The final 9/11 conspiracy thread

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:10 pm

I have to say...the thing about the whole article that made me pretty much dismiss it is the last several pages showing the faces of the fire fighters, police officers and Port Authority people who died that day.

To me, it had no other purpose than to say,"These conspiracy theorists are belitting the deaths of these people and if you believe them then you are also belittling their deaths."

This - to me - screams "propaganda article".

Post by **Foo** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:22 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I have to say...the thing about the whole article that made me pretty much dismiss it is the last several pages showing the faces of the fire fighters, police officers and Port Authority people who died that day.

To me, it had no other purpose than to say,"These conspiracy theorists are belitting the deaths of these people and if you believe them then you are also belittling their deaths."

This - to me - screams "propaganda article".

Yep. Just like when they played back the taped 911 calls from people inside the towers as part of the trial procedings.

Post by **Ryoki** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:24 pm

And at the Massaoui trail - which instantly made the whole thing a farce. :icon14:

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:28 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I have to say...the thing about the whole article that made me pretty much dismiss it is the last several pages showing the faces of the fire fighters, police officers and Port Authority people who died that day.

To me, it had no other purpose than to say,"These conspiracy theorists are belitting the deaths of these people and if you believe them then you are also belittling their deaths."

This - to me - screams "propaganda article".

yeah its a subliminal msg that if u think something other than the official version u support the death of those ppl and love terrorists...

kinda like bill oreilly's 'u hate america' when confronted by 911 non-believers...sad...but thats how denial works...

Post by **jayP.lq** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:37 pm

couldnt it be the combination of the impact of the plane AND the fire be a reasonable explination?

While neither one on there own could have brought the building down, the impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire on the building might?

Post by **busetibi** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:40 pm

jayP.lq wrote:couldnt it be the combination of the impact of the plane AND the fire be a reasonable explination?

While neither one on there own could have brought the building down, the impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire on the building might?

i'm sorry for the abuse you are about to recieve

Post by **4days** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 1:54 pm

jayP.lq wrote:couldnt it be the combination of the impact of the plane AND the fire be a reasonable explination?

While neither one on there own could have brought the building down, the impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire on the building might?

dunno - but i don't know if i could buy into the demolition thing either.

the impact, the fire, the failure of the internal fire control systems, the fireproofing that was apparently missing from the structure, the fact that the damaged buildings were mind-fuckingly heavy things - all would have contributed a lot, bombs or no bombs.

for my 2 cents, i don't care if they were blown up or not - even in a best case scenario, one totally accepting of the official line - letting something like that happen just isn't fucking good enough. heads should have been rolling all over the place after that and they weren't.

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:09 pm

jayP.lq wrote:couldnt it be the combination of the impact of the plane AND the fire be a reasonable explination?

While neither one on there own could have brought the building down, the impact of the plane plus the heat of the fire on the building might?

hey moron..the planes didn't git that building...and buildings don't implode into their own footprints from fire...

Post by **4days** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:16 pm

in what other way would it fall? to the north, the south, the direction the wind was blowing?

Post by **Freakaloin** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:20 pm

it would topple to a side of course...partially falling...unless all support is gone at the exact same time...unless ur a moron...

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:25 pm

truth

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:33 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I have to say...the thing about the whole article that made me pretty much dismiss it is the last several pages showing the faces of the fire fighters, police officers and Port Authority people who died that day.

To me, it had no other purpose than to say,"These conspiracy theorists are belitting the deaths of these people and if you believe them then you are also belittling their deaths."

This - to me - screams "propaganda article".

How the hell is it a propaganda piece if it's written by a tour guide? I read most of it, and it clarified quite a few things for me. Such as the exact wording of Silverstein's quote, the amount of damage to WTC 7, etc. It also showed that Alex Jones is naught but a two-bit huckster with an agenda. I knew that already, though.
I don't think that the article makes the case for believing the government's story, I'm still convinced they knew it was coming, but it goes a good ways towards undermining a lot of the tinfoil hat brigade's bullshit.

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:33 pm

MKJ wrote:truth

No, it's not. And don't encourage the retard.

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:37 pm

Nightshade wrote:
MKJ wrote:truth
No, it's not. And don't encourage the retard.

dammit just let me post random replies to bolster any and either side with absolutely no background information at all

meaniehead

Post by **Nightshade** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:39 pm

Fucking Dutchees and their random shit-stirring culture.

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 2:40 pm

molested

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:08 pm

dutchees

Post by **MKJ** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:24 pm

it wasnt clever the first time, bob

to be fair though, if i were standig on a lake in my zeeuws outfit (which I regularly am) and a mountain was growling at me... well I wouldn't be delftsblauw lemme tell you

Post by **seremtan** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:34 pm

you're no fun

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:58 pm

Nightshade wrote:
How the hell is it a propaganda piece if it's written by a tour guide?

