Did we do this conspiracy theory?

[Warpe]

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

[Phantaroth]

No, and we shouldn't.

Someone at my school was like OMG DID U SEE THAT 9/11 WAS FAKE

:roll eyes:

[Lukie]

we didn't land on the moon either


/endsarcasm

[vqc]

i think we did.

[boost]

I think that the discussion is futile. There are going to be those who say the conspiracy is 100% true, and there are going to be thsoe who say its 100% false. Both groups are complete idiots.

The final group is the ones who take everything into consideration but dont jump to conclusions based on minimal evidence.


Oh and on a side note, Phant, I dont think anyone ever claimed that it didnt happen. The claim is that it didnt happen as the mainstream media and the gov't would have you believe.

[Phantaroth]

No, but it DID happen as they have you believe.

And yes, it is 100% false.

And no, I am not an idiot.

The burden of proof is not on me to prove that it didn't happen, as I saw it happen. If people want to say that something ELSE happened they must provide to me, proof that is not completely ridiculous bullshit.

[boost]

umm.. youre an idiot.

what did you see happen?

Im not trying to convince you of shit. But no one has proven anything to you, those videos did not prove who did what. All Im saying is that with the evidence you have, there is no way you can think that the story is 100% true unless your motto is "ignorance is bliss"

governments are not int he business of telling the truth, doesnt mean they never do, and Im not saying they arent in this case.

[Phantaroth]

Oh funny you mention... the buisness of telling the truth.

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

If you actually think that a media organization would not report this... your wrong. It doesn't make economic sense.

So you MUST be telling me the government stops the media from publishing the -truth-.

In which case, you must provide me with proof of that.

[Phantaroth]

Are we talking about this video?

This video makes absolutley no logical sense what so ever. The video is saying "THIS IS NOT WHAT A PLANE CRASH INTO A PENTAGON WOULD LOOK LIKE"

uhhhh, based on what?

[Greedo017]

i was watching on tv as planes flew into buildings. in addition to that, there are reasonable explanations for everything, that explain it happening according to the official story. there are approximately 0 reasonable explanations for it happening in another way. what am i missing? i've seen all the conspiracy theories, I also read this http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y. Conspiracy theorists have nothing to cling to except a dislike of george bush and a disconnect with reality. the end.


oh, i wanted to add too. I just happened to see something on the history channel the other day about WTC 7 collapsing. It caught fire when I think the second building collapsed. They decided to let the fires burn because it was more important to rescue survivors from the collapsed buildings. They actually don't even think the heat from the burning deisel lines was necessary to collapse the building. The building was burning for like 10+ hours when it collapsed, that duration of time was likely enough to wear away the fire protectant coating and allow the structure to be compromised. If you have no idea what i am talking about, read the popular mechanics article.

[Phantaroth]

What greed said.

[Greedo017]

Also. All the conspiracy sites defend themselves as saying that popular mechanics just set up straw men to shoot down, ignoring the REAL complaints. Yea, the real complaints consist of things like, the first video of osama bin laden that was released, he looks different... OMFG you must be right now it was all missles and george "jihad" bush trying to get oil from iraq.

[UG]

I've seen this video and countless others. I've read tons of material on 9/11. There's so much out there that goes against the "official story" and "what really happened" that it's unbelievable.

I wish I had the time and/or the patience to argue about this, about certain points, certain aspects of that day's events....but I don't. There's no point. People believe what they want to believe, and that's it. It's like debating politics or religion.

Also. All the conspiracy sites defend themselves as saying that popular mechanics just set up straw men to shoot down, ignoring the REAL complaints. Yea, the real complaints consist of things like, the first video of osama bin laden that was released, he looks different... OMFG you must be right now it was all missles and george "jihad" bush trying to get oil from iraq.

Yup, that's all I've ever read. It's comments like these that will make any discussion impossible.

And Greedo, there should be absolutely no debate on this. Obviously if Popular Mechanics, The History Channel, and our own U.S. Government has already told us all of the facts.....why bother?

