OT: Conspiracy theories 9/11

Boltman · Post by **Boltman** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:29 pm

I saw this on the channel Current.

I also see this is the number one Google Video watched feed.

Give it a look, also pay close attention to the 18:25 mark (it is 2 hours plus) when it talks about the supposed plane that hit the pentagon.

Call me naive if you wish, I served in the USMC (my mos was 2531 Field radio operator and I served in Desert Shield, 1st Anglico) so I am not too naive, but I do have doubts when I watched this.

Here is the link.................

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

911 Loose Change 2nd Edition with extra footage - Google Video

Enjoy......or be upset, either way.....watch it all please, I love input on this.

EDIT: All of you please watch it, it will take a bit, but it is worth it. At 22:55 the evidence seems irrefuteable (sp). The damage is inconsistent with the stats of the plane involved.

Please watch it in its entirety (sp) before you post comments, you owe at least that much.

EDIT 2: 30:10 and on is sick as well, it seems too much to refute. Interesting.

dbdynsty25 · Post by **dbdynsty25** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:59 pm

Some sh*t went down that day that we don't know about. That's all there is to it. And we will probably never know what exactly happened. I've accepted that at this point.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:17 pm

Skerik · Post by **Skerik** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:19 pm

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:50 pm

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

Feanor · Post by **Feanor** » Sat May 20, 2006 7:51 pm

Double post.

JackDiggity · Post by **JackDiggity** » Sat May 20, 2006 8:11 pm

Boltman wrote: Call me naive if you wish, I served in the USMC (my mos was 2531 Field radio operator and I served in Desert Shield, 1st Anglico) so I am not too naive, but I do have doubts when I watched this.

OK...Your naive. Talk to some of your brothers that were serving at the Pentagon when the plane hit as well as the soldiers and fireman that were burned trying to save lives that day. I have. I talked to a Marine when I was at Walter Reed that was heading to his car when the plane damn near took his head off. He was burnt badly as he rushed in to try to help. I have no doubts.

Boltman wrote:Enjoy......or be upset, either way.....watch it all please, I love input on this.

There is nothing to enjoy about anything that happened that day.

Boltman · Post by **Boltman** » Sat May 20, 2006 9:59 pm

I resect your view JD, mainly because you served as I did. But did everyone else watch the timeframes I dropped!? Did you even give the entire thing a look?

Gimme specific answers to the timepoints in the film I pointed out, give someone as Naive as me a GD good answer to the points in question.

I think there are none, did you listen to the statistical data given, some points on the three specific times I give in the films time seem undisputable. Give me specifics to those three points in particular, thats all I ask.

JackDiggity · Post by **JackDiggity** » Sat May 20, 2006 10:49 pm

Boltman wrote:I resect your view JD, mainly because you served as I did. But did everyone else watch the timeframes I dropped!? Did you even give the entire thing a look?

Gimme specific answers to the timepoints in the film I pointed out, give someone as Naive as me a GD good answer to the points in question.

I think there are none, did you listen to the statistical data given, some points on the three specific times I give in the films time seem undisputable. Give me specifics to those three points in particular, thats all I ask.

With all respect...f*** that film. Films can be rigged. I talked to soldiers that were there. That's a good enough GD answer for me. Why the f*** would they lie about seeing a plane rip into the Pentagon? Was all the radar that picked up that flight after it was reported hijacked fixed? What about all the air traffic controllers that watched the plane until it hit? Were they all in on it? WTF happened to the plane and it's passengers?

Did you read the link that Feanor posted. That's about as specific as it gets.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911 ... dence.html

Believe what you want man. If your sold on this theory so be it. I am not.

Boltman · Post by **Boltman** » Sat May 20, 2006 11:24 pm

It is alot to read (what Feanor posted) but I will dilligently read through it all. I am not as "F that!" as you, I like to take my time and read things through. I also do not agrue what you have said. But I take it all in and then sum it up as best I can.

I will read up on it all tonight, I am not going to beat a dead horse. I'll drop it here as it sits.

Post by **Jared** » Sun May 21, 2006 12:44 am

Yeah, read Feanor's post. I have no idea why people want to create so many conspiracy theories out of this, but most of it is crappy conjecture that completely ignores tons of evidence to make a point.

JackDiggity · Post by **JackDiggity** » Sun May 21, 2006 8:43 am

Boltman wrote:It is alot to read (what Feanor posted) but I will dilligently read through it all. I am not as "F that!" as you, I like to take my time and read things through. I also do not agrue what you have said. But I take it all in and then sum it up as best I can.

I will read up on it all tonight, I am not going to beat a dead horse. I'll drop it here as it sits.

