Azazello1313 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 ok so here's my question for the troofers with respect to WTC7. there are countless videos, reports, interviews, etc. from the hours leading up to the collapse where people are talking about the collapse being imminent. people talking about it hearing it creaking, seeing the face of the building buckling, etc. the attitude that afternoon seems clearly to indicate that in most peoples' minds, it wasn't a question of IF the building was going to collapse due to fire and damage, but WHEN. so my question is, how do all those facts fit into the conspiracy theory? were all of the news agencies in on the conspiracy? the firemen who described the fact that it looked like it was going to come down? the fire chief who determined that it wasn't safe to continue rescue or firefighting operations in or near the building? were they all in on it, or were they somehow played by the puppetmasters? if the latter, what techniques would the conspirators use to convince all of these firemen and such that the building was about to collapse due to fire and structural damage? anybody? seriously, I want to know how this possibly fits, because without some sort of explanation, even some weird wild-ass theory, it seems in my mind to thoroughly undercut the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 anybody? seriously, I want to know how this possibly fits, because without some sort of explanation, even some weird wild-ass theory, it seems in my mind to thoroughly undercut the "controlled demolition" hypothesis. Just watch the videos. They answer all questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 It's odd workers in the WTC worked around this stuff for days leading up to 9-11 without saying anything. bump Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 your problem is you like labeling people and namecalling....that's where you're trolling and if you check out the video that peepin posted, you could disagree and call it a day.... but when you throw around words like "certifiable" and "funny farm"....not to mention just the word "birther"....you're not even thinking for yourself, you're just categorizing people based on certain beliefs.... I believe certain things are inside jobs......as far as 9/11 goes, the one thing that bothers me just from a normal perspective without doing any research is what happened to the pentagon - the twin towers and even building 7 are arguable on so many levels, but I personally always found the pentagon crash funny...and even the flight 93 crash because that little divot was always there....and even Rumsfeld slipped up and said the plane was shot down... it's a :20 video.....it's stuff like this that creates "inside jobbers" and whatever other label you have....just like other people say "sheeple" or some other clever grouping on my side of the fence, you know? the certifiable ones.....both sides can be guilty and that's why I try not to label or namecall, but other's don't play by the rules....and the word troll makes me a hypocrite, but I am just throwing back what is being spat out... that's where the trolling comes in because I usually disagree with what you have to say, but don't get bothered by it because it's your opinion.....but when you start derailing the topic by trolling.....it takes what was and can be a decent topic of conversation and brings it closer to that's all I have to say, I'm not adding more to the thread....anything else can be said via PM and if you want to say something to me whether it's good or bad you can just send it there...or here...or both... I don't think people are trolling - the trolls you mention have asked legit questions and you don't get legit answers so what do you expect. I give you guys the bit that WTC7 coming down may look suspicous the way it fell but my god show me another video of a tower of that size coming down when two other towers even larger came down very near it after planes hitting them and then let's see how they compare - NOTHING has ever happened like that before so how can you really say that one of the MAJOR facts that show this is an inside job is because of the way it fell??? How the heck do you get pieces of plane spread out by the pentagon when a plane did not hit it? Why have Flight 93 shot down? How did that help the situation? What was the end game? Couldn't the end game have been achieved without such an elaborate setup? Common sense just screams that there is no way this is an inside job - I have watched videos on Youtube - not sure if they were the same videos that were linked by Peepinmofo but will watch those tonight to see if anything in those makes me think differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 I don't think people are trolling - the trolls you mention have asked legit questions and you don't get legit answers so what do you expect. I give you guys the bit that WTC7 coming down may look suspicous the way it fell but my god show me another video of a tower of that size coming down when two other towers even larger came down very near it after planes hitting them and then let's see how they compare - NOTHING has ever happened like that before so how can you really say that one of the MAJOR facts that show this is an inside job is because of the way it fell??? How the heck do you get pieces of plane spread out by the pentagon when a plane did not hit it? Why have Flight 93 shot down? How did that help the situation? What was the end game? Couldn't the end game have been achieved without such an elaborate setup? Common sense just screams that there is no way this is an inside job - I have watched videos on Youtube - not sure if they were the same videos that were linked by Peepinmofo but will watch those