[Greedo017]

Also. All the conspiracy sites defend themselves as saying that popular mechanics just set up straw men to shoot down, ignoring the REAL complaints. Yea, the real complaints consist of things like, the first video of osama bin laden that was released, he looks different... OMFG you must be right now it was all missles and george "jihad" bush trying to get oil from iraq.

Yup, that's all I've ever read. It's comments like these that will make any discussion impossible.

And Greedo, there should be absolutely no debate on this. Obviously if Popular Mechanics, The History Channel, and our own U.S. Government has already told us all of the facts.....why bother?

Comments like that that make discussion impossible how? The popular mechanics article shoots down pretty much everything that the conspiracy theorists want to believe. They are left with stuff such as this

Popular Mechanics ignores:
-well documented, numerous warnings from US allies that 9/11 was about to happen and warnings provided to a few not to fly or get out of the way
-the "plane into building" wargame in Virginia on 9/11 and the NORAD "live fly" exercises that were also conducted on 9/11
-the fighter planes sent the wrong way from Norfolk (over the Atlantic, instead of toward DC). 9/11 was a cloudless day, and this scramble happened after the towers were hit (but before the Pentagon) - what's their excuse?
-stock trades a few days before 9/11 betting the value of American and United Airlines would drop
-the fact that Flight 77 hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon -- something a terrorist would not have chosen (or been able) to do
-the anthrax attacks on the Democratic leadership in the Senate and on the media, which came from an Army lab, not Islamic terrorists

http://www.oilempire.us/popular-mechanics.html


This site does not even support THESE contentions very well, and to me, even if all of this is dead on true, conspiracy is still really, really, really unlikely. I am more than happy to discuss anything, I am a very open minded person, and I'd probably be interested to hear why you don't trust the most likely story. I hope, however, that if you do respond, it is with a higher level of argument than quotes of people who said the buildings looked like a staged demolition, or there is no airplane debris at the pentagon, or other drivel of that nature.

[pgil]

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

now that has to be one of the most naive statements ever made. the media, as you refer to it (I will assume you mean mainstream media), is owned by large corporations. those corporations will do whatever makes them more money. if the 'truth' makes money, then they may tell it. but if a slightly altered 'truth' (or an outright lie) makes them more money, then that's what gets aired.

[boost]

Oh funny you mention... the buisness of telling the truth.

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

If you actually think that a media organization would not report this... your wrong. It doesn't make economic sense.

So you MUST be telling me the government stops the media from publishing the -truth-.

In which case, you must provide me with proof of that.

people are really dumb in this country. "why would the govt do something to hurt america" "why would a company do something that doesnt make economical sense"

Because while these thigns are both singular entities they are made of of hundreds of thousands - millions of individuals. And any given individual rarely has the wholes welling being at the top of thier priority list. Enron is a perfect example.

Im not saying this is true, but Im just proving my point. Just because there is a huge conspiracy in the gov't, does not mean that every last state rep and congressman is in on it. The pres doesnt even necessarilly have to be in on it. Also people can help further the perogative of someone else unintentionally. Its VERY easy to get someone to do whta you want them to do in politics in certain situations. Case in point: democrats flip flopping all over the place because the ydont want to appear not to be patriots, so the ysign on to allow bush to go have a war in the middle east.

Also you should rent "out foxed" its a decumentary about the fox network and that guy that owns it. There are several formal employees who testify to being black listed because they DID want to report 'good news'. They had really spectacular stories, however they werent in the interst of the powers that be. They pushed for thier stories to be aired, and they were threatened that they would never work again, and eventually they did get fired. And it is not easy for them to find jobs in the media world anymore.

[boost]

oh, and once again Im not lookg to prove shit, just trying to open your mind.

It is not hard to see that these things are wholy possible, but you just chose to shut them out as stupid conspiracy theories and try to debunk them with half assed logic.

Im not in the business of proving things true, Im too lazy for that. You my friend though are denying a positive, and you are the one offering no proof where proof is due.

