Loose Change, the documentary about conspiracy theories and the attack on the world trade centre, is going to get a UK release to coincide with anniversary of 9/11. Although in the UK we put the month second like so- 11/9, I wonder how that will pan out over here.

Government agents spying on you ?

A link to black listed news.
http://www.blacklistednews.com/

Your mom's loose.

After watching the video I have to say it's very cleverly done. They throw lots and lots of claims at you most of which the ordinary person have no chance of having information about. Over time it adds up, and you get the feeling that "if at least one of these weird things are true, the government must have been in on it". Problem is, pretty much all their claims instantly collapse when examined by experts. I recommend watching Screw Loose Change as well/instead, an edited version with comments added in and explanations on where the makers of "Loose Change" go wrong. The amount of quote mining and the way they select what to show for manipulative purposes while claiming to be after "The Truth" is astounding. The very same people they use footage of to advance their claims often completely invalidates them, sometimes in the few seconds after "Loose Change" makes the cut. Funny how they seem to leave those parts out.

Refuting every claim is hard though, so when watching pro-conspiracy material, I try to use this mindset:
If we assume that a conspiracy took place, is this how they would do it? Would there be obscure "hints" left by purpose or mistake (such as ambiguous symbols on official documents), while at the same time no single piece of hard evidence - the kind that can stand up to inspection by experts? The powers and reach of the supposed conspirators stands in contrast with the kinds of mistakes they apparently left lying around for film school dropouts to find.

Also, any conspiracy that ascribes competence to a government clearly needs to be revised.

I watched Screw Loose Change and I did not find that it effectively debunked anything. Anyone who does not realize by now the scope of this event, the precursors leading up to it, the coincidences surrounding it, the cooperation that had to occur on many levels over a considerable period of time is either not interested or not paying attention. The official story is for the stupid. Don't be stupid, Zero. I like you. Did you ever see Loose Change without the overlaid 'debunking' comments distracting from the point of view being offered? Forget that one. Have you been to the collection of 911 videos thread? You could not possibly debunk all the points made.

"Problem is, pretty much all their claims instantly collapse when examined by experts."

That can easily be said of the official story, particularly how the buildings were destroyed by fire. ALL physical evidence insists that the destruction was caused by strategic placement of thermate.
Try using this mindset: Pretend you know nothing about anything - never heard the official story or the conspiracies - just had all the puzzle pieces thrown at you at once. The pieces that seem to not quite fit obviously belong somewhere else, yet they were in the box with the rest of the pieces so must be included. But how, Zero? My mind is open to your explanation of the events. How are you going to convince me that this was not the work of the illuminati?

I haven't watched Screw Loose change yet, infact I haven't watched all of Loose change yet! so, I'll comment back when I have. I see FunkBone had already added a link, but they get lost when so many are added at one time. I like Zero too...so, er....down boy.






I'm not too sure as to what you are insinuating here, loose morals ? but then it's Dick we are talking about, so I'll drop to his level and say 'wizards sleeve' ?. In your dreams busta, her dance card is FULL.

Zero,

I've seen enough of your explanation on the mainstream news to last me a fucking lifetime. It's about time something gives another perspective. Next you're gonna tell me that JFK was assassinated by a lone gun man. Do us all a favor, don't be a fucking moron. If you trust the shit that is in the whitehouse and all the bought and paid for politicians to tell you what happened, I feel sorry for you. Why did Bush and Cheney refuse to testify under oath? Why were Bin Laden's immediately flown out of the country? Why was Building 7 and info about the Sauds intentionally left out of the 911 Commission report? You're probably thinking it was in the interest of National Security. Ugh! (Charlie Brown style) You make me fucking sick. The list goes on of unanswered questions and loopholes in their "official" STORY. And they (the NeoCons and Fox News) continue to pounce on anyone who questions it... I guess the same way I'm pouncing on you, but hey one good turn deserves another.

I guess we're protectin' our freedom by havin' the Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, Torture, Stolen Elections, Touch screen voting with no paper trail, and George "The fuckin' best President ever" W. Bush occasionally declare his dictatorship. Go back to bed Moron. "You're government is in control. You are free to do as we tell you".

And Doctor Dick... Fuck you!

The number of unwarranted assumptions in your reply is staggering, and I'm not sure why I'm replying as I fully realize that neither you or FunkBone (someone who recently posted about not believing the earth was a sphere) will be convinced by any of this. I will not bring up specific claims made by one side or the other here because it will quickly spiral out of control and I frankly have better uses of my time. We're not past page one yet and there's already a reply consisting mainly of this:

I will not reply again to this thread. I realize the futility of this discussion and take part in it with this single post against my better judgment.

• You assume that I take the word of the "main-stream media" on everything. This is wrong, but probably hard for me to "prove" to you without signing up for a specific conspiracy theory. A good dose of skepticism is helpful when taking in information from any source. I do not feel any need to exhaustively lay out my political views and philosophy on everything, but suffice it to say I'm for legalization of certain drugs, against organized religion, believe "free will" to be an illusion and that we will construct machines that surpass humans and radically change the world within a couple of decades. I'm aware that some of these claims sound strange without being discussed and explained in context, but hopefully you can infer that I'm, if nothing else, not just taking my world view from a readily digested source.
• You assume that I approve of or support the Bush government. Nothing could be further from the truth. My initial reaction when following the US presidential election in 2000 (not that I agree with much Al Gore stood for back then either, but compared to Bush you'd be hard pressed to find someone I'd not rather see) was to seriously doubt how the human civilization would survive the next four years. The actual presidency was less catastrophic than what I had expected in most areas, but the same or worse in others. Suffice it to say, I have trouble finding examples on any piece of policy I would agree with. You would think this part of my first post would serve as an indication:
  
