PDA

View Full Version : Do you trust the government?



shaggyduck
05-05-2008, 07:29 PM
Since no one has even voted on this yet, I will have to assume it will be an overwhelming vote for NO.

This is funny to me, because so many people still accept the explanation that the Bush Administration and their 9/11 Cover-Up Commission provided.

BUILDING 7?? Not even mentioned in there.

LOL. Some people still think Oswald killed JFK with a magic bullet!!

2dYWP9AOGBo

betao
05-05-2008, 07:31 PM
Your name wouldn't happen to be Edwin, would it?...

shaggyduck
05-05-2008, 07:32 PM
No. Is that some sort of referential joke?

BrettShipes
05-05-2008, 07:34 PM
I only trust my mother and the guy that invented pesto.

Cpt. Funkaho
05-05-2008, 09:34 PM
Wa wa wa Roswell wa wa wa Trilateral Commission wa wa wa Bilderberg Group wa wa wa HAARP wa wa wa 9/11 Was An Inside Job wa wa wa The Moon Landings Were Faked wa wa wa Grassy Knoll wa wa wa REX-84 wa wa wa New World Order wa wa wa Paul Is Dead wa wa wa Skull And Bones Society wa wa wa Black Helicopters wa wa wa Freemasons wa wa wa Illuminati...

Jesus H. Christ, the world would be so much more interesting if even five percent of that shit were true.

EDIT: Forgot to add Heinlein's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 07:13 AM
The Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, HAARP, 9/11 Crimes, Grassy Knoll, REX-84, New World Order, Skull And Bones Society, Freemasons, and Illuminati are all real events, organizations, or programs.

Are you really that ignorant?

It's funny that you thow in Paul is Dead like that some how eliminates the reality of the other subjects.

I guess Enron was a hoax too and Saddam really did have WMDs. Oh, and I bet you think Nixon was given a raw deal. Right???

LOL. You voted YES. Well, it's like I always say... Somebody's gotta run the camps.

fatbastard
05-06-2008, 07:14 AM
I can't reply through this medium. They're watching.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 07:46 AM
Wow, i don't trust the government because of their stupidity. But most of the conspiracy theories are much more retarded. If you look at the other pictures of building 7 it looks like a fucking ice cream scopper scopped out a corner of the building that is why it went down. Do some fucking real research. I bet you think the moon landing was fake too?

algunz
05-06-2008, 07:54 AM
This should be a multiple choice poll.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 09:31 AM
Wow, i don't trust the government because of their stupidity. But most of the conspiracy theories are much more retarded. If you look at the other pictures of building 7 it looks like a fucking ice cream scopper scopped out a corner of the building that is why it went down. Do some fucking real research. I bet you think the moon landing was fake too?

Actually the picture you are referring to isn't even Building 7. That's been exposed.

You know, it's this kind of attitude that is killing the rights of citizens in this country and across the world.

If you think the gov't is stupid, then they are doing a great job. You think Bush is the top guy in charge? LOL. Do you even understand how the international banks work? Do you understand what the Federal Reserve system is?

I have done "fucking real research." Maybe you should.

Anyone who has any specific issues or questions that they want to talk about. Feel free to ask. Don't make retarded assumptions about what I believe or what I think is true. It only makes you look ignorant.

algunz
05-06-2008, 10:03 AM
"Don't be so glib."

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 10:12 AM
Srsly

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
05-06-2008, 10:16 AM
It depends on the government....

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 10:38 AM
I don't trust any gov't. I believe in power of the people.

"I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."
-Thomas Jefferson

"Power is not alluring to pure minds."
-Thomas Jefferson

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 10:40 AM
Why is there no option for governments and how we're governed needing work, but an infrastructure is necessary for any group of people

Blinken
05-06-2008, 10:47 AM
Ok so lets just say that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Do you know the amount of it takes for a controlled demolition? The explosives for a controlled demo need to placed on the steel struts, this means you have drill through the concrete to place the explosives. This a loud and messy procedure that is not easy to hide. True they could just use larger explosives, but then we would have seen the blasts.(air shooting out as the building collapses does not count as a blast) It is not something that could be set up in hours, like some people who claimed that the order to "pull" the building was given. The "pull" order actually had to do with the fire department pulling their men out of the building. NO one who brings buildings down for a living uses the term "pull" it just sounds good on the interwebs.

One last thing, IF the governement wanted to create a "false flag op" then wouldn't be much easier to hire the highjackers and get them to just commit the attacks. Why go through the hassle of controlled demolitions? Less people would be involved which fewer loose ends. This could be done with a few CIA agents and be the end of it. But no you truth people make this intricate plot that would never be done because it is too fucking absurd and complex to hide. The only part of the movement i would be willing to accept is that they knew the attacks were coming and decided to do nothing.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 10:47 AM
Damn and I thought you were annoying before

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 10:50 AM
Why is there no option for governments and how we're governed needing work, but an infrastructure is necessary for any group of people

I'm not suggesting anarchy. I simply don't trust the gov't.

That's the reason why Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders created a system with "Checks and Balances."

If you honestly believe this country currently lives under the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, maybe you should try reading it again.

This government is totally corrupt and criminal in the highest roosts.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 10:52 AM
Ok so lets just say that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. Do you know the amount of it takes for a controlled demolition? The explosives for a controlled demo need to placed on the steel struts, this means you have drill through the concrete to place the explosives. This a loud and messy procedure that is not easy to hide. True they could just use larger explosives, but then we would have seen the blasts.(air shooting out as the building collapses does not count as a blast) It is not something that could be set up in hours, like some people who claimed that the order to "pull" the building was given. The "pull" order actually had to do with the fire department pulling their men out of the building. NO one who brings buildings down for a living uses the term "pull" it just sounds good on the interwebs.

One last thing, IF the governement wanted to create a "false flag op" then wouldn't be much easier to hire the highjackers and get them to just commit the attacks. Why go through the hassle of controlled demolitions? Less people would be involved which fewer loose ends. This could be done with a few CIA agents and be the end of it. But no you truth people make this intricate plot that would never be done because it is too fucking absurd and complex to hide. The only part of the movement i would be willing to accept is that they knew the attacks were coming and decided to do nothing.

I'm not claiming to have all the answers as to how they did what they did or what actually occured. And for the record, I believe there were Hijackers, some if not all were probably unaware of the gov't involvement. Most terrorist organizations are controlled and funded by western intelligence agencies.

The important thing for me... THEY GAVE US A STORY. THAT STORY HAS A LOT OF HOLES.

I don't know what happended, but I know what didn't happen.

Mockingbird73
05-06-2008, 10:56 AM
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

Blinken
05-06-2008, 11:02 AM
Every story will have holes if you look hard enough for them.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
05-06-2008, 11:17 AM
some governments actually do things for their public.
Notice how well run Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway are....the politicians in Sweden don't even have body guards or escorts to ferry them around the country...granted the taxes are insanely high..but you get all the benefits: GOOD universal health care, GOOD universal education even though university, very little corruption (if any), fantastic infrastructure (high gas prices? Take the train, bus or bike! 25% of folks living in Copenhagen commute to work by BIKE!). of course these are all small countries and it is alot easier to maintain them when they are small as oppose to a vast country like the US.

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 11:43 AM
I'm not suggesting anarchy. I simply don't trust the gov't.

That's the reason why Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the founders created a system with "Checks and Balances."

If you honestly believe this country currently lives under the rights guaranteed under the Constitution, maybe you should try reading it again.

This government is totally corrupt and criminal in the highest roosts.

Well you can't expect too much from a group of founders who thought that bargaining slaves for greater representation of southern plantation owners to ratify this series of checks and balances was a good idea... you're not selling your contradiction at all.

Whether or not you agree with how our government is managed, you have to give credit in that it changes and adapts with its constituents to some degree, but the government is not going to care about a people who do not invest their time in it. If we don't hold accountable our legislators and continue to have this apathetic and distrustful view towards those in power, we cannot expect that group of people to have our interests in mind. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a government of, for & by the people. The Constitution made little to no limits on the individual and focused on what the government and any agent of it can and cannot due. The Bill of Rights, which everyone holds up as the Dead Sea Scrolls of Democracy do not actually give you any rights, it just limits how the government can infringe upon yours. Moreover, the complaints that we have about how our rights are being stripped away or the amount of taxes we have to pay are not the fault of our government, they are our own. Being in this country in particular allows people to forget that the only person that they can count on for change is his/herself. To easily place blame on some man behind the curtain is cowardly and stupid. If you cared, you'd become involved rather than bitching on a message board. Write a letter to your Congressperson and fucking vote, or shut the fuck up. The greatest checks and balance come from the citizens of a nation.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 11:50 AM
Sean Penn is that you?

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 11:54 AM
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

Exactly.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:00 PM
Well you can't expect too much from a group of founders who thought that bargaining slaves for greater representation of southern plantation owners to ratify this series of checks and balances was a good idea... you're not selling your contradiction at all.

Whether or not you agree with how our government is managed, you have to give credit in that it changes and adapts with its constituents to some degree, but the government is not going to care about a people who do not invest their time in it. If we don't hold accountable our legislators and continue to have this apathetic and distrustful view towards those in power, we cannot expect that group of people to have our interests in mind. The whole point of the Constitution was to create a government of, for & by the people. The Constitution made little to no limits on the individual and focused on what the government and any agent of it can and cannot due. The Bill of Rights, which everyone holds up as the Dead Sea Scrolls of Democracy do not actually give you any rights, it just limits how the government can infringe upon yours. Moreover, the complaints that we have about how our rights are being stripped away or the amount of taxes we have to pay are not the fault of our government, they are our own. Being in this country in particular allows people to forget that the only person that they can count on for change is his/herself. To easily place blame on some man behind the curtain is cowardly and stupid. If you cared, you'd become involved rather than bitching on a message board. Write a letter to your Congressperson and fucking vote, or shut the fuck up. The greatest checks and balance come from the citizens of a nation.

