Respect to anyone and everyone that suffered because of the events that occured on 9-11.
Some of you guys hear the word conspiracy and like to draw your own conclusions of what people think and stand for. That is wrong.
A position that the government was involved in the controlled demolision of the WTC is not one that ANY ONE would choose, especially if their goal was to make money. Those of you who believe so like to include negligable extremists when discussing a much larger group of individuals.
Here are some personal points I would like to make:
1. My claims do not go past the provable, and that is that the 3 WTC buildings came down on 9-11 because of a controlled demolition. Nothing more, nothing less.
2. The buildings fell in their own footprint. This is not possible unless it was a controlled demolition.
3. Buildings are prewired for their immenant demolision all of the time. It takes a matter of days to bring in the actual explosives used to bring the building down.
4. There was steel in the basements and lower floors of the towers just as hot as at the top. Why?
5. The fires were not hot enough to melt or bend steel. A small amount of jet fuel or as someone claimed in this thread, paper, does not make those temps high enough.
6. The buildings free fell. If the pancake theory is true, one floor fell on another causing that floor to fall and so on there is resistance. It doesn't matter how much. THERE WAS NO RESISTANCE when the towers fell. Controlled demolition.
I guess I could go on, but I sure, as most, I am not comfortable discussing this topic on soulstrut.
Again respect to all those touched by these horrible events.
Rob
Just thought I'd come back for a quick visit to say that if you subscribe to this you are a complete ass. Every one of your points is just so much conclusory bullshit.
see you all next week.
This coming from the most credible and authorative member of soulstrut, sababababababababab.
Personally, on September 11th I stayed glued to my TV while my family was busy panicking. I was just a bit uncertain of what was going on. After the following hours of news, I remember talking to my uncle (firefighter)at his station, and we were both in agreement that it looked just like an implosion. I've seen maybe 7 vegas implosions pretty close up. The layering and the way the buildings fall didn't seem to look consistent at all with what I was seeing on screen. Ever since then I've found it harder to believe the jet fuel explosions could tear down the infrastructure of a building that size. I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist, but I definitely could fathom the possibility of a controlled event. Another family member from Buffalo, New York (also a firefighter), came here to vegas with a few of the NYC firefighters who were there on the day, and they were all pretty much in agreement that this was controlled, and planned. They've since had demolition experts explain to them how this could've been set up. When a couple of New York firefighters feel strongly betrayed by our government on this issue. Then, I can certainly believe them.
And now a friendly question and answer session with our benevolent global overlords.
What is the Trilateral Commission? When and why was it formed?
The Trilateral Commission is a non-governmental, policy-oriented discussion group of about 350 distinguished citizens from Western Europe, North America and Pacific Asia formed to encourage mutual understanding and closer cooperation among these three regions on common problems.
The idea of the Commission was developed in the early 1970s. This was a time of considerable discord among the United States and its democratic industrialized allies in Western Europe, Japan, and Canada. There was also a sense that the international system was changing in some basic ways with rather uncertain implications. Change was most obvious in the international economy, as Western Europe and Japan gained strength and the position of the U.S. economy became less dominant. The increase in global interdependence was touching the United States in ways to which it was not accustomed.
In this setting, the founders of the Commission believed it important that cooperation among Western Europe, North America (including Canada), and Japan be sustained and strengthened not only on issues among these regions but in a global framework as well, given the weight and leadership capacity of these countries. It was hoped that a policy-oriented discussion group composed of members of high stature, but not including individuals currently holding posts in their national administrations, would help foster the habit and practice of working together among these three key regions by focused analysis of the main issues that lay ahead. The Commission was launched in mid-1973 with a three-year mandate. It was later renewed for a second triennium (1976-79), and is now in its eleventh triennium, which ends in mid-2006.
What are the goals of the Trilateral Commission?
At its first meeting, held in Tokyo in October, 1973, the Trilateral Commission???s Executive Committee issued a declaration outlining the organization???s rationale and aims, a declaration which remains relevant today:
I
1. Growing interdependence is a fact of life of the contemporary world. It transcends and influences national systems. It requires new and more intensive forms of international cooperation to realize its benefits and to counteract economic and political nationalism.
2. This interdependence, especially among Japan, Western Europe, and North America, generates new problems and frictions which endanger not only their well-being but affect adversely the other regions.