  QUOTE(Zero)
  Also, any conspiracy that ascribes competence to a government clearly needs to be revised.
• You assume that I have reached my views on the status on the "grand conspiracies" (9/11, JFK, the moon landing, UFOs, ...) without any thought process on my part. That's wrong. I've come to the conclusions I have after finding the available information about the event and trying to assess the likelihood of a conspiracy taking place. The less proof available and the grander the implications are, the more suspicious you should become. The very best "evidence" on a 9/11 conspiracy is "inconsistencies" which may very well be hard to explain for you or me, but more or less all of them fall apart when examined by professionals. You really do need a very bleak world view to imply that all scientists, engineers and other expert commentators of the world are being controlled by the conspirators.
• You assume I'm against anyone threatening the status quo of the current explanation on an event. I agree that questioning authority is almost always a positive thing, but there's such a thing as taking it too far. There's no doubt to me that the makers of "Loose change" selected what to show and how to show it to mislead the viewing audience. The question of whether it was deliberate (if they believe it themselves) is harder to answer, but not really relevant. If their version of the truth can't stand on its own without misrepresenting people and evidence, it is clear to me that there is great need for suspicion.

Bush benefited from 9/11, is it therefor reasonable to think he caused it? If one of my rival co-workers is hit by a bus and I benefit from it professionally, did I cause it? If you wanted to imply that, you would also need proof of some kind. If you really wanted to believe it but lacked any hard evidence, you could go through my emails, IM logs with friends and so on, until you found something you could take as a metaphor for me planning to run down my colleague, or an "encrypted message" that when interpreted in the view of wanting to believe seemed to indicate that I was involved in a planned murder but covered it up. You could make a two-hour documentary pieced together of quotes taken out of context from people talking about me, symbols I drew in third grade that were supposed to mean something, interviews with "experts" talking about me but being selectively edited to present the "conspiracy".

But of course, you wouldn't, since I'm not interesting enough. If I was a public figure with lots of power though, and someone with enough skill dedicated themselves to the project I bet you any amount of money there would be a numerous following of true believers who accepted whatever the conspiracy theorists wanted them to believe. But of course, all that it would not matter one bit unless you could find some real proof. If real evidence implicating Bush in 9/11 surfaced, it would spread across the world in days. Regardless of your cynicism, the Internet would make sure of that. A conspiracy on such a massive scale would require vast numbers of people for planning and execution. The fact that none of these seem to leak information prior to the conspiracy should be a clue. My views are always amenable to change. It just requires evidence. Bush could have perpetrated 9/11. It is vastly improbable in my view, but that just means that the proof needs to be stronger.

The world is a complex place and humans by nature are excellent pattern-recognizers. This usually benefits us and usually gives correct feedback to us, but sometimes we see patterns where there are none. Throughout the history of mammals, a false negative was usually trivial when compared to a false positive. Believing that a couple of rustling leaves is a tiger out to kill you will get your heart pumping, but is trivial compared to the opposite situation. Paranoia is very useful, most of the time. Sometimes, those instincts lead us wrong and make us see design and organization were there are none.

Conspiracies exist. They're usually small, because secrets tend to leak out, especially secrets that absolutely cannot be allowed to leak out. There's no doubt that the media have many common interests with the government and free speech needs to be diligently defended for it not to be lost. There's also no doubt that the proposed conspiracy theories contain actors that would benefit if the conspiracy really took place, or else the theories would be obviously inconsistent to everyone. You'd probably be surprised on how many of the premises of conspiracy promoting information I agree with. It's that step where they're supposed to be delivering the evidence fails them.

I know you're a smart guy Zero. I'm just having fun with you and throwing some Bill Hicks quotes in their for shits and giggles. For someone who's not sure why their replying, you sure do have a lot to say.


There have definitely been prominent so called "experts" who have come out in favor of various conspiracies on 911, so not "ALL" that you've mentioned are believers in the "official" story. That's the thing is there are so many "inconsistencies" and suspiciouns on the official story too. (fun with quotation marks )


Loose Change was definitely deliberately made to persuade the viewer in favor of Dylan Avery's views. Dylan Avery really doesn't know one way or another what the truth is... Just as Alex Jones doesn't really know, but it makes for good entertainment, and they can make a buck off of it. I think they've definitely crossed the line of thinking they know without a doubt what the truth is, just like some folks think they know that the bible is the true word of God. And if you can get enough people to believe it, then hey maybe it is real. Either way, it's good that the film was made cause there are a lot of people out there who need that validation and aren't being represented in the mainstream in a fair way.


If I understand your above quote correctly, then I say there were several warnings that 911 was to occur but were intentionally ignored. The possibility that the Bush Crime syndicate knew it was coming and let it happen to wage war on the Middle East, the Taliban, and Civil Liberties and to install their oil pipeline through Afganistan and open the flood gates of the Opium trade to prop up the US economy and fill their pocket books is the most likely scenario. And that sounds like treason to me, something well worth investigating. I don't claim to know what really happened on 911, but judging on the way the current administration came to power in 2000, I am suspicious as hell.

Presidents have and always will be puppets, that is the way the position is tethered. Coincidences is just another word for something you can't explain using reasonable thought. Reasonable thought tells me someone brought those towers down without the planes. No other possible explanation fits. Who did it is irrelevant for noone will ever really know. What is most important about loose change is not what they left out, it is what they put in. Facts.

Damn you boys like that there psychobabble talk. There's no doubt the 911 investigation should be re-opened and re-examined by many independent sources. In a way I guess it is with projects like your mom's Loose Change.

