| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/22/2006 : 7:18:49 PM
UPDATE, LOW QUALITY VIDEO CLIP HERE:
http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911truthCNN.mov
WATCH TONIGHT AT 11pm EVERYONE!!!!
I GOT TO SEE IT AT 7PM AND IT WAS A FIRST! MAINSTREAM CORPORATE NEWS FINALLY COVERING 9/11 TRUTH!
Further Information on Tonight's CNN Headline News 9/11 Story
Dam Break for "9/11 Truth?" - Webster Tarpley and Charlie Sheen hit the Mainstream
It will be a first for America's mainstream media tonight. CNN Headline News will air an interview with "9/11 Truth" author Webster Griffin Tarpley on Showbiz Tonight (7-8 p.m., replay at 11).
Tarpley will comment on Sheen's remarks and size up the various schools of "9/11 conspiracy" thought on CNN. The new edition of Tarpley's "Synthetic Terror" points out the different viewpoints on 9/11, which range from the Bush administration version, to the "bungling negligence" theory partly espoused by the 9/11 commission, to the "Let It Happen on Purpose" or LIHOP theory, a compromise popular among liberal intellectuals like Michael Moore.
..
CNN's move comes in the wake of a far-reaching article in New York Magazine on the 9/11 controversy this week, which cited Tarpley, plus hard-hitting comments by actor Charlie Sheen on the Alex Jones talk radio show, infowars.com, on Monday.
..
Tarpley's message to people of good will: "If you want to stop the war in iraq, and prevent the attack on Iran, the only way to do it is to put 9/11 truth on the front page everywhere. Make the official version explode, or the bombs will."
This information was sent in via the publisher of Webster Tarpley, we have not received any second source to confirm.
Mike Berger, Media Coordinator for 911truth.org, has also just been confirmed by phone to be on the show tonight as well.
Update:
Watch TV Tonight (Really!) - 911truth.org
Mike Berger, Media Coordinator of 911Truth.org, will be featured tonight on CNN Headline News Channel's "Showbiz Tonight," which airs at 7pm Eastern Monday through Friday, and replays at 11pm Eastern.
|
| 100 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| rubylith |
Posted - 07/28/2006 : 2:33:53 PM
C-Span Airing Of L.A. Conference Shows Mainstreaming Of 9/11 Truth
Fresh injection of credibility advances movement
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | July 28 2006
A decision that many of us were waiting on with baited breath - C-Span's scheduling of the American Scholars Symposium highlights - infuses the 9/11 truth movement with a fresh injection of credibility and exposure to more mainstream audiences.
The panel features incredible presentations by 9/11 Scholars for Truth founder James Fetzer, BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt. Col., USAF, ret., Filmmaker and Radio Broadcaster Alex Jones, and Terrorism Expert Webster Tarpley.
C-Span viewers will witness what many consider to be the most hard hitting conference to date including the most professional and credible speakers ever assembled.
Many have expressed a degree of frustration that some quarters of the 9/11 truth movement are not as bold in their stance when drawing conclusions about 9/11 evidence as is necessary to make an impact. The American Scholars Symposium was crystal clear in its summation that 9/11 represents an inside job carried out by criminal elements within the US government. The deliberate implosion of the twin towers and Building 7 allied with the reversal of routine air defense procedures leave no other explanation than the fact that the attack was a self-inflicted wound.
Preaching to the choir is a method best left in the past and the C-Span airing is a positive step towards reaching out and educating those who remain in the dark about the staggering volume of evidence which clearly indicates that the official story behind 9/11 is a fraud.
The distinction, background and high esteem of the speakers at the conference, coupled with C-Span's notable reputation as a bellwether of the mainstream body politic, provides for a perfect symbiosis to advance the credibility and critical acclaim of the 9/11 truth movement as something far weightier and more influential than a cadre of conspiracy theorists - a label still peddled by fading elements of the blowhard establishment press.
It is crucial that everyone see this historic panel discussion on C-SPAN. Tell your friends and family, email colleagues, and post links on message boards. This is an incredible step in spreading the word about the truth about 9/11. It is vital that you focus your educational efforts solely on those who are still unaware of cover-up pertaining to 9/11.
The program will air on C-SPAN 1 at 8PM EST (7PM CST) on Saturday, July 29th and then air again for the West Coast at 11pm EST (10pm CST). You can watch the program online at the times stated above by clicking here.
9/11 Symposium: Professor Steven Jones
Professor Steven Jones gives an illustrated keynote speech about the role of incendiary devices used in the destruction of the twin towers and Building 7. Jones has often been cited as the torch carrier for a newly defined 9/11 movement characterized by science, common sense and credibility.
9/11 Symposium: Lt. Col. Bob Bowman
In this presentation Bowman discusses the ignorance surrounding the events of 9/11 and its aftermath and details the NORAD cover-up surrounding intercept procedures that were not properly executed on that day - drawing from his own experience as an Air Force pilot and his Ph.D. in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Cal-Tech.
9/11 Symposium: Professor Jim Fetzer
Fetzer details the implausible collapse of the twin towers according to the melting point of steel in comparison with the temperature of jet fuel. This 78-minute high quality presentation also covers the controversy at the Pentagon in depth with slides to accompany the discussion.
William Rodriguez: 9/11 Hero
Rodriguez passionately engages the audience and discusses the relentless media circus that followed him in the days after 9/11 and his eyewitness accounts of explosions in the underground basement levels of the towers.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 09:00:22 AM
i would suggest, peewee, that if you haven't seen the video, you're not really qualified to have an opinion on it one way or the other. that you didn't write that post, but rather copy and pasted someone else's work as an argument against the video you haven't seen, indicates that you do, in fact, have an opinion on that vidoe. my statement and underlying logic, which says your opinion on the video does not matter and that you're not really entitled to an opinion on it because you didn't watch it, holds true still. now, the article itself, taken without condsideration as to how it got here, is a valid argument against rubylith. my argument isn't against the article. it's against you for arguing over something you've never even seen. you can't possibly understand what you posted fully if you've not seen the video that the article addresses. it's the same reason why i think reading movie reviews is stupid.
you also seem to be under the impression that i believe the theories which rubylith put forth. i don't. i'm not convinced yet. but i do concede a valid arugment when i see it. the difference, i think, is i read the things he posts and i think "yeah that's a good point. what's up with that?" he reads them and thinks "yeah, that's a good point." and then immediately comes to a conclusion. you just steadfastly refuse to hear any of it.
i don't understand where this idea that everyone is entitled to an opinion on everything comes from. it's a silly idea. if a person don't know anything about it, or doesn't fully understand the opposing sides argument, then that person just isn't entitled to an opinion on it. their opinion doesn't mean anything. there's tons of shit i don't have opinions on because i'm ignorant of the topic. i also don't like the idea that everyone's opinion is equal. nope. who's opinion on plumbing is more valid? mine or a plumbers? the answer is a plumber. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/30/2006 : 08:20:26 AM
Umm I think we figured it wouldn't be worth reading because of this perticular statement:
quote:
Anyway here's an unoriginal thourough debunking of the entire "loose change" theory and others. I've not watched the video's and still don't plan to. This is also going to be unformated and hard to read. Anyway have at it. See you in a few months when they finally convince Kim Jong Il to hold a 9/11 investigation
Not to mention the post goes on and on, why not in your own reasearch and words you put together something that may show that the World Trade Center WASN'T brought down by internal explosives and thermite. Heck, you may even win the $1,000,000 reward to anyone that CAN prove it.
PeeWee, try and focus on ONE thing here, lets say Building 7, how did the building collapse? Try researching it on your own, instead of getting a cut and paste from some right wing war lover like Hannity.
Their really was never an official explanation, and the 9/11 Commission head Thomas Kean has business ties to the Bin Laden family...now don't you think those 2 THINGS ALONE should merit a new independent investigation?
You can play the role of apologist and call me names, but it only gives credit to my cause. There is no stopping the 9/11 truth movement. You think this STARTED with 9/11??? Go onto google or wikipedia and search for:
Operation AJAX
Reichstag fire and Hitler's rise to power
Gulf of Tonkin
USS Liberty
Operation Gladio
Those were all "false flag" attacks, designed to look as if they were carried out by other groups.
I mean you can believe 19 highjackers from a cave in Afghanistan (oh I mean Saudi Arabia but we'll just ignore that, and bomb the hell out of Afghanistan, since the order was on Bush's desk in August 2001 to invade.) took over 4 planes with box cutters and plastic knives and crashed them into 75% of their targets AND within 45 minutes had 2 of the 2nd largest steel buildings in the world AND a building that wasn't even HIT BY A PLANE, Building 7 (which housed the FBI, CIA, DoD) collapse at the speed of gravity for the first time in history...but if you do believe that, then YOU my friend are the conspiracy goon.
It blows my mind that like 15% of Americans still believe the official fable. |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 06/29/2006 : 11:25:19 PM
I DIDN'T WRITE IT YOU FLIPPING IDIOTS
If you'd even read the first few sentances you'll see that.
I found that on the internet and posted it here. It doesn't matter that I haven't seen them because the original author has.
How can you possibly trust the opinions of people that won't even read my statements before ridiculing them.
Anyway the world is better off ignoring "come to grips with reality" rubylith. The post about Bush recently using "Statements" was argued as being a dictatorship. I read the article. The statements have DIRECTLY to do with national security. As the commander and cheif he has the every right to decide on issues of national security. It says that in the article. I mean rubylith didn't even read it obviously and yet makes his blind blanket statements with no facts to back them up.
This is his whole. Blanket statements and generalizations. He offers no more and researches based on no more. "obviously peewee wrote that. I'm not reading that!"
Get over it you closed minded fools. I mean do you have any idea how narrow minded and shallow you guys are. Any alternative to your thinking, even Dan P. who generally has a good head on his shoulders, gets shut down without any kind of consideration, review or research. You guys are the ones practicing dictatorship on thought. Especially with the "brainwashed" crap that ruby keeps pulling.
Anyway learn to read something before making an ass out of yourselves. hahahaha
I hope someone else calls you out on that. Shutting an article down without reading it. TWICE! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 07:57:26 AM
Absolutely, and the 9/11 Comission, Omissions and Distrortions. |
| pants_happy |
Posted - 06/25/2006 : 03:46:56 AM
i would highly suggest reading the book "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin (costs $15 US). the premise of the book is "Taking to heart the idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to be investigated..." it lays out the facts, evidence, and circumstantial evidence surrounding 9/11 and The War on Terror, and the cases for complicity or coincidence dealing with the US government. it covers reports from the mainstream press, other reachers, and words from the members of the bush administration. it uses deductive reasoning and draws logical conclusions from the evidence, for the purpose of pressing for a more thorough investigation into the worst attack on american soil since pearl harbor. it's only 201 pages and well worth the time it takes to read. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 7:09:59 PM
I was curious to what rhetoric has been put out there recently, you're right though, I prolly shouldn't have given him the time of day. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 5:00:29 PM
"Anyway here's an unoriginal thourough debunking of the entire "loose change" theory and others. I've not watched the video's and still don't plan to."
did anyone else just stop reading after reading those two sentences? i did. i read that and then i scrolled down the rest of his post with fiendish glee, not even reading one word because i know none of it means anything. your post was very big, peewee, but guess what? none of it means fuck. it doesn't. any comment you make on the movies has absolutely no meaning whatsoever, because you haven't and won't see it. so i mean, why the fuck even open your mouth?
rubylith, i don't understand why you responded to him here. he didn't see it. HE DIDN'T FUCKING SEE IT. nor does he plan to. did you seriously read all that shit he posted, after he said he didn't see it? what a waste of time. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/20/2006 : 09:15:54 AM
quote:
Originally posted by peewee_zz
I've not watched the video's and still don't plan to. This is also going to be unformated and hard to read. Anyway have at it.
See what we have to deal with? People that have done NO investigation themselves, people who rely only on movies, and people who tie themselves to rhetoric. PeeWee I understand it is hard to come to grips with reality, but, the official story just does not add up, period. You can copy and paste as much "debunkings" as you can, but the fact still remains...the 9/11 comission was a fraud and we need a new investigation. Those poor firefighters, they tried to tell us, but we did not want to listen, because most of us are fucking ignorant, and happy to be blind.
I will quickly go through one of these:
" How could two 110-story skyscrapers be rigged with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing the marks left by drilling, hearing the work, or seeing the workers? Contrary to what some will tell you a controlled demolition requires weeks to plan and days to install charges, and this all being with a fairly large crew of men planting the charges."
- possibly because the top portions of the buildings and the basement had radom "power downs" in the weeks prior to 9/11. All power was shut down and all security cameras were shut down. Don't forget about who headed security...Marvin Bush, working for SECURECOM...and perhaps it was mostly a mixture of thermite, which can easily be seen pouring out of the WTC here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=545886459853896774 and here is something from tv about thermite, compare: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrCWLpRc1yM&search=thermite
Anyway, I don't have time right now to go through the rest of this, feel free to research and see why PeeWee is wrong, or why I am wrong....don't take our word for it, read the documents and firefighter testimonies.
Maybe start looking up who Thomas Kean (9/11 Comission Chairman) is and who he is involved with, or go read the transcripts of the firefighters tapes, or listen to them, perhaps Do download Operation Northwoods from the Library of Congress, or maybe go read who long it took for fighter jets to be scrambled from the government's own websites, or calculate the Law of Falling Bodies, or watch the multiple angles of the blast points from all of the buildings, or read about the Gulf of Tonkin.
We can argue forever about this, but whether your simply just believe corporate rhetoric all day, or actually go and DO research and read official government documents with your time, the fact remains, a lot of people are dead, we have an endless war, our civil liberties are shot, we have a poilice state, and we have a survellience state, not to mention a National ID Card coming May 2008.
Americans are fixed on entertainment and sports and tv and their jobs and money and greed and drugs and alcohol and just being ignorant to the history of the place we are from...it is sad that by now most Americans haven't even READ the Bill of Rights, that is one of the saddest things that could have ever of happened. The elite see us as sheep and they have us by the balls. And as long as Americans, and HUMANS in general lay there and become willingly ignorant we will continue to lose our freedoms, be sent to war, pay thousands a year for fuel, be video taped 24 hours a day all under the threat of "terrorism" while these scumbags sit in their mansions and plan attacks all over the globe for world domination. You can sit there and tell me that 19 untrained highjackers (who the BBC reported are still alive) carried out the most sophisticated attack in American history, but I rely on facts and common sense, because I am no longer controlled by the mass media weapon of mass distraction, I am a free thinking individual who has realized that MOST EVERYTHING I was ever taught in school and growing up was a big fat lie, and I wasted countless amounts of hours watching the Real World, and Football and this and that and this and that garbage. Say what you want, but if you actually believe the government's account on 9/11, you better go back to the drawing board, because myself, the members of the 9/11 families, and the members of 9/11 truth and 42% of Americans will succeed in having an independent investigation, and maybe by that time when MSNBC and FOX report on it and finally break down, maybe then you will believe me, until the government does it again, and...again.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
-- Mahatma Gandhi
|
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 06/19/2006 : 11:03:48 PM
O.k. I promise this is the last post and then I'm gone for another so many months. Basically when rubyliths says that "The dam is breaking" I found that in real life this just means that somebody aknowledges the cause as a conspiracy theory instead of just ignoring him like most people do. I'm obviously not rational like most people so sorry for acknowledging the whole thing.
Anyway here's an unoriginal thourough debunking of the entire "loose change" theory and others. I've not watched the video's and still don't plan to. This is also going to be unformated and hard to read. Anyway have at it. See you in a few months when they finally convince Kim Jong Il to hold a 9/11 investigation.. Lol
Here goes:
September 11th Conspiracy Theory Debunkings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Controlled Demolition of the Twin Towers Theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The controlled demolition theory may seem to fit the events of 9/11 well at a glance from the untrained eye, but really simple logic and analyses easily debunk this theory. The problem is most of these advocates think that controlled demolition is something that is easily or quickly done, but in reality it is one of the most precise and delicate processes there is. Let's have a look at everything wrong with this theory.
Installation of Charges
-- How could two 110-story skyscrapers be rigged with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing the marks left by drilling, hearing the work, or seeing the workers? Contrary to what some will tell you a controlled demolition requires weeks to plan and days to install charges, and this all being with a fairly large crew of men planting the charges.
- Holes must be drilled to specific depths in key areas and charges must carefully be placed in this holes. These charges stick out quite noticeably from the holes, and trying to conceal them complicates things even further.
- Not only that, but the charges are all linked through wires, wires which would have been extremely obvious. If we are to assume that they also managed to hide these as well - though they would have to be hidden for as much as 70 or more stories in each tower - this too would add a considerable amount of time to the preparation process.
- There is a process known as pre-weakening that all buildings set for controlled demolition undergo, in which extra supports and non-load-bearing walls from the building are removed. This would have left unmistakable evidence behind for employees and tourists alike to notice and, but there is more still.
- Next buildings are subjected to a test blast BEFORE the laying of charges, to gauge the strength of the supports. A test explosion would've been noticed by people inside and out, and obviously this did not happen.
-- So unless there is magic involved, how would charges have been planted? Yet another problem in installing charges is that it literally takes days to plant them, and this being on buildings far smaller than the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7. For example, the Brooks and Wiggins Towers, two 20-story buildings in Birmingham, England required four days of installation. This was also with a team far larger than one or two people.
Now just to get a ball-park idea let's do some calculations. 40 stories (both towers combined) = 4 days of work. The World Trade Center (not including World Trade 7) is a combined 220 stories. 220/40 = 5.5. 5.5 x 4 = 22. So we are looking at approximately 22 days worth of laying explosives for the Twin Towers. But, that number is assuming a full-sized crew. Since a full-sized crew would be highly conspicuous, let's assume Bionic Antboy's guess of one or two man teams. This drives the amount of time necessary up exponentially, and as we all know the total time available to potentially plant charges was far less than 22 days, let alone the many more days than that necessary if we assume one or two man crews.
http://science.hows tuffworks.com/buildi ng-implosion2.htm
We're not done yet, folks...
Location of Charges
-- Now as we all (hopefully) know, the collapse of the Twin Towers began right in the approximate impact area of each plane. For this to be achieved via a controlled demolition, the charges would have to be laid just below the impact area. This raises the question; how would a government crew be able to know exactly where to place the charges? If they were too high, the collapses would've originated higher up on the building. If the charges were too low, the collapses would've begun lower than the impact area. Antboy has suggested that the planes could be remotely flown, but even this leaves a lot to be desired.
Even if we are to assume that the planes were remotely hijacked and guided to a precise location remotely, where do the demolition charges come into play? We already know the charges would have to be right at and below the impact area, and we already know that nitroglycerin, TNT, and C-4 are extremely explosive. So how, then, could a commercial airliner crash into the vicinity of many critical charges without detonating them? Nitroglycerin will go off if you so much as look at it the wrong way, and while not as sensitive, TNT and C-4 are still highly explosive. The impact itself would likely be enough to detonate these charges, but the explosion of jet fuel and the ensuing fires would surely do the trick. This would result in either:
a) Immediate detonation of the upper charges, resulting in the collapse of the top portion of each building nearly an hour before the actual collapses did happen.
b) Sporadic detonation of these upper charges, leading to partial and eventually full collapse of the top portions of each tower, would completely disrupt the very delicate process of controlled demolition, rendering the rest of the demolition impossible or useless, given that the cover would be blown at this point in both cases.
c) Immediate or nearly immediate detonation of the upper charges, resulting in a downward pancake of the buildings and full collapse in sync with the airplane impacts, or just momentarily afterwards.
Obviously none of this happened.
Buckling and Leaning
-- In a controlled demolition the buildings are brought down cleanly in a matter of seconds. This includes the time between the first charge detonating and the final piece of building hitting the ground. The Twin Towers, however, began failing long before this could have taken place.
South Tower:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"==0940 AM > A caller trapped in the upper stories of the South Tower reports that the floors are buckling."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==0950 AM > At about this time, a Buildings Department engineer on the scene reports that the twin towers appear to be in imminent danger of total collapse. This assessment - the first clear warning that the towers could fall - reaches the FDNY Chief of Department seconds before the South Tower collapses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==At the South Tower, the intensifying fires on the 80th floor are melting pieces of Flight 175, and molten aluminum is dribbling down the outside of the building. The 83rd floor appears to be progressively drooping onto the 82nd. In a final phone call about this time, a man trapped on the burning 80th floor tells a friend "It don't look too good, Bobby Mac."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"==0958:59 AM > The South Tower of the World Trade Center collapses,"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the time of 19 minutes between the first signs of failure and the actual collapse, which cannot in any way be explained by demolition charges.
North Tower:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"==1007-1008 AM > NYPD helicopter pilots report that the North Tower is "glowing red" in the impact zone and that collapse appears "inevitable.&q uot; The reports are transmitted to police, but Fire Department radios can't pick up police transmissions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==1019 AM > A police helicopter reports that the top of the North Tower is buckling and leaning.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"==1028:25 AM > The North Tower of the WTC collapses,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note the time of approximately 20-21 minutes between the first signs of failure and the actual collapse.
http://cnparm.home. texas.net/911/911/91 1.htm
How can a controlled demolition explain this? No matter how you use charges, they could not possibly explain progressive buckling of columns, molten aluminum, or glowing hot steel.
There is also video evidence of buckling, as seen very clearly in the documentary "Inside 9/11" where a close-up shot of the South Tower impact corner clearly shows windows bursting as the tower sags, and then seconds later the corner collapses down on itself (shown in slow-motion as well). I highly recommend that all of you purchase a copy of or otherwise find a way to view this two-part documentary, which should help clear up a lot of issues about September 11th.
Cover-Up
-- Possibly the biggest problem of all with the controlled demolition theory is the number of people who would have to be complicit with the conspiracy.
Passengers and/or Family Members - Passengers on all flights reported armed hijackers getting up, stabbing a passenger and/or flight attendant, spraying some sort of chemical irritant to subdue passengers, and then storming into the cockpit. If this is a lie, passengers and/or their family members would have to be in on it.
FEMA - FEMA did a study after 9/11 and concluded that the buildings had indeed collapsed as a result of the airliner impacts and the subsequent fires. Had there been a controlled demolition, experts at FEMA would undoubtedly have picked up on it and would have to have deliberately lied in their report, thus covering up knowledge of a conspiracy.
NIST - The NIST published a subsequent report that supported FEMA's findings. The NIST is composed of some of the finest experts in structural engineering, and they would have, without a shadow of a doubt, picked up on the tell-tale signs of a controlled demolition. Their report says nothing of a controlled demolition, so clearly they would've had to have suppressed any such findings.
FBI - The FBI confiscated black boxes, video tapes, etc. from that day, so any foul play would be easily evident to them and they would be an absolutely crucial part of any conspiracy theory.
Demolition Crews - Since the notion of one, two, or just a small number of workers rigging two of the largest buildings in the world with enough explosives to bring them down all without being noticed is absurd, we must assume a standard size crew would be required. Obviously there is no way to fool or mislead a demolition crew as to the purpose of any charges laid, so unless we assume a team of dozens or hundreds of demolition workers rigged the building and never thought about it again we have to believe that they would be willingly silent about the conspiracy.
NYPD pilots - As I provided above, NYPD helicopter pilots reported buckling, leaning, and glowing hot steel some 20 minutes before each collapse. As I've already established this could in no way shape or form be explained by a controlled demolition, so it is either true or the pilots lied, thus becoming knowing members of the conspiracy.
And more...
Clearly any conspiracy here would require the involvement of hundreds, if not thousands, of people all cooperating and none saying anything since. I'm sure you all know that the more people involved the greater the likelihood that a conspiracy will fail. Controlled demolition may seem appealing at a glance, but once you stop and think about it controlled demolition is about as ridiculous as saying pixie dust caused it all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentagon "No-757" Theories
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since September 11, 2001, many conspiracy theorists have argued that the damaged inflicted upon the Pentagon could not have been caused by a Boeing 757 - American Airlines Flight 77 to be exact - but rather that it must have been caused by a cruise missile sent by the United States Government in a day of attacks on itself. This theory is all too easily debunked, particularly by photographic evidence. Like the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center theory, the cruise missile theory and Global Hawk theory appear to work at the glance of an untrained and uneducated eye, though even casual examination quickly proves these theories incorrect. That said, I will now do just that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical Evidence of a Commercial Airliner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What the cruise missile theory completely fails to explain is the physical evidence of a Boeing 757 found amongst the debris of the Pentagon. None of this physical evidence can be attributed to a missile, Global Hawk, or A3 Skywarior. Now, let's have a look at some of them.
The Wheel
The wheel found in the rubble of the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhshdy.jpg
The wheels of a Boeing 757: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhshva.jpg
-- Note the exact match between the two wheels. Both have the same eight symmetrical elliptical holes, (only six are visible in the Pentagon photo, but through simple geometry we can infer that there are indeed eight) both have two smaller circular holes at the base of each elliptical hole, and both have the same double-rim feature. I've taken the liberty of highlighting these similarities for comparison here:
Pentagon wheel: http://tinypic.com/ eb9fe9.jpg
Boeing 757 wheel:http://tinypic.com/ eb9edz.jpg
A more detailed comparison here: http://i1.tinypic.c om/n4a893.jpg
How could a missile possibly explain this? Missiles do not have wheels, and the wheel at the Pentagon has undergone serious damage, lending credence to the 757 crash theory. Despite the claims of some conspiracy theorists, however, there is nothing to suggest that this or any of the other physical evidence of a 757 was planted before, during, or after the attack.
It has been suggested by some that this wheel is that of a Global Hawk. Take a look for yourself and you will see that the Global Hawk's wheels have far too many elliptical holes to be a match:
http://i5.tinypic.c om/14jz3ma.jpg
Also, it has been suggested that the wheel was that of an A3 Skywarrior. Photographic analysis again proves this untrue.
A3 Skywarrior wheels:
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n34uwz.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n48vsz.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49hu0.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49iww.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49j6v.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49kl2.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49kw5.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n49l06.gif
Pentagon wheel: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhshdy.jpg
As one can plainly see, there is no match between the wheels of an A3 Skywarrior and the wheel found amongst the Pentagon rubble. This theory is pure myth. Furthermore, while there is absolutely no match between the wheels of a Global Hawk or an A3 to the wheel found at the Pentagon, there is a direct match between the wheels of a Boeing 757 and the wheel found at the Pentagon. This wheel in and of itself disproves the claims that it was a missile, Global Hawk, or A3, but I will continue nonetheless.
The Landing Gear
Another piece of wreckage found at the Pentagon:
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhsimw.jpg
Landing gear on a 757: http://i5.tinypic.c om/14jz19v.jpg
The Tire
The partial tire found at the Pentagon: http://tinypic.com/ efj50j.jpg
Here's a photo of the same tire from a better angle (left) alongside a tire from one of the planes that hit the Twin Towers, which was ejected some two blocks away from the Towers. Note the tire treads on both.
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhslrc.jpg
The Fuselage
The "N" found near the helipad: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhsmfo.jpg
The "C" found near the building: http://i5.tinypic.c om/14jxqna.jpg
http://i6.tinypic.c om/14jyc0g.jpg
Another piece of silver fuselage found on the lawn: http://i6.tinypic.c om/14jyg6p.jpg
The side of an American Airlines 757: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhspaq.jpg
-- Note that the silver coloration on all three pieces matches that of the American Airlines paintjob, the red lettering with white outline matches that of the American Airlines lettering, and the visible pieces of 'N' and 'C' respectively from 'American' on the Pentagon debris. (It is possible that the partial letter is also an 'A' or 'C' or even an 'E' but by most accounts it is indeed the top of an 'N') As with the other pieces of physical evidence these chunks of fuselage are all clearly damaged, and there is no evidence to suggest that they were planted.
The Engine Parts
The RB211 combustor case found at the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhssao.jpg
The RB211 compressor found at the Pentagon: http://i1.tinypic.c om/mht0jk.jpg
The RB211 turbine found at the Pentagon: http://i5.tinypic.c om/14jyfpf.jpg
A detailed analysis of the 757 engine remains: http://www.aerospac eweb.org/question/co nspiracy/q0265.shtml
The Hole in the Facade
A widescreen shot of the Pentagon shortly after the plane impact, showing just how large the damaged area was. Conspiracy theorists have claimed that the damage was simply too small to be from a 757, and that the wings left no damage when they should have done just that. Sorry, that's just not the case. The wings very clearly did leave significant damage to the structure, and photographic evidence supports this.
http://i1.tinypic.c om/n30su8.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhu34z.jpg
The Damaged Cars and Light Poles
As Flight 77 approached the Pentagon it knocked down five light poles. Here is a graphic showing their locations (hit poles are highlighted): http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhuclf.jpg
As you can plainly see, the poles are simply too far apart for a missile of any sort to have hit them. The two furtherst light poles are some 90 feet across from each other (yes, that's horizontal, not diagonal). Thus, it would take a plane with a wingspan of no less than 90 feet to hit all of these light poles on the way into the Pentagon. An A3 Skywarrior has a wingspan of only 72 ft. 6 in. ( http://www.globalai rcraft.org/planes/a- 3_skywarrior.pl ) Therefore it is impossible for an A3 to have downed the light poles on the highway.
A Global Hawk – with a wingspan of 116.2 feet ( http://www.globalai rcraft.org/planes/rq -4_global_hawk.pl ) – does have a wingspan wide enough to span the distance between the downed light poles, however it is highly unlikely that this would be possible when one considers the fact that the wings of a Global Hawk are incredibly thin and weak. It comes as no surprise, however, that Flight 77 could very easily have hit all of these poles while still on its trajectory into the Pentagon. The wingspan of a 757 is 124 ft. 10 in. The wings are strong enough to take out the light poles without sustaining severe damage. It may very well be that they were somewhat damaged, however, and that the white trail seen in the Pentagon footage is a result of this.
Photographs of some of the damaged light poles and vehicles on the highway:
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhufrt.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhug6c.jpg
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhugid.jpg
Note that the poles were very obviously clipped and badly damaged, and eyewitness testimony supports the notion that they were hit by a 757. More on the eyewitness testimony later on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Against the Missile Theory
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- As I have shown above, many pieces of Boeing 757 were found in the rubble of the Pentagon. None of that wreckage can be explained by a missile, in particular the wheel given that missiles do not have wheels. Furthermore, the light poles that were downed (see above) were spaced much too far apart for a missile to have caused the damage to them. Third, the damage to the Pentagon is not at all consistent with a missile strike. A missile cannot explain the 96 foot wide breach to the first floor of the Pentagon, not the visible impact damage from the wings of an aircraft. Lastly, the missile theory completely ignores the testimony of eyewitnesses, none of which reported seeing a missile. There is absolutely no way that a missile was responsible for the Pentagon attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Against the Global Hawk
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The Global Hawk theory is – despite what some particularly ignorant conspiracy theorists have said – utterly impossible. As I have shown above, the parts found at the Pentagon clearly belong to a 757, not a Global Hawk. Neither the front nor rear wheels of the Global Hawk match that which was found at the Pentagon, nor does the Global Hawk match any of the other physical evidence found at the Pentagon. The Global Hawk - while its wingspan is sufficient to span the length between downed light poles - has wings that are simply too thin and too flimsy to take out the light poles, and indeed too thin and too flimsy to penetrate the thick, fortified wall of the Pentagon. There breached section of the Pentagon was 96 feet across, and there is simply no way a Global Hawk could create this damage. Physical evidence aside, dozens of eyewitnesses who saw the impact all reported commercial airliners, and absolutely none described anything resembling a Global Hawk. Furthermore, the plane that hit the Pentagon has been calculated to have been going some 530 miles per hour. The top speed of a Global Hawk is only 454 miles per hour ( http://www.globalai rcraft.org/planes/rq -4_global_hawk.pl ) making it too slow to have possibly been the plane to hit the Pentagon. There's no doubt about it: a Global Hawk could not possibly have been responsible for the Pentagon attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case Against the A3 Skywarrior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- The case against the A3 is just as damning as with the Global Hawk and the missile. As with those two, the A3 Skywarrior is incapable of producing the physical evidence found at the Pentagon. The wheel, fuselage section, and engines do not at all match what was documented and photographed at the nation's military headquarters. The A3's wingspan is some 20 feet too short to have hit the downed and damaged light poles near the Pentagon, and it is more than 20 feet too short to have caused the first floor breach of the Pentagon - not to mention the impact damage extending beyond this breach. To accept the A3 theory one must completely ignore eyewitness testimony, which points completely towards a commercial airliner. One thing is certain beyond any doubt: it is completely and utterly impossible for an A3 Skywarrior to have been responsible for the Pentagon attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Eyewitness Testimony
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider the fact that over 100 eyewitnesses saw Flight 77 – not a missile, Global Hawk, or A3 Skywarrior - impact the Pentagon: http://911research. wtc7.net/pentagon/ev idence/witnesses/bar t.html
The simple fact of it all is that no one has come forth and claimed they actually saw a missile, A3, Global Hawk, etc. hit the Pentagon, and dozens of people have stated unequivocally that they saw a commercial airliner (several have identified it as American Airlines) hit the Pentagon. Conspiracy theories and conspiracy theorists alike completely ignore these eyewitnesses, and though they often claim that "the eyewitnesses all contradict each other and some say they saw a missile" I gladly invite anyone to cite a handful of examples of "contradictory " eyewitness statements, and even just one single eyewitness who claims to have seen a missile hit the Pentagon.
In sum, I will now address many of the arguments that no-757 conspiracy theorists love to use:
1.) How can an entire 757 simply fit into a hole some 16 – 20 ft. in diameter?
A: The answer is simple – it didn’t. That claim is one of many straw man arguments that conspiracy theorists like to formulate, but at no point does the official explanation state that the whole plane simple squeezed into a 16 ft. hole. Not because there never was any 757, but rather because the damage to the Pentagon was far more than simply one 16-20 ft wide hole. The “hole” in the Pentagon was actually 96 feet in length, and is not the small, perfectly circular pinprick that many conspiracy theorists like to claim it was. The “hole” conspiracy theorists speak of is typically the hole punched by the fuselage, but damage from the rest of the plane is very clearly visible in many photographs.
2.) But what about the spools? They weren’t damaged and the plane should have hit them!
A: This myth that the “spools’ on the Pentagon lawn should have somehow presented an obstacle is pure nonsense. It is a myth that has come as a result of several photographs of the Pentagon aftermath in which it appears that the spools are near the building, when in fact the closest one is some 30 feet or more away from the building. Given their distance from the building, the likely bank of the plane, and the fact that we have no idea what shape or position those spools were in before the attack these spools do nothing to disprove the 757 theory.
3.) That’s bull! If it was a 757 there should be debris everywhere! Where is it then?
A: This notion that there was no 757 debris is – like many conspiracy theorist arguments – merely a straw man argument. Witnesses and photographs alike attest to all sorts of plane debris, and I have included photographs of the more notable pieces of debris above. Others claim that it can’t have been a plane because there are no large pieces of debris visible on the lawn. As we can see in the photograph below, this is simply nonsense.
http://i1.tinypic.c om/mhsmfo.jpg
The notion that large pieces, such as the wings and tail, would be left as anything but tiny pieces of wreckage has no base in science whatsoever, and is instead based in the misguided notion of many conspiracy theorists that the wings and tail would simply sheer off and sit intact on the lawn. A crash test conducted in 1992 involving an F-4 Phantom hitting a 10-foot thick section of reinforced concrete moving at 480 miles per hour yielded no large pieces of debris, and the plane was, essentially, reduced to confetti.
http://911review.co m/errors/pentagon/cr ashdebris.html
Not only that, but in late 2005 the crash of a C-130 coming in for landing in Iran into an apartment building produced results very much damaging to conspiracy theories regarding the debris of Flight 77. The plane – traveling far slower than Flight 77 and impacting a wall that was not at all fortified – was reduced to small pieces of debris, which at first glance was not recognizable as plane wreckage. A 757 traveling at higher speeds and impacting a much harder surface would likely have little trouble reproducing this effect.
4.) What about the missile batteries? Someone would have to have ordered them not to shoot down an incoming plane.
A: Incorrect. Many conspiracy sites speak of mysterious missile batteries defending the Pentagon, but there is little truth to this myth. Conspiracy theorists gullible enough to believe this do not at all bother to check on this tale, and instead simply accept it as truth because some conspiracy site told them it was so. Unfortunately for conspiracy theorists, this is nothing but disinformation. Commercial airplanes fly near the Pentagon on a daily basis, and have done so for many years now. This myth is covered in Wikipedia’s “9/11 Conspiracy Theories” page, where the following can be found:
“There are claims that anti-missile batteries at the Pentagon should have intercepted Flight 77. although evidence of the existence of such batteries let alone their purpose has yet to be provided. Commercial aircraft still fly in close proximity to the Pentagon on a daily basis. CNN did report in September 2002 that for the "first time since the Cuban missile crisis almost 40 years ago, armed missile launchers will be protecting the nation's capital by day's end Tuesday."”
This "missile batteries" myth is explored further here: http://www.911myths .com/html/pentagon_m issile_batteries.htm l
5.) There's no way Flight 77 could've made it that far without being intercepted anyway, which proves government involvement.
A: This is another of those myths that has emerged due to ignorance on the part of those eager to jump to nonsensical conclusions. The claim goes that commercial airliners are intercepted on a routine basis, and that these frequent intercepts happen within a few minutes of whatever event has raised alarm. The truth, however, is quite the contrary. Conspiracy theorists cite the case of Payne Stewart's plane being intercepted, an intercept that they claim occured within only 20 minutes. This incorrect argument is explained here: http://www.911myths .com/html/payne_stew art.html
The myth of the "speedy intercepts" is examined here:
And last, the claim of "intercepts are frequent" is examined here:
[url]http://www.911myths .com/html/67_interce pts.html
http://www.911myths .com/html/intercept_ time.html
http://www.popularm echanics.com/science /defense/1227842.htm l?page=3&c=y
6.) None of this matters, because ground effect prevents a 757 from flying that low anyway.
A: The "ground effect precludes a 757" myth seems to have first come about when an article by one "Nila Sagadevan" appeared on physics911. Though the article lists none of his credentials, it does claim that he is "an aeronautical engineer and pilot". Curiously, however, the article--which was originally credited to this "Nila Sagadevan"--wa s recently edited, and now the same article is credited to a man by the name of "Joel Harel" who is also named only as "an aeronautical engineer and pilot. The article features numerous factual errors about the circumstances of 9/11, but nevertheless many conspiracy theorists have used this article as concrete proof that "ground effect precludes the notion of a 757". Thankfully for those who seek the truth, however, an neutral, independent source has weighed in on this matter. Aerospaceweb.org--a site not at all dedicated to 9/11 in any way--investigated this claim after numerous readers submitted questions about it: http://www.aerospac eweb.org/question/co nspiracy/q0274.shtml
So, as usual, this claim also turns out to be pure nonsense.
For more unbiased and rational Pentagon-related investigation, click here: http://www.911myths .com/html/pentagon.h tml
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Sorry fantasy-lovers, but there's simply no question about it. American Airlines Flight 77 - a Boeing 757 - hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Not a cruise missile, not a Global Hawk, not an A3 Skywarrior, but a Boeing 757. Physical evidence as well as eyewitness testimony shows beyond any and all reasonable doubt that none of the three most commonly mentioned craft could have caused the damage seen. This is not opinion, this is fact. Many who continue to purvey these myths claim they seek the truth, yet they feel the compulsory need to spread disinformation again and again. Those who truly seek the truth, however, can see this for what it is: a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 |
| BenPezzner |
Posted - 06/13/2006 : 01:23:43 AM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
Oh an Morgan Reynolds came public about the government's involvement in 9/11, he was in GW Bush's 1st administration. I believe the CHief Economist.
If you stopped posting now, you'd be at 911 posts. I got a kick out of that.
Ben |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/12/2006 : 11:15:13 PM
i'm so sick of hearing about blogs, it defies description. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 07:59:38 AM
Oh an Morgan Reynolds came public about the government's involvement in 9/11, he was in GW Bush's 1st administration. I believe the CHief Economist. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/11/2006 : 07:58:36 AM
lol it was from some guys blog I found, I can't remember where but I think it was on Blogspot. I'll try and find it...ok got it...
http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=23836
Here is the briefing slide |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 7:32:42 PM
and what proof is offered here to back up their claims? i see absolutely none. see one instance with a couple sentences that i'd call "a good point." but a good point isn't proof. this article is 100% without proof. all flesh and no bone. i see no links to other information. i see no interviews, scientific evidence, or anything. wow, it looks looks like the american southwest? yeah, because it's a fucking desert. how are they drawing these conclusions? where is their evidence. why not humor us with proof? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/10/2006 : 08:29:56 AM
haha
check out www.grandtheftcountry.com there is more info there layed out in a nice format, wonder who the web designer is...
Anyway you can get more info there if you desire.
Also check out this read...
Zarqawi's real name Lieutenant Kije
Joseph Cannon, Cannonfire | June 10 2006
Here is a briefing slide prepared for Army General George W. Casey Jr., the top U.S. commander in Iraq.
The slide appeared as an adjunct to the Washington Post's famous article from April 10, which described the psyop campaign to create a Zarqawi myth. Since that time, we have seen the emergence of a Zarqawi video of questioned authenticity, in which the oft-"killed" terrorist was seen conducting exercises in a landscape that resembled the American southwest.
Previously, I asked a question that remains unanswered: If, in fact, Zarqawi conducted these maneuvers (which included the firing of anti-tank weaponry in open desert beneath a clear sky) within the borders of Iraq, why didn't American spy satellites catch sight of him immediately? Google Earth has spotted firefights on Baghdad streets. Surely, American overseers must scrutinize Iraq from the sky carefully and routinely.
Shortly after this video hit the net, the American military released outtakes which showed that Z handled his weapon in an amateurish fashion. Everyone was so busy giggling that few thought to ask questions about the source of this convenient footage. Supposedly, American soldiers found it during a raid. Which raid? Why not humor us with a few details?
On second thought, don't bother. Any details provided by officaldom would never convince, since so many recent events have justified cynicism. The Casey slideshow confirmed what many had already suspected: Zarqawi existed solely because he fulfilled a propaganda function. Once that fact became known, it was necessary to bury the revelation. First came the video. When that ploy failed, Zarqawi lost his value as bogeyman and thus had to die.
Maybe we should put quotation marks around the word "die." Maybe those gruesome images of his corpse were photoshopped. Maybe they were real. Who can say? The only thing we can know for sure is that the scarecrow no longer performed its intended function and was thus subject to removal.
If you know classical music, you've probably heard Prokofiev's "Lieutenant Kije" suite, which originated as the score for a now-lost Russian film based on an old short story. (The same story inspired an early episode of MASH.) The Lieutenant was the fictional creation of a group of pankster soldiers who wanted to give their unit an heroic and inspiring figure. When the Tsar asked to meet this famed warrior, his "death" became mandatory.
The tale of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is simply the latest variant of the Lieutenant Kije legend.
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:18:10 PM
let me ask you. what are you even talking about? you're passing your judgement on college professors? let me break it down: they are accredited college professors with degrees, who teach higher education. you are not. your opinion doesn't matter as much as theirs. their opinions simply mean more than yours. they have brains. that's the way it is sometimes. where's you're fucking degree? how many years have you studied whatever it is you've studied? what makes your opinion as weighty? wow, you're a senior in college? me too. so where does that leave us? and don't give me your "well you're some left wing nut job." you can say it, if you don't mind sounding like an even bigger idiot. left wing? please.
i think maybe you just lost track of yourself at the end there. the baldwin brothers? fred flinstone? it's as if you just have random thoughts playing on a record in your head, and you just dropped the needle somewhere and let fly. i understand your objection, you couldn't find any record of their involvement in the conspiracy or of their speaking out about it, but honestly? you sound like you have many 8 functional brain cells. i'm not saying you're stupid. i'm only saying you sound stupid here. very little of your post is apropos. let alone containing any valid point.
so tell me. we should listen to people with brains? why then refute college professors? aside from the fact that you're one of these conservatives who automatically assumes anyone who doesn't agree with you is a crazy liberal who doesn't know anything. |
| spaceoddity |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 6:22:10 PM
Seems more like you are trying to convince yourself than anybody else. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 12:14:54 PM
correction, just reread my statement, apparently the first guy accused the government of being paranoid about socialist. However, my point still stands, he has no association with the 'conspiracy'. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:55:28 AM
"David Shayler born 24 December 1965 is a former member of the British Security Service (MI5) who was prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act after passing documents to the Mail on Sunday newspaper in August 1997. He alleged that the Security Service was paranoid about socialists and that it had previously investigated Labour Party ministers Peter Mandelson, Jack Straw and Harriet Harman."
British Agent....... reveals British documents..... Paranoid about socialists..... *cough* nut job *cough*
Paul Craig Roberts wrote an article called 'Polls Show Many Americans are Simply Dumber Than Bush'
I love people who think they are smarter then everyone. I really trust them. Also, nowhere could I find anything on Mr. Roberts saying anything about the conspiracy. As many times bush screws up at speaking, and says stupid stuff, he is not an idiot. An idiot doesn't get to power in a democracy, and run a country.
As for as Bob Bowman I assume you mean Dr. Bob Bowman who is associated with Florida's congress. Not the jazz player or Swimming coach Bob Bowman. Anyways, have not found any information about him calling 9/11 a government act.
And as far as the signatures, thanks for listing a bunch of people who signed a petition, mostly professors who are always left wing nut jobs, and I've been at a university for 4 years, most of the professors arent all there.
Anywho, I bet Bob Jones, Bill Williams, and Fred Flinstone also agree with your conspiracy, but I don't care, get some real people who are involved in this conpiracy, then maybe i will care.
I'm surprised you have not listed your true hero's, the baldwin brothers, im sure their high school educated brains know a lot about the world. All their years of drug abuse, and living with lots of money must really add to their political opinions.
I mean c'mon why listen to people who have brains? I mean I would rather listen to people who star on VH1's Celebrity Weight loss program. And people who call Americans stupid, and who think they are better than everyone.
|
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 10:01:38 AM
Also, if any of this was credible, it would be played more than an hour special on CNN. The news people were scraping for stories before Al-Zarqawi's death. They would play this thing all day every day, they only did this 'conspiracy' special because it gets ratings. Just like the moon landing stuff, all for ratings from the easily persuaded. I've got one of those specials on tape, and I've watched it, it makes you think, and it makes ya think, but its not credible. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 09:40:29 AM
Also,Brian Peppers would have to be involved in this conspiracy, and he is not.
http://www.tonyrogers.com/humor/images/brian_peppers1.jpg |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 09:37:07 AM
so you're saying you can keep 2-3 dozen people quiet, when they are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people. First of all those people would need major phsychological help. They aren't trained assassins, the weight of thousands of deaths on your shoulders would drive a normal person mad. They would break down, and something REAL would be leaked. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 06/09/2006 : 09:29:52 AM
Dan great posts btw..
You would only need about 2 or 3 dozen people tp pull it off according to one report, I really wish I could find that.
There are members from Bush's frist term that have gone public, former MI5 agent David Shayler, Paul Craig Roberts, Mr. Bob Bowman, a ton of people...
Here are some of the people aware 911 WAS an inside job and are pushing for a real investigation.