3. Although the risks of nuclear confrontation have diminished, world peace and security are still to be given a lasting basis. New problems have also emerged to heighten the vulnerability of our planet. Humanity is faced with serious risks to the global environment. At the same time shortages in world resources could breed new rivalries, and widening disparities in mankind's economic conditions are a threat to world stability and an affront to social justice.
4. While it is important to develop greater cooperation among all the countries of the world, Japan, Western Europe, and North America, in view of their great weight in the world economy and their massive relations with one another, bear a special responsibility for developing effective cooperation, both in their own interests and in those of the rest of the world. They share a number of problems which, if not solved, could cause difficulties for all. They must make concerted efforts to deal with the challenge of interdependence they cannot manage separately. The aim must be effective cooperation beneficial to all countries, whatever their political systems or stage of development.
II
To be effective in meeting common problems, Japan, Western Europe, and North America will have to:
1. consult and cooperate more closely, on the basis of equality, to develop and carry out coordinated policies on matters affecting their common interests;
2. refrain from unilateral actions incompatible with their interdependence and from actions detrimental to other regions;
3. take advantage of existing international and regional organizations and further enhance their role.
Trilateral cooperation will be facilitated as greater unity is achieved in Europe through the progress of the European community and as Europe and Japan develop closer relations.
III
It will be the purpose of the Trilateral Commission to generate the will to respond in common to the opportunities and challenges that we confront and to assume the responsibilities that we face.
The Commission will seek to promote among Japanese, West Europeans, and North Americans the habit of working together on problems of mutual concern, to seek to obtain a shared understanding of these complex problems, and to devise and disseminate proposals of general benefit.
The cooperation we seek involves a sustained process of consultation, and mutual education, with our countries coming closer together to meet common needs. To promote such cooperation, the commission will undertake an extensive program of trilateral policy studies, and will cooperate with existing private institutions as appropriate.
The Commission hopes to play a creative role as a channel of free exchange of opinions with other countries and regions. Further progress of the developing countries and greater improvement of East-West relations will be a major concern.
Who are the members of the Trilateral Commission?
For the kind of broad-based discussion the Commission???s founders hoped to encourage, it was important to draw leading citizens from many sectors of society and with a variety of political views. The list of members now totaling about 350 indicates such professional, geographic, and political diversity. Among the current U.S. members, for example, the largest group is drawn from business, banking and finance, but these individuals constitute only about half of the total. There are also labor leaders, congressmen and senators, university professors, and research institute directors. Democrats and Republicans are both well-represented. Members have been drawn from all over the United States and include women and ethnic minorities. The Commission believes this diversity is vital to a well-rounded consideration of the issues it addresses.
How are Trilateral Commission members chosen?
Membership is by invitation. In the United States group, for example, the Executive Committee decides on invitations on the basis of recommendations made by members and staff. A rotation policy ensures some openings each year.
What about the individual roles of David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter, President George H. W. Bush, Vice President Cheney, Paul Volcker, and Alan Greenspan?
David Rockefeller was the principal founder of the Commission. He has served on the Executive Committee from the beginning in mid-1973 and was North American Chairman from mid-1977 through November, 1991. Zbigniew Brzezinski played an important role in the formation of the Commission. He was its first Director (1973-76) and its major intellectual dynamo in those years. Dr. Brzezinski rejoined the Commission in 1981 and now serves on the Executive Committee. President Carter was a member from mid-1973 until his election, when he left in accordance with Commission rules barring individuals holding administration posts. President Bush was invited to join in early 1977 after he left the government. He resigned in late 1978, two years before he became Vice President. Richard B. Cheney was a Commission member from 1997 until he became a candidate for the Vice Presidency and resigned in 2000. Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan each departed from membership, in accordance with Commission rules, u
pon becoming Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Mr. Volcker was invited back to the Commission in September 1987, after stepping down as Chairman of the Fed, and he served as North American Chairman from 1991 to 2001.
What is the main activity of the Trilateral Commission?
There are two main aspects of Commission activity. First are plenary meetings of the Commission. These are three-day conferences which now take place once a year, rotating from region to region. A published report on each plenary is available, covering key aspects of the meeting.