I don't have a problem with Godzilla....but that fuckin' Megalon has got to be brought to justice!....

Last I heard he was hanging out in Iran....

I dunno. The whole 9-11 conspiracy theory is a lot harder to swallow than JFK, or even a fake moon landing. First of all, if the white house set up this huge event just to invade Iraq, then why wouldn't he make the terrorists Iraqi? I know, "George Bush was just reaching for a power grab, it didn't matter to him so long as fear is spread." That ignores that the terrorists were mostly Saudi Arabian, and not Afghani like it was said on a news (granted, Afghanistan was the training ground). If there was one group that the White House wouldn't want involved in an attack on the U.S. it would be the Saudis. Bush has connections that run deep in oil that keep him permanently connected to the Saudi Royal family, so making people from their country the hijackers in order to bomb Afghanistan and then invade Iraq is just convoluted. You don't shit where you eat.

I also find the mind-set of most 9-11 conspiracy buffs disturbing. They start out with the attitude that the burden of proof is on the government, which is stupid because it gives government more credit then it has due. Also, a lot of problems have to due with the fact that every conspiracy nut looks at the collapse of the towers without knowledge of physics or structural integrity of architecture. If you want to tell me there's no way towers just fall like those towers did, you at least should have somebody on the sidelines with a degree on architecture to refer back to. Without it, that would be like both of us arguing over the definition of a French word even though neither of us speak French. You're welcome to speculate without knowledge all you want, but looking without knowledge is speculation.

Most of all, I think there's no reason to think the government set up Saudis to attack Afghanistan and then use that as a crutch to invade Iraq. I don't. It's like when people said Bush had a wire during the 2004 debates, even though he sounded like a tard. Anyone with eyes can see that the government can't handle one atrocious lie, let alone the smoking gun. George Bush could have stopped 9-11 if he did more than clear brush at Camp David, that's a fact. I don't know you how look any further than that. The corruption is so blatant, so unapologetic and unwavering, that it casts a light on everything but a conspiracy theory. I'm not saying the idea is beneath George, I'm just saying it would seem more obvious than it is

The thing with every one of the conspiraloon 9/11 theories is that they take the same view of the science behind the collapse as evangelists do of the science behind evolution; misunderstanding at best, and plain old lying and misrepresentation at worst. That it was an "inside job" is an article of faith among conspiraloons. That there is no evidence to support this doesn't really matter; they get to distract themselves from their empty lives by squalling "Gooberment did it!"


For all the understanding of the physics behind the collapse, the conspiraloons may as well say that this is what happened:

Watch the Loose Change documentary before you comment. The first two are obviously support bias opinions but the third seemed less bias and states new facts.

George Bush is a puppet, if it was a cover up he didn't create it. He just covered up the cover up (that's a mouthful).

THE PLOT THICKENS!

quoting on Light's little picture

lmao that's terrible!

Thing is, they've queered their pitch by spewing such palpable bullshit in the first 2 editions. The third may seem less biased, imo it's because they've learned how to present a case. Loose Change is an exercise in money making and ego stroking, not a crusade for truth.



Heh. Isn't it though?

I guess that's true. But I did do some research and a lot of what they were saying was right. The jet fuel burn, and many other things. Zeitgiest seemed like it had a lot of their facts straight as well.

Just out of interest, what of theirs that they were saying was right? I ask because the facts omitted from something can make more difference than the facts they've put on show.

That we found one of the hijacker's passports outside of one of the towers, Jet Fuel can't melt steel. Also, that a few of the hijackers are even alive. I don't know all of them, for I'd have to scan the whole movie.

If you're talking about Zeitgeist, the whole beginning of that movie was correct referring to the god(s), the middle was very well laid out and seemed to have very correct facts with the 9/11 conspiracy, little questioning on the quote they threw out their that somehow matched George Bush to Hitler, and the last seemed very legit. I looked up some of the facts, and they were completely legit facts.

I think that refers to the "molten steel", for which there is no evidence whatsoever as to...well, as to what it is. It's a molten substance, sure. And although NIST says it was "molten metal", they offer no evidence as to why that may be.

If we're referring to the steel frame of WTC7 or the twin towers...no-one actually ever said it melted. The conspiraloons did, but no-one else has. The fused steel and concrete happened in the collapse, not cos of temperature.

Not heard the passports thing, but I have to say; I suspect it's more misdirection on the part of the grubby little opportunists behind the film. I'd be interested to know more though; I'll hunt that out.




Yeah, well don't get me wrong; I won't knock something that points out the mythologising of Christ. But as I say; films like that rely too much on "the God of Gaps" (as per Richard Dawkins) for my liking.

There's alot of arguments that run sideways to the debate that don't come up. For example, the Loose Change people are right in saying jet fuel can't melt steel. However, nobody on either side saying the steel melted, just that it got too soft to hold the weight. Basing the burden of proof on the metal liquefying is aiming higher than the truth, which coincidentally enough is what 9-11 conspiracy buffs are known for.

I also think the fact they have three different versions speaks volumes against them. Re-doing a movie implies something was wrong the first time, that's the whole reason why people hated the idea of a Star-Wars remake. And two remakes? You fucked up your own movie twice?

Finally, I once again need to say I don't get the need for all of this. I hate it when 9-11 pricks say, "What, do you blindly believe everything you see on network TV?". No asshole, I don't. But 9-11 was everywhere, every TV station, blog, and newspaper in America. Shit, do you know how much wool you'd need to pull over that many people's eyes? I don't know, but far more than any shadowy government/big-business gulag's got, I don't care how big and far-reaching their grasp supposedly is. Stop giving these cocksuckers more credit than they deserve, they couldn't hide corruption in the 2000 Florida elections while half the people there voted for Duchakis.