You got me! All I do is bitch and moan on message boards!! LOL

I'm not claiming the founders are perfect. But the US Consitution is pretty darn close. I don't need a document to GIVE me rights. I have rights. They are inalienable. DUH

The problem with people like you and Sean Penn, is that you fail to see the system is a fraud. Voting, and supporting the 2 party system is just running the rat maze.

Honestly, there is little we can do as long as people are just bickering and busy fighting with each other.

The International banks have a firm grasp on control, and unfortunately I can't really do anything about that.

I try to focus on smaller problems. This poll wasn't started to change the world. I just wanted to make a thread to talk about gov't corruption. SOoooooooRyy.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 12:06 PM
The problem with people like you and Sean Penn, is that you fail to see the system is a fraud. Voting, and supporting the 2 party system is just running the rat maze.



THEN VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!!!!!!

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 12:19 PM
THEN VOTE THIRD PARTY!!!!!!!!

http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/USPics40/perot2.jpg
Yeah what he said

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 12:21 PM
You got me! All I do is bitch and moan on message boards!! LOL

I'm not claiming the founders are perfect. But the US Consitution is pretty darn close. I don't need a document to GIVE me rights. I have rights. They are inalienable. DUH

The problem with people like you and Sean Penn, is that you fail to see the system is a fraud. Voting, and supporting the 2 party system is just running the rat maze.

Honestly, there is little we can do as long as people are just bickering and busy fighting with each other.

The International banks have a firm grasp on control, and unfortunately I can't really do anything about that.

I try to focus on smaller problems. This poll wasn't started to change the world. I just wanted to make a thread to talk about gov't corruption. SOoooooooRyy.

Then if you do not want to change the world, stop trying to villainize those who are willing to do so-- for good or bad. They at least have the tenacity to put their viewpoints and their lives on the line, be under public scrutiny, and make decisions that affect millions of people. And what is so wrong with wanting to change the world? Yes, focus on smaller issues and let it grow into something that very well could influence the entire globe. But, to sit back with this "holier than thou" mentality of how everyone else is just a sheep or drone, and you are the only person who understands how "wrong" and "evil" our government is, is ridiculous because in the end it is those very same sheeps and drones who get their bills passed and their issues addressed while you sit at home researching the 9/11 conspiracy and bitching.

I don't know... this just frustrates me-- that people can be so outspoken in their beliefs and impotent in their actions.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:26 PM
Then if you do not want to change the world, stop trying to villainize those who are willing to do so-- for good or bad. They at least have the tenacity to put their viewpoints and their lives on the line, be under public scrutiny, and make decisions that affect millions of people. And what is so wrong with wanting to change the world? Yes, focus on smaller issues and let it grow into something that very well could influence the entire globe. But, to sit back with this "holier than thou" mentality of how everyone else is just a sheep or drone, and you are the only person who understands how "wrong" and "evil" our government is, is ridiculous because in the end it is those very same sheeps and drones who get their bills passed and their issues addressed while you sit at home researching the 9/11 conspiracy and bitching.

I don't know... this just frustrates me-- that people can be so outspoken in their beliefs and impotent in their actions.

Unfortunately most people are sheep.

I never said i didn't want to change the world. I said I didn't start this poll to change the world.

I'm not villianizing anyone except the villians. I don't really see how I villianized Sean Penn, if that's what you mean. I just think he's a little off on his understanding of the cause of the problems in the world. Not to mention... who's holier than thou when they are drunk and mumbling jibberish to a crowd of music lovers?

Why am I impotent again? You talk like you know me.

Since when did a messageboard post become my autobiography?

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 12:26 PM
The Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group, HAARP, 9/11 Crimes, Grassy Knoll, REX-84, New World Order, Skull And Bones Society, Freemasons, and Illuminati are all real events, organizations, or programs.

Are you really that ignorant?

It's funny that you thow in Paul is Dead like that some how eliminates the reality of the other subjects.

I guess Enron was a hoax too and Saddam really did have WMDs. Oh, and I bet you think Nixon was given a raw deal. Right???

LOL. You voted YES. Well, it's like I always say... Somebody's gotta run the camps.

I voted no, but of course Saddam had WMDs. We sold them to him.

You are pretty dubious as well.

canexplain
05-06-2008, 12:30 PM
DNC Aug 08 ......x****

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:30 PM
He had WMDs in the 80s, and I'm sure he had some here and there, but he didn't have a nuclear facility... as was claimed... he didn't have anthrax missles, and all the other nonsense.

lol, i'm dubious.

It's funny how much assuming goes around. Why is there so much hate on the net. Why don't we try to actually talk about the issues.

If you have a question about something I've said, I'm happy to address it, without flaming a bunch of hate.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
05-06-2008, 12:31 PM
DNC Aug 08 ......x****

I am going to be working 24/7 on that week.....

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:33 PM
It will be Hillary.

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 12:35 PM
No hatred. Just a light hearted taunting.

Seriously. The magic bullet has been more than sufficeintly discredited.

The Freemasons and the skull and bones society are pretty freaky. I have no doubts that there is some subversive shit going down there.

The 9-11 attacks, however can be 100% attributed to the crazy extremists who have been implicated. There is no way any building can be wired to implode without the knowledge of the people who work in the building on the daily.

canexplain
05-06-2008, 12:39 PM
I am going to be working 24/7 on that week.....

maybe between the my head being bashed in, i might drop into your hotel for a quick beer lol ..... hope you get OT ... i was telling someone at work i cant get into too much trouble because monolith is just a short time after that ... i do have priorities :) x****

Obviously, neither Recreate 68 nor anyone else wants to see that kind of police violence repeated in Denver this August. That is why members of R68 began meeting with representatives of the mayor’s office and the Denver Police Department over a year ago to try to ensure that the rights of demonstrators to engage in peaceful, nonviolent free speech activities*, marches and demonstrations, *would be respected; and why R68 has applied for permits to use city parks, and to engage in marches, and has worked with the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Lawyers Guild to assert our First Amendment Rights.

i hope PF doesnt zap what i write ... i think its odd how we can talk about drugs and sex as much as we want, but she says cool it a bit on politics or religion ... is dani really a closet right winger heheheh ...x****

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:43 PM
No hatred. Just a light hearted taunting.

Seriously. The magic bullet has been more than sufficeintly discredited.

The Freemasons and the skull and bones society are pretty freaky. I have no doubts that there is some subversive shit going down there.

The 9-11 attacks, however can be 100% attributed to the crazy extremists who have been implicated. There is no way any building can be wired to implode without the knowledge of the people who work in the building on the daily.

you just aren't privy to all the facts. Bush's brother was the head of the security firm in charge of the WTC complex.

Look, like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know what happened on 9/11. That's pretty difficult to do. However, it's pretty easy to discredit the official story.

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 12:45 PM
Have you seen what a building looks like when it's preped for demolition? It's a pretty messy sight.

instinct
05-06-2008, 12:45 PM
Wow, i don't trust the government because of their stupidity. But most of the conspiracy theories are much more retarded. If you look at the other pictures of building 7 it looks like a fucking ice cream scopper scopped out a corner of the building that is why it went down. Do some fucking real research. I bet you think the moon landing was fake too?

Agreed.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:46 PM
Have you seen what a building looks like when it's preped for demolition? It's a pretty messy sight.

When it isn't a criminal conpiracy, fo sho

Blinken
05-06-2008, 12:49 PM
you just aren't privy to all the facts. Bush's brother was the head of the security firm in charge of the WTC complex.

Look, like I said, I'm not going to pretend I know what happened on 9/11. That's pretty difficult to do. However, it's pretty easy to discredit the official story.

So what if he was the head of security, you can't hide that amount of explosives!!! It is very easy to discredit any story as complicated as this. All you have to find is something unusual that happened and blow it out of proportion.

instinct
05-06-2008, 12:49 PM
Shaggy.. All your arguements seem very cliche.. and they aren't backed up.


Dude, it wasn't a magic bullet either.. The bullet made a straight line.. The seats in the back of the car where higher than the seats in the front..


Also the options for this poll are wack.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 12:51 PM
Instinct is correct, the seats were not arranged in a standard way.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:51 PM
LOL. You realize E. Howard Hunt admitted recently on his death bed that he managed the Frech mercs that fired from the Grassy Knoll, right?

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:52 PM
I can back up anything you like. Ask me a specific question.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
05-06-2008, 12:52 PM
maybe between the my head being bashed in, i might drop into your hotel for a quick beer lol ..... hope you get OT ... i was telling someone at work i cant get into too much trouble because monolith is just a short time after that ... i do have priorities :) x****



OT would be nice but I am salaried....:(

Blinken
05-06-2008, 12:53 PM
Penn and Teller had a great quote about why people buy into these things, it has to do with a feeling of saftey. It is alot scarier to believe that one man or a small crazy group of people can do this much damage. So people cling to these vast conspiracies because it gives a choatic world order.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 12:58 PM
Penn and Teller had a great quote about why people buy into these things, it has to do with a feeling of saftey. It is alot scarier to believe that one man or a small crazy group of people can do this much damage. So people cling to these vast conspiracies because it gives a choatic world order.

Yea, and it was probably the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

Why would that make me feel safer?

Right, believing that cave dwellers did it with some laptops is more reasonable. Gotcha.

I'm sorry that I have a wealth of knowledge and years of study into the way that secret societies, international banking, and intelligence organizations operate. I'd love to think it was just some wacko terrorists and that our gov't is just totally inept. Unfortunately, if you do a little reading and a little investigating, you can see that isn't the case.

These arguments are tired, and no one seems to care to learn anything, or even try to understand what I believe. Instead, let's talk about comedians and their ability to come up with completely flawed logic.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 12:59 PM
LOL. You realize E. Howard Hunt admitted recently on his death bed that he managed the Frech mercs that fired from the Grassy Knoll, right?

"I heard that if you fold a 20 bill in the shape of a plane you can see the towers and pentagon burning, and 9+11=20 yeah they planned this for a long time."

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 01:02 PM
Unfortunately most people are sheep.

