9/11 (and other) mysteries

[Lethevich]

9/11 conspiracy theories are more interesting than I thought: Reptilian shape-shifting aliens.

"Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites."

They can't handle the TRUTH. They are idiots who are living with their heads in the sand - they think they have worked it all out with their childish "rogue governmental organisation" explanations, but they are in fact victims of false clues laid by the reptilians to cover their tracks. FOOLS!

[robnewman]

"Icke's theories are rejected by 911blogger.com and other conspiracy theory sites."

They can't handle the TRUTH. They are idiots who are living with their heads in the sand - they think they have worked it all out with their childish "rogue governmental organisation" explanations, but they are in fact victims of false clues laid by the reptilians to cover their tracks. FOOLS!

To beat these liars you just play back their own broadcasts. No further comment needed. The footage broadcast on 9/11/2001 was faked. Part of the crime of 9/11/2001.

[Taxes-]

You should read your own nonsense. The people who died on that tragic day deserve nothing less than you to sit down and look at the broadcast footage that was sent out by the corporate broadcasters on that day. End of story. Stop fooling others and stop fooling yourself. These televised images are false, massively faked, and were part of the crime. So says every honest person who has examined them. This thread is on 9.11. Therefore do yourself a favour. Watch the actual broadcast footage already posted here and stop being a fool.  The great people of the United States have friends worldwide who, with them, condemn this evil crime. A crime which involved, beyond doubt, fake images being broadcast. Because that crime was committed by evil men who infiltrated offices of government and of the law. Whose lies continue till today. But who can and will answer to Almighty God for those crimes on that tragic day.

I've seen people of your kind often enough in the past to know that the time it would take to debunk whatever worthless claims they're making is much better spent somewhere else, anywhere else really.

[robnewman]

I've seen people of your kind often enough in the past to know that the time it would take to debunk whatever worthless claims they're making is much better spent somewhere else, anywhere else really.

You can't even look at the images that were broadcast on that day, can you ? You're a Conspiracy Fearist !!!

A generation like yours has never lived on this earth. Who can see for themselves what was actually broadcast on television on that day and yet still not see the fakery, lies and fraud that was part of this crime !!  I honestly feel sorry for you. Has the television taken over your brain ? And what, exactly, are you going to 'debunk' ? The footage itself ? This is hilarious. What exactly DO you believe ? You believe this footage, right ? Which shows clearly these broadcasts were faked. And which shows exactly where it makes no sense.

Your time is better spent somewhere else. Play back their own lies. That's what they can't handle, isn't it ?

The problem you have is you've become a couch potato who believes any nonsense they tell you. Isn't that right ? They feed it to you right through the tube, and you believe it.  Why, you even deny there are any problems in it !! Even when the lies are staring you right in the face. It's pathetic.

And yet, unfortunately, that's exactly your problem. And ours.


SEPTEMBER CLUES

Part D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuB4jLAuVLk

[snyprrr]

And don't forget the Israelis in the white van.

[The new erato]

Funny how it is that belief in ONE conspiration theory seldom is enough. Tells me more about personality than about the world.

[Joe_Campbell]

...thousands of reasons...

Here we go again...

My favourite commentary on the 9/11 conspiracy:

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons

[knight66]

To the extent Rob that you ever had any credibility here; you have speedily wiped it out with your entries on this nut-case theory.

A pattern has clearly emerged.

Perversity for the sake of it.
Contrariness for the delight in being different.
The arrogance of the constant display of seeming superior knowledge.


'The time for self glorification is coming to a close.'

Mike

[Brian]

Here we go again...

My favourite commentary on the 9/11 conspiracy:

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons

That is still the best response to any 9/11 conspiracy and/or any Glenn Beck show.

[drogulus]

    Here's the first part of the Screw Loose Change rebuttal to the Loose Change video, which uses the LC video supplemented with the rebuttal remarks as subtitles. You can go to the Google videos Screw Loose Change page to see the whole thing in one piece.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch/v/qkh0Mx3bLDU

    If the government is willing to kill 3,000 innocent people why are they uninterested in killing the conspiracy theorists?  If they can make hundreds of airline passengers disappear why can't they "disappear" these guys? And why is there so little evidence that the conspiracy buffs think they are in danger? Posting these YouTube videos should be a mortal risk, right? It's almost as if these guys know they are purveying bullshit that threatens no one and reveals nothing.

[Scarpia]

It would be interesting to put "Newman's head in a PET scanner and see what part of his brain is missing to cause these persistent delusions, apparently involving about every aspect of life.  How can you argue with someone who is more willing to believe that 9/11 is a conspiracy involving the President of the United states, the CIA, the Air Force, the National Guard, the Fire Department of New York, the New York city police, all branches of the News Media (both local and national), the scientific community, the National Bureau of Standards, a French film crew, the Airlines and thousands of civilian witnesses (including my cousin and brother-in-law), than he is willing to believe that his impression upon watching some video on TV is in error.

[Scarpia]

If the government is willing to kill 3,000 innocent people why are they uninterested in killing the conspiracy theorists?  If they can make hundreds of airline passengers disappear why can't they "disappear" these guys? And why is there so little evidence that the conspiracy buffs think they are in danger? Posting these YouTube videos should be a mortal risk, right? It's almost as if these guys know they are purveying bullshit that threatens no one and reveals nothing.