There's alot of arguments that run sideways to the debate that don't come up. For example, the Loose Change people are right in saying jet fuel can't melt steel. However, nobody on either side saying the steel melted, just that it got too soft to hold the weight. Basing the burden of proof on the metal liquefying is aiming higher than the truth, which coincidentally enough is what 9-11 conspiracy buffs are known for.

I also think the fact they have three different versions speaks volumes against them. Re-doing a movie implies something was wrong the first time, that's the whole reason why people hated the idea of a Star-Wars remake. And two remakes? You fucked up your own movie twice?

Finally, I once again need to say I don't get the need for all of this. I hate it when 9-11 pricks say, "What, do you blindly believe everything you see on network TV?". No asshole, I don't. But 9-11 was everywhere, every TV station, blog, and newspaper in America. Shit, do you know how much wool you'd need to pull over that many people's eyes? I don't know, but far more than any shadowy government/big-business gulag's got, I don't care how big and far-reaching their grasp supposedly is. Stop giving these cocksuckers more credit than they deserve, they couldn't hide corruption in the 2000 Florida elections while half the people there voted for Duchakis.

No, I watched on the History Channel a reenactment of 9-11 and I'm extremely positive they confirmed that. Also, in that reenactment it showed the floors falling in a free-fall, and there would still be a metal beam in the middle if it was suppose to fall that way. And there was none. Also, you can't say that the many Firemen and people that heard explosions in the basement before the plane even hit, are lying or trying to pull anything over your eyes.


In both Loose Change and Zeitgeist they both brought that up. They even had a picture of a man holding it.


They sure can hide it well though so Bush (and not Gore) can win a presidential election.

I posted twice. I'm a dumbass.

No, but that whole 2000 election thing's got me pissed now. I know, let it go, right? But the corruption of the election was so great it had to go up to the Supreme Court, and they sided with Bush (in their words, it was time to end partisan squabbling and work together to change the tone of American politics). We all know that worked out.

I'm not saying Bush doesn't get his way. Oh, he always wins out despite reality's contradictions of his policies. No, what I'm saying is that Bush doesn't ninja his way into policies, sneaking them by without anyone noticing. He does everything in broad daylight, bullying his way to get what he wants, fuck you if you don't agree. He always leaves behind a wave of pissed off people, no more than after the war and/or 2000 elections. So saying he convinced enough people to win in 2007 is not an end-all sentence, because now you want to make the leap from Bush committing the widest noticed corrupt election to Bush committing the largest conspiracy in the world. Even assuming the white house had the brains and balls to fake 9-11, what makes you think he wouldn't do it openly?

Remember, we're talking about a man who routinely goes on TV to advocate torture. Nuance is not his game.

I think the whole presidential elections are setup.

No matter what, those who are suppose to be in office will be put there.

Yeah, that's just the nature of the game. You can't have an application for the most powerful job in the world without some tenth-degree pricks showing up. Any job where someone can be fucked over will be taken over by someone who fucks others over. Even low-level managers are douches for this reason.

My point's just in how. At least most most greedy alpha-male power grabbers have the decency to do it behind closed doors. Bush is representative of the new way of fucking down the chain. There's something about the way he's so unapologetic, it's almost like he likes having the blood on his hands. Perhaps after being spoon-fed help his entire life he enjoys playing with something real. All I know is anyone who doesn't care that much, so much they are willing to go down in history as the worst, separates himself from your average shadowy corporate rulers.

Man, I say fuck way too much.

[quote]No, I watched on the History Channel a reenactment of 9-11 and I'm extremely positive they confirmed that. Also, in that reenactment it showed the floors falling in a free-fall, and there would still be a metal beam in the middle if it was suppose to fall that way. And there was none. Also, you can't say that the many Firemen and people that heard explosions in the basement before the plane even hit, are lying or trying to pull anything over your eyes.[/quote]


Ah, the "Fireman said it was explosions" half truth so beloved of the Loose Change crowd. Oddly, they only offer selective quotations from the firemen. Like this one;

[quote]I was . . . hearing a noise and looking up. . . . [T]he lowest floor of fire in the south tower actually looked like someone had planted explosives around it because . . . everything blew out on the one floor. I thought, geez, this looks like an explosion up there, it blew out." Oral History of Battalion Chief Brian Dixon[/quote]

And yet, Loose Change always leaves out the lines following this, which read;

[quote]"Then I guess in some sense of time we looked at it and realized, no, actually it just collapsed. That's what blew out the windows, not that there was an explosion there but that windows blew out.".[/quote]

Sometimes the Loose Change crowd edit within the quote; in this following one, the stuff in bold is what is missed out by the Loose Change lot in their literature;

[quote]"We looked up at the [south tower] . . . . All we saw was a puff of smoke coming from about 2 thirds of the way up. Some people thought it was an explosion. I don't think I remember that. It looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building. I assume now that that was either windows starting to collapse like tinsel or something. Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV." Oral History of Deputy Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick[/quote]


In fact, since we're looking at the FDNY quotes;

[quote]
heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down. Oral History of Craig Carlson[/quote]




Isn't he describing the beginning of the collapse?

[quote]
Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash.� Oral History of Karin Deshore[/quote]

She's describing the burst of flame that was seen at the beginnig of the collapse. Not completely surprising considering that the building was on fire. Where's the video evidence?

Oh, btw, can you describe the difference between the noise made by a concrete beam breaking under stress and a dynomite charge exploding?

The point is, these statements are selective used by the conspiraloon brigade to try and bolster their non-existent case. And, more to the point, if we were to assume that the noises that numerous people said "sound like explosions" were actually explosions...where's the video evidence to corroborate it?

[quote]
In both Loose Change and Zeitgeist they both brought that up. They even had a picture of a man holding it. [/quote]

Well, we've seen their standards of "proof" above, so I'm afraid unless there is some corroborating evidence...

[quote]
They sure can hide it well though so Bush (and not Gore) can win a presidential election.
[/quote]

So...you're saying that the simpletons who have made a mess of their entire time in office have the skills to pull off what must be the biggest act of misdirection in history, and arrange the bombing of a US building, but no-one has found out about it? No-one has any proof? Here's a thing; if the twin towers were bombed...where were the explosives? 2 dirty great planes smashed into the building; how did they avoid all the explosives that were allegedly there?



[edit] fucking quote function...

They say it's not about that, it's about what can't be explained. I'm almost tempted to agree, but these people make it blatant that they have political biases influencing them. The truth is nothing close to 9-11 has ever happened before, so using an absence of knowledge excuse doesn't fly. All planes-hit-buildings theories are theoretical, and that makes nobody an "expert". With that being said, I will take the word of any structural designer over somebody who just, "unravels the mystery" by their lonesome.

Oh, and the fact that they cherry-pick their facts shows their flaws. Taking testimony from firefighters and editing it so it confirms the explosion theory is more than ignorance, it's lying. It's blatant unapologetic lying. That's like somebody saying you stabbed a midget just because you said, "I stabbed a midget, then I woke up from the dream."

That's a horrible example, but I'm tired. Let's see you try one better.

I know what you're saying; the whole approach of conspiraloons is "I think this happened. Now prove me wrong!". Basically, they try and pick a non-disprovable point and build a mythology around it.

Which is, of course, ludicrous. A comparable situation to the current loon cant on 9/11 would run thus:

A man is found, dead. He has two bullet wounds. Something like 3 billion people saw him getting shot, twice. And a man has since appeared on TV admitting responsibility for the shooting.

The loons say he was poisoned. They say this because his face in death looks a bit like that of someone who'd been given poison. However, they have no proof of this. They can't explain who poisoned him, how the poison was introduced into his system, or even what the poison is. What's more, all the tests done so far have found no trace of poison in his system.

But the loons say "It's so self evident he was poisoned that we don't have to explain how he was poisoned. It's up to you to prove he wasn't."

And that, in a nutshell, is why I find conspiraloons so very very pathetic.

That's much better than mine. Seriously, midgets? What the fuck? Ooh, dutch oven...

Sorry, farted bad. Thankfully girlfriend isn't in here (and by girlfriend I mean girl I have sex on, in, and around). Now what was I saying? Ah yes, the, "prove me wrong" theory. I do want to stress it's important to doubt (not that I need to explain that...). There's nothing wrong with doubting government's role in things. The problem comes when you jump from theory to fact on a hunch. "Bush was involved" is a better point than, "Bush rigged the towers to blow/sent in robots/etc" (sub Bush for whomever you think is puppeteering him this week). There's enough room for doubt to support a vague idea of government involvement, and even then that's stretching it.
Personally I think of the 9-11 conspiracy theory creates kind of a Rorshack (is that spelled OK?) test. Your level of commitment shows how far you are willing to go to make Bush look a fool. It says something about you if you believe in MIHOP, or at least are so sure that you refuse to let other facts throw you from your pre-conceived notion. LIHOPs are more down to Earth, but even they rely on speculation. Personally I think it was more of a, "Mr. President, we're about to be attacked put down the Game Boy" conspiracy. I also think it a shame what people believe Bush is capable of when his actions were essentially held together with duct-tape.

Ah shit, I forgot....

LIHOP: Let it happen on Purpose
MIHOP: Made it happen on Purpose

I'm believe the IHOP theory. You know, the International House Of Pancakes. Those flapjacks are too damn good, something's up...

Do you really think that our air force didn't know that there were renegade planes off course and heading towards DC and NY? That FACT alone is the only thing anyone with a clue as to how advanced our military really is, needs to know. You can't fly a hangglider that close to the Capitol without scattering a bunch of F-16's. The coincidental "exercise" being spearheaded by Cheney that mimmicked the actual occurances at the same time the whole thing is going down would be the next fact. Come on, conspiraloon is a cute term for people who don't believe everything that is shoveled at them and come to conclusions based on probablility over actual "fact". the people that brought the twin towers down didn't have to be careful, they just had to be powerful. Power can sway fact, after the fact, and that's a fact. History is written by the powerful, not the winner, cuz you ain't a winner if you kill 5000 innocent people, so you can kill tens of thousands more in a foreign country.

Those buildings were coming down no matter what. There was too much to gain from it, and not by Osama Bin laden or Saddam Hussein. Call me a loon but common sense is the only thing needed in this instance. Really, has there ever been a government that didn't try this played out trick? You know, cut yourself and say someone else did it. Oldest and most used power play in the book. But lots of people buy it.

I believe I covered that brand of "Heavy on anti gooberment emotiveness, light on anything remotely resembling evidence" the-gooberment-did-it-because-I-say-so approach here.


It always astonishes me that, despite the ongoing clusterfuck in Iraq and Afghanistan, not one of you loons is willing to amend your view that the military and gooberment are a hyper-efficient and super-organised gang of evil genius' (Genius? Geniuses? Genii? You know what I mean) who can second guess every thought you have.

After watching all these vids (Zeitgeist, Loose Change, random others), watching the MSM replays:

I personally think it was a setup job...no, none of us will ever know for sure - - but, the WTC7 magic collapse and NORAD's momentary incompetence at exactly the worst time are the one's that strike me.

I theorize that WTC7 was wired for demolition in series with the main WTC buildings, it just didn't collapse in conjunction, and fell later than planned due to a malfunction. Of course there was probably something else that was supposed to strike/destabilize the building like the planes did the main WTC buildings so it didn't look like it just happened by proxy. This would suggest that there had to be major advanced planning, security "lapses", access that no "one" rogue element could've accomplished. Can I say exactly who or what? Absolutely not, but I know who it benefitted the most with the Wiretapping, PATRIOT Act, Color Codes, etc. A perfect tactic to scare people with come election time/or when it's time to make questionable unconstitutional laws. A permanent boogeyman to scare the US with A War on "Terror" - - WTF is a War on Terror? This gives absolute power to do anything you want with one magic word. Maybe that was just a non-expected consequence of 9/11, but what a motherlode of instant power acquired - - my gut is raising a BS flag.

Of course we'll never know the truth, but I can sure tell when someone's pissing on my leg and then tells me it's raining. I enjoy conspiracy theories just for entertainment value as much as the next person, but the moment you don't at least give it some serious thought..it becomes the perfect crime. I will always "Question Authority", it's the only thing that holds the powers-that-be one step from my mental slavery.

"Has there ever been a government that didn't try this played out trick?" Seriously? Has a government ever gone to fake an attack on all national and local news networks, then perpetuated fear in order to attack not that country but another? Well, yeah, if you want to talk Nazi Germany and Stalin, but c'mon! I've said it post after post, nobody knows what happened. It's people watching Fox news arguing with people who watch the 9-11 footage over and over again to "decode the mystery". There are no facts to be found, not one source that's accredited, impartial and/or completely honest. Making the argument probability over fact is just a way to post the side you agree with more on a pedestal, nothing more.

Further more, you don't need to seedily imply Bush's political advantage to fear-mongering, since the facts already point to that fact. Yes, Bush would have benefited had he set up 9-11. Does that mean he did it? Not necessarily. Using Bush's fear-mongering tactics (which exist, fully) and using it as a leaping point is your head trailing your heart. Base it off facts, not motivations. We know what Bush could've done, give me what he did. I also think that whole probability argument is a cheap comparison to people who'd have us stay in Iraq for 100 years, just cause it's probable that civil war will break out in our absence.

Your argument is the same as other 9-11 deniers, which is why it falls. You enter the argument hot-headed, too emotionally tied in the outcome to argue correctly. It's the same reason you aren't supposed to represent yourself in a court of law, you're too attached to what's happening to help yourself. I don't say any of this with an air of superiority, at least not nearly as more than you do. I'm simply stating that your argument, your "proof of an undeniable conspiracy", has risen not on the words of any proclaimed professional but rather on a plume of anger from a thousand angry patriots. Ask yourself, is the idea of a 9-11 conspiracy so inevitable a conclusion that you would have reached it on your own? Had there not been one other who "assembled the facts" for you, would you have seen it? You'd argue yes, but why? What are you seeing that us veiled sheep cannot? I've heard your facts, your vast proof, and I still come to another conclusion. Maybe it's because I don't want it to be true as much as you do. All I know let hate twist our truth anymore than it already has, no matter how noble the intentions are or what side is lying. No generalizations, assumptions, or speculations will suffice if you're to convince anyone but yourself.

Heh, I read this before I even saw you were talking shit about me in the other posts. That's so weird, that I'd argue with you on this, then realize you were the same guy calling me your wife in another thread. Coincidence? You be the judge!

P.S - Weirder still, even responding to those I didn't connect the dots. I was literally thinking, "Man, first that one douche is doubting 9-11 really happened, then that other guy insults me!" Then it turns out they're the same guy! Whoa! Maybe I really just don't like your thought process, I don't know how else to explain it...

P. P. S - With that being said, it's cool if the rest of you doubt 9-11, provided of course you don't act like a douche about it....

No one knows. bullshit, someone knows. Just cuz you don't know don't mean it aint true. Least common denominator man. math is math. power is scared to lose power. power is greedy for more power. The more powerful, the more bold and blatant. cocky and arrogant doing their deeds in front of your nose and then confusing you with mystery and bullshit. I was in the military and I gaurantee that under normal circumstances, those planes would have been shot down before they got within 100 miles of DC. The military does not tolerate mistakes, that's why it's the military. So the idea that they fucked up even tho they're human, doesn't even fly with me. Come on man, do you really need to see an alien to believe in them? What about God? Bankers? Lizards? So many illusions to filter through...


I always wondered what would have happened if the towers fell completely sideways.

I've always wondered why this didn't recieve more attention...

Seems somewhat damning to me....Is it a hoax?....




I'm far from considering this proof....but I do find it interesting how many Nazis were hired on by our intelligence community after the WW2....and then there's the whole Operation Northwoods thing...which pretty much seems to show that our leaders aren't above considering such actions to achieve their goals...

I dunno....I suppose I take more of the Robert Anton Wilson perspective on it...I don't look at it as all being true...or all being false...but rather...How much of it is true?....How much is false?...

It seems the video links in the old thread no longer work....here's a new one...




Although this version doesn't show them losing their satellite feed a couple minutes before the building was due to fall...

Good points all, and let me just point out that obviously when I said nobody knows, what I meant is we don't know. Obviously someone knows for sure, he's not going to explain it to us. That's why we have to speculate.

I just admit to myself the futility of trying to place that much of a government conspiracy based on what we know now. I think it's perfectly possible shit went down on 9-11, probably likely. But I DON"T KNOW. This is no Kennedy assasination, no fake moon landing. This is something that regardless of being real or not has never happened before. I will need to see proof, believe it or not. Because like the God example you used, the 9-11 conspiracy theory is either a truth or something made up to confirm man's opinions about himself. I don't care what people say about 9-11, so long as they go into the observation without emotional investment.

I agree with all of what you just said more or less....but I take it one step further...I don't even care if they go into the observation with emotional investment or not...It's their emotion...they can invest it as they see fit...It doesn't mean I have to...

....and who knows?...maybe that investment will really pay off someday and I'll be kicking myself for not putting all my emotion into 9-11 conspiracy when it's was cheap....

What can I say...I've always been more of a Ben Franklin 'a penny saved is a penny earned' kind of guy when it comes to emotional investment...

You sound like a Neo-Con talking about WMD in Iraq; "Just cos we ain't found 'em, don't mean they're not there!"

Some evidence please. Something more than "What I reckon, right, is..."



I'm sorry, perhaps you've missed the endless fuck ups in Iraq? The friendly fire, the massacres of civilians, the complete and total cocksplash made of the entire country...presumably they weren't mistakes but were deliberate actions? Because "the military doesn't tolerate mistakes"?

There are indeed illusions to filter through. The illusion that the military and the gooberment are omnipotent and infallible is one of them.



A conspiraloon would've said Dubya made it happen that way?




Oh, and Sandman; NIST are still investigating WTC7. Not like a loon to leap to a conclusion in the absence of...well, y'know; evidence and that.

In conclusion: Conspiraloons - You need more evidence than a piss-poor "God of Gaps" argument, wishful thinking, and misrepresentation of what the evidence actually is.

Light you make a strong argument, but I'm afraid you've lost this one.

You ask for evidence, and I have brought you multiple sources of evidence you have not yet explained. You can't disprove anything we've stated really.

It HAS happened before

Oh and light, there is shitloads of provable evidence on this here site and elsewhere that points all fingers at the bush regime and beyond as being the culprets in the 9/11 happenings. The way you talk to people who believe this makes me wanna snatch your fuckin chin off your face. It seems to me that you are on both sides of this argument and that is even worse. I know the powers that be did that shit and I don't care if you believe it or not. Steel melts at what temperature? How hot does jet fuel burn? buildings that fold up neatly into a confined area. People across the ocean reporting that a building has fallen before it falls. Too many goddamn coincidences man. Take your head out of your ass and pick a fuckin side already will ya. Have a nice day!

Oh yes, the pearl harbor conspiracy. Guess what, even if it's true (which I think most people would argue it's not) it doesn't matter, because the common non-conspiracy belief of what happened on 9-11 was that Bush ignored evidence that 9-11 was going to happen. The historic document "Bin Laden determined to attack within the U.S." is proof enough of that. So making the whole "Pearl Harbor was known beforehand" argument supports an alternate reality than the one you're trying to send. Maybe if Roosevelt laid explosives in American ships and sent automated airplanes in to get us in war, then yes, you have argued correctly. And when I say hasn't happened before, I obviously don't mean government lying to cover up truths in order to proceed on their path to glory. That's happened, ask the Indians about that shit. No, I mean this is the first documented case of major airliner jets crashing into large towers at high speeds. Have you ever heard of an expert on planes crashing into buildings? No. That's because it's an uncommon thing.

As for what side I'm on, I say I'm waiting till all the facts come out. Remember facts? They're what you're supposed to base an argument on, not your gut instinct. That's the point I make, not this wishy-washy indecisive fuck-nut opinion of 9-11 you seem to think I have. Again, I've seen Loose Change, Zeitgeist (shit, I probably spelled that wrong). Your need to write people who see what you see and still think otherwise as brainwashed masses undercuts any point you're trying to make. It's the reason we can't have a civilized opinion about the truth behind 9-11, and the same reason why I walked away from your side of the argument two years ago. You may be right or wrong, only time will show that. But your need to be right undercuts any 'evidence' you find. Let's say hypothetically, you find proof it happened exactly as it was reported, no lies. Would you accept it? Obviously you're emotionally invested in the alternate, so why would you? All I do is say look at both options, or at least don't come to the argument with a bone to pick, and you snap at me. In doing that, you simultaneously reinforce your belief while diminishing your credibility. I'd love to have a nice debate about this, no argument. Not 'cause I'm obviously such a pussy that I can't handle swears (like you say), just that I'd like, you know, order. Not a debate where I point out why I think it wasn't explosives and you call my mother a cunt. Can you even talk to someone who has a different world-view of yours without threatening them with violence? Can you base your argument on facts, or is that idea so unimaginable you want to reach through the screen and hit me?

I believe I was talking to light. You know there are other people on this board.

You will be waiting a long time for the real truth to reach your ears. The real shit is ears only and your ears are not on the list.

Apart from here and here you mean?

That loons pick a mythology and then insist "Prove me wrong!" is par for the course. The fact that one cannot prove a negative seems to pass y'all by.

Now enjoy your delusions.

Yeah yeah; enjoy ranting and shouting. If you can't win an argument with logic and evidence, go for winning by volume eh?

I couldn't give two shits what you say you "know". I care about what someone can prove. And you cannot prove a fucking thing. Like all conspiraloons, you pick a non-disprovable personal mythology and proceed to yell "Pwove me wrong then! Go on! GO ON!"

Now go and look up...

1. Whether the steel actually melted, or whether it was weakened.
2. Potential energy and collapse
3. Material science
4. Whether the jet fuel temperature has anything whatsoever to do with your loon cant, or whether you're just repeating something you've read and not understood.

Because right now, you're parroting the same old loon lies that say what you want to hear.

Now answer me this; since when did being an independent thinker mean that one has to be credulous to any yahoo who says "The gooberment did it!" You say "Pull your head out of your ass"? Yeah, because it's impossible to read up on 9/11 and think anything other than what you (with your evidence free approach) think, right?

