Videos etc. Thats just childish and you're wasting our time with that, its not our primary source of information like i already stated. The above names have some YouTube videos which compliment the websites, documents and audio interviews that they also present. So, instead of trying to prove us wrong, prove them wrong instead and see how far you get!
Thermite theory = rubbish.
Sounds of controlled explosives= rubbish.
So there you go.....do you have any response to that?
[/QUOTE]Hey, try and disprove the Disclosure Project if you dare. This collection of people come from all sides of the US goverment, over 250 of them from high up positions in the different US government agencies. They have their documents and EVERYTHING to back up what they're saying, it is true or false?
Seriously....what the hell are you talking about?
Now you are talking about UFO's, extraterrestrial life and advanced energy systems????
WHY??????
We are discussing 9-11.
Are you going to keep going off on wild tangents??
pixel8, quite clearly you have a MAJOR and unhealthy obsession with conspiracy theories. It's actually mildly disturbing.
You actually havent given a substantive reply to ANYTING I, or bonkey, has said or asked.
You point to people like your Dad, Jim Corr, bono and Sean Penn as if their view carry any substantial weight.
A central basis for your views seems to be based on the Age of believers vs non-believers.
You refuse to offer any real argument at all because it is JUST SO COMPLICATED that you wont be able to explain it until we research EVERYTHING that you have.
You seem to believe in clearly redundant conspiracy theories about 9-11 (read my posts about thermite and firemens quotes)
Can I ask you, how do you actually expect ANYONE to take you seriously???0 -
Dear god almighty.....you call this evidence??Here's a trend that ive noticed about believers and non believers of the official 911 story and i thought i'd put it to the board to see if it has any merit, could be wrong, but would be interesting to see...
I have mates ive talked to about this who are under 26 and mates ive talked to about it that are over 26 and what ive noticed is that the under 26 year olds all have problems believing most parts of this and look for any excuse to ridicule it, and you, for believing it. They are very close minded to even the possbility that this could be true.
On the other hand, the over 26 year olds ive talked to about this all have an open mind and tend to want to know more about it and educate themselves on the subject, 99% of whom end up taking the side of the "truth seekers".
Now it also must be noted that the people that jump ship from not believing to believing, they do NOT turn back, ever. There are ONLY people going FROM the non believer side TO the believer side, NOT the other way around. More and more people are waking up according to the "conspiracy theorists".
incidentally, people who develop serious mental problems rarely return completely to normal.....so maybe that's what we are talking about here? Could it be that the conspiracy theorists are actually suffering from severe mental problems??The reason why i believe the above could be true is this. People that are under 26 are probably still in college studying, doing exams, learning other stuff. Therefore, they dont really have enough time to look at anything other than the odd snippet of info on the subject.
Whereas the people that are all over 26 are working in jobs now and dont have homework or studying to do and therefore have a lot more time to research the subjects in question. So they do, and then they realise and begin the process of waking up.
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...
Is this seriously the basis of your argument?
this is the kind of evidence and arguments that you are using????
Good god almighty.
I can barely take you seriously at this point.
And no, I am over 26 actually.
None of my friends (bar one), family or colleagues believe your theories either and they are mostly over 26 also.0 -
Advertisement
-
Only the small secrets need to be protected. The big ones are protected by public incredulity.
Marshall McLuhan (1911 – 1980) who's work is viewed as one of the cornerstones of the study of media theory.0 -
So Bonkey, you admit then, that the government 'pays' experts to tell them what the goverment 'wants' to hear,
I said they are paid to tell the government what to think.
I'm not sure how you interpret "what to think" as "what the government 'wants' to hear, but I suspect that the root cause of your confusion there may have something to do with why we interpret information differently.
What I meant, unsurprisingly, is that they are paid to tell the government what to think.
What I admitted to, even less surprisingly, is that they are paid to tell the government what to think.
Yes, we are. We're establishing that you have the ability to read a simple, clear statement, and interpret it in a manner that defeats me.good! We're getting somewhere!
I showed that the argument is fatally flawed. If you can't apply the argument wherever you like, then in order to apply the argument anywhere, you must show that it is applicable.Throw the argument back in his face and call it proof for no reason, why dont you.
You clearly accept that where I applied it is not applicable, so you clearly accept that its not universally applicable.
We apparenty agree, therefore, that one can't just say "follow the money" to imply, establish, or prove wrongdoing. This, so far, is the extent that Kernel has used the argument on this thread, so logically you should agree that he hasn't established its relecance.
Kernel made a statement. He didn't ask any question. I responded to that statement, by showing the logic behind it was flawed. I made the argument that the entire "follow the money" argument only becomes relevant after one can show that there was wrongdoing. Opportunism is just as valid a reason for there to be a money-trail.Can't you just answer the question instead of turning it around to suit yourself?
I see you've decided not to take my suggestion regarding politeness. Your loss.So, stop with the retarded arguments that only help to make you look like a bigger fool.
There was no original question. There was a claim that the money-trail was significant. I have questioned the validity of that claim, and until that validity is established, where it leads to is entirely irrelevant.Answer the original question and tell us, in all your researching, where have you
found the money from 911 leading to?0 -
Here's a trend that ive noticed about believers and non believers of the official 911 story and i thought i'd put it to the board to see if it has any merit, could be wrong, but would be interesting to see...
I have mates ive talked to about this who are under 26 and mates ive talked to about it that are over 26 and what ive noticed is that the under 26 year olds all have problems believing most parts of this and look for any excuse to ridicule it, and you, for believing it. They are very close minded to even the possbility that this could be true.