I never said i didn't want to change the world. I said I didn't start this poll to change the world.

I'm not villianizing anyone except the villians. I don't really see how I villianized Sean Penn, if that's what you mean. I just think he's a little off on his understanding of the cause of the problems in the world. Not to mention... who's holier than thou when they are drunk and mumbling jibberish to a crowd of music lovers?

Why am I impotent again? You talk like you know me.

Since when did a messageboard post become my autobiography?

Look... had a soapbox moment. It's not a personal attack on you, but a general one on my generation and a lot of people who sit at home and bitch incessantly without lifting a finger to fix whatever it is that outrages them. That, in turn, pisses me off because I do what I can to further a cause I believe in. If you are someone who supports your beliefs with action, more power to you. My general complaint is that if one is not willing to do something to instigate change, they should keep their mouths shut instead of criticizing those who will.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:04 PM
"I heard that if you fold a 20 bill in the shape of a plane you can see the towers and pentagon burning, and 9+11=20 yeah they planned this for a long time."

Oh shit you're right, I believe. I BELIEVE!!!!

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Oh shit you're right, I believe. I BELIEVE!!!!

you made me giggle :thu

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Those buildings were controlled demolition, anyone with two eyes and a fucking brain should have known it the first time they saw them fall. Building 7 was just fucking retarded, I can't believe people buy that shit.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 01:08 PM
Those buildings were controlled demolition, anyone with two eyes and a fucking brain should have known it the first time they saw them fall. Building 7 was just fucking retarded, I can't believe people buy that shit.

Haha. I was waiting for my back up. I know that this board has to have a least a few informed people.

TeamCoachellaHellYeah
05-06-2008, 01:09 PM
Those buildings were controlled demolition, anyone with two eyes and a fucking brain should have known it the first time they saw them fall. Building 7 was just fucking retarded, I can't believe people buy that shit.

I was waiting for you to show up and make this interesting....

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:11 PM
Those buildings were controlled demolition, anyone with two eyes and a fucking brain should have known it the first time they saw them fall. Building 7 was just fucking retarded, I can't believe people buy that shit.

A controlled demo is too complicated and messy to keep secret, it involves to many people. It is horseshit.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 01:11 PM
Look... had a soapbox moment. It's not a personal attack on you, but a general one on my generation and a lot of people who sit at home and bitch incessantly without lifting a finger to fix whatever it is that outrages them. That, in turn, pisses me off because I do what I can to further a cause I believe in. If you are someone who supports your beliefs with action, more power to you. My general complaint is that if one is not willing to do something to instigate change, they should keep their mouths shut instead of criticizing those who will.

I appreciate your extension of respect. More than I can say for most net dwellers.

I do not criticize anyone for doing something that they believe, unless it is contrary to something I believe. I'm not again you or Sean Penn. I just think that Sean Penn is a little ignorant.

Regardless, I think that informing people of the matrix we live in is doing something. Like I said, I didn't start this thread to change the world... but every bit of discussion in regards to the fucked up world we live in is positive.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 01:12 PM
A controlled demo is too complicated and messy to keep secret, it involves to many people. It is horseshit.

But getting NORAD to stand down. That's easy to do. Those dern terrorists are so clever.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 01:16 PM
informing people of the matrix we live in is doing something.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r237/Kolgar/MatrixReloaded-Morpheous_01.jpgGo on

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 01:20 PM
ma·trix (mā'trĭks)
n., pl. ma·tri·ces (mā'trĭ-sēz', măt'rĭ-) or ma·trix·es.

1. A situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained: “Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every form of freedom” (Benjamin N. Cardozo).

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 01:24 PM
I don't support Sean Penn. He said at Coachella, and I quote "... and I fuck you." He makes me giddy though, but for completely different reasons than you might think.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:25 PM
But getting NORAD to stand down. That's easy to do. Those dern terrorists are so clever.

This part of the "truth" movement is much more plausible then fucking controlled demo. I said earlier that i wouldn't put it past the Government to have found out about the attacks and just let them happen.

If you look at how the situation unfolded, after the first attack we didn't know what was happening some people thought it was an accident so NORAD(which does not moniter domestic commercial air traffic) was not involved yet. Once the FAA started to piece things together they were in limited contact with NORAD. It wasn't until after the second plane hit that we knew for sure we were under attack. It was still the FAA though trying to identify highjacked planes. For the Air Force to shoot down comercial planes they need authorization from Bush, who was very slow to respond. He has a history of being slow to respond look at Katrina. It is not like NORAD is just waiting to shoot down planes, things like this have to go through alot of branches of government.

All that said, I still think there is a very slim possibility the government just let it happen by reacting slow to begin with. But that is very slim.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 01:25 PM
A controlled demo is too complicated and messy to keep secret, it involves to many people. It is horseshit.

Okay, you can either form your opinion using your completely clueless guess as to whether or not they could have pulled it off, or you can look at the facts. Watch the footage. Then watch some footage of buildings falling from actual structural damage or fire damage. Then watch some footage of buildings falling as part of a controlled demolition.

Now, when you see how the towers have NOTHING in common with the footage of buildings falling from structural or fire damage but actually fell FUCKING EXACTLY like controlled demos always do... will you change your mind? I think not. You'll continue to believe what your brain has decided it wants to believe, regardless of logic and reason.

Prepare for cognitive dissonance.

BlackSwan
05-06-2008, 01:28 PM
I trust the government about as much as I trust you Randy.

chairmenmeow47
05-06-2008, 01:29 PM
I only trust my mother and the guy that invented pesto.


let's talk about the important part of this thread:

fuck pesto. pesto, chipotle and mojito can all lick my ass.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 01:33 PM
ma·trix (mā'trĭks)
n., pl. ma·tri·ces (mā'trĭ-sēz', măt'rĭ-) or ma·trix·es.

1. A situation or surrounding substance within which something else originates, develops, or is contained: “Freedom of expression is the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every form of freedom” (Benjamin N. Cardozo).

Well this proves you can look up the meaning of a word and use the cut and paste function, now allow me to retort.

idiot (ĭd'ē-ət)

A foolish or stupid person.
A person of profound mental retardation having a mental age below three years and generally being unable to learn connected speech or guard against common dangers. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:35 PM
You'll continue to believe what your brain has decided it wants to believe, regardless of logic and reason.


Same can be said for you. I have seen videos of controlled Demos, but i haven't seen any videos of a skyscraper failing down from structural damage. As far as i know, and i could be wrong. And really how many ways is there for a building to fall. It isn't going to fall on its side, as the top is weakened it will fall through the weakpoint and cause a chain reaction. The most retarded argument for controled demo is the it looks like one. At least bring up the thermite residue if you are going try to support this.

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 01:38 PM
Dear Mr. Idiot,

Please look at those same videos of contrlled demolition, and note the miles of wiring reqiured to choreograph such a precise operation. Even if black ops snuck into the building to cut the supporting steel in all the right places( a task that would have taken weeks) there is no way that all of the explosives and hardware could be hidden from anyone who was not both blind and retarded.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:40 PM
Thanks cheddar, but they won't listen.

BlackSwan
05-06-2008, 01:40 PM
You'll continue to believe what your brain has decided it wants to believe, regardless of logic and reason.



Same can be said for you.

Truth... and at least most people here don't need to validate every single thought and opinion they have through a message board.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 01:47 PM
Same can be said for you. I have seen videos of controlled Demos, but i haven't seen any videos of a skyscraper failing down from structural damage. As far as i know, and i could be wrong. And really how many ways is there for a building to fall. It isn't going to fall on its side, as the top is weakened it will fall through the weakpoint and cause a chain reaction. The most retarded argument for controled demo is the it looks like one. At least bring up the thermite residue if you are going try to support this.

What you can see on those tapes is one of the ONLY things you should trust. Stop listening to what some people you don't know who are supposedly experts on subjects you don't know shit about, especially considering all the other experts refuting everything they say.

Watch the videos. Do some research. I dunno, maybe try and come to YOUR OWN FUCKING CONCLUSION about something for a change, like based on rational consideration of relevant and unbiased evidence. You can see it all.

You claim to have an informed opinion on this matter but you haven't checked out what buildings that suffered massive fire damage look like after they fall? Well, that's fucking idiotic. How about trying the logical first step in forming such an opinion--compare what you saw to footage of buildings that collapsed from the damage they claim caused those towers to fall.


Dear Mr. Idiot,

Please look at those same videos of contrlled demolition, and note the miles of wiring reqiured to choreograph such a precise operation. Even if black ops snuck into the building to cut the supporting steel in all the right places( a task that would have taken weeks) there is no way that all of the explosives and hardware could be hidden from anyone who was not both blind and retarded.

Once again, you're basing your argument on pure speculation. I'm not interested in discussing who did it or how they did it--none of us have a fucking clue. All I know is that it's obvious those buildings did not fall naturally.

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 01:55 PM
I have watched the videos. I have compared the sites.

The only explanation is that the buildings were destroyed by plasma radiation eminating from the incomplete and supposed nonoperational Death Star orbitng Earth. I know, I know...It's the "International Space Station".

I can't believe that they think we all believe them.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 01:57 PM
Ahh, the hyperbolic sarcasm argument--the last refuge of those bound to their convictions regardless of evidence and logic to the contrary. And the dissonance continues.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 01:57 PM
What you can see on those tapes is one of the ONLY things you should trust. Stop listening to what some people you don't know who are supposedly experts on subjects you don't know shit about, especially considering all the other experts refuting everything they say.

Watch the videos. Do some research. I dunno, maybe try and come to YOUR OWN FUCKING CONCLUSION about something for a change, like based on rational consideration of relevant and unbiased evidence. You can see it all.

You claim to have an informed opinion on this matter but you haven't checked out what buildings that suffered massive fire damage look like after they fall? Well, that's fucking idiotic. How about trying the logical first step in forming such an opinion--compare what you saw to footage of buildings that collapsed from the damage they claim caused those towers to fall.