I don't think they know they are purveying bullshit, they simply lack the intelligence to make that connection.

[The Six]

bump

[Sean]

Yes....as I was watching what was broadcast, I could not believe my eyes. I though I had blundered upon a Hollywood movie.

You are right, we can't believe the evidence of our own eyes any more.

Mike

Mike, have you watched Loose change, the most well known of the 9/11 conspiracy documentaries, not to mention the most downloaded film in internet history at 100 million times (a few years ago)- it's on Youtube and Google video: you want the original, Final cut being a long appendix of less interesting info. Your remark about it looking like a Hollywood film has also been made by many others- because it was orchestrated with the same planning and maximum psychological impact as a film.

It's contents are NOT wacky and have been carefully researched by a team determined only to include defendable material. There are some really major questions and points that it raises, and those who just want to write it off do so not because of its content but because of its colossal implications and what they would mean for the average uncritical mind's personal worldview. Also check out Steven Jones and all his professional work on analysing dust samples and the mechanics of the towers' collapse.

[knight66]

Sean, I am sorry if my remarks mislead you. I was keying in with Scarpia's earlier post. I do not ascribe to any US gov conspiracy theory.

I did see the towers being hit while I was in a chip shop at lunch time. I assumed it was a film and asked the person serving me. He explained what I was looking at. I walked back to my car with my knees shaking and turned on my radio to listen to the news.

I am content to buy into the official version.

Mike

[Sean]

One of the core issues the official account has to explain is this.

Imagine the block of the towers above the impact site suspended in mid air with nothing underneath it. Now compare it with the same block above the intact lower part of the towers in the real situation, in its normal state, held up by 47 massive steel reinforced central columns and 280 perimeter columns: this block falls maybe 3-6 metres down to the next level once all the support columns mysteriously simultaneously fail, and causes the whole tower to crumble into dust.

If the two blocks are released and begin falling at the same moment, one with thin air under it and the other with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete with enormous vertical resistance under it, which do you think would hit the ground first?

The real block above the intact tower hit the ground at the same instant that the block with nothing under it would have, taking nine seconds at free fall speed.

Only explosives can move material out of the way that fast. Arguments about the momentum sufficiently overcoming the lower tower have been debunked by academic papers on the Journal of 9/11 Studies and elsewhere.

And the same happened for the second tower, and for Building 7 not even hit by a plane.

[Sean]

Mike, I was also very shocked indeed- this was the intention for quickly getting troops into central Asia and the Middle east. But have a quiet moment and watch the movie, at least your perspective will be widened; it was even proposed to be shown in the House of Commons at one point. Other good ones include 9/11 coincidences.

[knight66]

Sean, I am not clear why interest from MPs would be likely to impress anyone here. They are at least as fallible as the rest of us, often more so, and have no direct line to knowledge or secrets. Those are maintained and retained at the top of government and the civil service. But in this instance; I don't accept the premise that there is anything to the alternative theory, any worrying secrets.

Just because there may be two ways of explaining an event, does not to me mean that I rush down the less accepted route in order to try and convince myself.

Just because there may be some unexplained aspects to the event, does not indicate to me that a sinister complexion must be painted onto that lack of certainty.

Over the first couple of years I watched quite a few documentary and discussion programmes; especially around the time that the official report came out. I did not feel uneasy about the official version to the extent that it could or should be displaced.

I feel no need to overturn the conventional view of everything that happens in this world or for that matter in the past. We know that history is now a series of challenges to modern writers, each intent on leaving their academic bum print on a new spin of the facts. It always was fluid, even from the time of Thucydides, whose eye witness accounts are not wholly reliable. Ten witnesses to any complex event will provide 10 different accounts. But that is not an indicator of conspiracy, but human fallibility.

The official accounts of 9/11 may well be mined for being fallible. That is not provide grounds for overturning the generally accepted version.

Mike

[Elgarian]

The difficulty here for me is that I never know what or whom to believe. I'm sceptical about being sceptical about the scepticism of the sceptics.

But perhaps foolishly, I watched those videos a few posts back. I couldn't follow much of what I saw, and believed rather less. After all, if you can fake footage of an event while it's happening (as claimed), you can fake the fake footage more convincingly, at leisure, later. In all of it, just one question remains that I'd like an answer to:

Why does the nose of the aircraft appear to emerge unharmed from the other side of the building? Because indeed that is, absurdly, what appears to happen.

Is that bit faked by the fakers? And if so, which fakers?

[Sean]

Mike

Just because there may be some unexplained aspects to the event, does not indicate to me that a sinister complexion must be painted onto that lack of certainty.

The official accounts of 9/11 may well be mined for being fallible. That is not provide grounds for overturning the generally accepted version.

On the contrary there are good grounds for questioning the accepted version since it's not a matter of 'some unexplained events' but major elements of the accepted version not holding up.

One title I like of a book on 9/11 is Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Centre disaster: once reality and common sense is suspended only a baseless logic remains- what Alice did made sense only when a realm of fantasy is accepted to begin with. Likewise if 90% of something is lies and 10% truth, most people will still look to criticize the 10% simply because it doesn't fit and is incongruous in relation to the rest. Investigate that seeming 10% and you'll find it's really 100%.