Conspiracy Theories for Dummies (3071 hits)
Category: GraphicsLabels: ets_comedy_photoshops ets_sociopolitical_commentary
Rating: 1.39 on 153 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (View user info) at 2006-03-26 18:19:17 EST
User Reviews
Submitted by Bizdorph (user info) at 2006-03-31 11:14:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
While this doesn't necessarily mean what it says it does, this was an absolutely fantastically well written post. I actually enjoyed this which, on Uber, is becoming harder and harder to do...
Plus fucking two.
Submitted by Astropath (user info) at 2006-03-29 14:50:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeah. Quite a bit of free time on your hands, huh ? I mean, besides the whole "being an agent for change" thing. What's that ? You're not doing anything about the situation ? Oh. Ok, well lemme give you a clue.....7.62... remember to adjust for wind and elevation.
Submitted by Jacobt26 (user info) at 2006-03-28 20:04:24 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+2 because the end is coming in 2012, end of what I'm not sure though.
Seriously, there have been signs I've been looking at for a few years now and they're all coming at about the right time, something is going to happen that year, and most of us aren't going to live through it.
I'm guessing zombie revolution, but thats just me.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-28 14:47:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
WHEN IN DOUBT, BLAME THE FRENCH!
Submitted by Method (user info) at 2006-03-28 14:33:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
How about this for conspiracy, bucko - A friend of mine who's a Marine told me when he got back from Afghanistan that the plane that went down in the field in Pennsylvania was shot down by a missile from an American Fighter plane.
There was a mile long burn in the sky behind the last spot the hijacked plane was. The only thing that can do that is a missile from a fighter plane. Orders were given to shoot the plane down so it wouldn't hit the White House. The passengers on the plane didn't fight the terrorists for control of the plane, they blew the fuck up.
This is all old news, and everything you're saying has been said a million times.
I swear to God, if you start ranting about the O.J. case next, I'm going to punch you in your fucking mouth.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 14:19:46 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf --- thanks for helping me out with the fema link. here's a link that might help you regain a grip on reality.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 14:09:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
hey dipshit, i didn't say they weren't investigating. i asked why they would need to collect evidence in for a criminal investigation right then. as in, why sit there and set a up a forensics scene when i don't know... maybe they could've been LOOKING FOR SURVIVORS!!!
i shouldn't have to try and verify a source that a site claims is legitimate if the link doesn't work. that's a red flag right there, bucko. it's their job to keep things up to date and make sure everything is in its place. if a site takes off a given article, then your conspiracy site should have the right information to give me regarding its hard copy. if it doesn't, that's another red flag.
all in all, i think you are seriously dillusioned. i'm really enjoying watching you spin off this planet.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:59:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 10:17:15 (#)
Ranking: 0
of course he had a large insurance policy, that's what you do when you own the largest buildings in the world. oh, they included terrorist attacks in the policy? well no shit sherlock, bin laden had already bombed them back in 96 or whatever it was. and we aren't denying the fact that they demolished the wtc 7 building, bamf already said it was probably taken down for any number of reasons. like maybe beacuse there had been a raging inferno in it all day and it was completely burned out, they probably figured it better just to demolish it than leave it stand.
as far as carting off the debris right away, what's wrong with that? why would there be a criminal investigation? they saw the planes go into the wtc, remember? whatever...
----------------------
Haven't you ever heard of an accident investigation? When a bridge fails they investigate. Then a tanker overturns they investigate. When Clinton gets his cock sucked, they investigate.
Not only would investiagtion tell you how and why the buildings collapsed exactly, but it would allow you the opportunity to sift through the rubble for more 'evidence' about the terrorists such as the 'magic passport' of Muhammed Atta.
There are ALWAYS reasons to investigate even the smallest disaster.
Don't give me this "why would they investigate" crap! You're a vapid, hollow-headed, ignorant fool.
You think that someone 'credible' like Gulianai or Rumsfeld is just going to post the whole fucking story on the internet. You think that people aren't going to have to gather all their facts from a variety of sources, and you are apparently so fucking lazy that even when the linked sites have been taken down, you won't look elsewhere. You just stop right there and declare everything the person is saying to be a complete fabrication without even trying to find an alternate source, and without considering for a second that some of these sites have been around for almost 4 years now. 4 years is an eternity on the web. Things change everyday.
What it boils down to is you already have drawn your conclusion and now you are trying to keep that conclusion in the face of all the contrary facts.
It took me months to arrive at this conclusion. I've been thinking about it for a long time now. I didn't just decide to quickly scan a few conspiracy sites and draw a conclusion. I've seen enough from enough varied sources to know what happened that day in my own mind. I know enough to know who's responsible. It's not proof, but it's as close as we'll ever get. This is just another JFK. He was killed by his own military brass. It took us 30 years to get any documents released. This will be no different. We'll all probably be too old to take to the streets by then, and the young ones won't care, and they will have no idea how it applies to them in their time, so it will eventually happen again. This time to them. But who cares, right?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:56:58 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
ummm... so they saw the planes crash into the trade centers, right? the building came down as a result, right? they needed to get through the rubble to look for survivors, right? they needed to do it as quickly as possible, right? but they are supposed to find a random site for analysis the day of? i'm pretty sure on that day they assumed what everyone else seems to be able to see but you -- the planes slamming into the buildings is what lead to the collapse of the towers, not some brilliantly concealed and detonated bombs.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:44:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:40:26 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:37:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy I swear to god you are a goddamn dumbass.
I don't care if a person gives a fucking 3 hour speech about Care Bears in Neverland, if they take 5 minutes to admit to murder 2 hours in, they are not excused.
Shut the fuck up you fucking high schooler.
------------------------
hey there cupcake, i didn't say i wasn't going to watch it, i said i didn't want to watch it now. why don't you try refuting what i just explained to you? oh you can't? why not? oh, that's right. god dammit i hate being tight...
----------------
Then shut your fucking mouth you little bitch, and watch the goddamn video before you say another fucking word.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:43:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 10:30:18 (#)
Ranking: 0
not to mention that carting off the debris immediately is actually the most logical thing to do in this sort of disaster -- they were trying to find survivors in the rubble.
case closed.
--------------------
Carting off debris to another area for sifting and analysis maybe.. But they took it to a DUMP. WARDY, THEY TOOK IT TO A FUCKING DUMP! THEY CUT UP THE FUCKING STEEL AND SOLD IT TO CHINA BEFORE IT EVEN COOLED!
They knew there were no survivors. Of course, you have to try to look anyway, but they found MOLTEN AND EVAPORATED STEEL amid the rubble that could not have been caused by the fucking fire. That's been proven.
The only thing that could have caused what the rescue workers saw that day and talked about on camera was explosives.
No, it's not closed by a fucking long shot.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:40:26 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:37:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy I swear to god you are a goddamn dumbass.
I don't care if a person gives a fucking 3 hour speech about Care Bears in Neverland, if they take 5 minutes to admit to murder 2 hours in, they are not excused.
Shut the fuck up you fucking high schooler.
------------------------
hey there cupcake, i didn't say i wasn't going to watch it, i said i didn't want to watch it now. why don't you try refuting what i just explained to you? oh you can't? why not? oh, that's right. god dammit i hate being tight...
oh, and i'm in college sir, not high school. guess we can't date then, huh?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:37:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy I swear to god you are a goddamn dumbass.
I don't care if a person gives a fucking 3 hour speech about Care Bears in Neverland, if they take 5 minutes to admit to murder 2 hours in, they are not excused.
Shut the fuck up you fucking high schooler.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 13:32:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 02:44:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
"In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, haulers began to cut up and truck pieces of the towers' 300,000 tons (272,000 tonnes) of structural steel to recycling centers because the pieces purportedly did not hold any evidence important to criminal investigators.
According to a report in the New York Times, city officials who were focused on recovery efforts overlooked the possibility that the debris could hold clues of interest to forensic engineers. A request to the city by ASCE to study the structural steel did not reach officials until almost three weeks after the disaster." http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html (Direct link from the site provided by Wardy.) ---
did you read the rest of this article? it has nothing to do with saying the trade centers didn't come down because of the planes, it has to do with how they're going about researching how to make buildings stronger and safer. you can't just pull random quotes from the middle of the article to suit your purpose and in the process completely change the idea that the article you quoted was trying to convey. shame on you. go read the article again. --------------
He now stands to make an enormous $4.6 BILLION profit from 9/11 on an initial investment that, according to Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2001/nf2001105_5320.htm, was not even economically viable to begin with considering it was going to require $200 million in renovations just to remove asbestos and get the building up to code, and because from its inception WTC had been government subsidized...that is until Larry Silverstien took it over and took out his $7.1 BILLION insurance policy on it, which, incidentally, included losses from terrorist attacks. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html ----
your "whatreallyhappened" site is completely worthless. half the links for the quotes they give don't work, which basically means they were made up. the other ones are pretty much the same thing you did, taken out of context so that it makes it sound the way the author wants, not the way the author of the quoted article originally intended. you should pretty much dismiss everything that site has to say about anything. getting insurance money for the largest buildings in the world being destroyed is not a crime. never has been, never will be. ------
A person could go on and on over this. The screw ups, the cover ups, the quirky little coincidences, the flat out lies, the lack of access to untampered with evidence from the crime scene by an independent and reputable investigative body, the subsequent world events, the massive profits of those who benefitted most...all of these things beg to be at least addressed by our media, but they are not, were not, and never WILL be. And it's not because it's not a worthy story, it's because it's not something the American people are likely to take lightly.
All I ask is that people take a look for themselves at the reports that ARE available, which do not have to include "conspiracy theory" websites... You can look around in 1000 different places and find your 'reputable sources'. You can even go to the source itself and seek out documents from their source and follow up on every single claim these websites make. ---
i have been.
-----------------
To me, ALL news agencies are someone's pawns. Somewhere inside all that contradictory information, though, is the truth. Unfortunately we have to dig to find it. Then, those that do, are labeled 'crackpots' and 'charletans'. ----
right, so the major news agencys that expose the prison abuses in iraq, the wire tappings, tom delay's issues, clinton's sex scandals, they're all pawns trying to hold back information? get a clue, your idea that the media is corrupt and witholding information for the sake of government is flawed on the basic principal of capitalism: each news corporation is fighting one another for profits, and in doing so needs to give it's audience the best product. what's the best product in terms of news and journalism? oh, okay. are you starting to follow me? no? yes? let me know. i'll watch that video of the douche bag standing up in front of twenty people reading his note cards later. i watched two minutes and was bored out of my skull, but for you i'll do it. let me see... anything else... hmmm... try to get off the conspiracy sites and start making your own decisions...
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 10:30:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
not to mention that carting off the debris immediately is actually the most logical thing to do in this sort of disaster -- they were trying to find survivors in the rubble.
case closed.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-28 10:17:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
of course he had a large insurance policy, that's what you do when you own the largest buildings in the world. oh, they included terrorist attacks in the policy? well no shit sherlock, bin laden had already bombed them back in 96 or whatever it was. and we aren't denying the fact that they demolished the wtc 7 building, bamf already said it was probably taken down for any number of reasons. like maybe beacuse there had been a raging inferno in it all day and it was completely burned out, they probably figured it better just to demolish it than leave it stand.
as far as carting off the debris right away, what's wrong with that? why would there be a criminal investigation? they saw the planes go into the wtc, remember? whatever...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-28 07:06:12 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 02:44:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
All I ask is that people take a look for themselves at the reports that ARE available, which do not have to include "conspiracy theory" websites... You can look around in 1000 different places and find your 'reputable sources'. You can even go to the source itself and seek out documents from their source and follow up on every single claim these websites make.
To me, ALL news agencies are someone's pawns. Somewhere inside all that contradictory information, though, is the truth. Unfortunately we have to dig to find it. Then, those that do, are labeled 'crackpots' and 'charletans'.
--------------------
The reputable sources are overwhelmingly against what you are saying.
You pick one physcist out of a hundred.
You call all news networcks, papers, and major journalists pawns, but seem to think a guy who makes money speaking about his conspiracies has no motivation to trick people in believing his theories?
I give up.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 03:01:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Here is another video, a lecture, given by a physicist from BYU on the collapse of the WTC buildings: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586&q=9%2F11&pl=true
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 02:51:55 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:05:02 (#)
Ranking: 2
Right ETS, I was just showing that I shared interest. That is all.
-------------------
Don't get me wrong, I think it's awesome someone besides me here is interested in that sort of thing.
You should make a post about making a Tesla coil showing pictures of the process and shit. Then you should demonstrate how they can make a spoon disappear and fuse into your body. ;)
Thanks for the heads up on the Hutchison Effect. Interesting stuff.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-28 02:44:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy, if you don't think the Bush administration knew that flying planes into buildings was a possible terrorist modus operandi, click the video and fast forward to 48:30 and watch the new clip.
For the rest...
Here is why I'm skeptical about any conclusions reached about why the WTC buildings really collapsed. They started carting away debris immediately to landfills...LANDFILLS...because apparently they didn't think any of it was pertinent to a criminal investiagtion. The largest terrorist attack ever on U.S. soil, and it wasn't pertinent. Kinda makes one wonder what would be pertinent.
"In the immediate aftermath of the disaster, haulers began to cut up and truck pieces of the towers' 300,000 tons (272,000 tonnes) of structural steel to recycling centers because the pieces purportedly did not hold any evidence important to criminal investigators.
According to a report in the New York Times, city officials who were focused on recovery efforts overlooked the possibility that the debris could hold clues of interest to forensic engineers. A request to the city by ASCE to study the structural steel did not reach officials until almost three weeks after the disaster." http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1017/news_1-2.html (Direct link from the site provided by Wardy.)
I do not deny the plausibility of the stated cause for collapse. There are MANY MANY other things at issue than just whether or not the twin towers were rigged with explosives. I am fully aware of the mammoth nature of this task - hence my questions about the rapid demolition of WTC7, which was capable, at least, of standing until the recovery of the other structures was completed.
Let's leave aside the larger WTC structures for a moment and just look at one of the other destroyed buildings, WTC7. (Note: of all the buildings at ground zero that were totally destroyed on 9/11 or demolished thereafter, not ONE belonged to anyone but Larry Silverstein and his group of investors, even though other buildings were closer to the twin towers and suffered massive concussive damage due to falling debris.)
It is interesting to note that the FEMA report (FEMA is not even an investigative body, by the way) on WTC7 states unequivocally that the building's collapse was due to fire, even though they were never given direct access to ground zero whatsoever. Nevertheless, the apparently thought they knew enough to state in Chapter 5 of their investigation report, "the performance of WTC 7 is of significant interest because it appears the collapse was due primarily to fire, rather than any impact damage from the collapsing towers."
The full report can be found here: http://www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm (I go to the source itself when possible.)
But this copy of Chapter 5 is much more amusing: http://www.wtc7.net/articles/FEMA/WTC_ch5.htm
Yet the owner of the WTC complex stated flatly in the interview with PBS included here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11 at 23:45 in, regarding WTC7, that he told the fire dept. to 'pull it', meaning to demolish the building using explosives (which were miraculously installed and deployed by 5:20PM that day).
He now stands to make an enormous $4.6 BILLION profit from 9/11 on an initial investment that, according to Business Week http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/oct2001/nf2001105_5320.htm, was not even economically viable to begin with considering it was going to require $200 million in renovations just to remove asbestos and get the building up to code, and because from its inception WTC had been government subsidized...that is until Larry Silverstien took it over and took out his $7.1 BILLION insurance policy on it, which, incidentally, included losses from terrorist attacks. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/silverstein.html
A person could go on and on over this. The screw ups, the cover ups, the quirky little coincidences, the flat out lies, the lack of access to untampered with evidence from the crime scene by an independent and reputable investigative body, the subsequent world events, the massive profits of those who benefitted most...all of these things beg to be at least addressed by our media, but they are not, were not, and never WILL be. And it's not because it's not a worthy story, it's because it's not something the American people are likely to take lightly.
All I ask is that people take a look for themselves at the reports that ARE available, which do not have to include "conspiracy theory" websites... You can look around in 1000 different places and find your 'reputable sources'. You can even go to the source itself and seek out documents from their source and follow up on every single claim these websites make.
To me, ALL news agencies are someone's pawns. Somewhere inside all that contradictory information, though, is the truth. Unfortunately we have to dig to find it. Then, those that do, are labeled 'crackpots' and 'charletans'.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:52:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/terroristattack/bush_speech_9-17.html <------ yeah, this guy is a real asshole, huh...
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:47:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html <----------- this guy explains how the towers collapsed straight down. i tried to tell you, but like i said i haven't had physics since high school. this guy is an award winning structural engineer and i think it says he's a prof at MIT. this ets is what we would call a credible source.
Submitted by Tr4ppedunderice (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:27:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
http://www.ubersite.com/m/85904
Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:05:02 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Right ETS, I was just showing that I shared interest. That is all.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 22:01:09 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:20:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: Yes, I got you on that. It's cool to disagree. I don't mind disagreeing. I just can't stand it when people just ignore certain facts in their rebuttals, and try to attack me based solely on where I GOT the information...even if it's true.
I just appreciate that you spoke up about the facts to make the point you did. It's hard enough for me to have to research and track down all the info to make all my points, so thanks for that small token.
--------------------------------
okay, apparently you really don't have much education, so maybe i'm sorry for being so harsh. IT IS VERY VERY IMPORTANT WHERE YOU GET YOUR INFORMATION!!!!!! the fact that the information you get is from sites that pick and choose certain tiny bits of quotes and pictures to prove their point is not credible. in the busines of news they call that yellow journalism.
don't you think that if you have to do a ton of research and your claims still don't hold up that maybe you're just wrong? instead of calling us the ignorant that can't come to terms with the severely corrupt government you claim we have, maybe it's you that just can't come to grips with reality?
i don't know, i guess i feel bad because this review and now that i look back really make it seem like you might have a bit more education.
caul -- i know 18 minutes seems like an eternity when you're making your tony's frozen pizza, but when you're talking about assembling fighter teams to scramble a civilian aircraft and gun it down because of the *possibility* that it might have been high jacked, well then 18 minutes goes by about as quick as the first time i had sex.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 21:52:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yea, Dan, I got to it: http://www.ubersite.com/m/85847#1903417
Submitted by Average_Dan (user info) at 2006-03-27 21:28:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 11:33:42 (#)
Ranking: 0
AverageDan: Don't get me started on HAARP.
--------------------------------
Ha ETS, didn't see this earlier, so I'm just going to get to it.
The funny thing about ELF's and UHF's (I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about considering you know what HAARP is) is the research that Nikolai Tesla did at the beginning of the 20th Century concerning the relationships of them on the Human Body. It was quite extensive(if the common knowledge on Tesla's life can be distiguished between fact and fiction) and then suddenly all interest to the public went quite dormant.
I have personnally built up quite the collection of HV transformers, Van De Graff Generators, and built quite a few Tesla coil's in my time and have always had an extreme intrest in that one section in that field of force and it's relationship to the other 3 forces involved in String Theory and a TOE.
If you want to check something funky and conspiratorial, google John Hutchinson, and the "Hutchinson Effect" and how closely it mirrors the rumors involved in the Philadelphia Experiment.
I love shit like this and have actually written 2 papers on HF electromagnetic radiation in school. I tried to write my own version of Tesla's Bio that can be seen here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/71250 and here: http://www.ubersite.com/m/71432 but there wasn't much of an interest in it.
Sorry about the linkwhore, but if you enjoy his life and the mystery surrounding it, you might want to have a looksee.
A_D
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:54:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:26:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
"But americans are way to stubborn and dumb to learn lessons"
No, just our reps. But I guess that equals the citizens that vote them into office.
The clinton white house was told of the 9-11 plot and didn't do anything about it. Wait, yes they did. The white house lawyers difuted the claims as improbable and promptly fired the officials that filed the report. I forgot what the name of this scandal was, maybe because the news hasn't even bothered reporting on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:37:56 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:26:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
"But americans are way to stubborn and dumb to learn lessons"
No, just our reps.
===
Fuck that "Don't hate us, hate our governement"
Do Americans do the same favor to people abroad? I THINK NOT.
Americans have deep seeded hatred for any country that dares to disagree with them so you will excuse us, but the door swing both ways.
----
Hey Jackass do you have a selective reading problem?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:26:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Home time...
Oxymoron: Might be back later. I'll try to answer your questions then. I have too much going on to get to everyone immediately.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:26:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:20:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: Yes, I got you on that. It's cool to disagree. I don't mind disagreeing. I just can't stand it when people just ignore certain facts in their rebuttals, and try to attack me based solely on where I GOT the information...even if it's true.
I just appreciate that you spoke up about the facts to make the point you did. It's hard enough for me to have to research and track down all the info to make all my points, so thanks for that small token.
-----------------------------------
ETS look on the website plugged on the video, go to the 9/11 facts look at the links they provide their points. I only clicked on two. One didn't work and the other was linked to another conspiracy theory site. Being on a website does not make anything a fact, especially if it is a website like that.
The reason CNN, BBC, nobody is carrying this is because it is not backed up by facts any real reporters think are newsworthy.
I am done for real this time.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:20:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul: Yes, I got you on that. It's cool to disagree. I don't mind disagreeing. I just can't stand it when people just ignore certain facts in their rebuttals, and try to attack me based solely on where I GOT the information...even if it's true.
I just appreciate that you spoke up about the facts to make the point you did. It's hard enough for me to have to research and track down all the info to make all my points, so thanks for that small token.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:18:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:57:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
Plus they didn't actually do it."""
Wow, great argument. Why do you think they didn't do it? Perhaps because their attack was thwarted...i don't know!?
The french realized that was their plan when they asked to fully refuel in Marseilles when they could've reached Paris from Alger directly.
The U.S. had way better tips then this mere speculation. It had MEMOS and um...18 MINUTES BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND PLANE!
I'm sorry but when you're more incompetent than the French, you have a serious problem.
You need to stop excusing your government.
----------------------------------
The refuelling in Marseilles didn't 100% mean they were going to try and crash the plane. Maybe they lost their nerve and wanted to fly to Iran or some shit, maybe they were stalling for time. Maybe the US thought the french made up info that they were going to crash the plane to make their rescue more heroic, because somebody always complains that too much force was used.
I do think they have no excuse for not shooting after the first plane struck, actually the other two planes may have been over dense population at that point, but if they weren't there is no excuse.
I do they think they fucked up, and worse I don't think they have learned much from the fuckup.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:15:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"...to really believe that the administration is capable morally and powerful enough to do this in secret is simply absurd."
That says it all right there. I just don't think people are ready to hear the truth. Too painful, I suppose. You think it's absurd? How did you feel watching those towers come down? Was THAT absurd? It was to me, but it happened. And now here we are.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:12:53 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I know how hard it is for you to side with me, but I really do appreciate the backup. That's SPOT ON."""
Eeeeh dude...you think it's an inside job. I don't.
I'm not exactly backing you up here. Just arguing a point.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:10:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:57:11 (#)
Ranking: -2
Plus they didn't actually do it."""
Wow, great argument. Why do you think they didn't do it? Perhaps because their attack was thwarted...i don't know!?
The french realized that was their plan when they asked to fully refuel in Marseilles when they could've reached Paris from Alger directly.
The U.S. had way better tips then this mere speculation. It had MEMOS and um...18 MINUTES BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND PLANE!
I'm sorry but when you're more incompetent than the French, you have a serious problem.
You need to stop excusing your government.
-----------------------
I know how hard it is for you to side with me, but I really do appreciate the backup. That's SPOT ON.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 20:09:16 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 18:50:19 (#)
Ranking: -2
Well ETS I tried to watch but couldn't finish.
I got to the part about the dust shooting out of windows before the floors collapsed to that level and how they say that is proof of demolition.
---------------------
oK, PLEASE, for once, just humor me and watch the rest. Please?
If you like, you can skip all the parts about the explosives. The rest of the video is far more important anyway. That's the part I wanted you to see. It's gets better and better toward the end as he digs up more and more stuff.
Just please check it out. Seriously, man, we owe those people at least that much, surely.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:57:11 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Plus they didn't actually do it."""
Wow, great argument. Why do you think they didn't do it? Perhaps because their attack was thwarted...i don't know!?
The french realized that was their plan when they asked to fully refuel in Marseilles when they could've reached Paris from Alger directly.
The U.S. had way better tips then this mere speculation. It had MEMOS and um...18 MINUTES BETWEEN THE 1ST AND 2ND PLANE!
I'm sorry but when you're more incompetent than the French, you have a serious problem.
You need to stop excusing your government.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:43:01 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:10:51 (#)
Ranking: -2
for once I'm gonna side with ETS on something.
wardy, you said: "nobody had ever thought of an attack like this before".
http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html
--------------------------------
Slightly different situation Caul. They were in Marseilles and wanted to fly to Paris, what else would they do when there, except crash the plane? Plus they didn't actually do it. But they should have known better, and I am sure they considered it, but nobody wanted to give the order.
I loved how the algerian special forces are called Ninja's, that made the link worth reading.
Submitted by shitfuck (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:38:18 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
You bitches don't know shit about economics.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:37:56 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:26:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
"But americans are way to stubborn and dumb to learn lessons"
No, just our reps.
===
Fuck that "Don't hate us, hate our governement"
Do Americans do the same favor to people abroad? I THINK NOT.
Americans have deep seeded hatred for any country that dares to disagree with them so you will excuse us, but the door swing both ways.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:28:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"never before had civilian aircraft been hijacked and used as a weapon"
Hey, I just refuted that. Muslim terrorists in 1994 planned to use it on the Eiffeil Tower (and the crowd below) so it wasn't exactly a premiere.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:26:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"But americans are way to stubborn and dumb to learn lessons"
No, just our reps. But I guess that equals the citizens that vote them into office.
The clinton white house was told of the 9-11 plot and didn't do anything about it. Wait, yes they did. The white house lawyers difuted the claims as improbable and promptly fired the officials that filed the report. I forgot what the name of this scandal was, maybe because the news hasn't even bothered reporting on it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:25:43 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 18:41:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
I want to show everyone how fucking stupid Wardy is...
--I asked why the buildings fell straight down instead of one direction.
--Wardy attacks me IMMEDIATELY, suggesting I don't know anything about physics because in order for the buildings to tip to one side, there would have to have been "an outside force" such as a hurricane force wind.
--Little does Wardy know, I asked why the buildings didn't fall in one direction or the other, PRECISELY BECAUSE unless EVERY SINGLE SUPPORT PILLAR failed at once, there would be a net force in one direction, causing the building to tip in that direction."
I doubt it. If you are building a building that big and it suffers a critical failure, they probably design it to fall in instead of over so it doesn't flatten every building around it. But lets pretend that half or most the supports are weakened and fail, if you look at a simple free body diagram of the supports it would tip, but the supports are surrounded with heavy cement and other attatchments. I didn't watch all of that video, but on the website they didn't mention that as proof, and I have yet to hear a structural engineer from anywhere say it would fall over.
"It is the JOB of NORAD to do just that - shoot down planes that are flying in restricted airspace or are off course and a threat to civilians! It's their fucking JOB! They were ON A TRAINING MISSION THE MORNING OF 9/11 to 'practice' a 9/11-type scenario!!!! Nevermind all the pre-9/11 memos given to president Bush indicating that Bin Laden might be planning to hijack aircraft: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html "
There job is to shoot down enemy aircraft, never before had civilian aircraft been hijacked and used as a weapon. It is very easy to see how no commander, or president even would want to give the order to fire.
"I will take the architect's word over that of the U.S. government at this point. That's for GODDAMN sure. And yes, it is apparently a typical thing for architects and engineers to conduct such tests on their buildings whether in a computer model or in a scaled down model. It's common. And yea, I take his word for it. Even Bin Laden said he didn't expect the buildings to fall and was as shocked as anyone when they did."
Computer models are woefully innaccurate for this.
"GOOD FUCKING QUESTION! That's one I'd like to know my fucking self. I'd also like to know why buidings that were far closer were virtually untouched while building 7 had to be brought down - not to mention the fact that the fucking thing was wired in less than a day. IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. It's not possible.
Demolition engineers work for weeks setting up demolitions on 47 story buildings. This is NOT a same day kind of job! ASK SOMEONE. Talk about research...do some of your own, Wardy."
But they can set up demolition in the towers with no notice? Ok.
"--Wardy also said this: "then you also have to figure in that you're assuming that the fbi, cia, and whoever else were all in on the conspiracy to be harboring this information -- this is the same fbi, cia and other government enforcement officials that required a patriot act so that they'd be better at working together."
My response? I REST MY FUCKING CASE. DUUUUHHHH."
I think you are missing his point. If they can't work together to stop terrorism why do you think they could work together to cover something like this up?
Anyway, I have given this piece of shit enough heat, actually the post was funny, until I realized you were probably serious...
You always tell people to open their eyes and see the truth, you should take your own advice and look where this video comes from and how he gains from spreading this stuff.
If someone were to say that someone in the administration knew about 9/11 but didn't prevent it because they thought there would be some benefit, you could have a serious discussion. But to really believe that the administration is capable morally and powerful enough to do this in secret is simply absurd.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:20:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
ETS: "I asked why the buildings fell straight down instead of one direction."
Oxy: Physics, when one support column fails all the rest fail within fractions of seconds of that moment. When a tree falls, it tilts to one side because you removed what was supporting it from that particular side. If you watch the video of the attack, you see that each tower tilts slightly to one side before collapsing straight down. This was due to the supports on that particular side failing first. The others followed very shortly after therefore the appearance that it colapses straight down.
ETS: "Furthermore, Wardy said, "fighter jets would not have intercepted and shot down the planes before 9/11. nobody had ever thought of an attack like this before".
OXY: You can't just shoot down planes without knowing absolutely 110% that they are a threat. The first 3 planes hit within such a short period of time that officials couldn't make that decision at the time. The 4th plane wasn't shot done either, if you remember seeing the crash scene of flight 93, it looked like any other plane crash. If this scenario were to happen today, the planes would have been shot down if possible, and questions asked later; post 9-11 mindset.
I saw the show on discovery channel that interviewed the architect of the towers. And the building could withstand multiple direct impacts from small passenger planes(cesnas), not airliners. The major factor in the buildings collapsing was the jet fuel. The fuel burns incredibally hot, therefore melting the structural members of the building and making them fail.
As for the dust shooting out from the bottom floors...have you not ever used a bicycle pump?
When the building first began to collapse(I'm talking the exact moment) the air beneath where the structure failed will be compreesed and forced out every possible exit. The highest pressure points would be at the bottom of the building. Therefore blowing dust, debris, and air of course out the windows.
I noticed you didn't have a response to my previous reviews and went straight to going after Wardy.
Do I smell funny? Why won't you respond to me?
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:15:06 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
eh, i mean yeah i guess so but conventional wisdom was that the planes would land somewhere and the pilots would demand something, usually political prisoners, money, or blow. i was unaware of that, thanks. i would still think that the government is in a lose lose situation now. i mean, how do you decide the potential threat of a hijacked airplane? do you immediately intercept it and gun it down, killing hostages but at the same time thwarting a possible greater threat? still seems like a shitty decision to make, especially when the plane is cruising at 450 mph and you've got thirteen minutes to decide... that my friends, is not a job i want to have ever...
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:10:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
for once I'm gonna side with ETS on something.
wardy, you said: "nobody had ever thought of an attack like this before".
http://www.specialoperations.com/Counterterrorism/gign.html
http://media.putfile.com/air-france
But americans are way to stubborn and dumb to learn lessons.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 19:07:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
you promote the video that promotes the theory that the buildings would not have fallen straight down in the manner that they did. i explained to you why they would. yeah, you're right one side was more damaged than the other, but when 20 tons of steel, concrete, and other shit start snapping and bending, the theory is the rest is coming pretty quick behind it, meaning that even with your "leaning trajectory" theory, you'd still only be looking at a straight down collapse because once the debris crumbled and left the building structure it would fall straight down, more or less.
regarding the fighter pilots, remember back in the mid nineties when a cessna flew into the white house? where were they on that one?
regarding the 9/11 suspect, what more proof do you need that al quaeda was behind the attacks? your so blind that the only way you refute his admission of guilt is by saying "well yeah, but i mean he didn't know that the u.s. government was also going to attack us on the same day." wow, imagine the fucking coincidence. not only are you suggesting something that is seemingly improbable, it is pretty much ascinine. the fact that you insist the government had information that we were going to be attacked on 9/11 is bullshit. they had bits and pieces of what is known as "chatter" but i have yet to see anything that says they knew the date of the attack and the method. but give me a link to a blog, i'm interested to see what you and your gumshoe buddies can come up with.
i can't remember what else you tried to refute, but i have to go coach. i'll come back to this later and i look forward to reading some more great links to pointless sites.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 18:50:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Well ETS I tried to watch but couldn't finish.
I got to the part about the dust shooting out of windows before the floors collapsed to that level and how they say that is proof of demolition. I am no demolition expert, but if that was a charge that had been placed there, and it went off that much out of place I don't see how timed charges were needed. A more plauible explination was a pressure wave kicked out some of the windows, I doubt all the fire doors that would prevented that were left closed.
I looked at the lonelantern.org website and read the rest of their "proof". It was funny how many links didn't work, or linked to other conspiracy theory websites and cited them as if they were a reliable source.
I also read a little about the guy behind the video, "Gary S. Franchi Jr. is the founder of The Lone Lantern Society, a Chicago area native and avid researcher of Bible Prophecy, Politics, 9/11, and many other "hot button" issues." BIblicle prophecy, and politics? Great mix. Odd that it made no mention of formal education, but did plug him for speaking engagements. I am tempted to write him to see how much he charges.
I can see why you like this guy's video, a conspiracy nut who is trying to make money by sharing the "truth". He is like you with a little bit of drive.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 18:41:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I want to show everyone how fucking stupid Wardy is...
--I asked why the buildings fell straight down instead of one direction.
--Wardy attacks me IMMEDIATELY, suggesting I don't know anything about physics because in order for the buildings to tip to one side, there would have to have been "an outside force" such as a hurricane force wind.
--Little does Wardy know, I asked why the buildings didn't fall in one direction or the other, PRECISELY BECAUSE unless EVERY SINGLE SUPPORT PILLAR failed at once, there would be a net force in one direction, causing the building to tip in that direction.
--This helps my case about
--Furthermore, Wardy said, "fighter jets would not have intercepted and shot down the planes before 9/11. nobody had ever thought of an attack like this before".
It is the JOB of NORAD to do just that - shoot down planes that are flying in restricted airspace or are off course and a threat to civilians! It's their fucking JOB! They were ON A TRAINING MISSION THE MORNING OF 9/11 to 'practice' a 9/11-type scenario!!!! Nevermind all the pre-9/11 memos given to president Bush indicating that Bin Laden might be planning to hijack aircraft: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0409041pdb1.html
--Wardy also went on to say it was absurd to take an architect's word about a building that HE designed.
I will take the architect's word over that of the U.S. government at this point. That's for GODDAMN sure. And yes, it is apparently a typical thing for architects and engineers to conduct such tests on their buildings whether in a computer model or in a scaled down model. It's common. And yea, I take his word for it. Even Bin Laden said he didn't expect the buildings to fall and was as shocked as anyone when they did.
--Wardy then went on to question what the FBI or CIA or DOD might have possibly had in building 7 to want to burn and demolish it THAT DAY.
GOOD FUCKING QUESTION! That's one I'd like to know my fucking self. I'd also like to know why buidings that were far closer were virtually untouched while building 7 had to be brought down - not to mention the fact that the fucking thing was wired in less than a day. IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD. It's not possible.
Demolition engineers work for weeks setting up demolitions on 47 story buildings. This is NOT a same day kind of job! ASK SOMEONE. Talk about research...do some of your own, Wardy.
--Wardy also said this: "then you also have to figure in that you're assuming that the fbi, cia, and whoever else were all in on the conspiracy to be harboring this information -- this is the same fbi, cia and other government enforcement officials that required a patriot act so that they'd be better at working together."
My response? I REST MY FUCKING CASE. DUUUUHHHH.
PS: Moussoui being on trial has NOTHING to do with this. It's not unreasonable to think that he might have known about the hijackers' plot, but not the U.S. involvement. What the hell does that prove? Nothing.
Wardy, I'm sorry, but you really are fucking S.T.U.P.I.D.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 17:11:38 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/27/moussaoui/index.html -- so is this guy a pawn of the american neocon government conspiracy as well???
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:46:19 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
i said i was going to stay off of this but i'm afraid you've made me very angry with your inability to do valid research for yourself. you call us sheep for following the motives of a corporate media but at least i can call up cnn and ask them to back up their sources for any news story i want. i don't suspect i could do the same with your little video pal. i'm going to address a few things that haven't already been addressed by indo and bamf:
1) you asked why would the top parts of the buildings just tip to the side like a tree falling over. apparently you were off smoking car fumes when they taught in physics that in order to send an object in motion, it needs to be pushed into motion by an opposing, stronger force. well, the only way this would have been achieved on 9/11 was if after the jets hit the towers, hurricane force winds -- maybe even something stronger like a super vortex sucked it in one direction. otherwise, nothing was going to push that building one way or the other, gravity was going to do it's business and that thing was coming straight down. if you're having a hard time visualizing this, go buy jenga. yes, i know it's a crude model for the situation, but when you pull out the fatal piece that causes it to come crashing down, it generally doesn't swing one way or the other, but instead comes crashing straight down on top of itself.