That's cool. Like I said, I have a "F that!" mind set about this conspiracy because I have personally talked to soldiers that were were wounded at the site. Burned badly. They have no reason to lie. I respect them and what they told me. Done deal for me.

Boltman,I got nothing but love for ya brother!

JackDiggity · Post by **JackDiggity** » Sun May 21, 2006 8:55 am

Jared wrote:Yeah, read Feanor's post. I have no idea why people want to create so many conspiracy theories out of this, but most of it is crappy conjecture that completely ignores tons of evidence to make a point.

I know. And this is not directed at Boltman.

It really pisses me off. IMO it shows a total disrespect for the innocent people that died on that plane and in the Pentagon. Like you said Jared,the people that start these things totally disregard the evidence and eyewitness accounts of this tragic event. I guess it gets them off.

Anyhow I am outta this thread as well.

Programmed2Kill · Post by **Programmed2Kill** » Sun May 21, 2006 9:53 am

Blah @ all of this stuff. All I know is there were alot of innocent lives taken that day and because of it, too many of our men and women are dying overseas fighting for us. That's what I care about.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:06 am

You must be a moron or simply one of those people who's only fulfilled by thoughts of conspiracy to buy into any of this...

I wouldn't normally even dignify this kind of infuriating, disrespectful, and irresponsible film with a response, but it's just so STUPID that I have to comment...

There are so many holes to the argument within the first 10 minutes that I can't even think where to begin...I had to stop watching as it makes me sick to hear and even more sick to think that there are people without the brain power enough to see the flaws in logic...

First. He seems to assert that preparation equals planning. Just because there were documents, training exercises, and preparation plans for planes being used in an attack doesn't mean we were planning for it, only preparing for it. With this logic, anyone who buys a life-insurance policy is PLANNING to die soon.

Second. He takes random accounts gathered during the BLUR of that morning and uses their testimony as facts. Some guy says that the plane that hit the trade center didn't have windows and he believes it? How do you account for the fact that the planes are gone from AA and United rosters, and that the ticketed passengers are no where to be found?

He quotes that "Air Traffic Control" thought flight 77 was a military flight"; so it must've been? OR could it be that the off-course flight 77 was presumed to be common military traffic in and around the Pentagon?

He uses an example of a flight to hit light poles and crash a MILE away to say that light-poles cause crashes and wing damage. Then says the plane that hit the Pentagon had no wing damage. Then says there are no peices of the plane left...How does he know there wasn't wing damage? The other flight flew nearly a MILE before crashing, Flight 77 went less than 100 yards after hitting the light poles.

This moron constantly fights both sides. Insists plane couldn't have burned up. (doesn't consider that the plane was shredded before burning - small bits take only a moment to burn); then argues that a piece found on the lawn that is clearly an AA flight must have come from something else because it's too pristine.

Goes on for minutes about how there isn't enough damage to the exterior of the building, compares it to other buildings that have been hit by missiles. Then sites a hole in one of the inner walls that COULDN'T be caused by a plane since it would never make it that far in though the 9ft. concrete/steel walls of the Pentagon...He complains that the windows next to the crash zone are intact, then shows that the Pentagon's got 2" thick blast-resistant windows. MORON!

Save yourselves the time and don't watch this trash. I could continue to pick his arguments apart but that's just using LOGIC against INSANITY, which is never successful.

It makes me physically sick that there are people even entertaining this kind of STUPIDITY and INSANITY.

GTHobbes · Post by **GTHobbes** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:44 am

I've watched the video and read the article and think there are a lot of interesting questions that remain unanswered. I'm more offended by people who try to stop intelligent discussion than I am by the people who are asking the questions. Then again, I'm not a far right Republican either. Just someone who likes to look at as much evidence as possible before making up my own mind.

Sport73 · Post by **Sport73** » Sun May 21, 2006 11:26 am

GTHobbes wrote:I've watched the video and read the article and think there are a lot of interesting questions that remain unanswered. I'm more offended by people who try to stop intelligent discussion than I am by the people who are asking the questions. Then again, I'm not a far right Republican either. Just someone who likes to look at as much evidence as possible before making up my own mind.

I'm all for intelligent argument, which is why I responded as I did. I'm anything but a far-right republican; I'm a Daily-Show watching card-carrying George Bush hater.

This is anything but intelligent debate. If logic is bent this far you can draw suspicion about anything. The first rule of conspiracy theory is the fundamental fact that not all evidence will point to a single conclusion, there is simply too much evidence that can/could be interpreted as related. It's the majority of evidence that leads to conclusions about non-scientific events; the majority of evidence, including that gathered with my own eyes, says we know basically what happened on that day. There isn't even any evidence to support the conclusions of this nut-job, since he distorts obvious logical links to fulfill his warped ideas.

