why did the wtc's collapse? conclusive proof

[fermentor666]

Right, I'd put money on pre-placing precationary demolition exploves as a violation of safety laws.

 

BUT, maybe that's why they've refused to talk about how or why they demolish the building that was not hit, and why, if they did that without nefarious intentions, they might not want to tell that to public, because it would make people scared or let lunatics deciding to go around blowing up buildings.

[lord_casek]

still doesn't seem plausible, but it's an idea.

[lord_casek]

Obscure Company Is Behind 9/11 Demolition Work

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23company.html?ex=1345608000&en=7960061c97c28c3b&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

[thecoldmidwest]

If you guys really had a sound case for your claims it would be known. Period. But once again, just like the religious, nothing will persuade you.

 

It's very depressing when I see people like yourself who allow themselves to be used as tools of the elite. Hell, they don't even have to pay people to spread their message. They've got millions of people like yourself who never question anything they watch on TV, and why would you? It's much easier to live and belive that the governments wants whats best for you and this country. Why is it easier? Because then you don't have to do anything about it.

 

I'm not a conspirisist. No, I watch CNN, Fox news, BBC world news, I listen to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity (even though I think their the two biggest dumbasses out there). I like to know what everyone says. I listen to very liberal media and very conservative media. I always have.

I've also seen and heard what scientists have to say about the tower collapse from both sides. I've seen many videos about the collapse of the towers, some saying what the bush administration says, and some showing and explaining how it was staged.

I like to know what everyone has to say before I make a decision.

 

And what do I make of the 9/11 attacks? I personally think it was all done by our government. Why? Because it could not have been more convenient for the bush administration. The power of fear. It's much easier to do what you want with a nation that's blinded by fear.

 

But why would our so patriotic government do something like that to this country they so dearly love? Because 99% of the government doesn't gives a fuck about America. It's true. You know who they care about? Themselves and the those slip them money under the table. Like oil companies, like pharmaceutical companies, like health insurance companies. They care about the CEO's of the companies that ship your dads, your moms, your uncles, and your good paying jobs to places like China and India. Just so they can turn their millions into billions.

 

Go ahead and support these people, help them run the greatest country on earth into the ground.

[Juan Fuentes]

Obscure Company Is Behind 9/11 Demolition Work

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/23/nyregion/23company.html?ex=1345608000&en=7960061c97c28c3b&ei=5124&partner=digg&exprod=digg

 

dont miss this one ^^^

[Theo Huxtable.]

It's very depressing when I see people like yourself who allow themselves to be used as tools of the elite. Hell, they don't even have to pay people to spread their message. They've got millions of people like yourself who never question anything they watch on TV, and why would you? It's much easier to live and belive that the governments wants whats best for you and this country. Why is it easier? Because then you don't have to do anything about it.

 

Why are you conspiracists under the false impression that we who believe the official story don't question anything? We question. We look at both sides of the story. I've probably read and watched just as much conspiracy garbage as I have read the rational, logical, and backed-up explanations. When I first watched Loose Change, which was perhaps in 2005, I thought "hmmm that's interesting". I didn't simply dismiss it. I think the first piece of conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 that I ever heard about was that book by a French author surrounding the Pentagon, stating that no plane hit it. This may have been in 2003 or 2004. But after extensive research and writing a couple papers on it, I saw that the conspiracy theories are easily debunked and don't stand up to the facts. How many of you conspiracy theorists here that claim to "question" have actually read the 9/11 Commission Report, watched National Geographic's "Inside 9/11", or various other sources that debunk these theories?

 

Does "questioning" ALWAYS have to entail going against the official story? Because such a conviction would make you the same "used tool", sheep, and brainwashed drones that you accuse others of being.

[thecoldmidwest]

Does "questioning" ALWAYS have to entail going against the official story? Because such a conviction would make you the same "used tool", sheep, and brainwashed drones that you accuse others of being.

I don't understand what your trying to say.

 

When something isn't "questioned" there's no thread about it and nobody says anything. That happens most of the time. I don't get what your trying to get across.

 

Like said earlier, I've listened to everyone since this shit happened I've come to my own conclusions. I used to trust the media and what they had to say. Then came the time when the Bush administration told us we need to go to Iraq. So many of things they said about Iraq before the war was such bullshit it just totally discredited popular media to me completely. Ever since then I've lost all trust that I had in them. It made me realize that they only say and report what convenient for them at the moment.