Task Force reports constitute the second main aspect of Commission activity. Generally three experts - one from Pacific Asia, one from North America, and one from Western Europe - are chosen to work together for roughly a year in preparing a joint report on a particular issue. The diversity of the issues covered is indicated by the titles of recent publications: East Asia and the International System (2001); The New Central Asia: In Search of Stability (2000); 21st Century Strategies of the Trilateral Countries: In Concert or Conflict? (1999); and Advancing Common Purposes in the Broad Middle East (1998).
The authors consult with others inside and outside the Trilateral regions, and a full draft of their report is discussed at one of the annual meetings of the Commission. The three authors are free to present their own views in these reports, and their views do not purport to represent those of all Commission members. A few reports that were particularly controversial within the Commission have been published with a summary of discussion in the back. Fifty-five reports have been published so far.
Each region also holds annual regional meetings to consider topics of concern within the region and their significance to global relationships. In addition, each region holds some events on its own. How is the Trilateral Commission directed?
The Chairman and Deputy Chairman for each of the three regions provide the collective leadership of the Commission. They are responsible for basic program planning such as selecting task force topics and planning meetings and other events.
An Executive Committee, made up of members from all three regions, meets once a year to discuss possible task force topics, to review the work of the Commission, and to give general guidance to the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen.
The day-to-day work of the Commission is carried out by small staffs in Washington DC, Tokyo, and Paris, each under the supervision of a regional Director.
Is the Trilateral Commission a government agency? Part of the United Nations? Connected to the Council on Foreign Relations or the Brookings Institution?
The Trilateral Commission is an independent organization. It is not part of the U.S. or any other government, nor the United Nations. It has no formal ties with the Council on Foreign Relations or Brookings Institution or any such organization, although many Commission members are associated with organizations like these.
Is the Trilateral Commission secret?
No. Right from the beginning, the Commission???s membership list and informational materials on its aims and activities have been available to all free of charge. Each of the Commission???s task force reports is publicly available, as is the publication providing extensive coverage of each annual plenary meeting. Information on the Commission???s funding and major contributors is also available. The agenda and a list of participants for each plenary meeting are regularly distributed. Press conferences are held during the meetings, and draft task force reports are customarily made available to the press. Only the discussions at the meetings are kept ???off-the-record,??? to encourage frankness and maximize the learning process for members.
Why, then, have many people not known of the Trilateral Commission?
The Commission has been covered in major newspapers and news magazines including, among others, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor, Chicago Sun-Times, and Los Angeles Times. These and other articles apparently have not created a sustained awareness of the Commission???s work among most people. With plenary meetings taking place only once a year, and with task force reports adopting a time-frame that is not compatible with most daily news reports, such an awareness is not easy to create. The Commission welcomes coverage of its activities.
Public understanding and discussion of international issues are considered to be of great importance by the Trilateral Commission. The Commission realizes, however, that it is only part of a much larger nongovernmental effort aimed at encouraging international cooperation and understanding. Other organizations concentrate on other aspects of the total task for example, scholarly exchanges or citizen education in world affairs.
Is the Trilateral Commission trying to establish a world government?
No. The Trilateral Commission encourages international cooperation on many issues, but does not promote a world government. No Commission report proposes that national governments be dissolved and a world government be created. Individuals or organizations who believe the Trilateral Commission supports or intends to form a world government are misinformed.
Is the Trilateral Commission a ???club??? for the benefit of the rich countries only?
No. Although the Commission membership does not include individuals from the developing areas, their needs are considered important in the broad framework of global peace and prosperity. To this end, individuals from developing countries are regularly invited to participate in Commission meetings. In addition, a variety of reports to the Commission over the years have focused on problems of developing countries, including The New Central Asia: In Search of Stability (2000); Advancing Common Purposes in the Broad Middle East (1998); Engaging Russia (1995); An Emerging China in a World of Interdependence (1994); Beyond Interdependence: The Meshing of the World's Economy and the Earth's Ecology (1991); and Latin America at a Crossroads (1990). Furthermore, speakers from developing countries have addressed most plenary meetings since 1980.
To have added individuals from all the developing areas as well as citizens from the industrialized democracies in the Commission???s membership would have made the Commission too large for effective discussion. We recognize that constructive solutions to global problems require agreement in a much broader framework. In this global effort, the industrial democratic regions remain a vital core, with particular weight and responsibility for wider progress.