[boost]

i was watching on tv as planes flew into buildings. in addition to that

no you didnt, because there was no live coverage.

[Greedo017]

i should've said as the buildings fell, but what's it matter anyway.

and, boost I think the burden of proof is really on you here. Sure, you can come up with explanations for everything that go against common sense. Of course, the media can be involved in massive conspiracies. But just because they can, doesn't mean they are, and just making the point that something is possible is hardly worth mentioning imo, especially when there is considerable evidence to the contrary.

[vqc]

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

now that has to be one of the most naive statements ever made. the media, as you refer to it (I will assume you mean mainstream media), is owned by large corporations. those corporations will do whatever makes them more money. if the 'truth' makes money, then they may tell it. but if a slightly altered 'truth' (or an outright lie) makes them more money, then that's what gets aired.

reread wat he wrote
its exactly wat u just said.

im pretty sure hes trying to say that if telling everyone that it was a conspiracy would make companies more money, they would.

[vqc]

if 9/11 was a rigged
it was done a very brilliant manner and has given whoever rigged it a whole lot of power.

and u people say Bush is stupid.

[pgil]

there are reasonable explanations for everything, that explain it happening according to the official story. there are approximately 0 reasonable explanations for it happening in another way.

i personally have never seen or heard of an official story that was 100% true. there is always going to be some fudging going on to suit whatever ends need suiting. even moreso with something as major as 9/11.

[pgil]

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

now that has to be one of the most naive statements ever made. the media, as you refer to it (I will assume you mean mainstream media), is owned by large corporations. those corporations will do whatever makes them more money. if the 'truth' makes money, then they may tell it. but if a slightly altered 'truth' (or an outright lie) makes them more money, then that's what gets aired.

reread wat he wrote
its exactly wat u just said.

im pretty sure hes trying to say that if telling everyone that it was a conspiracy would make companies more money, they would.

its a fine grained distinction admittedly, but an important one. he claimed that the media is in the business of telling the truth and making money. i countered by claiming that the media is in the business of making money, period. this may include some truth, but its not likely.

and most media companies make most of their money from things other than the news. so telling the truth and getting great ratings will usually be overridden by other concerns, such as protecting the other branches of the corporation that make the real cash.

[boost]

No the burden of proof is not on me. I dont have to prove shit. Im not the one saying something didnt happen. Yes maybe we do live in a fairly simple world without layer upon layer of lies. But truthfully considering that mankind is made up of billions of individuals, and each one has his own needs wants and goals and most are not opposed to lieing to get them, well that says a lot. You can go ahead and believe everything without a doubt, but the fac t is this country and this world was built on deception.

idk .. Im tired.. gn

[vqc]

No the burden of proof is not on me. I dont have to prove shit. Im not the one saying something did[] happen. Yes maybe we do live in a fairly [complicated] world with[] layer upon layer of lies. But [] considering that mankind is made up of billions of individuals, and each one has his own needs, wants and goals, but most end up being [altruistic], well that says a lot. You can go ahead and [doubt everything], but the fact is that there is a fine line between being inquisitive and being ridiculous.

idk .. Im tired.. gn

FYP.

The moon landing didnt happen. It was shot on a sound stage and done so that the American people would be ok with funneling more money into rocket development, which was actually a cover for the development of ultra long range missiles.

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that it actually did happen. Becuase, well, LBJ was full of shit and selfish and wanted to long range
bomb the fuck out of vietnam.

Thank you ggnh, so on and so forth.

[Phantaroth]

Let me re-phrase what I just said.

The media is not always in buisness to tell the truth. If it was more profitable not to tell the truth, a lot of the media would lie. But in this situation, it would make them more money to report the "truth".

And my mind is open. I do not have to believe in some bullshit theory to be a "free thinker"

[Lukie]

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

now that has to be one of the most naive statements ever made. the media, as you refer to it (I will assume you mean mainstream media), is owned by large corporations. those corporations will do whatever makes them more money. if the 'truth' makes money, then they may tell it. but if a slightly altered 'truth' (or an outright lie) makes them more money, then that's what gets aired.