On the other hand, the over 26 year olds ive talked to about this all have an open mind and tend to want to know more about it and educate themselves on the subject, 99% of whom end up taking the side of the "truth seekers".
Now it also must be noted that the people that jump ship from not believing to believing, they do NOT turn back, ever. There are ONLY people going FROM the non believer side TO the believer side, NOT the other way around. More and more people are waking up according to the "conspiracy theorists".
The reason why i believe the above could be true is this. People that are under 26 are probably still in college studying, doing exams, learning other stuff. Therefore, they dont really have enough time to look at anything other than the odd snippet of info on the subject.
Whereas the people that are all over 26 are working in jobs now and dont have homework or studying to do and therefore have a lot more time to research the subjects in question. So they do, and then they realise and begin the process of waking up.
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...
Perhaps govt mind control wears off as you get older ?0 -
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...
A few pages ago, I made the following statement:
I was as informed on the JFK assassinations before the advent of the World Wide Web as I am today.
I'd suggest to you that this should have given you sufficient information to answer your question before you asked it. A bit of research and a small application of logic might be required...but its hardly rocket-science in comparison to the events we're discussing, and you have expressed interest in the topic, so its not like I'm being unreasonable in pointing out that the information you need to answer your question was already available to you, were you to pay close enough attention.
And while we're talking anecdotally, most people I know, regardless of age, consider the conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks to be deranged. Personally, I don't think that's worth a hell of a lot as an argument, so I'm not going to suggest that it means anything....but seeing as you felt the need to introduce anecdotal evidence, I thought I'd deal with the topic.
Firstly, its not about popular support. As Einstein said : "If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!"
Secondly, there are precious few - if any - posters on boards.ie who are in a position to pass meaningful critique on the opinions of unspecified people that I know, and the same would apply to your acquaintences, or indeed the comments made by various celebrities.
Thirdly, we have no way of evaluating your claim. I'm a trusting type of guy...I believe you entirely when you say that your acquaintances break down neatly into two groups this over/under 26 line, but from a research point of view, its meaningless. Its worthless. But hey...you think its important, so I'm glad you brought it up.
And while we're on the subject....what age are you? 26?0 -
Conspiracy theorists think that there is this deep complicated underworld of individuals who have the wherewithall to carry out such acts like 9/11 on purpose and do it flawlessly for the benefit of political aims. I believe 9/11 was pretty much what it says on a tin. A terrorist act. Thats that.
Oh and of course the most popular theory is simply - 'The Jews did it':rolleyes:0 -
Advertisement
-
This has to be the funniest post in this thread and that's something in itself.Here's a trend that ive noticed about believers and non believers of the official 911 story and i thought i'd put it to the board to see if it has any merit, could be wrong, but would be interesting to see...
I have mates ive talked to about this who are under 26 and mates ive talked to about it that are over 26 and what ive noticed is that the under 26 year olds all have problems believing most parts of this and look for any excuse to ridicule it, and you, for believing it. They are very close minded to even the possbility that this could be true.
On the other hand, the over 26 year olds ive talked to about this all have an open mind and tend to want to know more about it and educate themselves on the subject, 99% of whom end up taking the side of the "truth seekers".
Now it also must be noted that the people that jump ship from not believing to believing, they do NOT turn back, ever. There are ONLY people going FROM the non believer side TO the believer side, NOT the other way around. More and more people are waking up according to the "conspiracy theorists".
The reason why i believe the above could be true is this. People that are under 26 are probably still in college studying, doing exams, learning other stuff. Therefore, they dont really have enough time to look at anything other than the odd snippet of info on the subject.
Whereas the people that are all over 26 are working in jobs now and dont have homework or studying to do and therefore have a lot more time to research the subjects in question. So they do, and then they realise and begin the process of waking up.
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...
Do you believe any of your above comments enhance your views in any sense? Why don't you present your data in a spreadsheet, graph it, and create poster boards. Call it Exhibit A: A Survey of "empirical" evidence from my mates.
It's clear which poster has been the most reasonable, restrained, polite, and logical over recent pages in this thread. You punctuated the post's frivolity by calling out this person for supposedly lacking the maturity of yourself and those that share your opinion.
Since you're fond of putting forward casual personal observations to advance an assertion ... In my experience posters that throw out terms like "fool" and "retarded" don't tend to be the most mature or wise contributors to a discussion. Typically it's the equivalent of shouting down their adversary when they have been flustered by a more coherent and logically structured view that counters their beliefs.0 -
Where did I say that?
No their statements would be admissable.
But they would NOT be admissable as expert testimony/opinion.
ie. the opinions of unqualified civilians IN NO WAY proves that the popping sounds were controlled demolitons.
ok, here (apologies to everyone who has already read all this), I said:kernel wrote:Don't you think it's a little strange that direct witnesses in the trade centre heard 'popping' sounds down each floor before the collapse, and a large explosion in the basement? Doesn't that imply controlled explosions to you?
You said:JJ6600 wrote:No, not really.
Wow, popping sounds yeah?? That MUST mean it was a controlled demo. (sarcasm off)
Are civilians qualified demoition experts??
No?? I didnt think so.
You obviously disregard the testimony of the many primary witnesses because you fell they are not qualified demolitions experts. My point being, a witness testimony is admissable in court even if they are not considered 'expert witnesses'. Fair play, in light of that you have backtracked and admitted that their testimony is admissable (only since I called you on that), yet refuse to address it.Read my post on the thermite argument.
I will try locat the pics for you.