I think the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel in preventing the attacks, mismanaged the crisis that day and afterwards, and used it as a pathetic excuse for a terribly planned and unecessary foreign war; they didn't, however, invite the planes, fire missiles, put 'charges' in the towers to make them fall, or orchestrate the attacks.

PS> I've always been a believer in some aspects of the Kennedy conspiracy and have studied the FACTS (Oliver Stone's film not included) to reach my personal belief that Oswald shot, but did not act alone. So, I'm open to a conspiracy when evidence and logic warrants.

RobVarak · Post by **RobVarak** » Sun May 21, 2006 12:39 pm

GTHobbes wrote:I've watched the video and read the article and think there are a lot of interesting questions that remain unanswered. I'm more offended by people who try to stop intelligent discussion than I am by the people who are asking the questions. Then again, I'm not a far right Republican either. Just someone who likes to look at as much evidence as possible before making up my own mind.

LMAO actually I'm most offended by people passing off ridiculous speculation, doctored evidence and unsupported conjecture as facts and "intelligent discussion" than anything. Place this video directly in the same bin as the Waco "documentary" and holocaust denial material in the Snopes all-time hoax hall of fame.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread try to stop intelligent discussion. Boltman's post was fine and good, but there was certainly little in that manipulative propoganda film that could be considered reasonable basis for any intelligent discussion among people with real evidence at their disposal.

Anyone claiming to actually want to understand what went on MUST read:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/039332 ... e&n=283155

This is the product of hearings that were 99% held in open session with sworn witnesses and documentary evidence as well. There's no Warren Commission-style fudging of facts and CSPAN had at one time almost all of the key witnesses available on their website. It's also a remarkably well-written book considering the source.

Of course what traction do the actual facts and reasonable conclusions have when presented in a book hundreds of pages long with footnotes and a distinct lack of pictures or scratch-n-sniff (which would definitely appeal more to the Art Bell and Ollie Stone crowds)? Especially when compared with people who can put together a snazzy video, get it aired on a bastion of investigative journalism like Current, and upload it to YouTube and Google video?

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:08 pm

I don't know anything about the Pentagon conspiracy, so I'm not going to comment on that.

However I don't think anything that comes out of this administration can be read as credible. From the pre-war intelligence, to the Valeria Plame-Carl Rove-Scooter Libby leak, to secret prisons and to now internal spying. I wouldn't be so trusting of information coming out of a congressional hearing. The warren commission while it was pretty consistent did allow more multiple conclusions.

Not only that but the press is no longer doing much if any investigatory reporting. The days of finding the smoking gun are over. If there IS something fishy regarding 9/11 the mainstream press will not report on it.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon May 22, 2006 12:36 am

I hate nonsense like this..."WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT AREA 51?" geez...

kevinpars · Post by **kevinpars** » Mon May 22, 2006 12:09 pm

tealboy03 wrote: I hate nonsense like this..."WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT AREA 51?" geez...

"Happened"?? Open your eyes because it is still happening! The genetic experiments they are doing on those poor aliens should be stopped immediately! But they won't stop their evil work, not when the scientists have the full cooperation of the senior George Bush, the Queen and the Trilateral Commission!

I would say more, but I simply can't. I know that they are watching me, following me, listening to me.

Teal · Post by **Teal** » Mon May 22, 2006 5:59 pm

kevinpars wrote:
tealboy03 wrote: I hate nonsense like this..."WHAT REALLY HAPPENED AT AREA 51?" geez...
"Happened"?? Open your eyes because it is still happening! The genetic experiments they are doing on those poor aliens should be stopped immediately! But they won't stop their evil work, not when the scientists have the full cooperation of the senior George Bush, the Queen and the Trilateral Commission!

I would say more, but I simply can't. I know that they are watching me, following me, listening to me.

FatPitcher · Post by **FatPitcher** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:36 pm

JRod wrote:I don't know anything about the Pentagon conspiracy, so I'm not going to comment on that.

However I don't think anything that comes out of this administration can be read as credible. From the pre-war intelligence, to the Valeria Plame-Carl Rove-Scooter Libby leak, to secret prisons and to now internal spying. I wouldn't be so trusting of information coming out of a congressional hearing. The warren commission while it was pretty consistent did allow more multiple conclusions.

Not only that but the press is no longer doing much if any investigatory reporting. The days of finding the smoking gun are over. If there IS something fishy regarding 9/11 the mainstream press will not report on it.