Once again, you're basing your argument on pure speculation. I'm not interested in discussing who did it or how they did it--none of us have a fucking clue. All I know is that it's obvious those buildings did not fall naturally.

I came to my OWN FUCKING CONCLUSION thank you very much.

I did see some videos of buildings falling becuase of fire damage, but they had very little in common with the WTC. none of them were skyscrappers, they were mid size buildings at best. Skyscrappers are built very differently so they would fall differently. If you have a video of a skyscrapper falling from structure fire i would be interested in seeing it. Other than the fact that both controlled demos and the WTC fell into their footprint i see very little similarities between the two. Their are no explosions which are seen in controlled demos. The puffs of air are not explosions, they are just that air being pushed out of the building with extreme force. The "truth" people like to point to one or two flashes as the explosions but there would be much more than that.

I know you say you are not interested in discussing how or who, but the fact that the how is impossible is very important.

allyjoy
05-06-2008, 01:58 PM
<- :pulse Cheddar

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 02:15 PM
I came to my OWN FUCKING CONCLUSION thank you very much.

I did see some videos of buildings falling becuase of fire damage, but they had very little in common with the WTC. none of them were skyscrappers, they were mid size buildings at best. Skyscrappers are built very differently so they would fall differently. If you have a video of a skyscrapper falling from structure fire i would be interested in seeing it. Other than the fact that both controlled demos and the WTC fell into their footprint i see very little similarities between the two. Their are no explosions which are seen in controlled demos. The puffs of air are not explosions, they are just that air being pushed out of the building with extreme force. The "truth" people like to point to one or two flashes as the explosions but there would be much more than that.

I know you say you are not interested in discussing how or who, but the fact that the how is impossible is very important.

What is impossible about it again exactly? They snuck explosives into a couple buildings--in Building 7's case a FUCKING FEDERAL BUILDING, which are supposed to be built to withstand complete and total damage by fire because they house important federal shit there--and planted explosives, and had to hide the wires I guess? Um... you guys know that there's a subway right underneath those buildings, right? And that there are access tunnels from the subway? Also, this is just silly--they arranged for the fake hijacking of four planes to be flown into these towers and we're talking about whether or not they could plant a few bombs and hide some fucking wires?

Look dorks, the fact that they fall perfectly straight down--IMPLODING first and collapsing into themselves--is exactly why and all the proof you need that it was controlled. What the fuck don't you get about physics? In order for the buildings to fall like that, you know what has to happen? ALL the load-bearing supports have to go at the same exact time. That's what controlled demolition does--enables buildings to fall straight down by popping out all the load bearing supports on each floor one after another so it was fall nice and neat and perfect straight down, because that's FUCKING IMPOSSIBLE TO HAPPEN IN A REAL COLLAPSE.

When a building collapses because of structural or fire damage it usually falls in some direction instead of straight down because simple fucking logic could probably help you understand that before all those supports break, there has to be one that breaks first. Then the collapse starts because the building is now supported unevenly, placing additional stress on the remaining supports, until another one snaps, and another, causing a gradual tilt and leading them to fall off to one side.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall2.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall5.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall6.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/buildfall7.jpg

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 02:19 PM
TLGM, thanks for taking over for me... while I can't say I'm happy to have you representing my point of view... no one else really is. I more or less agree with everything you said though.

I BELIEVE that it was a controlled demolition.
I KNOW that the gov't lied.

If you guys knows the difference between the two words in caps, it should explain the who purpose for this thread.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 02:24 PM
Shaggy, go fuck yourself. You just would have fucked up the argument anyway and pissed me off that there's no way to have intelligent discussion about this because the blind idiots on one side are never going to listen to the dumbshits--like yourself--on my side.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 02:25 PM
All of those buildings fell from the bottom not the top. That is the main difference. If you look at the video, one corner starts to fall first then the rest comes with it. It looks nothing like those pictures because it was not the same.

http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/911-south-tower-collapse.jpg

Look at the picture. See the building falling at an angle, some of the struts failed before others but the momentum of the fall mad it possible for the building to pancake.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 02:37 PM
What you see there is one little portion actually at the top of the controlled demolition having its supports taken out and therefore falling off to the side--like in my photos. This is what happens with fire damage, shit does not collapse neatly. But the Pancake Theory is preposterous. Notice even though the top of the building tilts when it blows, it still rides the rest of the building to the ground STRAIGHT DOWN as each floor collapses without the slightest resistance, all the supports on each floor just giving way instantaneously (cause the fucking things collapse at free-fall speed, which somehow doesn't bother any of you so-called "thinking persons) under the weight of the Pancake bullshit, and leaving a cloud of dust instead of concrete when they hit the ground. Right. Cause concrete frequently turns to dust in events like this.

Wanna know why there's no footage of steel skyscrapers collapsing from fire? CAUSE IT'S NEVER FUCKING HAPPENED BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILT WITH FUCKING GIGANTIC STEEL COLUMN CENTERS. THE ENTIRE ELEVATOR BANK IN THE CENTER WAS WRAPPED WITH HUGE STEEL SUPPORT COLUMNS, EXCEPT ALL THOSE PIECES OF STEEL WERE FUCKING DISAPPEARED AND SHIPPED TO ASIA DURING THE CLEANUP, SO WE CAN'T STUDY THEM.



WHAT THE FUCK ABOUT ANY OF THIS DOESN'T SOUND LIKE A CONSPIRACY?

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 02:39 PM
Shaggy, go fuck yourself. You just would have fucked up the argument anyway and pissed me off that there's no way to have intelligent discussion about this because the blind idiots on one side are never going to listen to the dumbshits--like yourself--on my side.

Ouch.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 02:41 PM
This may be why no one is taking you seriously


If you guys knows the difference between the two words in caps

Sorry I know I shouldn't be messing with your super cereal thread
http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/images/2007/04/30/manbearpig.jpg

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 02:43 PM
No one is taking me seriously??

*stomps feet*
*crosses arms*

Hmph!

Blinken
05-06-2008, 02:45 PM
They were made to withstand normal fires not being hit with a fucking jet plane. it obliterated the concrete covering the steel. the fire was hot enough to significantly weaken the struts. But fuck that.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE ALL THE SHIT NEEDED TO CONTROL DEMO A BUILDING OF THAT SIZE IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN PUTTING A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, WHICH WE NEVER SAW THE FUCKING BLAST. CONTROLED DEMO TAKES MONTHS TO SET UP WHEN YOU ARE NOT HIDING IT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN OVER A YEAR AT LEAST. ONLY WORKING AT NIGHT AND COVERING EVERYTHING UP IN THE DAY. IT IS MUCH EAISIER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HIRE FUCKING TERRORISTS TO FLY PLANES INTO A FUCKING BUILDING, THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING IS INSIGNIFICANT.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 02:46 PM
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g312/gobuffs10/coachellazeppelin-1.jpg

betao
05-06-2008, 02:49 PM
http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b260/Zombiezero/l_70290238e896b48d051249a0bd307e2a.jpg

It is obvious that Hulk Hogan was hired by the government to destroy the WTC.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Awww, i was hoping someone would go with this one...
http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g312/gobuffs10/911princebigwx1.gif

betao
05-06-2008, 02:53 PM
Yes that is a good one too. Well done Shaggy.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 03:00 PM
They were made to withstand normal fires not being hit with a fucking jet plane. it obliterated the concrete covering the steel. the fire was hot enough to significantly weaken the struts. But fuck that.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HIDE ALL THE SHIT NEEDED TO CONTROL DEMO A BUILDING OF THAT SIZE IT IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN PUTTING A BOMB IN THE BUILDING, WHICH WE NEVER SAW THE FUCKING BLAST. CONTROLED DEMO TAKES MONTHS TO SET UP WHEN YOU ARE NOT HIDING IT. SO IT WOULD HAVE TAKEN OVER A YEAR AT LEAST. ONLY WORKING AT NIGHT AND COVERING EVERYTHING UP IN THE DAY. IT IS MUCH EAISIER FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO HIRE FUCKING TERRORISTS TO FLY PLANES INTO A FUCKING BUILDING, THE COLLAPSE OF THE BUILDING IS INSIGNIFICANT.

The buildings had had the demo set up for quite some time. There was a massively larger insurance policy taken out on them shortly before 9/11.

Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Video (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/pullIt3.wmv)

In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." Video (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc6_pull.wmv)

Blinken
05-06-2008, 03:28 PM
When he said to pull it, it had to do with pulling the firefighters out. It would not make sense in that context for it mean destroy the building. Infact it does not mean a controled demo, no one uses that term.

Building 6 was pulled, they attached cables to it and pulled it over with cranes. Hence the use of the term "pull" it is NOT industry jargon, he is describing what actually happened.

greghead
05-06-2008, 03:31 PM
I'm sorry that I have a wealth of knowledge and years of study into the way that secret societies, international banking, and intelligence organizations operate. I'd love to think it was just some wacko terrorists and that our gov't is just totally inept. Unfortunately, if you do a little reading and a little investigating, you can see that isn't the case.

These arguments are tired, and no one seems to care to learn anything, or even try to understand what I believe. Instead, let's talk about comedians and their ability to come up with completely flawed logic.

Lol! I'm sorry, Shaggy, I generally like your posts, and loved the sticker you gave me at Coachella, but I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous statement. What knowledge or training do you have? What are your qualifications?

By your statement, I will assume that you have a PhD in comparative politics, as well as American history, and have completed some post-graduate study in the areas of U.S. foreign policy, and the history of American economic and military diplomacy over the last 200 years.

Now call me an asshole, but something tells me that you don't hold any of these degrees, that you have never completed any legitimate academic research on these topics, and that you have never published any of your "findings" in scholarly or academic journals. Something tells me you've picked up your "knowledge" from obscure webpages while procrastinating studying for your Political Science 101 final.

I'm sorry, but wikipedia and farenheit 9/11 do not make you an expert.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 03:35 PM
Thank you so much for that Greg. :)

greghead
05-06-2008, 03:39 PM
Word.