Is the Trilateral Commission a conspiracy to control the U.S. government?
No. President Carter was a member of the Trilateral Commission before he became President, and many members of his Administration were members of the Commission before taking on their government jobs. Every Administration since then has included former Commission members. But this fact did not then, nor does it now, indicate control of the U.S. government by the Commission.
First, members must resign from the Commission upon accepting an Administration post.
Second, as noted earlier, the Commission has a very diverse membership in terms of both geography and occupation. It is also fairly evenly divided in the United States between Republicans and Democrats, and it does not take an institutional position on particular issues. Aside from its general emphasis on consultation and cooperation with Western Europe and Japan, there is no ???Commission line??? on policy questions. Task Force reports do not prescribe day-to-day actions; and the Commission does not lobby for particular legislation or for candidates.
Third, the men and women who join the Commission are of outstanding ability,
receive their information from many sources, and think for themselves. For many members, participation in Commission activities does not extend beyond attendance at the annual plenary meeting. The Commission, through these conferences and its publications, does hope to provide an additional educational experience for its members, while simultaneously contributing to the general policy debate in this country and elsewhere, but it cannot and does not attempt to do more than this.
Some individuals believe that the Trilateral Commission somehow arranged President Carter???s election in 1976. This is a far-fetched misconception. The Commission is entirely non-partisan and has never supported any candidate. In the case of President Carter, one need only recall that he received his party???s nomination after a very demanding primary process. This was clearly not some kind of ???backroom deal??? that could be arranged by a few persons. David Rockefeller is usually cited as the person responsible for ???making Carter President,??? yet he voted for and supported President Ford.
In the case of later presidential campaigns, many members undoubtedly supported particular Republican, Democrat, or Independent candidates, but the Commission was not, and by its nature could not be, committed to any candidate.
How did it happen that President Carter chose 17 of his top officials from the ranks of the Trilateral Commission?
Because President Carter was not particularly well-known in the field of foreign policy, how he was selected for Commission membership may be of interest. In the spring of 1973, the founders of the Commission were meeting in Washington to think about future members. They had drawn up a slate which satisfied their requirements of ability, occupational diversity, and geographical mix except that the South was under-represented. It was decided, therefore, to consult with some individuals in Atlanta about prospective members from the South. These individuals recommended Governor Carter, partly because they felt he had been a very able governor, and partly because he had taken considerable interest in Japanese and West European trade offices for the State of Georgia. He was invited to join the Commission, and he accepted.
When he was elected President, Mr. Carter naturally turned to some of the people in the Trilateral Commission whose abilities and personalities he had come to know to ask them to join his new Administration. Most, if not all, of these men and women would have been natural choices for any Democratic President, whether or not they were members of the Trilateral Commission.
Who Finances the Trilateral Commission?
The largest shares of the funds received in the United States since the inception of the Commission have come from a variety of foundations and an even wider range of corporations. A list of all contributors in the United States who have given over $5000 is available by e-mail. The Trilateral Commission receives no financial support from the United States government. Fundraising in Japan and Western Europe (and Canada) is handled independently. Since foundations are not as common in Japan and Western Europe, a larger portion of the funding in those regions comes from corporations.
What then has been the impact of the Commission?
The Commission???s impact can be judged in at least three different ways:
One way is in terms of the general concepts advanced by the Commission. Recognition of the importance of cooperation among the main industrialized democratic countries is indicated most clearly by the holding of annual plenary meetings, a practice which began a few years after the Commission???s creation and which has continued ever since. Recognition of the growing international role of Japan, another key aspect of the ???Trilateral??? idea, has made considerable progress, inside as well as outside Japan. Recognition of the expanding identity of Europe (with the enlargement of the European Union) and of the development of a Pacific Asian consciousness has been reflected in the Commission???s expanded membership. The progress of these general ideas is primarily attributable to developments beyond the Commission, of course, but the Commission???s work has contributed to the general atmosphere in which they have gained increased acceptance.
The Commission???s impact may also be judged on the basis of the personal ties established among members. Here the ties to Japan have been particularly important, since the Japanese had not had much experience of this nature prior to the Commission???s founding. Ties between Japan and Western Europe had been particularly weak. Today's expanded European and Pacific Asian membership has continued and broadened ties between the three Trilateral regions.