You should re-read the last 6 words of his statement.

I'll do it for you: or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

[Lukie]

i was watching on tv as planes flew into buildings. in addition to that

no you didnt, because there was no live coverage.

O RLY

remember the coverage (between the time of the first airplane hitting the WTC and second, so there obv wasn't any for the first) where the reporter was telling what they knew about the first plane hitting the WTC, when the second one hit. Yes, it was live.

[Lukie]

No the burden of proof is not on me. I dont have to prove shit. Im not the one saying something didnt happen.

....Instead you just VERY STRONGLY imply it. C'mon boost, it's pretty clear what you are thinking. Why not come out and admit it. Bring proof (that hasn't been debunked countless times) with you.

[Lukie]

Im not in the business of proving things true, Im too lazy for that.

eh, must have missed this. Ignore my above post, this tells me all I need to know.

[Lukie]

No the burden of proof is not on me. I dont have to prove shit. Im not the one saying something did[] happen. Yes maybe we do live in a fairly [complicated] world with[] layer upon layer of lies. But [] considering that mankind is made up of billions of individuals, and each one has his own needs, wants and goals, but most end up being [altruistic], well that says a lot. You can go ahead and [doubt everything], but the fact is that there is a fine line between being inquisitive and being ridiculous.

idk .. Im tired.. gn

FYP.

The moon landing didnt happen. It was shot on a sound stage and done so that the American people would be ok with funneling more money into rocket development, which was actually a cover for the development of ultra long range missiles.

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that it actually did happen. Becuase, well, LBJ was full of shit and selfish and wanted to long range
bomb the fuck out of vietnam.

Thank you ggnh, so on and so forth.

heh, at least we still have a good sense of humor around here.

[euphoricism]

The moon landing didnt happen. It was shot on a sound stage and done so that the American people would be ok with funneling more money into rocket development, which was actually a cover for the development of ultra long range missiles.

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that it actually did happen. Becuase, well, LBJ was full of shit and selfish and wanted to long range
bomb the fuck out of vietnam.

I can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not, but God I hope so.



Some of you need to refresh yourself on the concept of "Burden of Proof".
If I say there is a dragon in my garage, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong". If I say there is a God, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong". If I say that the landing on the moon was faked and shot in a hollywood sound stage, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong." If I say that the entire 9/11 fiasco was a conspiracy by the US government, headed by George Bush to create a war in Iraq, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong."

Its the same idea as innocent until proven guilty. We dont (errr.. shouldnt..) have to prove ourselves innocent -- logic and rationality breaks down that way. THEY have to prove US guilty.

[Lukie]

The moon landing didnt happen. It was shot on a sound stage and done so that the American people would be ok with funneling more money into rocket development, which was actually a cover for the development of ultra long range missiles.

The burden of proof is on you guys to prove that it actually did happen. Becuase, well, LBJ was full of shit and selfish and wanted to long range
bomb the fuck out of vietnam.

I can't tell if youre being sarcastic or not, but God I hope so.



Some of you need to refresh yourself on the concept of "Burden of Proof".
If I say there is a dragon in my garage, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong". If I say there is a God, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong". If I say that the landing on the moon was faked and shot in a hollywood sound stage, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong." If I say that the entire 9/11 fiasco was a conspiracy by the US government, headed by George Bush to create a war in Iraq, I have to prove it to you. I can't say, "prove me wrong."

Its the same idea as innocent until proven guilty. We dont (errr.. shouldnt..) have to prove ourselves innocent -- logic and rationality breaks down that way. THEY have to prove US guilty.

he is

[euphoricism]

FWIW, just watched the video -- they dont seem to claim that a plane didn't hit the pentagon, simply that it isnt the plane that people thought it was. Essentially, it was a smaller 12-20ish passenger plane. Hell, they even showed a picture of it.