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 03:44 PM
Why go through the trouble of having the building colapse straight down? If you're going to make it look like an accident, why not let it fall over? Surely anyone smart enough to keep this hidden is smart enough to know how a building really falls when hit by two commercial airliners. If you've already decided that it's alright for 3,000-10,000 people to die, why not take out a few thousand more, and at least make it look real so some conspiracy lunatics wont be all over it?

Anyway, the Death Star scenario is at least as plausible as any "evidence" you have offered up.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 03:45 PM
I will assume that you have a PhD in comparative politics, as well as American history, and have completed some post-graduate study in the areas of U.S. foreign policy, and the history of American economic and military diplomacy over the last 200 years.

Who needs that when you can have a PhD in interwebs and photoshops for Led Zeppelin poster or Happy Coachella stickers.

greghead
05-06-2008, 03:49 PM
lol! That is a very valid point, stinkbutt, I respectfully withdraw my criticism

Wheres the beef?
05-06-2008, 03:50 PM
The government issued us glowsticks on Sunday night. How fucking rad is that?

Blinken
05-06-2008, 03:53 PM
Good point Kingsblend. How can any organization that gives glow sticks to people on drugs be bad?

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 03:57 PM
When he said to pull it, it had to do with pulling the firefighters out. It would not make sense in that context for it mean destroy the building. Infact it does not mean a controled demo, no one uses that term.

Building 6 was pulled, they attached cables to it and pulled it over with cranes. Hence the use of the term "pull" it is NOT industry jargon, he is describing what actually happened.

Yeah, that's the story Silverstein finally released TWO FUCKING YEARS after everyone was like, "Hey, what's this 'pull' shit about?" So do you always take whatever the people in authority tell you happened as truth? Because there WERE NO FUCKING FIREFIGHTERS IN BUILDING SEVEN.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Some defenders of the official 9/11 story say that the term "pull" is not demolition lingo for "bring down by controlled demolition". However, the same PBS video in which Silverstein makes his admission, contains the following exchange:

(unidentified construction worker): "Hello? Oh, we're getting ready to pull building six." Luis Mendes, NYC Dept of Design and Construction: "We had to be very careful how we demolished building six. We were worried about the building six coming down and then damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area."

Here's a nice clip from CNN of everyone at the site of No. 7 already prepared for the building to collapse, or "blow up" as several say:

CwjmqkjwnvQ&e

Blinken
05-06-2008, 04:13 PM
They pulled building 6 over with cranes. The atached wires to it and PULLED it the fuck over what don't you get about that. here is another qoute from the same damn doc.
We’ve got the cables attached in four different locations going up. Now they’re pulling the building to the north. It’s not every day you try to pull down a eight story building with cables.”

How do you not get that.

There were rescue operations going on in building 7, and around the building.


Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area -- (Q. A collapse zone?) -- Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed.
- Chief Cruthers

In the same doc where Silverstien made the quote he was talking to Fire Chief Cruthers, why the fuck would a NYFD chief be in charge of a secret controlled demo?

greghead
05-06-2008, 04:18 PM
Nice work on putting all that into proper context.

Every conspiracy seems true when statements and facts are filtered or ignored completely

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 04:23 PM
They pulled building 6 over with cranes. The atached wires to it and PULLED it the fuck over what don't you get about that. here is another qoute from the same damn doc.

How do you not get that.

There were rescue operations going on in building 7, and around the building.

In the same doc where Silverstien made the quote he was talking to Fire Chief Cruthers, why the fuck would a NYFD chief be in charge of a secret controlled demo?

"Pull" actually is controlled demolitions lingo though. They either "kick" a building's supports out or "pull" it down. Here's a nice little blog about it: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html

But if you insist on something with more credibility, here's a PBS interview with a guy from Controlled Demolitions himself, talking about the demolition life, where he uses it. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/kaboom/loizeaux.html

Cheddar's Cousin
05-06-2008, 04:25 PM
Yeah, that's the story Silverstein finally released TWO FUCKING YEARS after everyone was like, "Hey, what's this 'pull' shit about?" So do you always take whatever the people in authority tell you happened as truth? Because there WERE NO FUCKING FIREFIGHTERS IN BUILDING SEVEN.


And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."



Now there's some cognitive dissonance.

How often are firefighters called away from something that they aren't in. Unless the call was the one made to "pull it".

As for believing things that others say...some random guy on the street makes an offhand comment that the building is going to "blow up", so that's obviously what happened. Those were some of the quietest explosives I've ever heard.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 04:43 PM
FI5DcHJZMuc

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 04:53 PM
Lol! I'm sorry, Shaggy, I generally like your posts, and loved the sticker you gave me at Coachella, but I can't help but laugh at this ridiculous statement. What knowledge or training do you have? What are your qualifications?

By your statement, I will assume that you have a PhD in comparative politics, as well as American history, and have completed some post-graduate study in the areas of U.S. foreign policy, and the history of American economic and military diplomacy over the last 200 years.

Now call me an asshole, but something tells me that you don't hold any of these degrees, that you have never completed any legitimate academic research on these topics, and that you have never published any of your "findings" in scholarly or academic journals. Something tells me you've picked up your "knowledge" from obscure webpages while procrastinating studying for your Political Science 101 final.

I'm sorry, but wikipedia and farenheit 9/11 do not make you an expert.

I appreciate your well thought out and well written rebuke of my statement, but I don't really consider a "wealth of knowledge" to require a doctorate degree. I'm not claiming to be an expert on any specific topic, but merely a history buff, conspiracy hobbyist, and avid news junkie.

Basically, all I am saying is that I know what I'm talking about. I may not have "legitimate academic" degrees in regards to these issues, but I have read those that do, and I have perused many sources to come to my conclusions.

The insinuation that I derived my knowledge from Wikipedia and Farenheit 9/11 detracts from your previous statements, and quite frankly is some what insulting to yourself. Wikipedia is a great source for information, but is clearly a flawed medium. Farenheit 9/11 did little to expose anything about the truth of 9/11, and in my opinion actually did more to distract the public from the true crimes commited. The fact that you would even suggest I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy commited by members or our own government (and other gov'ts) from this film only goes to show how little YOU actually know about what we are talking about.

I understand why people don't agree with what I say. Generally it's because they are ignorant. I dont' mean that as an insult. I simply mean it in the strictest definition of the word.

I don't have the academic credentials you require, but I have spent tireless hours researching the topic.

Personally, it should be said that I am a skeptic of the highest degree. I didn't come to these conclusions because I wanted to believe them, or without great consideration to all points of view and all facts available.

TELEVISION RULES THE NATION
9a5dBJDz2vs

Many of the cliche opinions held and statements made by people in regards to gov't corruption, globalism, multi-national corporate monoplies, and the modern slave state, exist and are cliche because they are true.

Television has facilitated the ability for an elite power structure (yes, the pyramid!), which beauracratically control the population and their minions through compartmentalization, to influence mass conciousness in a way that no tyrant in history could have ever dreamed of.

I don't think I need to explain the means or mode of propaganda to you. Thankfully, the internet has created a bastion of hope in a world of control. Let us use it to the benefit of all who treverse it.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 04:55 PM
Who needs that when you can have a PhD in interwebs and photoshops for Led Zeppelin poster or Happy Coachella stickers.

This isn't even clever. What's wrong with my Led Zeppelin poster? What's wrong with the Happy Coachella stickers? People ate that shit up this year. Don't be jealous.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 04:59 PM
However much TGLM annoys people and discredits his own arguments with irate postings...

He's pretty well informed on the subject.

Honestly, I'm just too busy at work to put all the stuff together. No offense to him, but I could do a better job. Maybe later when I'm not in my cage.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 05:03 PM
See, Shaggy, shit like this is exactly why I wanted you to just stay shut the fuck up. You embarass the argument.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:04 PM
You embarass yourself.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:05 PM
See, Shaggy, shit like this is exactly why I wanted you to just stay shut the fuck up. You embarass the argument.

Oh, and since you are so quick to jump on everyone's spelling, I'll ask you about your grammar.

"stay shut the fuck up?"

Good one, guy.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 05:11 PM
... yes, idiot. It's an idiomatic usage of "shut the fuck up" as a state of being. It's not incorrect grammar. Don't ever try to correct my writing again--you're wrong, I promise you.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 05:13 PM
Okay i didn't read the first article because it is in 2006 and that is after the fact. In your second article from Nova he didn't use it to describe blowing up a building it was used to describe seperating buildings that were close to each other. he said "pull it away, or peel off." that is not the usage you are looking for. although thanks for posting it because he goes on to say
Well, any time you have a damaged structure it's a totally different animal. I mean it is much harder for us to bring down a structure that's already damaged, because you no longer know how the forces are working. In that building, there was literally one column left in that whole building. When my father got to the site, there was a man very gingerly trying to dig debris off the building to uncover bodies. And my father said, "Stop. If you move that pile one more foot the whole building is going to come down." And so we worked closely with the fire and rescue teams. The whole building was basically full of, you know, classified information. So we actually had a contract with them to remove any classified materials from the building that we could locate—thousands and thousands of pieces of paper. But, it was just very heart wrenching, you know, because they were still recovering bodies right up until days before we actually brought down the building. My uncle and my father worked quite a bit in Mexico City in '85 following the earthquake and they had helped pull bodies out there. So, it's not like it's ever old hat, but they'd been there before.
This is about the Oklahoma Federal building after the bombing and the subsequent demolishing. Notice how he talks about how it was much more challenging bringing down a damaged building. So you are telling me they planned a controlled demo and accounted for the planes hitting and the damage they were responsable for?

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:13 PM
Well if you really don't care how the building comes down, or where the debris lands, I don't think it's going to matter a whole lot.

