Not really, I assumed that, but the sheer "is it not obvious" -ness of your post made me think "no, it couldn't be that he immediately blames the US government for not right away shooting down planes with cizilians in them", but I guess you've proved me wrong.
I didn't imply they should have shot down the plane, I was merely suggesting that there was a reason behind the attack, although it did not do much damage.
I don't get how it's America's fault... (Btw, I'm a Canadian left-winger, so don't think I'm just a redneck conservative )
Huzza for the stupidity of the human race. In other news a whistle blower recently disclosed that mass produced CDs are not actually stamped or burned. The data pits are manually chipped out by an enslaved civilization of tiny gnomes that are fractions of a mm in height. Also worth mentioning, the latest super cars including the Bugatti Veyron have been exposed to actually be powered by genetically engineered super hamsters. The poor creatures have been designed to sustain themselfs off of oil based products and are forced to live their entire lives in a block of metal. Also I have some beach front property in Arizona that I would like to sell to finzboz (and anyone else who refuses to even contemplate the ideas put forth by others).
the issue here seems to be that i havent looked at the information put forward by others, so far glaekin has provided the most interesting material which i have read through and considered. for every arguement put forward there is a counter arguement i find the whole thing ambiguous i am a person who questions things but on here this seems to equate to being arrogant, pea brained etc etc. because i have a different opinion you assume i have all the answers i dont none of us do. the camera footage thing bothers me, the interviews shortly after the explosion where eye witnesses give completely different answers bother me, as do numerous other parts of the story. alternatives to the passenger plane. a military plane ? a missile ? a military plane that launched a missile ? what happened to the passengers and plane if they didnt hit the pentagon i dont know. also isnt it interesting that through all this techno dan was being put forward as an expert which he didnt put right in his next two posts but now turns out to be a student. i find this a good example of what we are talking about here how someone tells you something in a very convincing manner and you believe it despite there being inconclusive proof. then much later more information is given contrary to the fact which changes your view completely. if people think i am trying to elevate myself above everyone else then think again i merely put forward my views on a subject i am interested in and dont have a problem with other points of view. if everyone came to the same conclusions in life things would be very boring, for me i want to see the footage which has been with held before i commit fully to the goverments record of events.
I don't understand how people can even believe it's anything but a terrorist attack with a passenger plane. The evidence for it is just so overwhelming. I think it's a bit insulting to the families of the victims involved to think otherwise.
But K, at whose hands did these innocent people really die? We were told by the American government that it was terrorists. Osama Bin Laden himself denies any involvement in 9/11. http://www.911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html Then on 29/10, just a month and a half after the attacks, a video is "found" - note, not 'released' or 'submitted' by Osama - that apparently features him. A lot of websites pop up questioning the validity of this tape. http://www.global-conspiracies.com/fake_2001_osama_bin_laden_video_tape.htm http://www.rense.com/general15/jal.htm The ultimate conspiracy theory behind this is thus: Would it be beyond the realms of possibility that the US government, in some way, premeditate the attacks on the the Pentagon and the World Trade Centre, metaphorically knocking over the first domino in the chains of events that lead to Gulf War II. The invasion of Iraq came under the justification of 'war on terrorism' - Britain got pulled into this one due to Saddam's supposed stash of WMD - which, incidently, were never found. Is it impossible that perhaps Bush appealed or perhaps even bullied Tony Blair into accompanying him into Iraq? And all for what? Possibly the fact that the US economy relies heavily on the import of oil from the middle-east. I think if you don't atleast consider this theory, you're lying to yourself. No one has the answer, and before I get flamed, like everyone's posts, it's a theory and a bunch of misfit computer fanboys can't prove or disprove anything.
A website called 'global conspiracies' is hardly the most unbiased source is it? Its agenda is most clear. The final paragraph says it all - 'You are being lied to by the US Government. They are using deception to trick you into surrendering your freedoms, money, and the lives of your children for a phony "War On Terror".' As for rense.com, similar bias is evident...'See the handiwork of the world's leading terrorist organization, the FBI: Visit the Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum and see what they did to the mothers and children.' The sorts of points made that question some of the accepted official story of 9/11 are interesting, but one has to consider the reasons why they may be picking up on such things - it might be about great ideals of exposing the truth, but on the other hand it might be about pushing forward their own political agenda. The two websites above seem to fall towards the latter in their rhetoric, in a rather obvious way. You seem to think that because we disagree with these theories that we are just dismissing them out of hand because we disbelieve them - but thats not the case. Its not a case of 'proving or disproving', because you're right to point out that the full set of facts are not available to us. But to the best of my understanding, having spent a lot of time reading about 9/11 (remember what I do at uni ), none of the conspiracies suggest a more plausible explanation than the 'official' line in this case - most of them don't actually suggest any explanation at all, rather they seek to merely discredit without posing any other plausible scenario. IMHO!