Well, where are they, or any evidence of the cleanup teams using thermite, because I'm genuinely interested in seeing this.....?Eh, how am I supposd to post a link to how many firemen have engineering degrees?? Dont be ridiculous.
My point was that many Do. My uncle is one.
In other words, you're espousing unsubstantiated opinion as fact? Well, that's not good enough. Therefore that point in your argument is completely false and irrelevant.Again Read my post on the selective quoting of firemen hearing "explosions". How have I ignored it??
It appears to me that you are the one ignoring things........you are looking at a tiny extract from firemens quotes and ignoring the rest of the quote.
Read in it's entireity, the quotes clearly show what the firemen meant.
Tel me where they heard "controlled explosions". Please. None of the firemen say what they heard WAS controlled explosions. Read my post of selective quoting of firemen.
THe amount of selective quoting in the Conspiracy theorists arguments is truly staggering.
Incorrect, you are selectively picking points from my counter-argument, ignoring others and struggling with the rest. Watch the video at the centre of this whole argument and you will hear witnesses referring to explosions sounding like controlled explosions. I can link them to text if you wish?
Answer these questions while you are at it. Do governments lie? If so, does the US government lie to it's citizens? Is it INCONCEIVABLE that the US government lied about 911? (if yes, then why?)0 -
Aha....the grows and grows and grows.
Is this your way of saying that you are not able to present us with any evidence??
When evidence is presented, it's not good enough for you and is dismissed without good cause. Do you have any idea how frustrating that is? It's like arguing with creationists ffs.I have just exposed the incredible flaws of 2 of the MAIN THEORIES THAT THE 9-11 CONSPIRACY MOVEMENT RELY ON. OR DIDN'T YOU READ MY PREVIOUS POSTS??
Thermite theory = rubbish.
Sounds of controlled explosives= rubbish.
So there you go.....do you have any response to that?
You've exposed nothing. Care to prove your statements at all? Because they are nothing more than your opinion buddy. You remind me of Diogenes.0 -
Kernel made a statement. He didn't ask any question. I responded to that statement, by showing the logic behind it was flawed. I made the argument that the entire "follow the money" argument only becomes relevant after one can show that there was wrongdoing. Opportunism is just as valid a reason for there to be a money-trail.
I agree that opportunism is a valid reason for their to be a money trail, however, *your* logic is flawed. There was wrongdoing in the 911 event itself. An act was committed which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people. Agreed? Good. Now let's say a fraud was committed, we look at who has benefitted most, we look at circumstances beforehand (Silverstein insurance and subsequent court fight for cash - agreed, that could be opportunism). The evidence of who has gained from the event is overwhelmingly the US administration and US corporate interests. As well you know Bonkey, it is impossible to prove that they staged the event, however, evidence of the money trail greatly increases suspicion and would be used as evidence in a criminal trial.
How have Al CIAda profitted? That haven't. In the slightest........0 -
So you have a possible motive. That is not sufficient to convict let alone bring a case to trial. Was every death in Ireland a murder because someone stood to benefit from insurance? Follow the money.As well you know Bonkey, it is impossible to prove that they staged the event, however, evidence of the money trail greatly increases suspicion and would be used as evidence in a criminal trial.
They perpetrated the most spectacular terrorist attack the world has ever seen. It secured their infamy in history and to some they will be forever martyrs.How have Al CIAda profitted? That haven't. In the slightest........0 -
If we want to compare it to "I can't be bothered reading, so I would otherwise know nothing", then sure...its a step forward...but that's comparing it to the opposite end of teh scale to serious research...its comparing it to no research.
The masses are ignorant and cant be bothered reading. Thus they get their information fed to them by the mass media. This is a greater evil in my opinion, since it influences far more people than Youtube ever could. You cannot disregard the *research* of those who make Youtube or other documentaries simply because you don't agree with them.There's no shortage of facts that have been clarified about the events of September 11th, 2001, which are called into doubt by people who are misconstruing evidence, ignoring or abusing science, etc. We've had these to-and-fro's before, and the outcome has typically been that there is always some reason to claim that something is not irrefutable.
Are you 100% certain of the current official explanation of the 911 event? Do you feel that there are questions which us ... so called conspiracy theorists... ask which have been answered unsatisfactorally?You require irrefutable proof that its not an inside job, but will believe that it is in the absence of irrefutable proof of same. You're perfectly entitled to do so, of course, but thats a clear bias in your conclusions.
As you know of me, the conclusion I have reached is based on my own research into the subject, as well as research into many aspects of world politics, history and 'conspiracy'. I believe that my opinion should be disproved. It has never been. If it is a bias, it's a bias that you also share on the flip side of the coin.Going from what I've just said...you can't irrefutably prove that financial gain was the driving motive....but you'll presumably require irrefutable proof to believe otherwise.
My belief (as has been posted in the conspiracy theories joke of a forum) is that it was driven by financial gain AND increased political control on the masses. Drop the irrefutable and replace it with compelling.So seriously...will you agree that Conspiracy Theories are just made up to make money....or are you going to argue that "follow the money" doesn't necessarily imply guilt or wrong-doing?
There are those who do things to make money, many have sullied the conspiracy field, agreed. But the truth is the truth, and what I believe I believe with good reason. Smoke and mirrors will blind the ignorance proles, but many can see through all the bull**** tbh.I would additionally point out that in the case of Watergate, the logic of "follow the money" was to find who was involved after wrongdoing had been established. It did not establish wrongdoing...it was a line of reasoning which could be applied, having established wrongdoing, to determine who was involved.