Ok.

And?

I personally did not ever think that a large boeing aircraft full of fuel ever hit the pentagon. I didn't think anyone did... I always thought it was a smaller plane -- probably the 'backup' for flight 93, that went down in a field enroute.

I always figured flight 93 was going for the pentagon, but that the terrorists had another plane in the air as a backup in case something went wrong with one of the hijackings. I thought everyone thought that, but I didn't follow the action at the pentagon very closely.

Did the gubmint say it was a large boeing? With how many passengers? Who were they? I dont recall hearing any of that..

I will agree that the pentagon doesn't even remotely look like it was hit by a boeing 737. I think thats because it was hit by a smaller, probably privately owned (or rented by the rich ass arabs) 12-20 seater, and had no passengers.

[Phantaroth]

I doubt that there could be any confusion about this....

I'm not an expert, but it wouldn't be very hard to find out what plane hit the pentagon. Airlines keep really in depth records of when planes just don't come back

[Lukie]

I doubt that there could be any confusion about this....

I'm not an expert, but it wouldn't be very hard to find out what plane hit the pentagon. Airlines keep really in depth records of when planes just don't come back

You assume that everybody uses logic and common sense.

[UG]

I doubt that there could be any confusion about this....

I'm not an expert, but it wouldn't be very hard to find out what plane hit the pentagon. Airlines keep really in depth records of when planes just don't come back

You assume that everybody uses logic and common sense.

Evidence that Flights AA 11 and AA 77
Did Not Exist on September 11, 2001

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/aa_flts/aa_flts.htm


Like I said, there's TONS of stuff out there.....keep digging and you find more and more of it. I'm not saying that I believe everything I read, whether it be on a website or something in the main-stream media....but goddammit if there isn't a lot of stuff out there "that makes you go, hmm..."

[pgil]

The media IS in the buisness of telling the truth, or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

now that has to be one of the most naive statements ever made. the media, as you refer to it (I will assume you mean mainstream media), is owned by large corporations. those corporations will do whatever makes them more money. if the 'truth' makes money, then they may tell it. but if a slightly altered 'truth' (or an outright lie) makes them more money, then that's what gets aired.

You should re-read the last 6 words of his statement.

I'll do it for you: or rather, the most mesmorizing stories.

but 'media companies' arent just television stations and radio stations. the point is that these news outlets are owned by much larger companies that make a whole hell of a lot more money than a news show could ever hope to bring in. these media outlets are not there to make money themselves, they are there to help their parent companies make money by swaying public opinion (and the government) the way that it needs to be swayed. thats the key to the whole thing.

[Greedo017]

ok, if you think it was a missle, not a plane that hit the pentagon.
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm
and
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

if you think it was a small passenger plane and not a boeing, maybe ask one of the dozens of eyewitnesses why they didn't say otherwise? or why one described it as a "very, very large passenger plane."
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/91...witnesses.html

UG - Those flights were for planes that hit WTC1 and the pentagon. In both cases, there are dozens of eyewitnesses to the flight. There is video evidence of one flight. What about this conversation between a flight attendant onboard flight 11 and the ground?
http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm
that's a pretty damn good made up conversation. Similar occurences happened with flight 77.
"According to the 9/11 Commission Report, two passengers made phone calls to contacts on the ground. At 9:12, passenger Renee May was reported to have called her mother, Nancy May, in Las Vegas. She said her flight was being hijacked by six individuals and they had been moved to the rear of the plane. Barbara K. Olson, another passenger, called her husband, United States Solicitor General Theodore Olson at the Justice Department twice to tell him about the hijacking and to report that the passengers and pilots were held in the back of the plane. After the call was cut off, Theodore Olson tried unsuccessfully to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

Additionally, these are flights which occur daily at these times from these airports. Why would the government hide two, and not the other two? How do you explain a bunch of dead people, who had coincidentally bought tickets and subsequently died on flights that "didn't exist"? I guess, maybe there is a huge conspiracy going on here, with daily flights that don't exist, and etc.