Also, Building 7 was not sufficiently damaged to collapse on it's own.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:15 PM
... yes, idiot. It's an idiomatic usage of "shut the fuck up" as a state of being. It's not incorrect grammar. Don't ever try to correct my writing again--you're wrong, I promise you.

haha... riiiight

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 05:18 PM
Okay i didn't read the first article because it is in 2006 and that is after the fact. In your second article from Nova he didn't use it to describe blowing up a building it was used to describe seperating buildings that were close to each other. he said "pull it away, or peel off." that is not the usage you are looking for. although thanks for posting it because he goes on to say
This is about the Oklahoma Federal building after the bombing and the subsequent demolishing. Notice how he talks about how it was much more challenging bringing down a damaged building. So you are telling me they planned a controlled demo and accounted for the planes hitting and the damage they were responsable for?

Um, read the 2006 one.

And I'm telling you the buildings were planned to be demolished, planes were crashed into them to generate fear, but were useful in concealing the demolition and destroying everything that was in Federal building 7.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 05:23 PM
See, Shaggy, shit like this is exactly why I wanted you to just stay shut the fuck up. You embarass the argument.

He's right he's doing a much better job, he at least finds videos and articles while you put up Daft Punk's Pyramid doing "Television Rules the Nation".


This isn't even clever. What's wrong with my Led Zeppelin poster? What's wrong with the Happy Coachella stickers? People ate that shit up this year. Don't be jealous.

I was just stating that you have no degree in anything remotely related to this. You are just repeating what conspiracy theorists have said, who is the ignorant one here. I've at least heard out each side and formed my own opinion instead of just repeating something someone has said. Who really is the sheep?

Blinken
05-06-2008, 05:24 PM
Ok i read the 2006 one and he said what I told you.

"Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
It is when they pull down a building, like WTC 6. Strap cables to it pull the fucker down.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 05:28 PM
Well if you really don't care how the building comes down, or where the debris lands, I don't think it's going to matter a whole lot.

Also, Building 7 was not sufficiently damaged to collapse on it's own.

Shut the fuck up, you are saying it is a controled demo and now it is not controled they just blow it up and let fall whatever way it would. Then why would it look like a controled demo you dumbshit. Let Randy represent your side and shut the fuck up.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:31 PM
He's right he's doing a much better job, he at least finds videos and articles while you put up Daft Punk's Pyramid doing "Television Rules the Nation".




Haha, dude, I'm not trying to prove anything to you. You've obviously already made up your mind.

The Daft Punk video just happened to have a pyramid and the title of the song was the focus of what I was saying. Sorry for lightening the mood a little.

You guys need to have more sex or something.


I was just stating that you have no degree in anything remotely related to this. You are just repeating what conspiracy theorists have said, who is the ignorant one here. I've at least heard out each side and formed my own opinion instead of just repeating something someone has said. Who really is the sheep?

Are you serious? So you figured out the Osamaz didz it all on your ownz?>!? No one told you that???? Oh wait... you heard it from someone... then you analyzed it... then you came up with your own opinion which was exactly the same as what they told you. How is that different from what you are claiming I am doing??

Who am I repeating again?

Have you seen TerrorStorm? It's linked in the original post.

If so, please refute that, and tell me the errors with that film.
If not, STFU. Mr. "I've heard out each side."

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Shut the fuck up, you are saying it is a controled demo and now it is not controled they just blow it up and let fall whatever way it would. Then why would it look like a controled demo you dumbshit. Let Randy represent your side and shut the fuck up.

I was referring to the towers. Calm down.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 05:34 PM
I was referring to the towers. Calm down.

So was I.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:35 PM
Yea, so that obv wasn't the same kind of controlled demo as Building 7.

What are you mad about?

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 05:38 PM
What are you mad about?

Maybe he's mad cause an idiot keeps telling people they're ignorant.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:40 PM
We're all ignorant to an extent. Do you disagree?

Blinken
05-06-2008, 05:40 PM
Some more than others . . .

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:42 PM
Totally true.

You can call me delusional all you like, since it's quite the task to recognize your own delusions, but calling me ignorant about 9/11 is pretty retarded.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 05:44 PM
Shaggyduck seems like he should be friends with Brokendoll and Suffacated. I'm putting this twat and his big-ass signature on ignore, I recommend you all do too.


And if you actually want to watch a decent documentary about these questions, fuck TerrorStorm. 911revisted.org

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 05:46 PM
Fuck TerrorStorm? Haha

thestripe
05-06-2008, 05:48 PM
BLAH

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 05:48 PM
We're all ignorant to an extent. Do you disagree?

Not really, but I'm done with this I have had this exact same argument with other hippies and btw you guys all say the same shit and debate the same way. I know this is just gonna irritate me and considering it's nice out and I live in a semi-hippie town I don't wanna bring this shit out with me tonight.

Oh and I have seen TerrorStorm and the video off 911revisted.org and another one I don't know the name of, while it's plausible I find it unlikely. Either way you'll be the only person I've ever put on ignore cause your annoying and probably stink of patchouli.

thestripe
05-06-2008, 06:03 PM
Yeah, he stinks!

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 06:10 PM
Yeah, he stinks!

Ha I knew it

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 06:21 PM
Oh, noz! Don't ignore me!

Funny how all you can say is that it's unlikely. Is that because TerrorStorm is basically 100% backed up with facts?

greghead
05-06-2008, 06:26 PM
I appreciate your well thought out and well written rebuke of my statement, but I don't really consider a "wealth of knowledge" to require a doctorate degree. I'm not claiming to be an expert on any specific topic, but merely a history buff, conspiracy hobbyist, and avid news junkie.

Basically, all I am saying is that I know what I'm talking about. I may not have "legitimate academic" degrees in regards to these issues, but I have read those that do, and I have perused many sources to come to my conclusions.

The insinuation that I derived my knowledge from Wikipedia and Farenheit 9/11 detracts from your previous statements, and quite frankly is some what insulting to yourself. Wikipedia is a great source for information, but is clearly a flawed medium. Farenheit 9/11 did little to expose anything about the truth of 9/11, and in my opinion actually did more to distract the public from the true crimes commited. The fact that you would even suggest I came to the conclusion that 9/11 was a criminal conspiracy commited by members or our own government (and other gov'ts) from this film only goes to show how little YOU actually know about what we are talking about.

I understand why people don't agree with what I say. Generally it's because they are ignorant. I dont' mean that as an insult. I simply mean it in the strictest definition of the word.

I don't have the academic credentials you require, but I have spent tireless hours researching the topic.

Personally, it should be said that I am a skeptic of the highest degree. I didn't come to these conclusions because I wanted to believe them, or without great consideration to all points of view and all facts available.

TELEVISION RULES THE NATION
9a5dBJDz2vs

Many of the cliche opinions held and statements made by people in regards to gov't corruption, globalism, multi-national corporate monoplies, and the modern slave state, exist and are cliche because they are true.

Television has facilitated the ability for an elite power structure (yes, the pyramid!), which beauracratically control the population and their minions through compartmentalization, to influence mass conciousness in a way that no tyrant in history could have ever dreamed of.

I don't think I need to explain the means or mode of propaganda to you. Thankfully, the internet has created a bastion of hope in a world of control. Let us use it to the benefit of all who treverse it.

I agree with everything you're saying about power relationships and an ignorant, apathetic populace; you're spot on. But in terms of the WTC attacks, after reviewing both arguments, I don't see the plausibility of the demolition theory. As someone mentioned earlier, if our gov't was behind the attacks, they would take the path of least resistance and just fund a jihadist group like al- Quaeda.

And I was insinuating that you got your info from wiki and farenheit simply because you have only regurgitated the ideas put forth there. You have provided no literature or theory to base your arguments on. I actually am a historian (my area of research is post-WWII American cultural history, particularly the areas of culture industry [tv, movies, radio, music, interwebs, etc.] and consumer culture) and am well aware that anyone can make any claim they like, hence my reference to academic journals, which are still the premier platform for the elucidation and dissemination of new ideas and theories in every field, not just history. I'm accustomed to a proper argument that at least attempts to prove a point through the use of documented facts and examples, not wild conjecture.

Clearly, 9/11, conspiracy or not, is a highly complex issues that has its roots in the history of global expansion, imperialism, and advances of consumer capitalism, aided by neoliberal governmental and fiscal policies. People have spent their entire academic and professional careers studying these histories and social trends they produce. With conspiracy theories we start adding physics, engineering, construction/demolition science, and many other fields and disciplines to this already diverse and highly specialized mix. For you to be properly labeled an "expert", you would need to either completely familiarize and immerse yourself within at least one or more of these areas (hence, PhD), which would be no simple task. So I'm sorry if I'm a little snobby about who and what I believe, but I come from an academic background, and that predisposes me to more readily believe something that comes out of the academy (the result of hard work, months/years of research, and a grueling gauntlet of peer reviews), as opposed to the 9/11 conspiracy tape we can all rent at Blockbuster. I'm not saying that's where you got your info, I'm just making a point.

Either way, the towers fell and those people are dead. Nothing will change that.

And I certainly do not trust our government.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 06:42 PM
As someone mentioned earlier, if our gov't was behind the attacks, they would take the path of least resistance and just fund a jihadist group like al- Quaeda.

This is a great point and it's not as though this would be the first time our government has financed and trained extremist groups for their ("our") own political gain already.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 06:44 PM
Greg,
You're awesome. I respect your point of view, since it constitutes more than net flames. Like I already said, I don't claim to be an "expert." I'm just well informed.

Also, in regards to what actually happened on 9/11, I can't stress hard enough that my BELIEFS are different from what I KNOW TO BE TRUE.

I do believe that the buildings were demolished using more than just the planes that hit them. That being said, I know for a FACT that the gov't has actively tried to withhold information and distort the truth. That is the whole purpose of this thread. Sure, it's possible that they didn't have anything to do with the attacks... I just find that incredibly unlikely for a multitude of reasons. One of them being something you just mentioned. Al-Qaeda is a product of western intelligence agencies. Most terrorist groups are funded and propagated by western intelligence. That's just the fact of the matter.