There was wrongdoing for the 911 event, the bone of contention between the likes of me and you is who was responsible for the wrongdoing. The notion of a few arabs with stanley knives hijacking those planes and flying them perfectly into the twin towers which subsequently collapsed......... that's the problem.In the case of September 11th, therefore, it would show who might be involved, were wrongdoing to be seperately established. It does not, however, establish culpability, no more than it did in the Watergate case.
All adds to the weight of the evidence on which my conclusion has been formed.0 -
Hmm, We've mae the breakout into AH again then.
Kernel, Why bother, we cant get anywhere in the CT forum what would you expect in AH, I see the same people postin the same sh1te here, cocooned in their little bubble of incredulity.
dont want to get too caught up in this, but to the guy who scoffed cos someone mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an example of a previous conspiracy, So the Posters Dad believed that it was a false flag operation, most of the planet believes this now.
are you going to try and tell us that it wasnt, that it happened exactly like they claimed at the time??
People will be havin the same arguments about 911 in 25 years tim and ten the ones gettin laughed at are those who still cling to the lies being perpetrated by The NWO0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,090 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59266
Here's a trend that ive noticed about believers and non believers of the official 911 story and i thought i'd put it to the board to see if it has any merit, could be wrong, but would be interesting to see...
I have mates ive talked to about this who are under 26 and mates ive talked to about it that are over 26 and what ive noticed is that the under 26 year olds all have problems believing most parts of this and look for any excuse to ridicule it, and you, for believing it. They are very close minded to even the possbility that this could be true.
On the other hand, the over 26 year olds ive talked to about this all have an open mind and tend to want to know more about it and educate themselves on the subject, 99% of whom end up taking the side of the "truth seekers".
Now it also must be noted that the people that jump ship from not believing to believing, they do NOT turn back, ever. There are ONLY people going FROM the non believer side TO the believer side, NOT the other way around. More and more people are waking up according to the "conspiracy theorists".
The reason why i believe the above could be true is this. People that are under 26 are probably still in college studying, doing exams, learning other stuff. Therefore, they dont really have enough time to look at anything other than the odd snippet of info on the subject.
Whereas the people that are all over 26 are working in jobs now and dont have homework or studying to do and therefore have a lot more time to research the subjects in question. So they do, and then they realise and begin the process of waking up.
So JJ6000 and Bonkey, what ages are you both? Under 26 i reckon... And Kernel, Call_me_al, tunaman etc. what are ages are you? Over 26 i reckon, sure will be interesting to see...
lmao. ++0 -
I don't know if this has been posted b4 but is interesting in that any amount of explanations can be put on most set of circumstances. But don't get me wrong I think the bigger picture is that maybe it wasn't an inside job but the power that be in the US made sure to use the event as an excuse to behave like the imperial powers of old and used the deaths of 3000 to murder countless innocents.
We’ve all heard the “official conspiracy theory” of the Death Star attack. We all know about Luke Skywalker and his ragtag bunch of rebels, how they mounted a foolhardy attack on the most powerful, well-defended battle station ever built. And we’ve all seen the video over, and over, and over, of the one-in-a-million shot that resulted in a massive chain reaction that not just damaged, but completely obliterated that massive technological wonder.
Like many, I was fed this story when I was growing up. But as I watched the video, I began to realize that all was not as it seemed. And the more I questioned the official story, the deeper into the rabbit hole I went.
Presented here are some of the results of my soul-searching regarding this painful event. Like many citizens, I have many questions that I would like answered: was the mighty Imperial government really too incompetent to prevent a handful of untrained nerf-herders from destroying one of their most prized assets? Or are they hiding something from us? Who was really behind the attack? Why did they want the Death Star destroyed? No matter what the answers, we have a problem.
Below is a summary of my book, Uncomfortable Questions: An Analysis of the Death Star Attack, which presents compelling evidence that we all may be the victims of a fraud of immense proportions.
1) Why were a handful of rebel fighters able to penetrate the defenses of a battle station that had the capability of destroying an entire planet and the defenses to ward off several fleets of battle ships?
2) Why did Grand Moff Tarkin refuse to deploy the station’s large fleet of TIE Fighters until it was too late? Was he acting on orders from somebody to not shoot down the rebel attack force? If so, who, and why?
3) Why was the rebel pilot who supposedly destroyed the Death Star reported to be on the Death Star days, maybe hours, prior to its destruction? Why was he allowed to escape, and why were several individuals dressed in Stormtrooper uniforms seen helping him?
4) Why has there not been an investigation into allegations that Darth Vader, the second-ranking member of the Imperial Government, is in fact the father of the pilot who allegedly destroyed the Death Star?
5) Why did Lord Vader decide to break all protocols and personally pilot a lightly armored TIE Fighter? Conveniently, this placed Lord Vader outside of the Death Star when it was destroyed, where he was also conveniently able to escape from a large-sized rebel fleet that had just routed the Imperial forces. Why would Lord Vader, one of the highest ranking members of the Imperial Government, suddenly decide to fly away from the Death Star in the middle of a battle? Did he know something that the rest of the Imperial Navy didn’t?
In the video of the Death Star’s destruction, Lord Vader clearly exclaims “I have you now” then fires two shots. Those shots never impact — anywhere. Were they merely “added” to the “official” video after the event to make it appear that Lord Vader had at least attempted to fight off his alleged son?