tonight to see if anything in those makes me think differently. again, you lump people together..... you say "you guys" like I am well versed on tower 7 falling.... I only mention the pentagon and what Rumsfeld said about Flight 93....I don't know what the ramifications of shooting down flight 93 are, I'm just posting a video of what Rumsfeld said which contradicts the "official" story.... and the Pentagon crash just doesn't make sense at all...... did I say anything about the towers or building 7?.....no, so don't act like I owe a response to those because I'm "you guys" or whatever "you guys" are......all it is, is another "us vs them" situation.... peepin has a lot of info on 9/11, more than what I have even looked into as I delve into a lot of other things as well, he is well versed on the topic and also has a handful of people who is is raising questions to, so I would assume he'll answer them and if he hasn't...he's probably posted a video on it anyways.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 again, you lump people together..... you say "you guys" like I am well versed on tower 7 falling.... I only mention the pentagon and what Rumsfeld said about Flight 93....I don't know what the ramifications of shooting down flight 93 are, I'm just posting a video of what Rumsfeld said which contradicts the "official" story.... and the Pentagon crash just doesn't make sense at all...... did I say anything about the towers or building 7?.....no, so don't act like I owe a response to those because I'm "you guys" or whatever "you guys" are......all it is, is another "us vs them" situation.... peepin has a lot of info on 9/11, more than what I have even looked into as I delve into a lot of other things as well, he is well versed on the topic and also has a handful of people who is is raising questions to, so I would assume he'll answer them and if he hasn't...he's probably posted a video on it anyways.... Well here is my thought on why I said you guys.... The people that are saying it was a terrorist attack and not an inside job believe the WHOLE thing was a terrorist attack - all of those things happened as one attack. To prove or change my mind that it was an inside job you need to answer questions about all of what happened. You say the pentagon part does not make sense - fine maybe it doesn't but then what about all the other things??? It is easy to find one or two things that look weird that may make you question that one thing but this WHOLE thing happened and for it to be an inside job then the whole thing had to be an inside job. In my mind I can comprehend how a terrorist attack could have done what happened. My mind can not comprehend how someone on the "inside" could have ever pulled ALL of that off and make it seem like a terror attack. Just way too big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peepinmofo Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Well here is my thought on why I said you guys.... The people that are saying it was a terrorist attack and not an inside job believe the WHOLE thing was a terrorist attack - all of those things happened as one attack. To prove or change my mind that it was an inside job you need to answer questions about all of what happened. You say the pentagon part does not make sense - fine maybe it doesn't but then what about all the other things??? It is easy to find one or two things that look weird that may make you question that one thing but this WHOLE thing happened and for it to be an inside job then the whole thing had to be an inside job. In my mind I can comprehend how a terrorist attack could have done what happened. My mind can not comprehend how someone on the "inside" could have ever pulled ALL of that off and make it seem like a terror attack. Just way too big. You are absolutely correct in that it is too big. And as hard as it seems to be an inside job, once you actually research the topic, youll see that things are not what we have been told. Period. Im not saying GWBush had this plan to bring the towers down. Im not saying any one person conspired to do this. What I am saying is that what we were told doesnt add up. The govt is hiding something. Did they mastermind it? I dont know. No one does. But the simple fact that they have covered stuff up makes me believe that there was knowledge of the whole ordeal before it happened. Now, as I have stated before, watch the videos. If you want, PM me your mailing address and I will mail you copies of the DVDs. Im not going to sit here anymore and try to answer everything when the response will always be the same - Watch the videos to have your questions answered. If you watch them, and then still have doubts, I will gladly continue any discussion. But if you (whomever is reading this) are not willing to watch what I have watched, or read what I have read, then it isnt worth going round and round. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 One more time, but there actually isn't a ton of evidence that conflicts with the official report. There is conjecture and there is opinion and, IMO, there is a deep-seated need for some folks to believe the X Files is true, Deep Throat is real and the Illuminati run the world. I'm sorry but that's what all this comes across as. And I STILL don't know how bits of Boeing 757 got spread around the Pentagon after the "cruise missile hit it". I wasn't going to keep responding to people who clearly don't care to have a real discussion about this, but man, you picked the wrong guy to call an X-files nut. Like I said before, the fact that you can't say with any certainty what happened at the Pentagon does not equate to the official story being true. Further, I really think it's funny you're hanging your hat on the Pentagon