I don't care who wrote the article. The presentation of the information within it, the name calling, the claim that the victims are "heroes" and the sappy picts at the end indicates it's a propaganda piece.

But who gives a fuck if he's a tour guide, doctor or child-molesting Senator?

Nightshade wrote: I read most of it, and it clarified quite a few things for me. Such as the exact wording of Silverstein's quote, the amount of damage to WTC 7, etc. It also showed that Alex Jones is naught but a two-bit huckster with an agenda. I knew that already, though.
I don't think that the article makes the case for believing the government's story, I'm still convinced they knew it was coming, but it goes a good ways towards undermining a lot of the tinfoil hat brigade's bullshit.

My thoughts exactly.
I'm simply outlining why the article didn't convince me. It came nowhere near explaining one aspect of 9/11...never mind covering enough aspects to call this the last thread on 9/11 conspiracies.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:59 pm

R00k wrote:Puff is this a serious post? I thought you were just trolling after reading a few pages of the article.

Do you really believe this article proves that we should believe the government story?

holy shit people how about reading the WHOLE THING then getting back to me.

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:10 pm

Listen people. The 9/11 Truth Movement is not about proving that some certain people blew up the world trade center buildings. It isn't about proving that a plane never hit the Pentagon. It isn't even about proving that the attacks could have been prevented and intentionally weren't.

IT'S ABOUT FORCING A REAL, PROFESSIONAL, INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION, WHICH HAS STILL NEVER BEEN DONE.

Why is this so fucking hard for everybody to understand? Yes, I realize Freak posts all kind of shit about incredible theories that get people worked up. And I realize there are nutjobs out there who would try to convince you that George W. Bush orchestrated the attacks just to kill a security guard he didn't like.

But the fact of the matter is that this is the most devastating attack ever committed against innocent civilians in this country - and it has never been formally investigated.

Every time you read some 2-bit, half-assed article like this, which picks all the outrageous claims made on the internet, and then debunks them, with the sole purpose of making anyone who questions 9/11 look like a lunatic.... Every time you read one of these, and it makes you condescend the real people who want to konw what happened, then you are dissembling and avoiding the issue altogether, no matter how much you feel like you are speaking some kind of greater truth.

This kind of article is to 9/11 what Terri Schiavo is to social politics. It is a fucking distraction of the worst kind that accomplishes nothing more than the further polarizing of an already sensitive issue to many people, without constructively getting anywhere. It does not answer any questions, only provides ammo for ranting. It does not produce any new evidence, only more bullshit in an assertive tone.

IMHO, anyone who posts something like this is no better than Pills Limbaugh, trying to discredit anyone who doesn't agree with him.

Obviously Puff, I don't characterize you this way, which is why I asked if it was a serious post or not. But people are apparently taking it seriously either way.

I don't want to have to go through just the first few pages of this article and "debunk" some of the ridiculous assertions he is making, because doing that also does nothing more than distract from the real issue of investigating what really happened - as I have learned in countless threads here repeatedly.

Why do we have to talk about 9/11 in these terms people? Why can't we all just fucking agree that there needs to be a real investigation? You would demand it if one of your family members was murdered on the street - why do you want any less for thousands of other people's family members and your fellow citizens? Especially when this same attack has become a watershed moment for our loss of civil liberties, among other important things?

Hey, instead of that, let's just argue and call people names based on what direction their own warped perception leads them in regard to an event that has never been satisfactorily explained.

Post by **HM-PuFFNSTuFF** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:10 pm

GONNAFISTYA wrote:I have to say...the thing about the whole article that made me pretty much dismiss it is the last several pages showing the faces of the fire fighters, police officers and Port Authority people who died that day.

To me, it had no other purpose than to say,"These conspiracy theorists are belitting the deaths of these people and if you believe them then you are also belittling their deaths."

This - to me - screams "propaganda article".

Why would you dismiss the hard information in this pdf just because of that?

Post by **R00k** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:12 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote:
R00k wrote:Puff is this a serious post? I thought you were just trolling after reading a few pages of the article.

Do you really believe this article proves that we should believe the government story?
holy shit people how about reading the WHOLE THING then getting back to me.

I normally don't finish articles that start by insulting me for 3 pages.

If you are claiming that there really is some new and conclusive information in this, then I will read it. I have my doubts - especially after reading GKY's description of the contents - but I will read it.

Post by **GONNAFISTYA** » Mon Oct 16, 2006 4:19 pm

HM-PuFFNSTuFF wrote: Why would you dismiss the hard information in this pdf just because of that?

Because if I feel the information is slanted the "hardness" of it doesn't have the same impact.

It's the same reason I usually dismiss any conspiracy theories that present their information in the same way.

I'm just trying to be fair.

The article did present alot of information that I didn't know (I did know about the Silverstein quote) but why should I trust that new information if I think the presenter isn't being forthright?

Like I mentioned before...while presenting new information the article completely ignored conflicting information that has also been backed up by "the experts".