Emperor Palpatine fails to act after being informed of the attack
6) Nerf-Herders defy the laws of physics? How could any pilot shoot a missile into a 2 meter-wide exhaust port, let alone a pilot with no formal training, whose only claim to fame was his ability to “bullseye womprats” on Tatooine? This shot, according to one pilot, would be “impossible, even for a computer.” Yet, according to additional evidence, the pilot who allegedly fired the missile turned off his targeting computer when he was supposedly firing the shot that destroyed the Death Star. How did the missile make a right angle turn after entering the exhaust port? How could a missile shot in the vacuum of space–that would tend to keep going in the same direction as it was released, according to the laws of physics–be *sucked* into an *exhaust* pipe? “Exhaust” means to exhale or blow out… Wouldn’t the missiles have been blown awry of their target rather than sucked in? If it had been an intake pipe, then the “bending” path of the missiles could be plausible. Why have these discrepancies never been investigated, let alone explained?
7) Why has their been no investigation into evidence that the droids who provided the rebels with the Death Star plans were once owned by none other than Lord Vader himself, and were found, conveniently, by the pilot who destroyed the Death Star, and who is also believed to be Lord Vader’s son? Evidence also shows that the droids were brought to one Ben Kenobi, who, records indicate, was Darth Vader’s teacher many years earlier! Are all these personal connections between the conspirators and a key figure in the Imperial government supposed to be coincidences?
8) How could a single missile destroy a battle station the size of a moon? No records, anywhere, show that any battle station or capital ship has ever been destroyed by a single missile. Furthermore, analysis of the tape of the last moments of the Death Star show numerous small explosions along its surface, prior to it exploding completely! Why does all evidence indicate that strategically placed explosives, not a single missile, is what destroyed the Death Star?
9) Prior to the destruction of the Death Star a smuggler named Captain Solo was reportedly given a large sum of money. At a crucial point in the battle, Captain Solo had an unobstructed shot on his choice of the fighters pursuing Skywalker, yet Solo did not take advantage of this opportunity to kill Darth Vader. Although Vader was in the process of firing upon Skywalker’s X-wing, Solo attacked the defensive fighter instead. In the aftermath, Vader escaped, while Solo still had crates of money in his cargo hold. Captain Solo eventually made his way to the Bespin system, where he was seen dining with none other than Vader, who was reportedly obsessed with obtaining Captain Solo’s ship (and the money contained therein). Solo’s ship was then seen flying into the super-structure of the second Death Star, destroying it just after Vader was able to get out (he was seen leaving a shuttle piloted by none other than Luke Skywalker). Yet through this whole sequence of events, the money was never seen removed from Solo’s ship. Was it used to bribe Darth Vader, who (allegedly) assassinated Palpatine? Did anyone other than Vader and Skywalker actually see Emperor Palpatine die?
10 ) During pilot debriefing we leaned that Obi Wan was the one who told Luke to turn off his targeting computer. He said he was told by Obi Wan to “Let go” and “Trust me”. This is the same Obi Wan who was, according to the official story, killed after sabotaging the Death Star by none other than Darth Vader BEFORE speaking to Luke. His convenient death places him inside the Death Star just before the explosions on the surface occur. By faking his death Vader would have given Obi Wan time to plant explosives. The only evidence of his death is his Jedi robe on surveillance cameras. And even that can’t be found because they decided to conveniently let the evidence burn in the planet atmosphere. Also, why are there reports from Endor that Lord Vader, Obi Wan and Yoda were seen together AFTER their deaths? And who other than the Empire has the capacity to fake their deaths?
11) Lord Vader executed an officer for incompetence by allowing the rebels to escape. He then orders another officer to disable the Millennium Falcon’s hyper drive. The rebels once again escape using the disabled hyper drive. Why was the officer responsible for caring out Lord Vader’s order to disable the hyper drive not executed? Why was he in fact given NO disciplinary action what so ever? Why did Lord Vader only disable the hyper drive? If Lord Vader didn’t want the rebels to escape, why didn’t he disable the ship entirely?
12) Why did the captain of the Imperial Stardestroyer not fire upon the lifepod with the droids carrying Death Star plans? The “official story” says he didn’t find the any signs of life. He said “Hold your fire. There are no life forms. It must have been short-circuited.” Why would he be looking for life when it was electronic plans he should have been looking for. Why did he jump to the conclusion it was “short-circuited”. Is he a lifepod engineer?
How can all this be just incompetence and coincidence? IMPOSSIBLE!
The most important question of all is why would a shadowy group in the Empire want to destroy such a technological wonder? Is it an excuse to invade Hoth and steal their oil; a planet which didn’t have anything to do with the attacks. Or is it to take away your religious freedoms to practice the dark side of the force? As incredible as this sounds it makes more sense than the official story.0 -
Ever wish you had never started a thread?
Mike.0 -
Advertisement
-
ok, here (apologies to everyone who has already read all this), I said:
You said:
You obviously disregard the testimony of the many primary witnesses because you fell they are not qualified demolitions experts. My point being, a witness testimony is admissable in court even if they are not considered 'expert witnesses'. Fair play, in light of that you have backtracked and admitted that their testimony is admissable (only since I called you on that), yet refuse to address it.
Exactly where did I EVER say they would not be admissable??
ANd where exactly did I backtrack??
I'll explain it for you again....please read what I say this time.
They ARE admissable. Didnt I just say that??(read what I wrote, please) But they are ONLY admissable insofar as they prove there was a big loud bang(s).(which could have been caused by many things)
They ARE NOT ADMISSABLE as EXPERT TESTIMONY. ie. the fact that they heard a big loud bang(s) does NOT PROVE THAT THE BIG BANG(s) WAS CAUSED BY EXPLOSIVES because they do not have the expertise to make that assertion.