I disagree with pretty much all of this. First, the administration leaked the truth about Joe Wilson's Africa trip, and he was subsequently recognized as a bald-faced liar by the 9/11 Commission.

Second, Bush's administration claimed nothing different about WMDs in Iraq than the previous administration, as well as presidential wannabes like McCain and Kerry, did. Do I think they were all deliberately trying to mislead people? No. I'll go with the simplest explanation, which is that they didn't know just screwed up because they all the info from the same flawed source.

Third, the press is doing its utmost to uncover anything that can be used for ammunition again the President, even if revealing that information is a federal crime, and the CIA appears to be a willing accomplice. The external prison and wiretap stories are two Pulitzer-winning examples. (Quick Q: which leak hurt national security more, Plame or these two things? But it's OK to leak secrets for political advantage if you're trying to bring down Bush, apparently.)

The fact is, the press got to witness the events of 9/11 firsthand. There's no need to go digging for the truth when you saw it with your own eyes.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:33 pm

RobVarak wrote:
GTHobbes wrote:I've watched the video and read the article and think there are a lot of interesting questions that remain unanswered. I'm more offended by people who try to stop intelligent discussion than I am by the people who are asking the questions. Then again, I'm not a far right Republican either. Just someone who likes to look at as much evidence as possible before making up my own mind.
LMAO actually I'm most offended by people passing off ridiculous speculation, doctored evidence and unsupported conjecture as facts and "intelligent discussion" than anything. Place this video directly in the same bin as the Waco "documentary" and holocaust denial material in the Snopes all-time hoax hall of fame.

Exactly, Rob. I am all for asking questions, but films like this are not about asking questions. They have a predisposition toward conspiracy and use the flawed logic that anomalies=refutation of the facts. There is way too much evidence supporting planes hitting the Twin Towers and the Pentagon to even consider any other theory.

I could take a story about going out for a gallon of milk at the gas station and make it look sinister with the right editing.

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Tue May 23, 2006 2:13 am

FatPitcher wrote:
I disagree with pretty much all of this. First, the administration leaked the truth about Joe Wilson's Africa trip, and he was subsequently recognized as a bald-faced liar by the 9/11 Commission.

Second, Bush's administration claimed nothing different about WMDs in Iraq than the previous administration, as well as presidential wannabes like McCain and Kerry, did. Do I think they were all deliberately trying to mislead people? No. I'll go with the simplest explanation, which is that they didn't know just screwed up because they all the info from the same flawed source.

Third, the press is doing its utmost to uncover anything that can be used for ammunition again the President, even if revealing that information is a federal crime, and the CIA appears to be a willing accomplice. The external prison and wiretap stories are two Pulitzer-winning examples. (Quick Q: which leak hurt national security more, Plame or these two things? But it's OK to leak secrets for political advantage if you're trying to bring down Bush, apparently.)

The fact is, the press got to witness the events of 9/11 firsthand. There's no need to go digging for the truth when you saw it with your own eyes.

Point 1: Huh, the press said Joe Wilson was a bald-face liar. To my knowledge his wife was targeted because he was anti-war and saying the lead-up intelligence was flawed. Funny there's a leak investigation going on, not a perjury charge against Wilson. I don't remember seeing that much about Wilson lying but that's not the point. Whether wilson lied about what he knew or didn't know is not relevant to whether the administration did anything improper regarding the situation.

Point 2: You really believe that the government just f***ed up. There are tons of resources not conspiracy related that there was intent to go to war with Iraq. I think it's too early yet for history to get all the facts. When it does, I feel it will show the administration used the 9/11 events to start a war in Iraq which had little to do with 9/11. Only time will tell...

Point 3: Political advantage...did John Kerry leak the secret prison story. What political advantage does secret prisons, wiretappping, recored phone calls have to do with politics. Did Howard Dean, go into the CIA and steal files like waterbreak. Give me a break.

Let me give you politics 101. You want a country without politics? It's the balance of government. You really only want one viewpoint. You want the dems to run around without the Repulicans playing politics? History shows what that happens its was called National Socialist Germany, tyrannical England and Jim Crow. No what you want is people to be civilized in their politics.

And to your last sentence. What the f do I know happened on 9/11. I said I know nothing about 9/11 conspiracies. I watched the entire video and it was pretty compelling. It asks a lot of questions. I'm sure if I watched a video disproving the conspiracy, I would say it was well-done.

I don't trust the press. When it cares more about news than ratings and who's 's the #1 broadcase, I'll be a little less critical.

Digital Sportspage

OT: Conspiracy theories 9/11

OT: Conspiracy theories 9/11

Re: OT: Conspiracy theories 9/11