missle thing, when IIRC, nobody here has has even put forth a theory on that subject, because frankly your statement proves nothing except that it might have in fact been a plane.... So let's say it was plane, does that necessarily mean that's all there is to the story? If you just want to look at this superficially, then yes, there may be just as much "evidence" that corroborates the official story, but if you want to take the time to actually look at everything that happened before, on and after that day, then there is quite a lot to suggest something bigger than that... Do we know what really happened that day, no, but we're not so ignorant as to just say "well, I can't explain every little detail, so the story we've been told must be true". That's a preposterous way to try to prove your point, to assume that the people disputing it must be able to explain things that probably only the Pentagon could know for certain. Moreover, if you just want to call us a bunch of X-file loons, please go to the birthers thread, because it's the last time I'm going to respond to that drivel. It's flat-out insulting, and in fact I've studied extensively subjects such as the media, armed forces, and rhetoric prior to even investigating this matter that I was originally biased agianst; This included courses such as The Media and The War on Terror, Politics in the Media, Rhetoric of Images of 20th Century Warfare, as well as a host of other related coursework, including a 25 page report/presentation about the Rapid Dominance (Shock and Awe) and PNAC reports from 1996 that outlined exactly what's happened militarily since the event. My intention is not to brag, but if you guys want to play the credibility card, what exactly makes you so qualified to speak on these matters? Just because you can cherry pick something we can't prove and can only speculate on, due to a miniscule amount of available visual evidence on the subject? Okay, if you want to go that route, then I'm going to call your assertion bunk until you explain why the Pentagon confiscated and won't release any footage of pictures of the actual plane prior to the aftermath... Oh, you can only speculate on why they're not transparent about this? How ironic. Does any of this mean that we're claiming we know for certain what happened that day? No, but it means there's a wealth of evidence that while circumstantial individually, collectively suggest that at very least that 9/11 was already planned to be exploited and even let happen or orchestrated with motives ranging from strengthening military/spending to stripping civil liberties to gaining permanent bases in resource-rich regions. So if they're willing to conduct bloody wars and exploit a tragedy for these strategic interests (like it's come to light that it's been done so many times throughout history), then no, I'm sorry, I think it's loony to take small unanswerable bits and use them to exonarate anyone from involvement (especially when there does exist a wealth of evidence and far more motives that are directly in line with the opposite conclusion that the event has been at very least greatly exploited for strategic advantages and interests). When looking for the perpetrator of a crime, the most likely suspects tend to be those with the most to gain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 How the heck do you get pieces of plane spread out by the pentagon when a plane did not hit it? Why have Flight 93 shot down? How did that help the situation? What was the end game? Couldn't the end game have been achieved without such an elaborate setup? Common sense just screams that there is no way this is an inside job - I have watched videos on Youtube - not sure if they were the same videos that were linked by Peepinmofo but will watch those tonight to see if anything in those makes me think differently. As I said above, 1 and 2 cannot be answered without falling into speculation, since we have no way of knowing for sure about things like this.... None of us are hanging our hat on thinking we can answer everything. As for question 3, you've already asked this and I've given you a number of reasons why someone might have done all this... I can and have provide you a 25 page report with a list of possible motives that couldn't have been achieved without 9/11, but again, I'm not going to even take the time to discuss things like this with people who don't care to be open-minded about it... What you call "common sense", I call an inability to investigate something you don't fully understand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) Well here is my thought on why I said you guys.... The people that are saying it was a terrorist attack and not an inside job believe the WHOLE thing was a terrorist attack - all of those things happened as one attack. To prove or change my mind that it was an inside job you need to answer questions about all of what happened. You say the pentagon part does not make sense - fine maybe it doesn't but then what about all the other things??? It is easy to find one or two things that look weird that may make you question that one thing but this WHOLE thing happened and for it to be an inside job then the whole thing had to be an inside job. In my mind I can comprehend how a terrorist attack could have done what happened. My mind can not comprehend how someone on the "inside" could have ever pulled ALL of that off and make it seem like a terror attack. Just way too big. you're asking me to answer things that I don't even subscribe to....yet, because I haven't delved into it....you're taking the argument wherever you can to try and win it..... and you're still doing the same thing....I find the pentagon crash fishy because the footage is missing time and I don't