What part of what I said are you having trouble understanding??
You never called me out on anything.....you just need to actually read what I say instead of completely misconstruing it.
I can post pics. I will try later today.Well, where are they, or any evidence of the cleanup teams using thermite, because I'm genuinely interested in seeing this.....?
But the main point is....it is very plausible that any thermite/ate used was used in the cleanup operation.
Even without pics, This possibility in itself raises a very reasonable doubt about your theory that thermate was used in a controlled demolition. Therefore, from the very outset the "controlled demolition via thermite" argument does not stand up.
Also, what are your views on the fact that the good professor seems to have deleted a VERY IMPORTANT excerpt stating that the sulfur found probably originated from hundreds of burning computers?
It seems, he did not find any real evidence of thermite at all, did he????
HE found sulfur.....which could have been from thermate, but was probably from the burning computers in the WTC. So, no concrete evidence of thermate.
Oh well, looks like there is zero plausible evidence of thermate.
So, tell me, even without pics......how is the thermate theory evidence of ANYTHING??
Yes, it's unsubstantiated.In other words, you're espousing unsubstantiated opinion as fact? Well, that's not good enough. Therefore that point in your argument is completely false and irrelevant.
If you want to ignore it, then go ahead. In any case, my argument does not rely on the fact that the firemen present that day had any engineering qualifications....so disregard if you like.
I've addressed this already.Incorrect, you are selectively picking points from my counter-argument, ignoring others and struggling with the rest. Watch the video at the centre of this whole argument and you will hear witnesses referring to explosions sounding like controlled explosions. I can link them to text if you wish?
SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS do not equal explosives.
If I say a car crash sounded like a bomb went off, does that mean a bomb actually went off??
If I say a concert was so loud it sounded like a war was going on, does that mean there was a war going on on the stage?
Do you not see the difference? Just because some people said they SOUND like controlled explosions, it does not mean they meant they thought/believed they were HEARING controlled explosions.
I have clearly shown this with my post on firemens quotes. If you look at one tiny excerpt of their statement, it may appear that they thought they were hearing controlled explosions.....however, if you read the full statement it is very clear they never believed they were actually hearing controlled explosions. The conspiracy theorists have been VERY dishonest in ommitting crucial parts of many statements.
Furthermore, as I said earlier, the testimony of non-expert witnesses at ground zero are only admissable insofar as they prove there was a very loud sound, which they heard. It DOES NOT PROVE, in any way, where that sound originated or it's cause.
Yes, if you could link me to the text I would appreciate it....however, for the reasons stated above....those quotes you speak of, mean nothing...if anything, they largely work against you and show how dishonest the conspiracy movement has been in the way the quote people.
Yes, governments lie.Answer these questions while you are at it. Do governments lie? If so, does the US government lie to it's citizens? Is it INCONCEIVABLE that the US government lied about 911? (if yes, then why?)
But you need evidence before you start throwing around accusations of lies.
This is evidence that you do not have.
you seem to be basing your argument around the fact that it is possibgle.
Well, anything is "possible".
It is "possible" that Marshans orchestrated 911.
THe point is, what matters is what there is evidence for.0 -
Kernel, no the evidence is NOT good enough.When evidence is presented, it's not good enough for you and is dismissed without good cause. Do you have any idea how frustrating that is? It's like arguing with creationists ffs.
In fact, it is NOT evidence at all.
If it is so frustrating, then please rebut what I have said about the firemens quotes or quotes from witnesses.
Rebut the obvious flaws I have pointed out in the thermite theory.
The evidence you presented is so heavily flawed that it cannot be considered evidence. It points to NOTHING.
It is frustrating for you because it is clearly rubbish.
If you wish to prove otherwise, please do so and present me with some substantive facts and rebuttals to the technical errors I have pointed out.You've exposed nothing. Care to prove your statements at all? Because they are nothing more than your opinion buddy. You remind me of Diogenes.
Have you not read my specific post about WHY the thermite theory is rubbish.
Have you not read my 2 specific posts about WHY the "sound of explosion" theory is rubbish. Read the entire quotes from the firemen which I posted earlier.
I already proved my statements. please read my posts before you start asking me to prove things which I already have.
It is not my opinion....I have linked you back to the entire statements of the firemen which rebut your statement that they heard controlled explosions. Read the full statements. How is this just my "opinion"?
I have shown you links to where Professor Jones has deleted vital information concerning his supposed evidence of thermite. Is that just my "opinion".
I have shown you perfectly reasonable explanations for the thermate theory which cast very strong doubt over the validity of your claims.
I just did prove my statements...in my earlier posts.
Or didnt you care to read those??0 -
The masses are ignorant and cant be bothered reading. Thus they get their information fed to them by the mass media. This is a greater evil in my opinion, since it influences far more people than Youtube ever could. You cannot disregard the *research* of those who make Youtube or other documentaries simply because you don't agree with them.
A case of the pot calling the kettle black here.
You did not even bother to read my post on thermite and the firemens quotes I posted for you.
And you accuse others of being too lazy to read?
No, you can ask questions.Are you 100% certain of the current official explanation of the 911 event? Do you feel that there are questions which us ... so called conspiracy theorists... ask which have been answered unsatisfactorally?
But you cant form elaborate and unsubstantiated theories from no evidence.
And you cant misconstrue facts, delete vital information from statements and pick and choose specific parts of statements which misrepresent what the person concerned was actually saying.