Also, the reason for demolishing the buildings was multifaceted. They wanted to get rid of the Towers which were old and outdated on prime real estate, they wanted to cover up a lot of Wall Street and Corporate corruption (WTC7), they got rid of Paul O'Neil, excuse for the War on Terror, etc. The global elite don't make a move this big without making sure they get the most bang for their buck. (No pun intended)

The problem people have when discussing conspiracy is the tendency to over simplify and generalize scenarios and concepts. I have no doubt there were real terrorists. In fact, I'm sure those terrorists, at least most of them, were unaware of the scope of which the 9/11 attacks would be. There are a thousand different scenarios I could go through in which CIA opertative terrorists, double agents, naive jihadists, and the like were duped into participating in this kind of event.

Bottom line, the gov't had foreknowledge of the attacks. Where you decide to speculate from that point is everyone's favorite thing to do. I just like to focus on the fact that gov't has the same priority that gov't has always had... maintain power and push for ever more control.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I know that it wasn't just some crazy kooks in a cave that made the attacks on 9/11/2001 happen. At the very least the back door was left open, on purpose... but I think we all know I believe it was a bit more that.

(...and, to tell you the truth, I bet George Bush had little knowledge of what was going to happen. I'm sure he knew something was going to happen and the general time frame.)

COMPARTMENTALIZATION. This is how the pyramid system works. It's how you control these kinds of events. Know what you need to know.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 06:51 PM
This is a great point and it's not as though this would be the first time our government has financed and trained extremist groups for their ("our") own political gain already.

Right... just like they did with Al-Qaeda. Obviously their were terrorists. Some of them were trained at US bases.

greghead
05-06-2008, 06:59 PM
Greg,
You're awesome. I respect your point of view, since it constitutes more than net flames. Like I already said, I don't claim to be an "expert." I'm just well informed.

Also, in regards to what actually happened on 9/11, I can't stress hard enough that my BELIEFS are different from what I KNOW TO BE TRUE.

I do believe that the buildings were demolished using more than just the planes that hit them. That being said, I know for a FACT that the gov't has actively tried to withhold information and distort the truth. That is the whole purpose of this thread. Sure, it's possible that they didn't have anything to do with the attacks... I just find that incredibly unlikely for a multitude of reasons. One of them being something you just mentioned. Al-Qaeda is a product of western intelligence agencies. Most terrorist groups are funded and propagated by western intelligence. That's just the fact of the matter.

Also, the reason for demolishing the buildings was multifaceted. They wanted to get rid of the Towers which were old and outdated on prime real estate, they wanted to cover up a lot of Wall Street and Corporate corruption (WTC7), they got rid of Paul O'Neil, excuse for the War on Terror, etc. The global elite don't make a move this big without making sure they get the most bang for their buck. (No pun intended)

The problem people have when discussing conspiracy is the tendency to over simplify and generalize scenarios and concepts. I have no doubt there were real terrorists. In fact, I'm sure those terrorists, at least most of them, were unaware of the scope of which the 9/11 attacks would be. There are a thousand different scenarios I could go through in which CIA opertative terrorists, double agents, naive jihadists, and the like were duped into participating in this kind of event.

Bottom line, the gov't had foreknowledge of the attacks. Where you decide to speculate from that point is everyone's favorite thing to do. I just like to focus on the fact that gov't has the same priority that gov't has always had... maintain power and push for ever more control.

Again, I'm not an expert, but I know that it wasn't just some crazy kooks in a cave that made the attacks on 9/11/2001 happen. At the very least the back door was left open, on purpose... but I think we all know I believe it was a bit more that.

(...and, to tell you the truth, I bet George Bush had little knowledge of what was going to happen. I'm sure he knew something was going to happen and the general time frame.)

COMPARTMENTALIZATION. This is how the pyramid system works. It's how you control these kinds of events. Know what you need to know.


I definitely agree with your sentiment that terrorist groups are essentially creations of international intelligence agencies. Some of the "most wanted" are marginal groups with little or no power and hardly exist as a serious threat, but the boys in Langley and the Pentagon use the media to disseminate the IMAGES they desire. I cap. image because that is all we see. We see images that were specifically chosen to represent and communicate certain ideas through non-verbal and subconscious communication. I definitely buy into the military-industrial complex (shit, who knew better about it than Ike Eisenhower, the general/president/ceo that warned us about it?) and I definitely think there are supranational forces influencing/guiding world fiscal policies. Once again, I agree that there are a lot of things being covered up, and a lot of dirty shit that our government is not telling us about. But I do not think that the WTC was wired with explosives. Convincing jihadists to fly airliners into buildings is much easier and cheaper than 200 stories worth of hidden wiring, blasting caps, and explosives. Especially when the jihadists are already trained and filled with hate, and extra-especially (I know, improper grammar) when they are unaware they are acting as puppets/human missiles for the same rich white men they are attempting to destroy. I think this is much more plausible than secretly wiring two 100+ story buildings with explosives, not to mention perfectly planning and executing such a plan w/o being found out.

But we'll never know. The guys that do know are most likely either dead or named Dick Cheney

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 07:05 PM
But I do not think that the WTC was wired with explosives. Convincing jihadists to fly airliners into buildings is much easier and cheaper than 200 stories worth of hidden wiring, blasting caps, and explosives. Especially when the jihadists are already trained and filled with hate, and extra-especially (I know, improper grammar) when they are unaware they are acting as puppets/human missiles for the same rich white men they are attempting to destroy. I think this is much more plausible than secretly wiring two 100+ story buildings with explosives, not to mention perfectly planning and executing such a plan w/o being found out.

But we'll never know. The guys that do know are most likely either dead or named Dick Cheney

Well, see, we more or less agree fundementally. I just take it a step further, because I obviously do believe they were demolished with explosives. I think that WTC7 is the strongest evidence for this opinion, but also the thermate residue, 45 degree angle cuts found on beams, video of the collapse, and the necessity to completely demolish the buildings.

Regardless, how the buildings came down is less important than the culpability of the gov't either through foreknowledge or actual participation.

Also, as with the JFK assassination, which you can basically get the full story now, I think we'll know the basic truth of 9/11 in another 40 years.

greghead
05-06-2008, 07:21 PM
See, I don't think we will know in 40 years. If these people are smart enough to orchestrate such a massive attack, and good enough to pull it off, why would they leave any loose ends? It's like Stalin said, "Death is the solution to all problems: no man - no problem." Like I said above, anyone who knows is most likely dead. I mean, people were turning up dead in 86/87 when it turned out that Bush the Elder and Ollie North were selling weapons to the Iranians. If 9/11 is the result of a far-reaching conspiracy, we will never know about it. The gov't (ANY gov't) is smart enough to withhold that kind of info. For Americans, that has been the defining moment of the 21st century, you show it to be a fraud and we have social and economic pandemonium. Even if someone came out tomorrow with unequivocal proof of a conspiracy, I think most Americans would dismiss it as being false. We're trained not to challenge the dominant social narrative, especially when it comes to America and American civil religion (which 9/11 has become a part of)

We'll never get the full JFK info, Oswald and Ruby never spilled the beans. Was Oswald a patsy? Most likely. Will he be condemned by history for murdering the 20th century's most beloved American President? Yes. But that is the sad irony of it all. To me, the JFK assassination is a much more likely candidate (given the social, political, and economic climate from 61-64) for a conspiracy planned and carried out by the CIA/FBI/whatever-alphabet-you-want, than is 9/11.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 07:29 PM
See, I don't think we will know in 40 years. If these people are smart enough to orchestrate such a massive attack, and good enough to pull it off, why would they leave any loose ends? It's like Stalin said, "Death is the solution to all problems: no man - no problem." Like I said above, anyone who knows is most likely dead. I mean, people were turning up dead in 86/87 when it turned out that Bush the Elder and Ollie North were selling weapons to the Iranians. If 9/11 is the result of a far-reaching conspiracy, we will never know about it. The gov't (ANY gov't) is smart enough to withhold that kind of info. For Americans, that has been the defining moment of the 21st century, you show it to be a fraud and we have social and economic pandemonium. Even if someone came out tomorrow with unequivocal proof of a conspiracy, I think most Americans would dismiss it as being false. We're trained not to challenge the dominant social narrative, especially when it comes to America and American civil religion (which 9/11 has become a part of)

We'll never get the full JFK info, Oswald and Ruby never spilled the beans. Was Oswald a patsy? Most likely. Will he be condemned by history for murdering the 20th century's most beloved American President? Yes. But that is the sad irony of it all. To me, the JFK assassination is a much more likely candidate (given the social, political, and economic climate from 61-64) for a conspiracy planned and carried out by the CIA/FBI/whatever-alphabet-you-want, than is 9/11.

I disagree. You should know as well as I do they love to flaunt their deeds in the face of the ignorant sheep who only pay attention to American Idol and the Super Bowl.

40 Years from now, people will still not want to believe it, and it will likely wind out coming out in some form like Rolling Stone or whatever.

Did you not see the death bed confession of E. Howard Hunt? He basically spilled all the beans. Alex Jones has a film coming out this year about JFK that will have footage provided from Hunt's son of his confession and the like.

Basically he admitted that Oswald was a patsy and they he managed a team of 2 French mercs from the Grassy Knoll. He was controlled by compartmentalization and a little jerking at his patriotism (anti-communism).

You're right that we'll never get the FULL story, but you can basically put it all together. Considering how much you can gleen today about 9/11 with a little digging, I'm confident that in 40 years you'll basically be able to see the entire picture.

greghead
05-06-2008, 07:42 PM
From a historian's perspective, I certainly hope so. I don't know how much faith I have in the Howard Hunt confession; I've heard some rumblings, but I have not seen or read anything myself, so I can't accurately comment. But death-bed confessions are kind of interesting. Half are full of shit, half are piled on shit, and the other half (I know, three halves) are shit. Somewhere in all that shit is a kernel of truth, but it can just easily turn out to be corn, you know?

I think with both JFK and 9/11, the official story is taken as literal truth, and no one bothers to search any deeper, I mean, why should they, why would their own government lie to them? Greater access to info and technology has meant better tools in the search for truth, but "they" have tools for concealing that are equal, if not superior, to our own. It's a tricky mess.