A third way to look at the Commission???s impact is by tracing the progress of particular task force proposals. Most Trilateral task force reports have sought to provide perspective and direction rather than to specify concrete ???next steps.???
* * *
???From a Japanese point of view, I believe the Trilateral Commission has played an immensely useful role in bringing us more closely into the international concert. First, and most important to us, Japan ... was involved since the very beginning in the exploratory stages which led to the Commission's creation. This was probably the first time Japan had been associated as an equal partner in a discussion group of such importance and magnitude. Second, unlike the United States where businessmen and lawyers often find their way on loan to the government, private citizens in Japan seldom have a chance to see and think about world affairs from a general and broader point of view. Their joining the Trilateral Commission has enabled them to do just that .... (D)iscussions within the Commission do affect the thinking of our governments and in some cases???although indirectly???their policy decisions. In this sense, I believe that the Commission has made a difference???even if a number of crucial problems, trade relations for example, still exist among the trilateral countries.???
Kiichi Miyazawa, former Japanese Finance Minister and Foreign Minister and founding member and former Japanese Chairman of the Trilateral Commission
look if you think the military or the FBI or CIA or some other branch of government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, that's one thing. But to think our numbskull president or anyone in his administration had anything to do with it is just ludicrous.
I am saying though - it is virtually impossible in high-level business or government to keep secret what you had for lunch let alone a plan to demolish the World Trade Center. So how were these explosives planted? Crooked Port Authority cops ("ey, if it means I get to watch da friggin Giants insteada workin' over heah this coming Sunday, my name's friggin Mahmoud! Do dey got donuts in da desert?")? Little men, under cover of darkness? And the tenants of the buildings - some of the biggest corporations in the world - were they hoodwinked or just bought off? Or better yet - complicit?
When a couple of New York firefighters feel strongly betrayed by our government on this issue. Then, I can certainly believe them.
- spidey
i bet i can find a couple of US soldiers in Iraq that believe the US invasion was orchestrated to find secret UFO blueprints.
if you are at all interested in seeing actual NY firemen that were at the 9/11 scene talking about THERE BEING EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS... then i am going to have to post this again... this is the third time it's been posted in this thread... and of course none of the debunkers can be bothered to spend an hour watching it...
When a couple of New York firefighters feel strongly betrayed by our government on this issue. Then, I can certainly believe them.
- spidey
i bet i can find a couple of US soldiers in Iraq that believe the US invasion was orchestrated to find secret UFO blueprints.
if you are at all interested in seeing actual NY firemen that were at the 9/11 scene talking about THERE BEING EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS... then i am going to have to post this again... this is the third time it's been posted in this thread... and of course none of the debunkers can be bothered to spend an hour watching it...
you're right...that video claims that the planes flown into the towers weren't even the flights they are widely known to have been. Which means all the people on those planes just disappeared somewhere. This is even further off the deep end then the demolition idea, and I have much better things to spend an hour of my time on than watching that crazy garbage.
I guess all I need to do for my Iraq UFO blueprint theory is put together a video with some grainy super pixelated closeups and have Shadow do the soundtrack for it and people will start eating that shit up with a spoon.
When a couple of New York firefighters feel strongly betrayed by our government on this issue. Then, I can certainly believe them.
- spidey
i bet i can find a couple of US soldiers in Iraq that believe the US invasion was orchestrated to find secret UFO blueprints.
if you are at all interested in seeing actual NY firemen that were at the 9/11 scene talking about THERE BEING EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS... then i am going to have to post this again... this is the third time it's been posted in this thread... and of course none of the debunkers can be bothered to spend an hour watching it...
you're right...that video claims that the planes flown into the towers weren't even the flights they are widely known to have been. Which means all the people on those planes just disappeared somewhere. This is even further off the deep end then the demolition idea, and I have much better things to spend an hour of my time on than watching that crazy garbage.
My brother saw the documentary and told me that it says some of the hijackers that flew the planes are now living in NYC, one is even a taxi driver.
you ever thrown a lizard into a burning building? It only makes them stronger
haha okay I tried so hard to watch that video, but it's just a joke. someone said the plane that hit the Pentagon sounded like a missile! That must mean it WAS a missile! Just like when a tornado sounds like a train that means it actually is a train!