I have just disproved your statement on that the firemen said they actually heard controlled explosives. Read my post on it.As you know of me, the conclusion I have reached is based on my own research into the subject, as well as research into many aspects of world politics, history and 'conspiracy'. I believe that my opinion should be disproved. It has never been. If it is a bias, it's a bias that you also share on the flip side of the coin.
I earlier pointed out the glaring errors in your thermite theory. Read my post on it.
And by the way....you are wrong. If you make an accusation or statement, then YOU must back it up....it is not up to us. You must prove the validity in your statements, because YOU are the one who made them.
If it were up to us, it is the equivalent of me standing up in court and saying "Mr. O'brien killed his wife. Prove me wrong, otherwise, he is guilty".
Sorry, that is not the way the court system, logical debate, or scientific arguments works.
The difference between you and me, is I follow the evidence, you follow your beliefs.
There you go, it's just your belief.My belief (as has been posted in the conspiracy theories joke of a forum) is that it was driven by financial gain AND increased political control on the masses. Drop the irrefutable and replace it with compelling.
Thanks for clarifying that it was in fact you irrefutable BELIEF.
How about you start by showing us some real evidence.There are those who do things to make money, many have sullied the conspiracy field, agreed. But the truth is the truth, and what I believe I believe with good reason. Smoke and mirrors will blind the ignorance proles, but many can see through all the bull**** tbh.
Evidence which has not already been discredited.
You are blinded by your own beliefs.
You have not shown us any evidence which has not been discredited yet you continue to believe you crackpot theories.
I think we all know thats where the contnetion is.There was wrongdoing for the 911 event, the bone of contention between the likes of me and you is who was responsible for the wrongdoing. The notion of a few arabs with stanley knives hijacking those planes and flying them perfectly into the twin towers which subsequently collapsed......... that's the problem.
Isnt that what we have been discussing in the past 14 pages and asked you to present plausible evidence for?
Are you only figuring this out now?
Again, what is this evidence you speak of?All adds to the weight of the evidence on which my conclusion has been formed.
The thermite "evidence" (rubbish....read my post on it PLEASE)
The "sound of explosions" evidence (PLEASE READ MY 2 POSTS ON IT ALREADY)
You have given no evidence which has not been completely discredited.0 -
So. The Corrs, eh?
Am I the only one who ever owned one of their albums?0 -
[
.quote=Mahatma coat;56119470]Hmm, We've mae the breakout into AH again then.
Kernel, Why bother, we cant get anywhere in the CT forum what would you expect in AH, I see the same people postin the same sh1te here, cocooned in their little bubble of incredulity
What, you mean the EVIDENCE that we post?
The ACTUAL FULL statements that we post?
The fact that we post perfectly REAONABLE explanations for things before we jump to wil conclusions.
The fact that we have posted info which casts MASSIVE doubt over the thermite theory?
The fact that the conspiracy movement has been shown to be extremely dhshonest in the manner in which it quotes people and deleted vital information from reports & statements?
You mean all those things??
That was me who scoffed at the OP citing their Dad as a reputable source....as well as Sean Penn, im Corr and Bonodont want to get too caught up in this, but to the guy who scoffed cos someone mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin incident as an example of a previous conspiracy, So the Posters Dad believed that it was a false flag operation, most of the planet believes this now.
In any case, we are not discussing the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
We are also not discussing UFO's, the illuminati, the WTO, advanced energy systems etc etc.
Try staying on track.
It certainly didnt happen the way the 911 conspiracy theorists claimed, which is what I am rebutting here.....with facts.are you going to try and tell us that it wasnt, that it happened exactly like they claimed at the time??
[/QUOTE]People will be havin the same arguments about 911 in 25 years tim and ten the ones gettin laughed at are those who still cling to the lies being perpetrated by The NWO
So how about you post again in 25 years and we'll see if you are correct?0 -
By the way.
My post slating the thermite theory is on page 12.
It also shows how the professor who made the "discovery" has held back very important information and been quite dishonest in this regard.
My post on the firemens quotes which the conpiracy theorists like to base much of their argument on is on page 12.
Notice it is referenced to their ENTIRE statements, not a mere excerpt.
My post on the "sound of explosions" argument which the conpiracy theorists like to base much of their argument on is on page 12.
Notice it is referenced to their ENTIRE statements, not a mere excerpt.
Please read these for an explanation of why the Thermite/ate arguments and "sound of explosions" arguments are implausible rubbish.0 -
Ever wish you had never started a thread?
Mike.
And miss out on all this?Deleted User wrote: »So. The Corrs, eh?
Am I the only one who ever owned one of their albums?
I don't think you're supposed to admit that.0 -
Just catching up on this - G'wan Jim ya madman.:D0
-
The American Administration, Executive and its Agencies all knew that 9/11 was coming. It was mentioned in numerous reports. The fact that they did nothing to prevent it is where the conspiracy theorists have their opening. If the American Administration, Executive and its Agencies had made a single effort to prevent the incidents on 9/11 then the CTs arguments go belly up. But the American Administration, Executive and its Agencies did nothing, they just let it happen.
Donald Rumsfeld said, within 4 to 5 hours of the attack on 9/11, to his military team, make preparations to attack Iraq, even though there were no links between Iraq and 9/11. Heres the CBS coverage, note its not youtube or google. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
The clue to why they did this lies in a very simple point. The American Administration, Executive and its Agencies said that bin laden was held up in a couple of caves in Afghanistan. This was convenient since the American Oil companies were having great difficulty completing their oil pipeline required to take oil from the fields of Azerbijan to the Gulf of Bengal or to Pakistan. The Taliban were not being co-operative. They were more interested in the destruction of scared shrines and supplying the world with poppies. The company trying to get this work done was none other than Unocal, or Union Oil Company of California, later bought out by Chevron. At one stage this oil companies shipping operation had a tanker named after none other than that bitch of bitches Condi Rice, I need not explain the significance of the ships name being changed as recently as the start of this century. At this stage Condi was National Security Advisor to that slime bag Georgie Bush.