 

Now that war isn't going well their talking shit about bush. It's convenient now, it's what people want to hear. But before the war he was like some fucking messiah. I bet if the war in Iraq went alot better, you wouldn't hear people saying "fuck bush" like they do now. Why? Because they wouldn't care. It's not affecting them. It just pisses me off that people that have money and power can get away with some of the things they do and then you go and defend them. Thats all. But I realized a long time ago that you can't talk about 9/11 with people because they get so defensive about it. It's like this sets people off more than if I were to talk trash about them.

There would be no war in Iraq if there was no 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. Thats why 9/11 was convenient. After 9/11 the patriot act was passed. An act that takes away many of our sacred rights. Rights that if not for the attack would have been preserved because Americans would not have been in a state of fear.

 

But I don't give a fuck since this means nothing to most people because they've all got their own storys about what they think is right. I'm just tired of all this bullshit, of having people stand up for those who want to have more control over the common man.

 

But I don't care, not anymore.

[Theo Huxtable.]

I don't understand what your trying to say.

 

When something isn't "questioned" there's no thread about it and nobody says anything. That happens most of the time. I don't get what your trying to get across.

 

Well the fact that you assumed that people that believe in the official explanation for 9/11 don't "question" anything and are just subjegated to be used as "tools" by the "elite".

 

So I wanted to know if you think that just because someone believes in the official explanation, that it automatically implies that they haven't questioned everything before coming to their conclusion. You seem to think that people like myself or vanfullofretards just listen to what the media and government says without actually doing any research into the matter ourselves.

 

Like said earlier, I've listened to everyone since this shit happened I've come to my own conclusions. I used to trust the media and what they had to say. Then came the time when the Bush administration told us we need to go to Iraq. So many of things they said about Iraq before the war was such bullshit it just totally discredited popular media to me completely. Ever since then I've lost all trust that I had in them. It made me realize that they only say and report what convenient for them at the moment.

 

That's the problem. Everything you said about Iraq, I agree with. Iraq was a bullshit war. It was a war based on lies. Despite what Bush says about it not being a lie about the WMD's and just received "faulty intelligence" -- the fact still stands that the Bush administration demanded Saddam allow UN inspectors in or face war. Saddam allowed the UN inspectors in in 2002. The UN inspectors found nothing and continued to find nothing. Yet Powell stated there was some kind of "intelligence breach". Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Bush still remained hawkish on the war; despite losing their pretext for war (expecting Saddam wouldn't allow inspectors in, along with the admitted inspectors finding no WMD's).

 

Anyway, I'm just saying you can't let a particular act of fraudulence derail your whole thought process and think everything reported in the media or from the government from here on out is complete and utter bullshit. There's no rationality to it. Again, you're not really "questioning" objectively if you've now admittedly established a biased slant against the media and the government. I'm just saying, look at every issue objectively.

 

 

Now that war isn't going well their talking shit about bush. It's convenient now, it's what people want to hear. But before the war he was like some fucking messiah.

 

People are sheep. I was against the war from the very beginning while many Americans looked at me like I was crazy. I wasn't against it because I predicted it would be a quagmire, because I couldn't predict anything like that. I thought there was the possibility of it being a sustained guerilla war, but what made me against the war was that Bush didn't allow the UN inspections to work, despite the UN inspectors saying they needed more time. All of this could have been avoided if the UN inspectors found that there were no WMDs, and the sanctions could have been lifted off of Iraq.

 

 

I bet if the war in Iraq went alot better, you wouldn't hear people saying "fuck bush" like they do now. Why? Because they wouldn't care.

 

I agree. I'm against the war because it's an immoral war. The democrats are hypocritical idiots, especially Hillary Clinton, for denouncing the war and calling it "Bush's war" when Hillary voted in favor for it as a senator. She even said all the republicans campaigning for presidential nominee supported it, even though that's false because Ron Paul was the only one against it.

 

It's not affecting them. It just pisses me off that people that have money and power can get away with some of the things they do and then you go and defend them. Thats all. But I realized a long time ago that you can't talk about 9/11 with people because they get so defensive about it. It's like this sets people off more than if I were to talk trash about them.

There would be no war in Iraq if there was no 9/11, even though Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. Thats why 9/11 was convenient. After 9/11 the patriot act was passed. An act that takes away many of our sacred rights. Rights that if not for the attack would have been preserved because Americans would not have been in a state of fear.

 

But I don't give a fuck since this means nothing to most people because they've all got their own storys about what they think is right. I'm just tired of all this bullshit, of having people stand up for those who want to have more control over the common man.

 

But I don't care, not anymore.

[Juan Fuentes]

i found this video and well, basically is about a guy calling someone who filmed the second plane impact on 911.

 

just watch, listen very well and thats all, im not going to give my opinion because i need YOUR opinions, but only from the smart deniers not the retarded deniers, yall know who you are.

 

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

 

 

looking foward to go through this as a group, instead of quickly ranting about how stupid conspiracy theories are.

[WORDISM45]

so the theory is that a plane didn't even hit the pentagon and that the footage is fake? weren't there hundreds of witnesses and shots from different angles etc?

[Theo Huxtable.]

i found this video and well, basically is about a guy calling someone who filmed the second plane impact on 911.

 

just watch, listen very well and thats all, im not going to give my opinion because i need YOUR opinions, but only from the smart deniers not the retarded deniers, yall know who you are.

 

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

 

 

looking foward to go through this as a group, instead of quickly ranting about how stupid conspiracy theories are.

 

i didn't even get the point of that video.

 

i could tell that canadian dude was an idiot... claiming that michael harzakhani just "gave" the video to cnn. more than likely he sold the full rights of the video to them for a good sum of money. no one just gives their video and the rights away to a company without making profit. i would've done the same thing.

 

then he asks michael where his location was when he took the video. does that really need to be asked? i'm pretty sure he was in new york a few blocks away from the wtc. judging by that angle, where he's looking at the south face of the south tower, he was probably in battery park at the southern tip of manhattan.

 

what is so hard to believe about tourists in new york city with handheld video cameras? i guess on september 11th everyone with video cameras in nyc were "suspicious" and hired by the news agencies and the government?

 

i thought the "ghostplane" conspiracy theorists that claim a hologram hit the wtc aren't even taken seriously amongst other conspiracy theorists. i don't even think casek believes that "ghostplane" nonsense.

[fermentor666]

I watched some of the 9/11 conspiracy show on the History Channel last night, before I just got so tired of hearing it that I turned it off. They definitely went too far with the sappiness. But there were some really good arguments in there, particularly against the fake cell-phone theory. I think the most important part of that program was at the end, when the presented experts said that one problem with conspiracy theorists is that they refuse to be skeptical in their own arguments, and automatically assume that they are right and there is no way they can be wrong, because they think they have figured it all out. When you lose your skepticism, you become a propagandist, whether you choose one side or the other. Skepticism is healthy and allows for actual progress rather than two sides shouting at one another.

 

The other good point raised in the show by both sides was that there needs to be transparency and there are still a lot of questions that need to be addressed by the government.

 

I was a little upset when they were talking about the footage of the Pentagon crash and they neglected to mention that there were many other cameras in the area that recorded the crash, but the tapes were confiscated. Not even a word devoted to that evidence that should be released to the public. But I do believe it was a jet that flew into the pentagon, not a cruise missile. The physics of an airplane traveling at 500 miles per hour colliding into a very reinforced building make sense, and the "mysterious" hole in the third wall is very easily explained by the huge, directed fireball that propelled itself through the wall.

[lord_casek]

fermentor: you can look up the company who started playing around with cell phone sin planes and see on their own website that it was impossible to place a call from 30k feet in september of 2001.

 

i forget all the details, it's been so long since i researched that aspect, but i can tell you some of those history channel experts were not experts at all.

[fermentor666]

I felt uncomfortable with the fact that the two editors from Popular Science were considered experts, and often I felt that they were simply polar opposites of the people who made "Loose Change", and considering my disdain for the "Loose Change" crew, that is not a good thing because it basically felt like both sides were just speculators. Although, being editors at Popular Science does mean that they have access to many actual experts and can act as a middle man for the actual experts to get their views across. I have major issues with the cell phone argument, as it would be almost impossible to fake cell phone calls and not have the person on the other end unable to tell the difference between their loved one and a fake. I would side with the experts presented on this one rather than the "Loose Change" people, especially when they claim that no one would talk to their mother by using their full name. People do and say very odd things when under psychological duress. I also don't think that the plane was shot down and I am willing to accept that the most of the plane was obliterated, because unlike most plane crashes where an actual pilot has control of the plane and can at least level the plane with the ground, this plane took a nose-dive into the ground and the physics of that event make it very likely that not much survived. And they do say they found body parts at the scene, we just didn't see it in the news. The thing is, we hardly ever see actual carnage in the news. When Jeffrey Dahmer was caught, for instance, we didn't see the actual pictures of body parts in his fridge. When someone gets shot in the head, the public does not get pictures of brains splattered on the floor. The public did not get to see the bodies that were found at the twin towers, but there is no doubt that thousands died.

 

I remain skeptical and open to the possibilities, but the odds strongly favor the experts, in those cases.

[Theo Huxtable.]

isn't the loose change "final cut" supposed to drop next month on the 11th?

[lord_casek]

fermentor: i'm with you on some of that, the rest, to me, is just horseshit.

do some more research on who those experts they had were. not very credible

people at all.

 

as far as the voice morphing technology, earlier that year, there was a demo of that done at the UN i believe. colon powell was heard to be saying something about hostages and the government being taken over. one senator even asked for a copy of the tape because it was so impressive. i recall seeing that on tv, the news had fun with it for a day or two. it's very easy to do such a thing these days. tech is pretty advanced.

 

theo: yeah. they will be concentrating on things they can prove from what i hear. which is a good move in my opinion. that's why i don't support dylan and his guys too much. i am much more inclined to support jones because he can show you document after document.

one thing that can be said for the man is that he is a workaholic with a wealth of knowledge.

[lord_casek]

voice morphing article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

[lord_casek]

american airlines "9/11 didn't happen"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/25/92620/6237

[Theo Huxtable.]

theo: yeah. they will be concentrating on things they can prove from what i hear. which is a good move in my opinion. that's why i don't support dylan and his guys too much. i am much more inclined to support jones because he can show you document after document.

one thing that can be said for the man is that he is a workaholic with a wealth of knowledge.

 

 

i look forward to it. i heard they have some guy ("smoking gun") that's supposed to have conclusive proof that building 7 was planted with explosives.

 

this will either make them or break them, because debunkers and experts will come at them from every direction.

 

loose change is more propaganda and many sheep latch on to it. the formula to loose change is to talk about conspiracies, add a melodramatic narrator (dylan avery), then put some eerie music and hip hop beats in the background and young people will indulge in it and take it as the gospel.

[lord_casek]

i look forward to it. i heard they have some guy ("smoking gun") that's supposed to have conclusive proof that building 7 was planted with explosives.

 

this will either make them or break them, because debunkers and experts will come at them from every direction.

 

loose change is more propaganda and many sheep latch on to it. the formula to loose change is to talk about conspiracies, add a melodramatic narrator (dylan avery), then put some eerie music and hip hop beats in the background and young people will indulge in it and take it as the gospel.

 

 

i look forward to it's release, as well.

 

i was speaking of (i'm sure you know this)

loose change 1 and 2, respectively.

 

 

hadn't heard anything about this new guy. alex jones

only says that the new movie will "blow you away".

 

if he endorses it, i'll give it a chance. he's also an executive producer,

so i think that may help dylan and company keep on the right track of things they can prove instead of theories they can't prove.

[fermentor666]

american airlines "9/11 didn't happen"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/25/92620/6237

 

 

 

The guy who scripted Wikiscanner should be given a medal.

[lord_casek]

The guy who scripted Wikiscanner should be given a medal.

 

yeah, i'm hoping they release a non web based version.

have you checked out the list of shit the feds have changed?

very telling.

[fermentor666]

I've just heard what's been reported on various TV shows like Countdown and The Daily Show, as well as on blogs like dailykos.com. It's a disgrace what both the government and corporations have done to alter the truth. But with this program, Wikipedia has a much better chance of becoming a credible source. Within the last year in my classes the professors have begun to disallow the use of Wikipedia as a source because of the problems that come along with open editing. Being able to track the IP of an edit is quite handy, it seems, to expose all the liars and cheats that have been destroying and exploiting the database. I'm not completely surprised at the news, but I have to say that the damage seems to be far worse than I thought.

[lord_casek]

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

right-hand side fermentor. happy digging

[Theo Huxtable.]

Even though most universities and professors do not allow Wikipedia sources, I still find it to be a source of a lot of great information. You can kinda tell when some Wikipedia entries may be biased or in rare cases, completely wrong altogether. I usually double-check more credible sources if in doubt.

[fermentor666]

It's definitely great, but it is also tainted. I use it to look up entertainment info and history stuff, rarely if ever do I use it to research anything political. It's great if you want some quick background information.

[fermentor666]

http://wikiscanner.virgil.gr/

right-hand side fermentor. happy digging

 

 

 

Ugh, I don't know how much of that I can take without throwing up.

[fermentor666]

These edits are such a debasement to the internet that I can't help but take it personally.

[lord_casek]

yeah, but it really does put everything into perspective.

we are constantly being lied to.

[Theo Huxtable.]

casek, a while ago you asked me to view terror storm and to try to refute anything alex jones says, implying he backs everything up.

 

i just now started watching terror storm and already found a discrepancy. at 12:30, alex jones states that the bombing of cuban flight 455 on october 6, 1976, which killed 73 people onboard, was the deadliest act of airline terrorism in the western hemisphere until september 11, 2001. this is false statement alex jones made, because pan am flight 103 in 1988 was blown up over lockerbie scotland, which is located in the western hempisphere, killing 270 onboard.

 

when i get back home i'll continue watching more.