Or maybe, the bts website wasn't updated properly until 2004?

[SonOfAkira]

Comments like that that make discussion impossible how? The popular mechanics article shoots down pretty much everything that the conspiracy theorists want to believe. They are left with stuff such as this

Popular Mechanics ignores:

-the fact that Flight 77 hit the nearly empty, recently reconstructed and strengthened sector of the Pentagon -- something a terrorist would not have chosen (or been able) to do



This site does not even support THESE contentions very well, and to me, even if all of this is dead on true, conspiracy is still really, really, really unlikely. I am more than happy to discuss anything, I am a very open minded person, and I'd probably be interested to hear why you don't trust the most likely story. I hope, however, that if you do respond, it is with a higher level of argument than quotes of people who said the buildings looked like a staged demolition, or there is no airplane debris at the pentagon, or other drivel of that nature.

The point in bold is the one that has always made me wonder, and as you mention, the one that was never been explained.
Specifically, the plane was travelling east, turned around and went west, and instead of dive bombing into the pentagon or smashing into the eastern side, made another 180 degree turn and proceeded to skim along the ground (something next to impossible for a jumbo jet to do, especially piloted by the inexperienced hijackers) and crash directly into the western side. This side was, incidentally, the side that had been evacuated and reinforced. Strange.

I will agree, however, that most of the other claims are absolute drivel (i.e. the jets that hit the tall towers had "pods" that shot missiles before they hit...) and are only believable by fools. I think the problem of the conspiracy theorists is that they tend to lump the few solid and cogent points right alongside the the ridiculous ones, thus destoying their credibility immensely, along with the credibility of people who don't, by any means, disbelieve the story 100% but only doubt the absolute veracity of it.

Plus, videos and documentaries that have 'cool' music and neat video effects always smell like a rat to me.

That being said, I think there are some who are misunderstood about the concept of 'the buden of proof'. The burden of proof only lies with the side that wishes to fully, beyond a reasonable doubt, explain something.
To put it like this: Planes obviously crashed into the towers, one crashed on the ground in pennsylvania, and something crashed into the pentagon. This is irrefutable. The towers clearly fell down and and the pentagon was clearly damaged. This is also irrefutable. The burden of proof lies with anybody who wishes to explain any of the finer points, the who's, what's, and why's. The when's and where's are covered. If an explanation were offered up that was logically fallacious, a burden of proof isn't required, the fallaciousness stands on it's own.
For example, if one said, 'A groups of saudis did it, in this manner...' or, ''My cousin LeRoy did it, in this manner...' but reasonable doubts still existed, a plausible counter-explanation is unnecessary for these doubts to exist, the implausibility stands on its own.

I think the problem is that there are clearly two distinct schools of 'conspiracy theorist'. There are those who say, that story we've heard is totally false, this is what really happened, missiles and george w.'s master plan and faked phone calls and other crap. To state the obvious, this is moronic. There are others, though, who say, yes, a great fraction of it adds up but what about this and what about that? In my opinion, a huge difference.

No matter what, it is still a good bet to not swallow whole whatever the official government and mainstream media feeds. Healthy skepticism. Saddam didn't really have weapons of mass destruction. That's why he was invaded. You don't invade people with weapons of mass destruction. That's, like, the whole reason for getting weapons of mass destruction in the first place. See North Korea for a clearer explanation of this.

I hope I didn't make any enemies on FTR.

[Greedo017]

"The point in bold is the one that has always made me wonder, and as you mention, the one that was never been explained.
Specifically, the plane was travelling east, turned around and went west, and instead of dive bombing into the pentagon or smashing into the eastern side, made another 180 degree turn and proceeded to skim along the ground (something next to impossible for a jumbo jet to do, especially piloted by the inexperienced hijackers) and crash directly into the western side. This side was, incidentally, the side that had been evacuated and reinforced. Strange."

You seem to be very with it, i like your response a lot. though i have to ask, link?