Someone said the plane banked to the left and another said it banked to the right! There's no possible way they could've been facing each other and been referring to it in their frame of reference! These things raise all kinds of questions, but they never say what they think happened. Okay so people gave conflicting reports, what the hell is that supposed to mean? They're all in on it? Or the light poles that were laying the wrong way? What is that supposed to prove? They just try to throw as much crap at the wall and hope some of it sticks.
I haven't watched any of these movies aside from the Pentagon one from a few years ago (coincidentally, I just watched it again and IT CONTAINS THE SAME FOOTAGE THEY JUST RELEASED), but I came across this article written May 2001 from ABC News:
By David Ruppe ABC News N E W Y O R K, May 1, 2001
In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war[/b] against Cuba.
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban ??migr??s, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.
The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.
I've seen the documentary in question, and showed parts of it in a lecture I gave on the idea of authenticity in film. I started out with the old anecdote -which appears to be true- that when the Lumiere Brothers showed film of a train heading for the camera, the audience -obviously people who had never seen a film- jumped up and ran away, convinced they were in danger. Then I went through the usual song and dance of showing old films with terrible special effects that nevertheless seemed very real to contemporary audiences. We talked a lot about how this has changed over time, such that special effects now date rapidly and are cheesy within a couple years time.
During the documentary portion, we talked about how standards of evidence and proof have evolved over the century. (We also talked briefly about the fact that Nanook, from one of the first, and still most famous, documentaries of all time, "Nanook of the North", starved to death with his family a year after the film was made.) I showed parts of this Sept 11 doc to buttress my claim that some sort of devolution is going on in the world of "documentary" film. It's an unbelievably shoddy piece of work. Unsubstantiated claims, hearsay, lines of argument that peter out into nothing, illogical inferences. If this film were trying to prove that milk is good for you, you'd be able to see what crap it is. It worries me that anybody would recommend this film for anything but a laugh.
there are many "realities", and the one shared by the Loose Change crew is not one I have any desire to inhabit, and I kind of pity anyone gullible enough to get caught up in that bs.
well... just so you guys know... i get the same kind of amusement when i watch FOX NEWS.
7 out of 8 blackboxes from the planes can not be found??? has it ever happened in history before... that a plane disintegrates upon impact? has a building on fire ever collapsed like that? how about 3 buildings all in the same day for the first time ever? if you'd bothered watching the entire thing which has actual NEWS FOOTAGE [the kind you love to believe] of the events as they were just happening... and there were no planes at the crash sites... fuck, not even the video released 2 days from the pentagon can show a plane anywhere.
i'm not saying that every word said in the doumentary is true... all they're doing is raising questions that should be taken into consideration... but if you can't see the explosions going off in the towers as it's colliding [which was all i was trying to provide footage of to you] or want to blame that on special effects... than i am not going to force you to believe it... but it's right there.
i just think it's funny that you ask me for proof... and then can't be bothered to watch it because it seems 'ridiculous'... wtf are we even having this conversation anymore?... i'm out.
because nothing in that video is "proof" of anything. What would be the point of shooting a missile into the World Trade Center one second before colliding with it? What happened to the people on those flights if the planes that crashed were actually military planes?
you're looking at a grainy pixelated, blown up video and seeing a light as the plane hits the tower, and that's "proof" that the whole thing was a sham? Is that really all it takes to convince you?
Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?
Also, when did anyone on here mention or defend Fox News???
you're looking at a grainy pixelated, blown up video and seeing a light as the plane hits the tower, and that's "proof" that the whole thing was a sham? Is that really all it takes to convince you?
Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?
Also, when did anyone on here mention or defend Fox News???
no... that's all it takes to CONVINCE YOU. i don't see a plane anywhere.. do you?
and i said fox news as an example of the press in general... hell... i'll just say THE NEWS from now on.
haha the "documentary" even shows plane wreckage inside the Pentagon. If no plane hit it where did that come from? How did all the eyewitnesses out front see a plane fly over and hit the Pentagon if it was a missile? Does a missile have landing gear?
you're looking at a grainy pixelated, blown up video and seeing a light as the plane hits the tower, and that's "proof" that the whole thing was a sham? Is that really all it takes to convince you?
Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?
Also, when did anyone on here mention or defend Fox News???
no... that's all it takes to CONVINCE YOU. i don't see a plane anywhere.. do you?
and i said fox news as an example of the press in general... hell... i'll just say THE NEWS from now on.
This is why it's impossible to refute a conspiracy theory. You ask questions but never bother to provide answers to the questions others ask. I counted three or four times in this thread that somebody has asked you straight out what happened to the people on the non-existent plane. You'd have to answer that they didn't exist, which means that a bunch of CIA operatives have been schooled to appear everywhere as grieving relatives and nobody, anywhere, including yr guys, have been able to poke holes in their backstories. The other possibility is that these people were murdered or kidnapped after they boarded the flight -because of course there was a plane to begin with, or yr guys would be all over it- and the plane was landed safely and in secret -and unbeknownst to air-traffic controllers- somewhere else. The sheer weight of imponderables in your argument is staggering. At every point you have to believe something ridiculous in order to believe the next ridiculous thing. It's embarassing.
oh and crossings, regarding them "leaning to the side", here is a picture of the south tower as it began to collapse. looks like it "leans to the side" to me.
That's the tower in which my brother was in when it collapsed. So basically, you're pretty much looking at the moment my brother was killed, give or take a few seconds.
I wonder how some of you would feel if I posted up the photo of the moment when someone in your family was killed, and did some scientific debate about my opinion of it? Like if your father was hit by a truck crossing the street, and I somehow had a traffic camera video of it and posted it so you could keep looking at it and reliving it, then I went on to say "Now see here, it looks as if he is crossing against the light but the police report clearly says...."
Debate away though, it's a national topic of course and the theories and questions will be around long after all of us are dead. I'm just trying to show that other perspective that some of you forget about. Carry on, I'm back to lurking...
Comments
This coming from the most credible and authorative member of soulstrut, sababababababababab.
Personally, on September 11th I stayed glued to my TV while my family was busy panicking. I was just a bit uncertain of what was going on. After the following hours of news, I remember talking to my uncle (firefighter)at his station, and we were both in agreement that it looked just like an implosion. I've seen maybe 7 vegas implosions pretty close up. The layering and the way the buildings fall didn't seem to look consistent at all with what I was seeing on screen. Ever since then I've found it harder to believe the jet fuel explosions could tear down the infrastructure of a building that size. I'm in no way a conspiracy theorist, but I definitely could fathom the possibility of a controlled event. Another family member from Buffalo, New York (also a firefighter), came here to vegas with a few of the NYC firefighters who were there on the day, and they were all pretty much in agreement that this was controlled, and planned. They've since had demolition experts explain to them how this could've been set up. When a couple of New York firefighters feel strongly betrayed by our government on this issue. Then, I can certainly believe them.
- spidey
Wow.
the truth is out there
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
Im not sure what the editorial slant is over at popular mechanics, but I imagine its pretty neutral.
yeah, if "neutral" means FBI AGENTS!!!!
?
release them & silence the conspiracy speak
& maybe release the minutes of the v.p.'s energy industry pow wow's
sayin ............
i bet i can find a couple of US soldiers in Iraq that believe the US invasion was orchestrated to find secret UFO blueprints.
if you are at all interested in seeing actual NY firemen that were at the 9/11 scene talking about THERE BEING EXPLOSIONS IN THE TOWERS... then i am going to have to post this again... this is the third time it's been posted in this thread... and of course none of the debunkers can be bothered to spend an hour watching it...
Foiled by those pesky Strutters again, Back to the drawing board lads.
Dammit, that'll teach me to read the whole thread first
you're right...that video claims that the planes flown into the towers weren't even the flights they are widely known to have been. Which means all the people on those planes just disappeared somewhere. This is even further off the deep end then the demolition idea, and I have much better things to spend an hour of my time on than watching that crazy garbage.
I guess all I need to do for my Iraq UFO blueprint theory is put together a video with some grainy super pixelated closeups and have Shadow do the soundtrack for it and people will start eating that shit up with a spoon.