And I'm heading out. Good talk. I don't buy it yet, but I like that you are at least thinking.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 07:49 PM
Haha... that is the funniest sig I've seen yet.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 07:56 PM
Greg, I thought you were smart there for a minute.

greghead
05-06-2008, 08:05 PM
Randy, I almost give a shit about your thoughts.

Almost, but not quite, love.

thelastgreatman
05-06-2008, 08:26 PM
"Why wouldn't our government hire some terrorists to do it?"

Well, first of all, why would they leave anything up to chance with those incompetants? Do you not realize how completely out of the realm of experience this attack was for Islamic terrorists? They've never pulled off anything even fucking close to this. Not 1/1000th as successful. Also, there's no way to bring those towers down with fire, or airplanes.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 08:36 PM
Well, I believe the planes were controlled remotely. So, the terrorists didn't really have to do anything but show up...

betao
05-06-2008, 09:02 PM
But we'll never know. The guys that do know are most likely either dead or named Dick Cheney

This is exactly why I never argue in this subject: because we will never know for certain.

As mentioned earlier, if the government is indeed responsible for 9/11, then (I believe) they have secured almost all loose ends to some extent. I don't think they would have even thought about doing it if it came with flaws.

People may say "well we have evidence that proves otherwise, we have evidence that shows their flaws". Ok, so you do. But, as seen in this thread, there are ways to debunk the conspiracy theories, and as long as these theories exist, so will the methods of proving them wrong.

People may also say "well with time we'll figure it out, look at the JFK murder, we've got it figured out now because someone apparently confessed". Now, I may get some flak for this, but a president being assassinated (IMO) is quite different than murdering 3,000 people. It's just not at the same magnitude. Like, if people were saying "oh the government secretly killed the president", I don't think that'd sound as bad "oh the government faked a terrorist attack and murdered 3,000 innocent citizens". Again, that is just my opinion.

I think the only way we will ever know for sure who did this, is if the criminals themselves come clean and admit, which will almost definitely never happen. If the gov't did 9/11, they will take it to the grave with them. And because of that fact, I've always had this kind of mentality about the situation: "We will probably never know the real truth, so why argue about it". I just don't think that these conspiracy theories will actually make an impact on the government if they did 9/11, because they will always have a way to counter them and they will never admit that they did it. The government has their plan figured out perfectly.

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 09:09 PM
And that is why I continue to argue this point...

THEY LIED ABOUT IT.

Obviously I think they were involved and responsible for the attacks, but the fact that they have since lied about it and covered up evidence and been all around shady... that should be the focus of attention.

Blinken
05-06-2008, 09:29 PM
"Why wouldn't our government hire some terrorists to do it?"

Well, first of all, why would they leave anything up to chance with those incompetants? Do you not realize how completely out of the realm of experience this attack was for Islamic terrorists? They've never pulled off anything even fucking close to this. Not 1/1000th as successful. Also, there's no way to bring those towers down with fire, or airplanes.

They didn't need to make the towers fall. True it makes a stronger impact but it was not needed. With the damage sustained, if they stood, they would have been demolished anyways. And any idiot can highjack a plane and hit a target it isn't that hard. It is possible to bring em down with airplanes since that is what happened.

greghead
05-06-2008, 09:43 PM
"Why wouldn't our government hire some terrorists to do it?"

Well, first of all, why would they leave anything up to chance with those incompetants? Do you not realize how completely out of the realm of experience this attack was for Islamic terrorists? They've never pulled off anything even fucking close to this. Not 1/1000th as successful. Also, there's no way to bring those towers down with fire, or airplanes.


This sounds crazy, but I don't think we are giving these guys enough credit, they caught us with our pants down. Despite how we like to paint them in contemporary society, Muslims are not incompetent cave dwellers, stuck in the dark ages. Even a quick study of Islamic history will demonstrate this. People like bin Laden have access to enormous amounts of wealth through connections with some of the world's richest people and organizations, as well as the old mujahadeen fighters from the 80s and 90s. As a result, they have access to training, weapons, and sophisticated communication networks that allow them to organize and carry out such attacks.

But it really wasn't that complex: hijack some planes and crash them. The hijackers easily got through security and took control of some planes and crashed them. And since air travel was extremely lax (you could carry-on blades under 4", as well as screwdrivers and all kinds of other shit that could be used as weapons), they had very little trouble in getting past security. There is nothing incredibly original about this plan; terrorist groups have been wanting to hijack planes to crash into buildings since the advent of air travel.

microlovebeat
05-06-2008, 10:01 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDQNpr2RnFI&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/DDQNpr2RnFI&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

shaggyduck
05-06-2008, 10:20 PM
YES - 4

NO - 34

lol, I was right!

Cpt. Funkaho
05-06-2008, 11:27 PM
YES - 4

NO - 34

lol, I was right!

If agreeing with the majority means that you're right, then people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 were right. By your logic, those are votes in favor of waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, CIA prisons, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that provide phone logs to the government, politically-motivated prosecution by the DoJ, signing statements, executive privilege, and FEMA's handling of the hurricane aftermath...



Don't be so happy about majorities. They don't always mean what you think.

EDIT: I know you're trolling, but I was bored. This is the last time I'll be looking at this thread.

stinkbutt
05-06-2008, 11:55 PM
If agreeing with the majority means that you're right, then people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 were right. By your logic, those are votes in favor of waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, CIA prisons, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that provide phone logs to the government, politically-motivated prosecution by the DoJ, signing statements, executive privilege, and FEMA's handling of the hurricane aftermath...



Don't be so happy about majorities. They don't always mean what you think.

EDIT: I know you're trolling, but I was bored. This is the last time I'll be looking at this thread.

http://www.dvdverdict.com/images/reviewpics/sp81.jpg
You just got F'd in the A

shaggyduck
05-07-2008, 07:15 AM
If agreeing with the majority means that you're right, then people who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 were right. By your logic, those are votes in favor of waterboarding, Abu Ghraib, CIA prisons, Guantanamo Bay, the Patriot Act, retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that provide phone logs to the government, politically-motivated prosecution by the DoJ, signing statements, executive privilege, and FEMA's handling of the hurricane aftermath...



Don't be so happy about majorities. They don't always mean what you think.

EDIT: I know you're trolling, but I was bored. This is the last time I'll be looking at this thread.

Actually, I was referring to my comment in the original post where I predicted that there would be an overwhelming majority for NO.

Good try though.

thelastgreatman
05-07-2008, 06:42 PM
This sounds crazy, but I don't think we are giving these guys enough credit, they caught us with our pants down. Despite how we like to paint them in contemporary society, Muslims are not incompetent cave dwellers, stuck in the dark ages. Even a quick study of Islamic history will demonstrate this. People like bin Laden have access to enormous amounts of wealth through connections with some of the world's richest people and organizations, as well as the old mujahadeen fighters from the 80s and 90s. As a result, they have access to training, weapons, and sophisticated communication networks that allow them to organize and carry out such attacks.

But it really wasn't that complex: hijack some planes and crash them. The hijackers easily got through security and took control of some planes and crashed them. And since air travel was extremely lax (you could carry-on blades under 4", as well as screwdrivers and all kinds of other shit that could be used as weapons), they had very little trouble in getting past security. There is nothing incredibly original about this plan; terrorist groups have been wanting to hijack planes to crash into buildings since the advent of air travel.

This sounds crazy, but you're only speculating that there's any reason this should be believed. Has a plane ever knocked down a building before? Until all of you stop acting like it's so implausible, someone answer me that.

phxunderground
05-07-2008, 07:09 PM
Unfortunately, I don't trust Clinton, Obama or McCain either. This election really sucks. I thought it couldn't get any worse than Kerry vs Bush but fuck!

Blinken
05-07-2008, 08:16 PM
This sounds crazy, but you're only speculating that there's any reason this should be believed. Has a plane ever knocked down a building before? Until all of you stop acting like it's so implausible, someone answer me that.

What are you talking about? Do you honstly think that 19 people buying airplane tickets highjacking planes and crashing them into buildings is more crazy than a secret government plot? A plot where they rigged 3 buildings for controlled demo then perfectly timed a fake attack, and then crash planes in to it anyway, remote control a plane into the pentagon, crash one in PA?????

Because the first scenerio makes much more sense anyway you look at it. I don't see how the controlled demo theory is remotely plausible. So many problems with that idea from a technical standpoint and just logistically. The whole time they were planning no one said "Hey, lets just crash the planes and leave it at that. The buildings will sustain enough so we can demo them if they don't come down on their own."

ThomThom
05-07-2008, 09:52 PM
If I vote "No..." will I still get my stimulus check?

shaggyduck
05-08-2008, 07:08 PM
If I vote "No..." will I still get my stimulus check?

HAHAHA! Best post ever!

shaggyduck
05-08-2008, 07:10 PM
I thought this was a Roger Waters thread. Anyways, you've got to be an idiot if you don't think our government AT LEAST had advanced knowledge of 911. There are way too many questions left unanswered. Do your research and really look at what has happened. I'm not talking about "OH ALEX JONES!!!11! GOOGLE THIS!! WIKI THAT,RON PAUL 08!!". Just use your fucking head. Unless you're a god fearing good ol' wholesome American that believes everything the government hand feeds you.

Actually, many truly devout people don't trust the gov't at all. You're right though... just use your head. It's pretty obvious at this point that they AT LEAST knew before hand.

Sonicifyouwantit
12-16-2008, 01:39 PM
a necessary evil

TickleMeElmo
12-17-2008, 12:29 AM
Good god, I just wasted so much time reading this thread. It's like fucking arguing with my roommate. All these theories are based on anecdotal evidence.

Daft Fro
12-17-2008, 06:26 AM
This man would disagree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces

DaKINe
01-03-2009, 09:30 AM
I gave in...part of the system now.
http://i143.photobucket.com/albums/r142/zn09/hbarcode.jpg

stinkbutt
01-27-2013, 03:27 PM
Hey shaggy, do you think these new gun control laws are just another step towards the new world order?