With the opportunity to go into Afghanistan and make sure the oil pipeline was completed on foot of the attack on the WTC secured then the opportunity to further gain was not missed. Theres Oil contracts in Iraq, Iraq has lots of them but the Russians are courting them very well. Best get stuck in there before Putin gets there first.
Now ask yourselves a little question. Do you believe corruption is rife in Irish society? Brown envelopes, planning, toll roads etc. We just lost Bertie to it, we lost many more for a lot worse than a few bob sterling. Do you believe corruption is possible on a global scale? Sure it is, the Banking System is corrupt, so too the motor industry, corruption is everywhere, its a human thing, a money thing, a greed thing. Don't forget about the NWO, illuminati, the Zionists etc. Take the Zionists, how did they ever manage to get a state where another state already existed and why does america spend so much money to keep israel in place? Corruption, nothing more, nothing less.
In summary, surely, to stand down, and allow your country to be attacked to further the gains of your corrupt lobbying corporations at the expense of your people is corruption at the highest level and falls only a little short of actually organising the attacks yourself. It is not too far a stretch to say that some agencies may have been involved in allowing 9/11 to happen.
The details of how a building in Manhatten falls is totally trivial compared to what this has done to freedom of speech and peoples faith in what claims to be the largest democracy on the planet. It has no relevence to the level of corruption we are dealing with. For as long as they keep people focussed on discussing the detail then no one will look at the big picture and for as long as that distraction goes on then no one will stand up and say STOP0 -
Advertisement
-
JJ6000, so you don't believe that WTC1 and WTC2 were demolished? Fair enough, what about WTC7? Do you believe WTC7 was demolished?
Go to 9:49 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitV8R8CqgI
The owner of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 Larry Silverstein is on tape saying that they decided to 'pull it', i.e. demolish it. It came down exactly the same as WTC1 and WTC2, with 'pulverised' concrete. He had all the WTC buildings insured for terrorist attacks weeks before 911, notice all the Corporate Jews in this 911 story which benefit from this and you see how the Israeli Zionists are involved. Comment on the Zionist side of things and tell us where you stand with that?
So, if only planes hit WTC1 and WTC2 but WTC7 WAS intentionally demolished, why did they all collapse in the exact same manner, pulverised into their own footstep? Surely WTC1 and WTC2 with your reasoning should have collapsed in atleast a different way to WTC7, yet they all look identical. How do you explain this? They should be different according to your theories, but they're not.
Only Popular Mechanics tries to explain that 'Pull it' meant to get the firefighters out of there. Now PM has been blown wide open for years now, the editor is related to Bush... obviously, so we wont be believing anything they have to say at all.
http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html
Phone call from PUMPITOUT.COM to Controlled Demolitions Inc:
PUMPITOUT: Is this Controlled Demolitions?
CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS INC: Yes it is.
PIO: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to breifly just to just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
PIO:I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok what type of term?
PIO: Well if you were in the demolition business and you said the term "Pull it", I was wondering exactly what that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
PIO: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm. Hold on a minute.
PIO: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
PIO: Yes.
CDI: Pull it is when they actually pull it down.
PIO: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
Audio: http://www.pumpitout.com/phone_calls/controlled_demolitions.mp3
How Popular Mechanics lied about 911 research to protect Larry Silverstein:
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1361
Larry Sivlerstein being asked what he meant about pulling the building and doing a dire attempt to cover it up on video:
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message521181/pg1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8
With regard to the Pentagon attacks, why is it that over 20 CCTV tapes were confisgated by the Feds and only 5 frames were released with any evidence of what hit the Pentagon, but i dont see any plane in those 5 frames? Do you? Why dont they release more footage with a frame that actually HAS the images of a plane in it? They have another 20 tapes of CCTV footage, surely all they need to do is release the tapes and we'll all know the truth straight away, why dont they? What are they hiding? Can you explain this JJ6000 or Slightly Bonkers?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/videos/fiveframes.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/video.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread212793/pg1
JJ6000 and Bonkers, you both go on about YouTube and Google Video being my only references but what about the other links ive posted in previous posts on this thread that you decided to outright IGNORE with links such as www.abovetopsecret.com www.dark-truth.org www.documentaries.ws
More ignored links below...
The 25 US officers that are questioning the official story:
http://jamie.com/2008/05/25/us-military-offices-question-911-fables/
You both also never commented on the INTERNET REGULATION that is happening now: www.dontregulate.org www.handsoff.org
Is this also a conspiracy theory? Slowly but surely eroding our civil liberties, maybe im imagining it all? But the US has already lost civil liberties, do you deny this? Patriot Act 1 & 2 and the Homeland Security Bill.
You both also havent commented on the CFR (this is VERY important), the PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and the NAU (Security and Prosperity Partnership of North Amercia) Are these things real or not?
So until you do comment on the above, i can't take you both seriously.
You come across as people just arguing for the sake of arguing, like JJ6000 has written so much crap about this that its completely evident that this guy doesnt have a life. Im just sick of people like yourselves, as are the majority of people that have got their heads around this material and come to the scary realisation that this is happening, and it NEEDS to be discussed more. I suppose im glad that it is being discused though... albeit with children.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement