Another 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

[Cartman 0]

Clip from "documentary" Loose Change

 

Now just don't go yelling at me for believing this stuff, cause I really don't care anymore. Just thought it was interesting at the very least.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I love how these "documentaries" and conspiracy theories are put out, and it's always by people who have no knowlege of building construction, physics, explosives, etc. They guy talking sounds like some college student. I also like how that audio clip in the beginning is too low to even understand.

 

I couldn't sit through the whole thing (I skipped the middle part), but I didn't hear anything about any sort of motive or reason given for this supposed conspiracy. A "psychological attack" on the American people? Whatever. Also, these same people are usually talking about how Bush is controlled by US corporations. Why would he then orchestrate something to actively hurt those same corporations financially? It's not like the economy took a huge upswing after the attacks...

 

Barbarian Muslims Arab terrorists initiated the terrorist attacks, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

It's not interesting at all, unless you like nutjob consipracy theories

 

this is fluff

[Dr. Zaius 0]

My favorite conspiracy theory is that man never walked on the moon. I think there was even a Fox special about it. I know what you're thinking "no, not Fox!" but, Yes they really did it.

[Corey_Lazarus 0]

And I love how that conspiracy theory (man never walking on the moon) was shot to all hell by anybody that knows anything about space travel.

[tekcop 0]

My grandmother believes that no one's walked on the moon, but that has nothing to do with conspiracies. She just says that God'd never let man leave the earth and that He just sent them somewhere else. Something like that.

[SuperJerk 0]

And I love how that conspiracy theory (man never walking on the moon) was shot to all hell by anybody that knows anything about space travel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Relax, man. I think he was being sarcastic by calling it his favorite.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I've been as bleeding heart liberal and Anti-Bush as anyone on this board, save C-Bacon and INXS.

 

9-11 was a terrible tragedy orchestrated by terrorist fuckwads.

 

Nuff said.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

The banner ad for that site is about remote viewing and pre-cognition.

 

Credible no?

[Gary Floyd 0]

I've been as bleeding heart liberal and Anti-Bush as anyone on this board, save C-Bacon and INXS.

 

9-11 was a terrible tragedy orchestrated by terrorist fuckwads.

 

Nuff said.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Took the word right out of my mouth (No, it wasn't from you kissing me. Which you never did. Not that there's anything wrong with that)

[Red Baron 0]

I love how these "documentaries" and conspiracy theories are put out, and it's always by people who have no knowlege of building construction, physics, explosives, etc. They guy talking sounds like some college student. I also like how that audio clip in the beginning is too low to even understand.

 

I couldn't sit through the whole thing (I skipped the middle part), but I didn't hear anything about any sort of motive or reason given for this supposed conspiracy. A "psychological attack" on the American people? Whatever. Also, these same people are usually talking about how Bush is controlled by US corporations. Why would he then orchestrate something to actively hurt those same corporations financially? It's not like the economy took a huge upswing after the attacks...

 

Barbarian Muslims Arab terrorists initiated the terrorist attacks, and anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If you have seen the whole documentary (which is fucking long) the person does go into great detail on how the buildings were made, and the scinece of the beams and what not.

 

I mean its more believeable than most peoples theories are

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Baron, he may go into detail, but he continously misses very BIG points. It screams of someone who took a class or two but didn't ever learn the craft.

 

It's not believable. It's bad science. ANY building construction or structural engineer can tell you that. Plus, the whole

 

PLANES CRASHING INTO THE BUILDING!!!

 

kind of fucks any conspiracy theory up. NEXT!

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Yeah, that and we know who the terrorists were on the plane, the people that died in the crashes, etc.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Soooooo... how many of you actually watched it all the way through?

 

EDIT- And towards the last post: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

[Stephen Joseph 0]

i watched it for one minute...

[SuperJerk 0]

Soooooo... how many of you actually watched it all the way through?

 

EDIT- And towards the last post: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If its on the internet, it must be true.

[Adam 0]

Hey, the guy makes some good points. He obviously researched his work one hell of a lot. Not saying he's right, we'll never know. But he makes good points.

[CBright7831 0]

Yup, it's getting that close to that time of year where 9/11 conspiracy theories start...again.

 

I remember last year there was one theory about how a plane didn't crash into the Pentagon.

[SuperJerk 0]

Hey, the guy makes some good points.  He obviously researched his work one hell of a lot.  Not saying he's right, we'll never know.  But he makes good points.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Is it really considered "research" if its made up?

[Cartman 0]

Of course it's "Made Up" because you say so

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, I could say that the Eagles took a dive in the Super Bowl this year. Saying it didn't happen doesn't mean it didn't. No one's found out about it, is all.

[SuperJerk 0]

Of course it's "Made Up" because you say so

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The problem with that website is that it takes the slightest hint of circumstantial information or conjecture and twists in into definitive proof. For example, the fact that a flight attendant only saw 4 hijackers instead of 5 can easily be explained by pointing out that maybe she just didn't see one of them.

 

The author of the website also cleverly mixes in a real news report that says nothing to support his conclusion with a link to a website (http://www.americanfreepress.net/051302/FBI_Admits__No_Evidence_/fbi_admits__no_evidence_.html) that makes a claim of events using poorly worded statements of conjecture, rather than actual quotes from the FBI that say what he's saying the FBI said.

 

From example:

That 19 Muslim men who have apparently disappeared have been named as the hijackers is not in doubt.

 

What is in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything, either individually or together.

 

The amazing possibility remains that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of the 19 Muslims who have been assigned guilt in the tragedy.

 

Conjecture does not equal fact. Saying its "in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting anything" is not the same as saying "those 19 men were not actually plotting anything".

 

Another link (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011008fa_FACT) cited as a source critical of the 9/11 investigation uses conjecture by unnamed sources as evidence and was published barely 3 weeks after the attacks, before the investigation was even close to being complete.

 

So, upon carefully reviewing the evidence, I can only conclude that the entire article (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html) is nothing but fabricated stupidity.

[Dr. Zaius 0]

And I love how that conspiracy theory (man never walking on the moon) was shot to all hell by anybody that knows anything about space travel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Relax, man. I think he was being sarcastic by calling it his favorite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed, I was.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050801.shtml

 

John Leo had a great column in the paper today, in regards to terrorist apologists. I think everyone should read it.

[SuperJerk 0]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnleo/jl20050801.shtml

 

John Leo had a great column in the paper today, in regards to terrorist apologists. I think everyone should read it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll summarize the article:

 

Bush good. Liberals bad. Civil libertarians suck. The End.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

You forgot about the part where fighting terrorism intelligently is a bad strategy because it fails to address the fact that they could be attacking us any second now. Go go, knee-jerk reaction.

 

My favorite part was the part where "liberals want (x)" like "liberals want Guantanimo shut down." This liberal just wants the wheels of trials and due process to start moving.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

Enemy combatants and terrorists aren't entitled to due process. The Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed soldiers of a nation.

[Stephen Joseph 0]

Yes, but what happened to assuming innocence?

 

I detest our subways becoming 'policed' If someone wants to blow something up, adding more security only increases the reward of success. There's only two options. Glass a country after each attack, or ignore em. Stop giving em the attention they want.

 

Sigh. Economic insight is lost upon the social conservatives

[Art Sandusky 0]

I figured out why I'm on the left today. I look at the extreme long term situation. It would seem to me that the Right is more into making people's immediate lives better, instead of putting forth a little effort for people generations from now.

 

I'm not a big fan of being called a "terrorist apologist" because I want to see some actual motion of these prisoners toward being prosecuted or set free, whatever. I also don't like being an "apologist" because I'm willing to take time to learn about terrorist motives and their justifications in order to make a better judgement on what needs to be done to combat this crap.

 

The article is baffling before you reach the end of that first section. I don't think people having reservations about further police involvement in their daily lives is a "perverse reaction." The guy also needs to veil his hatred of Moslems more effectively. You can tell who recognizes the problem and who doesn't by whether they're called Arabs or Extremists.

[SuperJerk 0]

My biggest problem with racial profiling is that it makes no sense.

 

Racial profiling assumes all terrorists look like middle easterners.

 

This is wrong because the US has a long history of white terrorists, whether they be the KKK, anti-abortion extremists, environmental extremists, or anti-government types.

 

This is also wrong because it assumes that even if someone is of middle eatern ancestry, they cannot alter their appearance using make-up, wigs, color contacts, etc., to appear to be something else.

 

If people like Michelle Malkin and John Leo would think more strategically, instead jumping into their "the most obvious course of action has to be the right one" mentality, they'd see this. But being rational doesn't sell books or get people to read your "column" these days.

 

So, please, if you're a right wing hack, think your ideas through before you put them out there for the world to see. Your stupidity is making the rest of us look bad. People in other countries have access to your rants, and some might even be using them as examples of how dumb and racist we are.