2) fighter jets would not have intercepted and shot down the planes before 9/11. nobody had ever thought of an attack like this before, aside from an apparently brilliant architect, so they would not have tried to shoot down the planes. maybe -- and this is a big maybe -- the one plane in pennsylvania was shot down, but there's no verifiable proof of this and there likely wouldn't be. if you think that some guy on the internet was somehow able to obtain this information, think again. i'm pretty sure it would've been taken care of before he got ahold of it. if the government really wanted to hide shit, you would be completely oblivious to it.
3) the idea that an architect was capable of testing the notion of a jumbo jet crashing into the wtc is completely ridiculous. as indo said, the amount of variables and what not going into the equation would make it next to impossible, but couple that with the thought of actually being given that job. i'll give you an idea:
boss man: larry, i need you to run some structural tests on these plans.
larry: okay sir, what do you need?
boss man: i want to know how many jumbo jets can crash into these things without them losing their structural integrity.
larry: hahaha
boss man: .......
larry: .... wait... seriously...?
boss man: yeah. oh and also test for hurricane force winds, tornados, and giant phoenix attacks.
larry: what the fuck...
larry goes back to his desk, ponders the different ways he could put together the simulation, then realizes the possibilities are so remote that even if it does happen, he can still just say that it passed the test. i mean, seriously, what're the odds, right?
4) and finally (i think) the idea that the government decided to take down building 7 in order to hide some secret documents i fairly absurd. why would they do this? if they needed to destroy some documents, i'm sure they would've just done what they've always done and shredded them, not taken down an entire building. i'm all about overkill, but it seems like an uneccessary risk to me. then you also have to figure in that you're assuming that the fbi, cia, and whoever else were all in on the conspiracy to be harboring this information -- this is the same fbi, cia and other government enforcement officials that required a patriot act so that they'd be better at working together.
things are really starting to fall apart here, ets, and i haven't done any formal research outside of clicking on your bs links, noting your flawed logic (you should take a logic class), noting your hypocrisy, and finally recalling a few physics lessons from high school.
tell me, how big of a corporation is google? they should probably get their users in check and stop the spreading of that video.
Submitted by renz0r (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:41:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
BTW ETS what do you think about the moonlanding? Is it fake too? Serious question.. I myself have my doubts HEHEH
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:41:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I know that the explosive rigging of the towers is highly contentious, but the architect of the building said himself that the buildings were disigned to sustain MULTIPLE jumbo jet strikes without failing."
---
Not Jumbo jets...small, personal planes. No Architect is going to think that an Airliner has any reasonable possibility of flying into a sky scraper, until now.
Submitted by Oxymoron (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:36:52 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
do you honestly believe our Gov't. was responsinble for 9-11? You need to pull your head out of your ass before you suffer further brain damage.
Everything reputable I've read/watched about sunspots and polar switching gives no indication that it will be a catostrophic event. Some power outages, satelites destroyed, etc. Losing anything that would be effected by these events would only cause an inconveniance.
If you knew more about "the anitchrist" you would also know that none of those people in the picture even closely qualifies for the job. When/if the antichrist makes an appearance on earth, he will be praised by the worlds people as a true leader of the people. Everyone will embrace him and follow him. A sort of World king type of thing. That is the antichrists goal. To be viewed positively by everyone. And eventually worshipped. Too many people hate the guys in the pictures for this to happen.
Misery loves company
Submitted by renz0r (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:27:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Nevermind.. got it :D
Submitted by renz0r (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:23:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Dude.
Where did you get that mayan image?
I have been looking for some larger pictures of some glyphs (or reproductions) for decorating.. There is something really pleasing about mayan art, something in all the symmetry.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:14:31 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
"Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 15:53:54 (#)
Ranking: 0
George Bush's brother Marvin Bush was RUNNING SECURITY at the WTC the day it happened, and his contract to do so was ENDING THAT DAY!
This strikes at the heart of the accountability argument, because if Marvin Bush was running security for 2 years on the WTC complex leading up to the 9/11 attacks, there would be no one to bribe for the priviledge of looking the other way while the operation was taking place."
-That would make sense if it was an old warehouse and the security consisted of him walking around with a flashlight. As it is I am sure there would be dozens if nor hundreds of people involved with looking the other way if they were to wire something up, never mind the people that would have to wire something up.
"The planes that flew into the towers were only 20% full due to a "computing error" at the airlines in spite of the fact that on that day the average flight on the eastern seaboard was 80% full.."
-I am curious where this is from, and how often they are filled up this much. You have to ask yourself if this was an inside job who did they pay off to only fill it x amount, I am sure it would have required the help of more than one person, where are they now? It is possible to track down who filled that plane (at least it is for military flights) I am sure there is a paper trail.
"You do the math. Should those planes have found their targets? Air traffic controllers know immediately when a plane is off course. Think about it."
-I don't doubt that they knw it was off course, or that they could have shot the planes down. But ask yourself if before 9/11 if a hi-jacked plane had ever been crashlanded, specifically at a target? It had never been done before and nobody wanted to shoot down a plane if it might land (which I am sure they expected). I don't have much trouble believeing they shot down the 4th plane and don't want to talk about it, but there is no proof.
"I know that the explosive rigging of the towers is highly contentious, but the architect of the building said himself that the buildings were disigned to sustain MULTIPLE jumbo jet strikes without failing."
-Architects are like fucking painters, I would like to hear from the architectural engineer (maybe that was who said it), but even if he did say that I can promise you there is no data to back that up. Do you know insanely difficult that would be to model, and even if it was modeled how inaccurate it would be, the number of variables it would involve is mind boggling.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:13:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Truthfully ETS, I couldn't stomach to watch the whole thing...the narrator grates on my last fucking nerve.
Besides, I've got my own post to camp on now.
Thanks for the intriguing thought, we'll agree to disagree and after we've both mastered forensics, engineering, thermonuclear engineering and security protocols, perhaps then we'll know who is right.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-27 16:04:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
yeah, I'm gonna leave now.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 15:53:54 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Badass, you really need to watch the rest of the film.
Building 7 was on fire. That's why they brought it down. Apparently, they wired the fucker up while it was on fire?
Furthermore, building 7 was FURTHER AWAY from the 110 story buildings that collapsed than other buildings that were owned by different people and survived comparatively unscathed.
You know what was in building 7? It was government offices. FBI, CIA, etc.
They had something in that building they didn't want to be seen.
George Bush's brother Marvin Bush was RUNNING SECURITY at the WTC the day it happened, and his contract to do so was ENDING THAT DAY!
This strikes at the heart of the accountability argument, because if Marvin Bush was running security for 2 years on the WTC complex leading up to the 9/11 attacks, there would be no one to bribe for the priviledge of looking the other way while the operation was taking place.
The planes that flew into the towers were only 20% full due to a "computing error" at the airlines in spite of the fact that on that day the average flight on the eastern seaboard was 80% full..
Cheney had taken over supreme command of NORAD in the months leading up to the attack, and BELIEVE IT OR NOT, NORAD was running what it thought was a training mission to intercept planes that would fly into the WTC on 9/11! They were prohibited by Cheny to fly faster than 350mph (I think is the speed). They were told to STAND DOWN by command on 9/11! They were told at first it was only a drill. It's ALL DOCUMENTED! http://www.standdown.net/
The video makes a strong case about the fourth plane being shot down against orders, and the idea that that plane, if it had taken out the Capital building - Congress - there would be NOTHING standing in Bush's and the neo-con's way of declaring marshall law and claiming total authority.
This was all planned out, IMO. Without a doubt.
Why is it any easier to believe that a group of 'terrorists' just happened to board these less than capacity planes and take them over using box cutters, not to mention managed to fly around hundreds of miles OFF COURSE in some of the most closely guarded airspace in the world, in a plane they'd never flown before, without being intercepted by NORAD because they just HAPPENED to be on a training mission that day and mistook the whole thing for a drill.
http://www.standdown.net/noradseptember182001pressrelease.htm
There are the timeframes from NORAD, which have since been REMOVED FROM THEIR OFFICIAL WEBSITE.
You do the math. Should those planes have found their targets? Air traffic controllers know immediately when a plane is off course. Think about it.
2+2 = ?
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-27 15:02:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
well here's the idea, the structure of the World Trade Center is somewhat unique, saying that they are built by the same architect means zilch, that would be like saying every King book was exactly the same or whoever you author of choice might be. I deal with architects everyday and they almost never do the same design twice. On top of that you would really need to look at who the engineer was, architects focus on design and aescetics where as the engineering firm would have to approve all of the structural design.
Now I'm sure you've read up a bit on the structure of the building wherein the load is bear by the outside structure and the central column system. The plane that hit took out both a section of the exterior and the central column structure, thus making it a large mass just waiting for the last leg to be kicked out. Now add the concusion of the explosion in the building next to it and that is probably enough to get 'er done as we would say in Backwoods, America.
Now as far as the fire goes, the jet fuel burned out in roughly 35 minutes, so when the firefighters got there the flames were in recesion but the damage was done, with excruciating temperatures whatever damage was to be done to the steel had been done. If you've ever overheated a car engine...I mean to the pinging and knocking point you would know that the damage will hit you later on down the road. If you warp steel it will hold some integrity but not all and will eventually fail. Had the second plane not hit a tower, the first may have remained standing.
As far as Building #7, I 'll really have to look further into that but I can tell you, based on my experience with emergency planning, that the reason the building would have been taken down because it lies within or in close proximity to a still open emergency vehicle route. And we all know that there are ways to get things done, there is the right way for planting explosives and it may take months to work out and there is the emergency way which means we need this shit out of here right now. The building likely suffered structural liabilities from the concussion of the other buildings falling and was a hazard.
OK, now onto proper wiring...although it would appear a daunting task to bring down this building 7 I say if you want real daunting look at the wiring needed to place explosives in the towers, have them set to go off in succession, at the correct time so as not to appear like explosions. If the whole thing happened in 8.4 seconds your calculations...in the best scenerio would have to be down to the second. Now add onto that all the variables like NOT KNOWING WHEN THE UPPER FLOORS WOULD FALL.
Ok that's enough for now.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:54:36 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:54:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" ~ Thomas Jefferson
Dissent is not lunacy.
***********************
He didn't actually say that you know.
Submitted by retrospect (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:48:12 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
HE'S A WILD AND CRAZY GUY!!!!!!!!
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:33:51 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:03:03 (#)
Ranking: 0
The fire at the madrid building, was it the same steel structure the around the exterior?
Fire compared to fire really depends on the engineering of the building, so that is just decieving.
------------------
Forgot to answer this part...
The buildings were designed by the same architect, I'm pretty sure. I believe it says it in the video.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:30:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Did you finish the video or did you stop at the whole 8.4 seconds thing? My guess is you stopped. There is WAY more corroborating evidence they get into later.
My first reaction to that part was the same as yours, but the more I've thought about it, the more it lines up with a lot of other things.
I know that the explosive rigging of the towers is highly contentious, but the architect of the building said himself that the buildings were disigned to sustain MULTIPLE jumbo jet strikes without failing.
The government's assertion was that FIRE weakened the steel frame and caused the collapse. That was the 'official' story we were fed over and over again. BUT, there is video that shows, and even GOVERNMENT SEALED TAPES of firefighter communications that the fires in the buildings were almost completely out before they collapsed. People can be seen standing in the scars on the sides of the buildings.
It doesn't matter how much mass was contained in the floors above the one that first failed, it would still be slower than a freefall.
Furthermore, doesn't it strike you as strange that those buildings - designed to take multiple jumbo jet strikes and hurricane force winds would collapse in that pretty vertical way? why didn't the top portion collapse to the side when it encountered the resistence of tons of steel and reinforced concrete?
Besides that, how can you ignore all the other evidence?
What about building 7? Why was it destroyed? By the fire department and the owner's own admission, it was 'pulled', or taken down on purpose after a fire broke out in the building... WHY!?!?!
Why should it be such a priority in the middle of a fucking search and rescue mission to take down a peripheral building, adding to the desbris on the ground, complicating the situation, and diverting manpower?
Do you have any idea what it takes to properly wire up a building to perfectly implode the way building 7 did in that footage??? Ask ANY engineer in the world. It can take MONTHS. Yet it was done in hours? Bullshit. No fucking way.
My whole FAMILY has worked in coal mines, including me at one time, and I know better than to think that explosives are just magically placed in the right fucking spots.
Look deeper, dude.
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:13:51 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:41:29 (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS, how can someone view the world in such a backwards manner?
You live with some type of reverse Occam's Razor where the most farfetched and implausible explanation is the truth.
Submitted by badassmofo (user info) at 2006-03-27 14:03:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The fire at the madrid building, was it the same steel structure the around the exterior?
Fire compared to fire really depends on the engineering of the building, so that is just decieving.
It shows clearly in the video that the top of buidling falls quickly, this disputing the theory about the speed of the collapse, what they don't account for is that the top 10 floors or so fall at once, creating a larger mass than just a simple concrete floor that is falling. And if you watch the video with the timer there is still building standing when thier timer stops...but making a crappy video kind of confuses that.
The floors of the buildings didn't fall in full peices, rather the welds and bolted connections on one side failed first causing
what you see as the 'explosion dust' coming out a window.
To go further, they do no explaining of the way the building is built, nor do they touch on the fact that
A FUCKING AIRPLANE GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING JUST MIGHT COMPRIMISE THE STRUCTURAL INTERGRITY.
AND THAT THERE IS NO PRACTICAL MODEL FOR WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS SITUATION.
NOR DO THEY BRING UP THE THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF JET FUEL THAT IS SPILLED INTO THE BUILDING
I could go on but why, you won't listen. We watch the same video and you see something completely different than I do.
The whole production is poorly done, makes accusations without fact and was probably made by a friend of yours.
In short, FUCK THAT VIDEO.
----
P.S. funny post though
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:37:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:26:22 (#)
Ranking: -2
I can't be assed out to find it, but didn't you post one of Osama's speeches a while ago and say we should listen to it because maybe he had a reason for what he did, and that if America wanted to stop terrorists they listen to why their are terrorists?
If the US did it why would we listen to Osama?
-----------------
That's because at the time, I hadn't even HEARD of all the facts about 9/11, thanks to the corporate controlled media in this country.
That being said, I think Osama might have been unaware of U.S. involvement. The most likely scenario is that the Bush administration found out about it beforehand - as intelligence clearly suggested was a possibility BEFORE 9/11 - and simply stood down on actively preventing it, and instead chose to allow it to happen and use it to their political advantage - padding the pockets of all their friends in the process.
A quick examination of who gained the most from 9/11 should at least give a reasoned person enough motive to question. Then, the facts will blow them away as they have me.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:26:22 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
I can't be assed out to find it, but didn't you post one of Osama's speeches a while ago and say we should listen to it because maybe he had a reason for what he did, and that if America wanted to stop terrorists they listen to why their are terrorists?
If the US did it why would we listen to Osama?
Can you even keep your theories straight? I mean seriously do you pick up a new one every week and forget about the old one because you are too stupid to realize they contradict each other, or do you think you are uncovering some deeper truth each time?
It must be interesting to live in some X-Files where the truth is out there and every seek you seem to find it.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:22:50 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Furthermore, you ask me what I'm doing about it then chastise me for screaming revolution"""
Calling for revolution on the Internet and sinking into uncontrollable rage when someone disagress with you is not "doing something". It's being an idiot. Just so you know.