get how the pentagon lawn remains unscathed with an airplane almost hovering slightly above ground ...also the pentagon is also probably a black hole because it even consumed the black box and some critical parts of the plane that should have been left behind to some capacity..... anyways....the pentagon crash doesn't add up and I seriously question that and also what Rumsfeld said about flight 93... Edited April 29, 2011 by Avernus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 (edited) So if they're willing to conduct bloody wars and exploit a tragedy for these strategic interests (like it's come to light that it's been done so many times throughout history), then no, I'm sorry, I think it's loony to take small unanswerable bits and use them to exonarate anyone from involvement (especially when there does exist a wealth of evidence and far more motives that are directly in line with the opposite conclusion that the event has been at very least greatly exploited for strategic advantages and interests). I think that just about every nation in the world who could - found a way to use 9/11 to their benefit. Prime example is Russia and the Chechens. It is simply what politicians do. They find oppertunity in and exploit tragities. With that said... Do you know that neither Iraq or Afganistan had a Rothschild Central Bank in them before 9/11? Can you guess what two nations now have a Rothschild Central Bank in the post 9/11 era? hmmmmm? Edited April 29, 2011 by Duchess Jack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WashingtonD Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 Do you know that neither Iraq or Afganistan had a Rothschild Central Bank in them before 9/11? Can you guess what two nations now have a Rothschild Central Bank in the post 9/11 era? hmmmmm? So I've heard that one before, I've googled and found one list of all of the Rothschild "owned" Central Banks in them, they are from what I can ascertain all banks. But beyond that one person (I think his name was William Garner), I can't find much or anything that supports that A) That these are all indeed Rothschild "Owned" Banks - Full list That Iraq and Afghanistan's central banks are now Rothschild "Owned" Does anyone have any links they could send me (PM is fine) that supports or refutes those arguments....part of a long standing conversation/debate between a friend and I. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted April 29, 2011 Share Posted April 29, 2011 but man, you picked the wrong guy to call an X-files nut. I dont know what you have against the X-files . . . I thought is was a great news show about current events. Very "Fair and Balanced" towards aliens and bigfoot. Now I can only get my "real truthy" news from Star and the National Enquirer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 A couple excellent videos to watch: 1. Loose Change - Final Cut 2. Zero - An Investigation in to 9/11 So I put myself through the entire Zero documentary and I have to say I found it a contradictory and somewhat incoherent mishmash. On the one hand they claimed there is no way that the terrorist "pilots" could have flown the planes, on the other they then excoriated the FBI for not taking action when informed these people were taking flying lessons. No attempt was made to say who did fly the planes if not the terrorists and no attempt was made to say what happened to the Pentagon flight and all the people on board, to note but two glaring holes in the theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 No attempt was made to say who did fly the planes if not the terrorists and no attempt was made to say what happened to the Pentagon flight and all the people on board, to note but two glaring holes in the theory. I started watching that one, and the first guy that comes on as some sort of building expert is talking about all the ways the official report can't be right and it says "nobel prize winner" under his name. so I google him. he's an italian satirist and playwright who won the nobel prize for literature. which I guess goes to show that troofers excel when it comes to fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 So I put myself through the entire Zero documentary and I have to say I found it a contradictory and somewhat incoherent mishmash. On the one hand they claimed there is no way that the terrorist "pilots" could have flown the planes, on the other they then excoriated the FBI for not taking action when informed these people were taking flying lessons. No attempt was made to say who did fly the planes if not the terrorists and no attempt was made to say what happened to the Pentagon flight and all the people on board, to note but two glaring holes in the theory. I'll watch that one later tonight, but I thank you for at least having an open-mind to watch it. I prefer 9/11 Mysteries as my recommendation specifically because it does not make so many assumptions or theory really, and focuses more on the contradictions and questions of the official story rather than such debatable premises... BTW, SEC I do not mean to ignore your explanation about the collapse and thank you for giving your input, but I'm trying not to rush judgement without considering what you're saying... Believe it or not, I'm trying to keep an open mind myself.