Right?

AHA! I see the delusion you're under now!

You think the fuel exploded in the basement. Rather than the explosion coming down from above. You're wrong. The explosion came from above. There was no explosion in the basement.

No doubt you base this on William Rodriguez's claim to have heard an explosion in the basement before the first plane struck. I think it's pretty well established that what he is most likely to have heard is the impact of the plane, which reached his ears through the structure of the towers quicker than it did through the air, thus seemed to emanate from below, before he heard the air-carried sound waves from above.

Of course this is the point where you start laughing, declaring that would break the laws of physics and stuff.




OK, so, the plane crashed, ruptured the fuel tanks and exploded. At pretty much the same time the elevator shafts were punctured by the plane debris. At the same time, this enormous cloud of fuel and flame is expanding from the site of the explosion.

Now then gentlemen, do you want us to believe that that cloud of fuel and flame took a look down the lift shafts, thought it looked a bit dark, and thought "nah, I'm not going down there" or do you think that the high pressure from the explosion would have forced this volatile fuel/air mixture into every channel that was open to it?


Now then; onto "Steel melting" or, as the rational thinking world call it, "Steel weakening". Most loons claim that steel has never been weakened by fire before.

We have seen steel weakening in other major fires.
Steel weakened in a warehouse fire a while back, tragically one fireman is dead, and three others are presumed dead because steel supporting a roof, weakened and failed in the heat resulting in a collapse of part of the roof, and due to the lack of structural integrity in the remains of the building, there was another piece of the roof collapsed.

If you'd been following the news you'd know this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventr...ire/7076401.stm

Other fires:
Piper Alpha fire 1988, steel failed & the rig was destroyed.
Mumbai High North fire 2005, same thing occured.

Couple of years ago, a fire occured in a Worcestershire paper factory.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/herefor...rcs/6105942.stm

As can be seen in this link steel again weakened in fire, and gave way under load.

And, seeing as structural engineering is key to understanding what happened to the WTC's, if the engineering facts do not support the cornerstone of the conspiracy theory, nothing else they add to it will have any value.

Take a good look at these pictures:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/6106898.stm

It went from this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/..._05_420x284.jpg

To this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/herefordandworcester/..._19_420x284.jpg

And here's a video.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/h...p;alreadySeen=1

I think you'll agree that this example is of a major fire.



As far as Building 7 goes, how is it untenable to say that a building, that has had another fall on it, and been on fire is likely to collapse?

How is it less likely then someone going in and rigging it up with miles of cabling and explosives (that don't go off in the face of fire and a building landing on them) whilst its either in use, or on fire at the time.

Oh, and the WTC7 collapse? It took far longer than 7 seconds, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLHwvwJCmgk The beginning has nice video of the Windsor Tower collapse and from about 1.30-3.00 is good footage of WTC7 with smoke CLEARLY billowing from it.


Now then; do you gentlemen actually want to debate this, or are you both content to regurgitate what you've read on your loon sites and attempt to make yourselves feel like anti-gooberment rebels? If it's the latter, that's fine. Don't expect me to do much beyond laughing at you. If you genuinely do want to debate it, then I look forward to your responses.

If you think I'm a loon than you should hear some of the naive people on this board trying to convince me that just because I can't physically produce a confession from the Bush family, that they couldn't possibly have anything to do with such and atrocious act of hate. They use sources like the BBC (real truth tellers there) to back their research and then they get all chin-up at people that do believe that it's more likely than not, that they did do it. I don't believe ANYTHING mainstream media says...not one word. These people also don't believe in coincidences (which this particular story is riddled with). Since the Bush regime goes back many generations and has ties to so many powerful and dubious people that, in my mind, it makes more sense that they did perpetrate this act of aggression, and didn't really care to hide the details because they want people to be torn and afraid of them. They have taken the old show business saying, "there's no such thing as bad press", and ran all the way to the bank with it. which brings me to my final point. I could care less about those pricks running the show because history is full of arrogant and powerfully evil people and me worrying about them is what they want. I'll watch the movie but I ain't gonna buy the DVD.

The fact that these people think all people who believe in their instincts are loons is a testimony to their own doubts and insecurities. Judging people and labeling them for believing something to be true, based on FACTS (jet fuel, and so many more published on this site.), and their own intuition, is highly presumptious and conceited.

I haven't read anything on this site that convinces me that the official story is true. Not one. I am glad that these people who know what actually happened are so content in their own glory. I have not formulated an opinion myself cuz like I said, I really don't care. But I do believe it is more probable that what actually happened is not what THEY say happened. After all, they are politicians and it's a requirement to be able to lie. To lie good, now that's a different kind of person now isn't it?

So in other words, you're happy to mindlessly trill "Gooberment did it! My belief in this means more than any of your so-called-evidence!", yes? No attempt whatsoever to address any of the evidence that suggests you're perpetuating a lie, presumably because you don't want to have your comforting beliefs challenged? Oh, and in fact an attempt to justify why you refuse to even look at any such evidence? For someone who tries to imply that anyone who disagrees with you needs to open their mind, you're displaying the traits of zealot defending his religion.

You weak minded, tedious fucking shithorn. I've no patience with people who want to project their fantasy world onto reality and say they're the same thing. It's what the Neo-Cons do, and it's what stupid little shits like you revel in.

Egocentric cockwasps such as yourself couldn't give a shit about "the truth" of 9/11. Don't care about the deaths on that day. Don't care about the thousands who've died in Iraq and Afghanistan as a result of it. All you care about is bolstering your self-esteem by piggy-backing your ignorance onto an atrocity.