*yawn*
Tu es vraiment cinglé, tu sais? :-)
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:15:32 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
And people who lack an answer to a straightforward question will always be quick to label people as 'crazy' won't they? """
The answer to your question is: EVERYWHERE. Your lunacy is all over the place, just about everything your write. In my humble opinion of course. But you admitted being mentally ill person (anxiety disorder or something) while most people I know will tell you that I'm a pretty laid back and stable individual (despite my internet antics), so you'll excuse if I trust my judgement more than yours...on anything.
Today's a gorgeous day and I am getting utterly bored with you so I'm gonna leave this at that.
Au revoir, mon cher ermite fou de sous-sol.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:13:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:04:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
You think the FBI is watching you?
Why would they?
----------------------
Because unfortunately you don't have to be a criminal for the FBI to watch you...you just have to disagree with the government's agenda.
For christ's sake, have you seen the lists of American organizations they were watching after 9/11 as possible 'terrorists'?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:10:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"I watched this video a while ago. If it was so credible...why isn't it on news channel, all over the world?"
-------------------------
Because a select few people own majority control of most of the companies in the world, including the media, and these are the same people who profited most from 9/11.
"But hey, if it IS the case...what are you doing about it? That's right...fuck all.
Stop screaming for revolution you self-aggrandizing loser."
--------------------------
First of all, I just linked whoever happens by this post to what I feel is the truth about 9/11. That's gotta count for something. Furthermore, you ask me what I'm doing about it then chastise me for screaming revolution. Talk about lunacy, Caul; you're the poster boy with that little statement.
Submitted by DCWoody (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:04:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
You think the FBI is watching you?
Why would they?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 13:02:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Crazy people are crazy because they don't know they are."
-------------
And people who lack an answer to a straightforward question will always be quick to label people as 'crazy' won't they?
As far as the FBI...
I have little doubt I'm not the only one on this website with an FBI file. Having a 'file' means nothing until they have evidence of any wrongdoing, which they do not and WILL not have.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:57:00 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Where's this 'lunacy' of which you speak?"""
Crazy people are crazy because they don't know they are.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:56:20 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
The only thing that will stop me now is death. """
And the FBI taking you away. You've reported already. :-D
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:55:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Caul, neither is anything I've said here, IMO.
Where's this 'lunacy' of which you speak?
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:54:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I love it how I've got the same people insisting on rating my post based on my reviews.
Notice how that happened...anyone? That, my friends, is called 'heat'.
You can disapprove all you like, but that will not stop me from speaking my mind, you know. The only thing that will stop me now is death.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:54:03 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" ~ Thomas Jefferson
Dissent is not lunacy.
Submitted by Adamdidit2u (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:51:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
+ fucking 2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:51:14 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
I'm fully aware how crazy it SOUNDS. But the problem is, it appears it happened.
And all those 'people' - engineers, etc - wouldn't have to be that many. And as for their motives for keeping their mouths shut...classified information, bribes, death threats, these things have a way of convincing most people. Always have. Most of the time, people just follow orders and keep their mouths shut anyway.
I'm not going to make a big list here of the reasons I am convinced my government staged 9/11, but they are pretty much covered in that video.
I'll leave it to the rest of you to decide for yourselves. The LEAST you can do is watch it, if but for the sake of those who died that day.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" ~ Thomas Jefferson
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:41:29 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Seriously ETS how can someone view the world in such a backwards manner?
You live with some type of reverse Occam's Razor where the most farfetched and implaussible explinaytion is the truth.
Submitted by wardy (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:38:23 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
jesus christ... your assesment of things you have no clue what you're talking about is quite impressive. goddammit... i'm leaving this post and never coming back, and i regret submitting it to bart...
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:37:48 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:23:25 (#)
Ranking: 0
By the way, I'm not 'implying' my government staged 9/11, I AM ACCUSING! If you don't know WHY I would ACCUSE my own government of staging the event, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
Watch the whole thing through. The first part drags a little and belabors a couple points too much for my taste, but it's nonetheless compelling.
The argument for how and WHY in the hell the Fire Dept. was able to wire up and 'pull' building 7 - essentially adding to the rubble - IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING RECOVERY EFFORT in a matter of hours is IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD.
Watch the fucking video people. Your government did this to you. THAT is no joke.
---------------------------------------------
You are a retard.
Do you have nay idea the number of people that would have to be "in" on this if the Govt did it?
All the people who planted explosives earlier, all the people who have to not say anything about not seeing the explosives being planted, the people responsible for paying the people who planted them, all the scientists and engineers who reviewed the data, the fucking list is endless.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:36:54 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You JUST SAID YOURSELF "something unlikely to happen again with today's 'measures'". Tell me, Caul, in your expert assessment, what ARE those 'measures' exactly? """
You, who claims to be so knowledgeable of the stock market (even though we all know you haven't invest one fucking penny in your entire life...fucking loser), should know that we're not in the era of laissez-faire capitalism anymore. The markets would be quicly closed and frozen if investors panicked even half as they did in 1929.
The crash of 1929 could have been contained.
Plus, it was only a factor to the Great Depression, not THE cause.
By the way, I'm not 'implying' my government staged 9/11, I AM ACCUSING! If you don't know WHY I would ACCUSE my own government of staging the event, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11 """
I watched this video a while ago. If it was so credible...why isn't it on news channel, all over the world?
But hey, if it IS the case...what are you doing about it? That's right...fuck all.
Stop screaming for revolution you self-aggrandizing loser.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:31:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't even want to read the replies, because this post almost makes you look sane.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:23:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:15:36 (#)
Ranking: -2
Borrowing and 9/11 saved us from the fate of the Great Depression. """
Way to exaggarate. You turned what is usually referred to as a "downturn" into the 1929 crash (something unlikely to happen again with today's measures).
You're the king of extrapolation.
Go you!
By the way, -2 for implying that your government staged 9/11
I bet this post isn't even a joke.
---------------------------
You JUST SAID YOURSELF "something unlikely to happen again with today's 'measures'". Tell me, Caul, in your expert assessment, what ARE those 'measures' exactly?
By the way, I'm not 'implying' my government staged 9/11, I AM ACCUSING! If you don't know WHY I would ACCUSE my own government of staging the event, watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4429289437231286745&q=9%2F11
Watch the whole thing through. The first part drags a little and belabors a couple points too much for my taste, but it's nonetheless compelling.
The argument for how and WHY in the hell the Fire Dept. was able to wire up and 'pull' building 7 - essentially adding to the rubble - IN THE MIDDLE OF A FUCKING RECOVERY EFFORT in a matter of hours is IMPOSSIBLE. PERIOD.
Watch the fucking video people. Your government did this to you. THAT is no joke.
Submitted by Caulaincourt (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:15:36 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Borrowing and 9/11 saved us from the fate of the Great Depression. """
Way to exaggarate. You turned what is usually referred to as a "downturn" into the 1929 crash (something unlikely to happen again with today's measures).
You're the king of extrapolation.
Go you!
By the way, -2 for implying that your government staged 9/11
I bet this post isn't even a joke.
Submitted by scornednornery (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:03:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
Yes, I'd like whip cream on my recipie, please.
Submitted by electrictoothsyndrome (user info) at 2006-03-27 12:01:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Wardy, here you go: HAARP is a weapon that amounts to ZAPPING the upper atmosphere with radiation in an attempt to disrupt communications, create devastating weather conditions for the enemy, intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles, etc.
Read this. It's pretty fucking crazy. http://www.viewzone.com/haarp11.html
And here's more...
http://www.haarp