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 I'm 30 minutes into Loose Change now and it's much better done than Zero. It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds though right now all the usual questions remain unanswered so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delusions of grandeur Posted April 30, 2011 Share Posted April 30, 2011 (edited) I started watching that one, and the first guy that comes on as some sort of building expert is talking about all the ways the official report can't be right and it says "nobel prize winner" under his name. so I google him. he's an italian satirist and playwright who won the nobel prize for literature. which I guess goes to show that troofers excel when it comes to fiction. I actually thought it was a very fair documentary with very little that is not out there in the public... Again, you seem to just want to attack the source without examining the claims, which there were alot of good ones... Did you not find the accounts of the former FBI agent (just one of the ones who've been silenced about the FBI and CIA's "incompetency" before 9/11), as well as the British Parliament member and the guy who was dubbed by the Bush Administation as a "hero", being one of the few who was actually in the building at the time? And that's just speaking of the credibility of some of the people with far more to lose than gain by speaking out, and does not make the facts that are well documented any less true... Edited April 30, 2011 by delusions of granduer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted May 1, 2011 Share Posted May 1, 2011 I'm 30 minutes into Loose Change now and it's much better done than Zero. It will be interesting to see how this one unfolds though right now all the usual questions remain unanswered so far. Loose Change is better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Newest headline from the Conspiracy News Network: "U.S. kills innocent man" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 Newest headline from the Conspiracy News Network: "U.S. kills innocent man" yeah? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbpfan1231 Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 So I did watch the videos this weekend and I have to honestly say that yes there are a lot of open questions about the Pentagon. But with that said I think you have to look at the whole picture and you can probably always come up with things that just don't seem to add up but in this case there are WAY too many things that would ALL have to add up for this to not be a terrorist attack. For example - quite a bit of time was spent in the video explaining that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and took less than an hour to unload - why did this flight even take place then? Why did they not just cancel the flight? Am I missing something here - what was the intent of having flight 93 take off and then report it was hijacked and then land it in Cleveland? Yes there are things that don't add up but the thing that does add up is that I still believe your nuts to think this was an inside job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted May 3, 2011 Share Posted May 3, 2011 So I did watch the videos this weekend and I have to honestly say that yes there are a lot of open questions about the Pentagon. But with that said I think you have to look at the whole picture and you can probably always come up with things that just don't seem to add up but in this case there are WAY too many things that would ALL have to add up for this to not be a terrorist attack. For example - quite a bit of time was spent in the video explaining that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland and took less than an hour to unload - why did this flight even take place then? Why did they not just cancel the flight? Am I missing something here - what was the intent of having flight 93 take off and then report it was hijacked and then land it in Cleveland? Yes there are things that don't add up but the thing that does add up is that I still believe your nuts to think this was an inside job. that's fine and I wish you well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Study suggests conspiracy theorists believe the impossible. To see if conspiracy views were strong enough to lead to inconsistencies, the researchers asked 137 college students about the death of Princess Diana. The more people thought there "was an official campaign by the intelligence service to assassinate Diana," the more they also believed that "Diana faked her own death to retreat into isolation." Of course, Diana cannot be simultaneously dead and alive. The researchers wanted to know if the contradictory beliefs were due to suspicion of authorities, so they asked 102 college students about the death of Osama bin Laden (OBL). People who believed that "when the raid took place, OBL was already dead," were significantly more likely to also believe that "OBL is still alive." Since bin Laden is not Schrödinger's cat, he must either be alive or dead. The researchers found that the belief that the "actions of the Obama administration indicate that they are hiding some important or damaging piece of information about the raid" was responsible for the connection between the two conspiracy theories. Conspiracy belief is so potent that it will lead to belief in completely inconsistent ideas. "For conspiracy theorists, those in power are seen as deceptive-even malevolent-and so any official explanation is at a disadvantage, and any alternative explanation is more credible from the start," said the authors. It is no surprise that fear, mistrust, and even paranoia can lead to muddled thinking; when distrust is engaged, careful reasoning can coast on by. "Believing Osama is still alive," they write, 'is no obstacle to believing that he has been dead for years." Not surprising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazinib1 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Study suggests conspiracy theorists believe the impossible. Not surprising. Or your love afair of T.Jackson? Or is it the love affair of the offense in general? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.