Now I'm no expert here, but if I remember correctly, missiles tend to explode outwards. It it truly was a missile wouldn't there be more bits from building on the front lawn or at least a more round hole? And on a day when there were 3 other successful or attempted terrorist attacks using planes, you're saying that they decided to shake it up a bit and use a missile? Also, I would absolutely love to hear what finboz has to say about what he thinks happened.
There's one key point you're overlooking. My dad is an expert, and I check everything I post concerning airliners with him before I post it. Yes, I know next-to-nothing about airplane design. I am, however, smart enough to repeat what someone with 20 years of experience in the field has to say. The reason I didn't mention it before is the post where I was assumed to be an expert was a page and a half earlier. I run at 40 posts per page, so it's closer to three pages behind if you're running the default 20. When we started talking about experts, and the value of an expert's opinion, I figured I could mention it then without sidetracking the thread.
Eh? I could have sworn that shortly after 9/11 there was a video released that showed him talking about it and saying how that the attacks had gone off much better than he had planned. IIRC the did not expect the entire buildings to collapse. (I could have sworn I saw a video of him using his hands to act out the motions of a plane smashing into a building and the building collapsing). Edit: Hmm, from what I could find it seems he initally denied it, then he did claim responsibility for it. link 1 link 2 link 3 link 4 <- that is the one where he says that the destruction was greater than he expected.
You obviously didn't read my post... ( http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306alexvideo.htm )
I read it, didn't particularly pay much attention to the details as I am sleep deprived. Anyways, would you be so kind as to look at links 1-3. They are not the video you speak of where it was "found". Those links lead to a video that WAS released and where he DID claim full responsibility. Thank you and have a nice day
So...why would he deny it...and then admit it? Anyway, the point is, if the first video tape was 'fake', why couldn't the others be? For anyone who hasn't already, I suggest watching Loose Change 2. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change+2
No, the apparent arrogance is not in questioning established viewpoints, but in how you do it. For instance you stated that holding a different position to yours was tantamount to being "brainwashed", you challenged views but did not offer alternative explanations, while at the some time criticising how people post in this thread. But that is kind of a rather central point to your hypothesis, isn't it? Unless you cannot satisfactorily explain its disappearance, your conjecture is nothing but incoherent thinking aloud. It is not unusual (at all) for different eye witnesses to give different statements. As you say yourself: people interpret the same facts in their own way. Again, all your points have common, rational explanations which do not rely on rather more unlikely conspiracy theories. I agree that new information can radically change your viewpoint, but so far I have heard nothing compelling that is at least as likely as the more obvious explanations. Also, keep in mind that 9/11 actually messed things up for Bush. It forced him to divert resources away from Iraq to start chasing Osama in Afghanistan. There was no reason for the U.S. government to stage this --if anything, politically it was a rather inconvenient event. If the U.S. government conspired to do anything, it was to make it seem as if Saddam was involved while he was not, because in Bush's own words, "Osama is not that important right now". Similarly, if 9/11 was staged, it would have had Saddam's (forged) signature all over it.
i said that if you believe everything the media presents to you then you must be brainwashed, look at your own comments and unfounded assumptions about other people. if i am arrogant then you must be really arrogant, have you heard the saying "the pot calling the kettle black" as far as i am concerned as i posted earlier lets agree to disagree
A bit of selective quoting there. I was initially referring to conspiracy theorists in general, not you specifically (seeing as you had not posted yet). Other quotes were again in a general context. In the fourth quote, I deferred to the expertise of an air crash investigator, but you left that bit out. Funny how things look different if you don't appreciate the context, isn't it? It was you who started to talk about expertise (and mental state) of the current posters so I challenged your expertise in turn. As for agreeing to disagree -I suggested that several posts back!
So why don't you do the mature thing and close this thread? You're supposed to be a moderator Nexxo, when are you going to act like one?
Whats the problem here? I haven't seen anything that warrants closing the thread, yes the debate has got somewhat heated at points (like all the best debates, where people are passionate about defending their adopted viewpoints) but I don't really see where its crossed the line, personally.
I just think it's got well out of hand and I am pretty shocked to see Nexxo joining in with what some might consider bullying. finboz has put himself out there with his opinion, only to get over-scrutinized and picked apart, so much so that his mental health seems to have been put into question. Just leave the guy alone. Let him have his opinions and stop implying that he (and all conspiracy theorists) are idiots.