Michael M. Andregg (FM)
Domestic intelligence, Justice and Peace Studies, St. Thomas University, St. Paul, MN
Kevin Barrett (FM)
Folklore, UW-Madison; Director, Khidria, Inc.; Founding Member, Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth, mujca.com
Philip J. Berg, Esq. (FM)
Attorney at Law, Former Deputy Attorney General, former candidate for Governor, Lt. Governor, and U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania, whose web site, 911forthetruth.com, covers the RICO lawsuit that is pending against Bush, Cheney and 53 other Defendants in Federal Court, Southern District of New York
Tracy Blevins (FM)
Bioengineering, Rice University
Robert M. Bowman (FM)
Former Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" Space Defense Program in both Republican and Democratic administrations, and a former Air Force Lieutenant Colonel with 101 combat missions
Robert S. Boyer (FM)
Philosophy; Mathematics; Computer Science; University of Texas, Austin
Clare Brandabur (FM)
Assistant professor of English Literature at Dogus University in Istanbul
Michiel Brumsen (FM)
Philosophy, Engineering ethics
Andreas von Buelow (FM)
Former assistant German defense minister, director of the German Secret Service, minister for research and technology, and member of Parliament for 25 years
Larry Burk (FM)
Radiology, Medical hypnosis
John Bylsma (FM)
French language and culture
Harriet Cianci (FM)
Tunxis Community College, CT
William A. Cook (FM)
Professor of English, University of La Verne, Author of "Tracking Deception: Bush Mid-East Policy"
Richard Curtis (FM)
Philosophy, Seattle University
Lloyd DeMause (FM)
Director of The Institute for Psychohistory, President of the International Psychohistorical Association and Editor of The Journal of Psychohistory
Alexander L. Dent (FM)
Microbiology and Immunology, Indiana University School of Medicine
A. K. Dewdney (FM)
Mathematician, Computer Scientist, University of Western Ontario, physics911.net/spine.htm
Joseph Diaferia (FM)
Political Science and History, State University and City University, New York
Albert Dragstedt (FM)
Classics and Philosophy, St. Mary's College, Oakland, CA
Mike Earl-Taylor (FM)
Criminal Profiling, Investigative and Forensic Psychology, Rhodes University, South Africa
Ted Elden (FM)
Architect, Communicator
Jeffrey Farrer (FM)
Physics/ Materials Science, BYU
James H. Fetzer (FM)
Distinguished McKnight University Professor of Philosophy at the University of Minnesota, Duluth, a former Marine Corps officer, author or editor of more than 20 books, and co-chair of S9/11T
Marcus Ford (FM)
Humanities, NAU
Ruth Frankenberg (FM)
American Studies, Cultural Studies, Author of four books
David Gabbard (FM)
Curriculum & Instruction College of Education East Carolina University
Daniele Ganser (FM)
Historian, Basel University, Switzerland
David Ray Griffin (FM)
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University, Author or editor of some 30 books, including "The New Pearl Harbor" and "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"
Derrick P. Grimmer (FM)
Physics, Alternative energy
David Griscom (FM)
Physics of optical materials, Materials science and engineering, Author/co-author of nearly 200 publications
David Hawkins (FM)
Forensic economics, Joint-venture enterprise, Management and network design
Bruce R. Henry (FM)
Mathematics, Worcester State College
James Hill (FM)
Intellectual property attorney, Radiology, USC School of Medicine
Timothy Howells (FM)
Computer Science, Medical Software, Akademiska Sjukhuset
Charles Hux (FM)
Associate Professor, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School
Dillon K. Inouye (FM)
Instructional Psychology and Technology, Brigham Young University
Don "Four Arrows" Jacobs (FM)
Former Dean of Education, Oglala Lakota College and currently professor of educational leadership at Fielding Graduate University and at Northern Arizona University
Andrew Johnson (FM)
Physics, Computer Science, Software Engineering
Steven Jones (FM)
Professor of Physics, Brigham Young University, co-chair of S9/11T and the creator of its home page and its forum
Michael Keefer (FM)
English and theatre, University of Guelph
Stephen F. LeRoy (FM)
Professor of Economics, University of California, Santa Barbara
Davidson Loehr (FM)
Theology; Philosophy of science; Philosophy of religion
Catherine Lowther (FM)
Goddard College
Graeme MacQueen (FM)
Religious Studies, Peace and Conflict Studies
Jim Marrs (FM)
Author, Researcher, 9/11, JFK, more
Richard McGinn (FM)
Associate Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Southeast Asian Studies, Ohio University. Former chair of Linguistics (10 years) and Director of Southeast Asian Studies (4 years) at Ohio University
John McMurtry, Ph.D. (FM)
Professor of Philosophy, University Professor Emeritus Elect, University of Guelph, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and the author of six books dealing with public policy issues
Scott Meredith (FM)
Oriental languages; Theoretical linguistics; Computational linguistics
Robert Merrill (FM)
Literature and Humanities; Maryland Institute College of Art; Editor, Maisonneuve Press
Ted Micceri (FM)
Statistical Research, Planning and Analysis, University of South Florida
Tim Millea (FM)
ACCESS PI, Computer science
Michael Morrissey (FM)
English as a Foreign Language, University of Kassel, Germany
Raymond Munro (FM)
Professor of Theatre, Clark University
Richard C. Murray (FM)
Sociology, George Williams College, Downers Grove, Illinois
George Nelson (FM)
Colonel, USAF (retired)
Jesus Nieto (FM)
College of Education, San Diego State University
Daniel Orr (FM)
Professor Emeritus, Department of Economics, University of Illinois
Matthew Orr (FM)
Population Biology, Evolution and Ecology, University of Oregon "Is the War on Terror Fraudulent?"
John Pepper (FM)
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona
Peter Phillips (FM)
Sociology Department, Sonoma State University, Global Dominance Research, projectcensored.org
Jean-Pierre Petit (FM)
Aeronautics, astrophysics, engineering
Diana Ralph (FM)
Associate Professor Carleton University School of Social Work. Author of Work and Madness: The Rise of Community Psychiatry
Joseph Raso (FM)
Political Science, Comparative and International Politics, State-sponsored terrorism, resourcespc.org
Paul W. Rea (FM)
Humanities, St. Mary's College, CA, Author of "Still Seeking the Truth about 9/11"
Morgan Reynolds (FM)
Texas A & M Professor Emeritus of Economics, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor for President George W. Bush, and former Director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis nomoregames.net
Karen Rice (FM)
Associate Professor, Western Washington University Libraries
David Sprintzen (FM)
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, Long Island Progressive Coalition, Citizen Action of New York
Morgan Stack (FM)
Accounting, Finance & Information Systems, University College Cork (UCC), Ireland. Co-founder of the Irish 9/11 Truth Movement
Webster Griffin Tarpley (FM)
President, Washington Grove Institute Government-sponsored terror, Author, "9/11 Synthetic Terror"
Constance De Vereaux (FM)
Philosophy and political science, Program in Arts Management, Shenandoah University
Lon Waters (FM)
High performance computing Software engineering Sandia National Laboratory
Carl Weis (FM)
Associate Professor of Creative Arts, Siena College, retired
Richard Welser (FM)
Psychology, Neuropsychology, Philosophy of Science
Gerhard Wisnewski (FM)
Political scientist
Author of "Das RAF-Phantom", "Operation 9/11", "Aktenzeichen 11.9. ungeloest" (Case 9/11 Unsolved), "Mythos 9/11" and (forthcoming), "Verschlusssache Terror" (The secret files of terror)
Judy Wood (FM)
Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
William Woodward (FM)
Psychology, Political Psychology, University of New Hampshire
Gregory M. Zeigler (FM)
Philosophy, Intelligence, Counterintelligence, Military intelligence
ALSO, I'd like to give a big round of applause to Mr. Michael Berg, father of Nick berg who was beheaded in iraq, check out this video from his interview on CNN of what he thought about Al-Zarqawi's execution:
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/A-Morning-Berg.wmv |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 11:57:00 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
we just throw our baggage on the table and gesture at it wildly.
I laughed out loud at that image  |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 7:41:59 PM
your supposition that someone involved would have come out about it by now is, according to you, based on what you think you would do. but, as it turns out, not everyone behaves as you do. so. . .i don't know. your opinion doesn't seem to be based on much. |
| anthony1832 |
Posted - 06/08/2006 : 10:48:37 AM
you guys crack me up. I can't believe you believe that crap. to organize something that big you would need a lot of people involved, and im sure one of those people would have came out by now at such a horrific event, even if it meant the government killing them. If i was involved in that conspiracy in any way, I would come out, even if i was killed by the government, and im sure a lot of other people would do the same. ~~~~BrAiN W~a~S~h~i~NG AcComPliSHEd~~~~~ |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 9:08:35 PM
muskrat raises a fine point. the name calling and shit doesn't do a hell of a lot for one's arguments. but i think rubylith's use of those terms stems more from frustration than contempt. i used to read it as having an "i'm smarter than everyone who disagrees with me" tone, but i think it has more to do with percieving his truth as being rejected simply because people have been too conditioned to reject it and, forgive me for saying this, a certain image of a revolutionary calling to the masses to arise. a little too grandoise for my taste, but not hurtful or arrogant.
me, though? i just like to fight. my thinking is that in debates about religion or politics, no one ever convinces anyone. we just throw our baggage on the table and gesture at it wildly. couple that with the fact that i find insults funny, and you understand where i come from. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 4:49:41 PM
ALL HAIL SATAN! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/07/2006 : 02:25:15 AM
in revelation, the vision of the dragon being cast down and taking 1/3 of the stars with him (i think it's 1/3 if memory serves me right) is a vision of the war in heaven, wherein satan and his rebel angels (1/3 of the total angels) bring war on god and his angels. the dragon falling and taking a third of the stars is satan falling and taking 1/3 of the angels. it's not that the dragon loses, but that the dragon had already lost by the time john had his vision, although he does reappear in chapter 9, the 5th trumpet, i believe, when it says a star fell and it was given the key to the bottomless pit.
i'm glad you bring up revelations, though. today is, or was at least, 6/6/06, and i've been hearing a lot of bullshit about 666. listen. that number? has no meaning now. 666 is the number assigned to the roman emporer nero. in hebrew, the name caesar neron makes up the number 666. further more, it symbolizes extreme imperfection, since the biblican symbol of perfection is 7, and each digit falls one short. so, i mean, 666 doesn't mean the devil and it isn't relevent now. nero is dead and has been for quite some time. i like when people use it to show that they're evil or whatever. wow, yeah, dead emporers who persecuted christians. why not get a fucking clue instead? |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:27:33 PM
OK did some research out of curiosity (haha) turns out Hydras can have anywhere from 1- 500 heads to start off with... and depending on which version of the story it's a dragon-like beast, etc... still I thought of Revelation when I heard "seven-headed dragon".
I refuse to get into any political "debates". Read: people who are fed information/propaganda/news, be it from CNN, or prisonplanet.com, and believe it as absolute truth. Funny when most here don't believe in absolute truth. Anyway, has one been truly proven more accurate or reliable than the other? Anything we are hearing is second-hand, whoever tells us. Is anyone here at the boards a former CIA agent? Anyone see anyone plant explosives? Not that I've heard. If so, you're hearing someone say "It was staged" OR you're hearing "It was all Al-Quaida!" (sp?) Everyone on TV is an "expert". Or a celebrity... They act/sing etc for a living. My dad does commercial HVAC work, and nobody wants to hear his point of view. People worship celebrities, even the dumb-as-a-brick ones. Sheen's questions (except the one about the pentagon plane) sounded like the speculations of anyone who watched TV on 9/11, myself included.
Do I think I have all the answers? No. Do I think the US government spilled all the details about the 9/11 attacks? Absolutely not! And I don't blame them. Secrets exist. But they are not always to cover up things.
So no, I am not a mindless, naive sheep who accepts everything I am told as golden. I, for one, can't wait to get the heck off this world.
I do know one thing, calling your debate opponent a stupid naive sheep (or something of that nature), EVEN IF IT IS TRUE, will DOOM your chances of winning your argument, or persuading him/her that you are right. So to EVERYONE here: ENOUGH sarcasm, MORE pursuit of truth, NO insulting one another, it gets us nowhere. And please, more LOVE.
I think everyone can agree with at least the last paragraph. |
| Muskrat |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 11:03:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
those verses convey a sense of hopelessness. the seven headed dragon, hydra, who heracles, or hercules if you like, was told to slay. but each time he cut off a head, 2 more grew back in its place. to call bush and bin laden part of hydra is to suggest that even if you remove them, two more will take their place.
I thought the verses were referring to the seven-headed dragon (Satan) mentioned in Revelation 12:3... Didn't the Hydra have 9 heads? And in the original myth (meaning not the Disney movie) I didn't think it was a dragon, per se...
Hey, and in Revelation, the Dragon loses! And so does the Hydra! So eventually good wins. Anyway that's just me. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 06/06/2006 : 2:38:20 PM
i think "conspiract buffs" is an inappropriate term. also, i think in some paragraphs the general tone is disparriging and light hearted. when they list the people there, it's heavy on the people who might not be taken as seriously. and the guy living in a cave thing is clearly used to undermine the intergrity of it. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 06/05/2006 : 5:49:16 PM
500 Conspiracy Buffs Meet to Seek the Truth of 9/11
By ALAN FEUER, The New York Times
CHICAGO (June 4) - In the ballroom foyer of the Embassy Suites Hotel, the two-day International Education and Strategy Conference for 9/11 Truth was off to a rollicking start.
In Salon Four, there was a presentation under way on the attack in Oklahoma City, while in the room next door, the splintered factions of the movement were asked — for sake of unity — to seek a common goal.
In the foyer, there were stick-pins for sale ("More gin, less Rummy"), and in the lecture halls discussions of the melting point of steel. "It's all documented," people said. Or: "The mass media is mass deception." Or, as strangers from the Internet shook hands: "Great to meet you. Love the work."
Such was the coming-out for the movement known as "9/11 Truth," a society of skeptics and scientists who believe the government was complicit in the terrorist attacks. In colleges and chat rooms on the Internet, this band of disbelievers has been trying for years to prove that 9/11 was an inside job.
Whatever one thinks of the claim that the state would plan, then execute, a scheme to murder thousands of its own, there was something to the fact that more than 500 people — from Italy to Northern California — gathered for the weekend at a major chain hotel near the runways of O'Hare International. It was, in tone, half trade show, half political convention. There were talks on the Reichstag fire and the sinking of the Battleship Maine as precedents for 9/11. There were speeches by the lawyer for James Earl Ray, who claimed that a military conspiracy killed the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and by a former operative for the British secret service, MI5.
"We feel at this point we've done a lot of solid research, but the American public still is not informed," said Michael Berger, press director for 911Truth.org, which sponsored the event. "We had to come up with a disciplined approach to get it out."
Mr. Berger, 40, is typical of 9/11 Truthers — a group that, in its rank and file, includes professors, chain-saw operators, mothers, engineers, activists, used-book sellers, pizza deliverymen, college students, a former fringe candidate for United States Senate and a long-haired fellow named hummux (pronounced who-mook) who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.
The former owner of a recycling plant outside St. Louis, Mr. Berger joined the movement when he grew skeptical of why the 9/11 Commission had failed, to his sense of sufficiency, to answer how the building at 7 World Trade Center collapsed like a ton of bricks. It was his "9/11 trigger," the incident that drew him in, he said. For others, it might be the fact that the air-defense network did not prevent the attacks that day, or the appearance of thousands of "puts" — or short-sell bids — on the nation's airline stocks. (The 9/11 Commission found the sales innocuous.)
Such "red flags," as they are sometimes called, were the meat and potatoes of the keynote speech on Friday night by Alex Jones, who is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band. Mr. Jones, a syndicated radio host, is known for his larynx-tearing screeds against corruption — fiery, almost preacherly, addresses in which he sweats, balls his fists and often swerves from quoting Roman history to using foul language in a single breath.
At the lectern Friday night, beside a digital projection reading "History of Government Sponsored Terrorism," Mr. Jones set forth the central tenets of 9/11 Truth: that the military command that monitors aircraft "stood down" on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a "controlled demolition" caused by pre-set bombs.
According to the group's Web site, the motive for faking a terrorist attack was to allow the administration "to instantly implement policies its members have long supported, but which were otherwise infeasible."
The controlled-demolition theory is the sine qua non of the 9/11 movement — its basic claim and, in some sense, the one upon which all others rest. It is, of course, directly contradicted by the 10,000-page investigation by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which held that jet-fuel fires distressed the towers' structure, which eventually collapsed.
The movement's answer to that report was written by Steven E. Jones, a professor of physics at Brigham Young University and the movement's expert in the matter of collapse. Dr. Jones, unlike Alex Jones, is a soft-spoken man who lets his writing do the talking. He composed an account of the destruction of the towers (physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) that holds that "pre-positioned cutter-charges" brought the buildings down.
Like a prior generation of skeptics — those who doubted, say, the Warren Commission or the government's account of the Gulf of Tonkin attack — the 9/11 Truthers are dogged, at home and in the office, by friends and family who suspect that they may, in fact, be completely nuts.
"Elvis and Area 51 — we're sort of lumped together," said Harlan Dietrich, a recent college graduate from Austin, Tex. "It's attack the messenger, not the message every time."
To get the message out, the movement has gone beyond bumper stickers and "Kumbaya" into political action.
There is a plan, Mr. Berger said, to create a fund to support candidates on a 9/11 platform. There is a plan to create a network of college campus groups. There is a plan by the British delegation (such as it is, so far) to get members of Parliament to watch "Loose Change," the seminal movement DVD.
It would even seem the Truthers are not alone in believing the whole truth has not come out. A poll released last month by Zogby International found that 42 percent of all Americans believe the 9/11 Commission "concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence" in the attacks. This is in addition to the Zogby poll two years ago that found that 49 percent of New York City residents agreed with the idea that some leaders "knew in advance" that the attacks were planned and failed to act.
Beneath the weekend's screenings and symposiums on geopolitics and mass-hypnotic trance lies a tradition of questioning concentrated power, both in public and in private hands, said Mark Fenster, a law professor at the University of Florida and author of "Conspiracy Theories: Secrecy and Power in American Culture."
As for the 9/11 Truthers, they were confident enough that their theories made sense that on Friday, as a kickoff to the conference, they met in Daley Plaza for a rally (though some called it Dealey Plaza). They marched up Kinzle Street to the local affiliate of NBC where, at the plate glass windows, they chanted, "Talking heads tell lies," as the news was being read.
"I hope you don't end up dead somewhere," a companion said to a participant, hours earlier as he dropped him at the Loop. "Don't worry," the participant said. "There's too many of us for that."
June 5, 2006
Don't know if everyone can use the following link, but if you are an AOL member you should be able to:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060605100209990018&ncid=NWS00010000000001 |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 07:32:45 AM
2nd night of coverage:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/ShowbizTonight20060323/ShowbizTonight20060323.wmv |
| spaceoddity |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 04:04:26 AM
Hey was hoping someone could hook me up with alink to the 2nd part of showbiz tonight.I saw 1,3 and 4 but cant find a link for 2.If this was posted I'm sorry to ask for this again.Ty |
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/29/2006 : 01:40:16 AM
So what can I do? What can we do?? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 9:15:56 PM
BUILDING 7:
http://70.84.33.210/%7Einfomedi/video/previews/170305martialpreview2.wmv |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 6:39:29 PM
UPDATE:
Infowars received an email from author and publisher Sander Hicks this afternoon indicating that the interview with Ed Asner scheduled for this evening on Showbiz Tonight has been cancelled. Hicks, a published author on the 9/11 cover-up as well as a Green Party senatorial candidate in New York was slated to appear with Asner on the program to discuss 9/11. Infowars confirmed with sources at CNN the segment was cancelled because another guest who had agreed to appear as an opposition voice to Hicks and Asner refused to participate the interview at the last moment. The CNN source further indicated that the opposition guest was none other than a former member of the Keene 9/11 whitewash Commission.
Further investigation and probing of several other CNN sources closely connected with the production of the Asner segment on Showbiz Tonight reported that high-level members of CNN management advised the producers of the show to "kill it. " This statement was clearly made to stifle any further coverage of 9/11 despite the admitedly huge ratings boost and response garnered from the recent coverage of Charlie Sheen's statements on 9/11.