My brother saw the documentary and told me that it says some of the hijackers that flew the planes are now living in NYC, one is even a taxi driver.
you ever thrown a lizard into a burning building? It only makes them stronger
Someone said the plane banked to the left and another said it banked to the right! There's no possible way they could've been facing each other and been referring to it in their frame of reference! These things raise all kinds of questions, but they never say what they think happened. Okay so people gave conflicting reports, what the hell is that supposed to mean? They're all in on it? Or the light poles that were laying the wrong way? What is that supposed to prove? They just try to throw as much crap at the wall and hope some of it sticks.
the proof? the movie SHOWS ACTUAL HEADSHOTS OF THEM. for real that's like the whole explanation.
then they change the subject.
I'm sorry, as many questions as I have about 9/11, the shoddiness/smarmyness of this documentary leads me to reject it pretty much out of hand.
Direct Link
Pretty crazy.
if only you guys would begin to question the medias sources as much as mine... you'd be a lot more in touch with reality.
During the documentary portion, we talked about how standards of evidence and proof have evolved over the century. (We also talked briefly about the fact that Nanook, from one of the first, and still most famous, documentaries of all time, "Nanook of the North", starved to death with his family a year after the film was made.) I showed parts of this Sept 11 doc to buttress my claim that some sort of devolution is going on in the world of "documentary" film. It's an unbelievably shoddy piece of work. Unsubstantiated claims, hearsay, lines of argument that peter out into nothing, illogical inferences. If this film were trying to prove that milk is good for you, you'd be able to see what crap it is. It worries me that anybody would recommend this film for anything but a laugh.
It's happened before and it will happen again
7 out of 8 blackboxes from the planes can not be found??? has it ever happened in history before... that a plane disintegrates upon impact? has a building on fire ever collapsed like that? how about 3 buildings all in the same day for the first time ever? if you'd bothered watching the entire thing which has actual NEWS FOOTAGE [the kind you love to believe] of the events as they were just happening... and there were no planes at the crash sites... fuck, not even the video released 2 days from the pentagon can show a plane anywhere.
i'm not saying that every word said in the doumentary is true... all they're doing is raising questions that should be taken into consideration... but if you can't see the explosions going off in the towers as it's colliding [which was all i was trying to provide footage of to you] or want to blame that on special effects... than i am not going to force you to believe it... but it's right there.
i just think it's funny that you ask me for proof... and then can't be bothered to watch it because it seems 'ridiculous'... wtf are we even having this conversation anymore?... i'm out.
you're looking at a grainy pixelated, blown up video and seeing a light as the plane hits the tower, and that's "proof" that the whole thing was a sham? Is that really all it takes to convince you?
Did you read the Popular Mechanics article?
Also, when did anyone on here mention or defend Fox News???
no... that's all it takes to CONVINCE YOU. i don't see a plane anywhere.. do you?
and i said fox news as an example of the press in general... hell... i'll just say THE NEWS from now on.
i'm officially done with this topic... it's HAMMER TIME now!
This is why it's impossible to refute a conspiracy theory. You ask questions but never bother to provide answers to the questions others ask. I counted three or four times in this thread that somebody has asked you straight out what happened to the people on the non-existent plane. You'd have to answer that they didn't exist, which means that a bunch of CIA operatives have been schooled to appear everywhere as grieving relatives and nobody, anywhere, including yr guys, have been able to poke holes in their backstories. The other possibility is that these people were murdered or kidnapped after they boarded the flight -because of course there was a plane to begin with, or yr guys would be all over it- and the plane was landed safely and in secret -and unbeknownst to air-traffic controllers- somewhere else. The sheer weight of imponderables in your argument is staggering. At every point you have to believe something ridiculous in order to believe the next ridiculous thing. It's embarassing.
That's the tower in which my brother was in when it collapsed. So basically, you're pretty much looking at the moment my brother was killed, give or take a few seconds.
I wonder how some of you would feel if I posted up the photo of the moment when someone in your family was killed, and did some scientific debate about my opinion of it? Like if your father was hit by a truck crossing the street, and I somehow had a traffic camera video of it and posted it so you could keep looking at it and reliving it, then I went on to say "Now see here, it looks as if he is crossing against the light but the police report clearly says...."
Debate away though, it's a national topic of course and the theories and questions will be around long after all of us are dead. I'm just trying to show that other perspective that some of you forget about. Carry on, I'm back to lurking...