"I guarantee that this member of the 9/11 Commission pulled out at the last moment because they think that by simply replying to Asner and Hicks and the comments of Charlie Sheen, he would be giving credence to their statements. This is a strategic move on their part to quash debate and avoid having to actually answer the hard questions about 9/11 which the 9/11 Commission failed to do. This stonewalling technique will not work forever - there are too many people waking up to their whitewash." - Alex Jones |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 5:57:53 PM
oh..it adds up...
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_07_01/Bush___Bin_Laden_-_George_W__B/bush___bin_laden_-_george_w__b.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/09_18_01_bushbin.html
"On September 24, President George W. Bush appeared at a press conference in the White House Rose Garden to announce a crackdown on the financial networks of terrorists and those who support them. #147;U.S. banks that have assets of these groups or individuals must freeze their accounts,#148; Bush declared. #147;And U.S. citizens or businesses are prohibited from doing business with them.#148;
"But the president, who is now enjoying an astounding 92 percent approval rating, hasn#146;t always practiced what he is now preaching: Bush#146;s own businesses were once tied to financial figures in Saudi Arabia who currently support bin Laden.
"In 1979, Bush#146;s first business, Arbusto Energy, obtained financing from James Bath, a Houstonian and close family friend. One of many investors, Bath gave Bush $50,000 for a 5 percent stake in Arbusto. At the time, Bath was the sole U.S. business representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the wealthy Saudi Arabian family and a brother (one of 17) to Osama bin Laden. It has long been suspected, but never proven, that the Arbusto money came directly from Salem bin Laden. In a statement issued shortly after the September 11 attacks, the White House vehemently denied the connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin Laden#146;s, in Arbusto.
"In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he was aware Bath represented Saudi interests. In fact, Bath has extensive ties, both to the bin Laden family and major players in the scandal-ridden Bank of Commerce and Credit International (BCCI) who have gone on to fund Osama bin Laden. BCCI defrauded depositors of $10 billion in the #146;80s in what has been called the #147;largest bank fraud in world financial history#148; by former Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. During the #146;80s, BCCI also acted as a main conduit for laundering money intended for clandestine CIA activities, ranging from financial support to the Afghan mujahedin to paying intermediaries in the Iran-Contra affair.
"When Salem bin Laden died in 1988, powerful Saudi Arabian banker and BCCI principal Khalid bin Mahfouz inherited his interests in Houston. Bath ran a business for bin Mahfouz in Houston and joined a partnership with bin Mahfouz and Gaith Pharaon, BCCI#146;s frontman in Houston#146;s Main Bank.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22bush%22+%22bin+laden%22 |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 5:53:23 PM
Agreed, Dan P, however, Bin Laden again belongs to one of the richest families in Saudi Arabia, he's not some cave rat with an AK. His ties to the CIA run deep and his ties to America's Big Oil run even deeper. Why were they all flown out of the country when no one else was allowed to fly in the collapses' aftermath...doesn't add up. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 5:31:18 PM
Consider this:
Key 9/11 'Patsy Planner' was Triple Agent (ISI, American, and British Intelligence)
B14033 / Mon, 27 Mar 2006 18:44:01 / "War on Terror"
From The Trubune (India)
”... Newman went on to say that “ Saeed Sheikh was probably a triple agent ” who operated for Pakistani, American and British intelligence while being an Al-Qaida’s top functionary. After his release in 1999, Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British national of Pakistani origin, was appointed member of the Majlis Al-Shura by Osama Bin Laden, said the testimony, which did not find mention in the final report on 9/11. ”
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/11/20/224141/75
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060313/asp/nation/story_5962372.asp
http://valis.cjb.cc/ |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 4:52:05 PM
wow nice point again...I didn't realize that.
I have more hope than most...but I don't have access to money for a billion dollar ad campaign to convince everyone 9/11 was done by islamic extremists cause they hate our freedom. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 4:36:43 PM
those verses convey a sense of hopelessness. the seven headed dragon, hydra, who heracles, or hercules if you like, was told to slay. but each time he cut off a head, 2 more grew back in its place. to call bush and bin laden part of hydra is to suggest that even if you remove them, two more will take their place. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 4:11:49 PM
right on...either way...building 7 came down due to explosives.
Fuck bin Laden, Fuck George Bush...as Immortal Technique said it best:
"My words will expose George Bush and Bin Laden
as two seperate parts of the same seven headed dragon."
Thanks for the great insight though, you do have a good point. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 4:02:55 PM
we are/were paying them to be agents of the cia. i'm going to split hairs a little now, and it doesn't have much bearing on the topic. it's like this. even if we are paying bin laden to be an agent of the cia, it doesn't make him a cia agent. i can pay my neighbor to paint my house, but that doesn't make my neighbor a house painter outside of this one instance. it's a subtle distinction, i know, but it sets a different tone. to say "bin laden is a cia agent" gives the impression that he is, as a profession, an employee of the cia, in the same way a house painter painter paints houses as a profession. it's a different story to say he is operating as an agent of the cia. in that capacity, he's a hireling, a mercenary, just as my neighbor is painting my house for money, but may be a secretary professionally. personally, i find the latter more believable. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 4:00:32 PM
Fluffy rules post-organization with an iron fist! AHAHA |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 3:06:17 PM
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 2:50:03 PM by HopefulRollingWaves in response to Rubylith: quote:
Crying won't help ya, praying won't do ya no good.
|
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 3:02:48 PM
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 2:37:17 PM by Rubylith
quote:
News Flash: The Dam is Breaking in the 9/11 Cover-Up
More Stars Go Public with Demands for 9/11 Investigation, Others to Follow
Infowars | March 28, 2006
Award winning actor, director, producer, and pioneering anti-Iraq war activist Ed Asner is scheduled to appear live on the CNN Headline News program Showbiz Tonight (6pm CST). Asner is reportedly going on to support Charlie Sheen's bold and brave stance calling for a real investigation of the events on September 11th, 2001 as well as to raise his own questions.
Also on Showbiz Tonight on March 27, actress Sharon Stone defended Sheen and his First Amendment right to speak out saying that he is brave and that it is important to confront authority.
Asner and Sheen are just two more of many celebrities who have already come forward to question the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Actor James Woods began questioning the official fable in the first weeks right after 9/11. X-Files and Lone Gunmen star Dean Haglund has already gone public on the Alex Jones Show (December 18, 2004) questioning the official story. Actor Ed Bagley, Jr. hosted a 9/11 Truth Symposium in New York City several months ago.
And we have recently confirmed that one of the world's most popular and beloved musicians is awake to the truth about 9/11 and in the very near future may be going public. (I wonder who?)
Many more major stars who are considering going public have contacted us in recent days.
The dam is finally breaking. Former Delta Force Commander Eric Hanney has spoken out in the press about the "War on Terrorism" being bogus and how there is no real threat to the United States. The 9/11 Truth Movemet has reached critical mass and is now exploding. The perpitrators of 9/11 have got to be concerned as more and more people across the globe wake up to the 9/11 hoax.
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/28/2006 : 06:43:31 AM
4th day of coverage, final installment.
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/ShowbizTonight20060327/ShowbizTonight20060327.wmv
The poll ended with over 50,000 votes and 83% believe the government covered up the truth about 9/11.
|
| PJK |
Posted - 03/27/2006 : 06:54:55 AM
Hey Dave, I'm fine, just a lot to digest. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 9:12:46 PM
September 11
Immediately after the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the United States government named bin Laden as the prime suspect. However, in an interview published in Ummat Karachi, on 28 September 2001, although not widely reported at the time, bin Laden stated:
"I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.... The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself.... intelligence agencies in the U.S., which require billions of dollars worth of funds from the Congress and the government every year. This [funding issue] was not a big problem till the existence of the former Soviet Union but after that the budget of these agencies has been in danger. They needed an enemy. So, they first started propaganda against Usama and Taleban and then this incident happened. You see, the Bush Administration approved a budget of 40 billion dollars. Where will this huge amount go? It will be provided to the same agencies, which need huge funds and want to exert their importance. Now they will spend the money for their expansion and for increasing their importance. I will give you an example. Drug smugglers from all over the world are in contact with the U.S. secret agencies. These agencies do not want to eradicate narcotics cultivation and trafficking because their importance will be diminished. The people in the U.S. Drug Enforcement Department are encouraging drug trade so that they could show performance and get millions of dollars worth of budget. General Noriega was made a drug baron by the CIA and, in need, he was made a scapegoat."
|
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 9:05:28 PM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bin+laden+cia&btnG=Google+Search |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 5:43:22 PM
We are essentially paying them to be agents of the CIA, yes. |
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 5:29:20 PM
quote:
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
Check it out.
Interesting, but a little unbelievable. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 3:04:08 PM
http://msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1
Check it out. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 1:16:52 PM
yes, i understand we gave him money and weapons. what does that have to do with him being a cia agent? is everyone we give money and weapons to a cia agent? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 12:53:27 PM
I'm very glad to see you undertsand now. I hope you are not in pain, though these things are truly terrible, knowledge is power. There is a lot of info out there, again, don't believe me or the documentary, it should make you go and research the info seperatly. You can read Operation Northwoods online, do a search on google.
Now it's like, what do we do? Keep spreaing the word, show yor friends and family. I gauruntee you won't have as much trouble as I have. When I "woke up" and realized this it was 2002 and I was called every possible name in the book, anti-american, one guy even wanted to kill me, he said "you anti-america scum I should take you outside and kill you"....that is the mentality the media set inside all of us during that time, if you questions the government you are somehow anti-american, which is completely the opposite.
Anyway, thanks for listening with an open mind, I personally appreciate it, it has been one difficult time to bring these issues to the forefront, but it is time, people ARE waking up, and we are not going to take this horrible slavery machine the government has created, we will resist, to the very end. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 11:17:06 AM
Dan, it is well-documented that he goverment had given Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda millions of dollars and a cache of weaponry throughout the 90's. You think he just decided one day to bite off the hand that fed him? Probably not. He was involved in the attacks...as a scapegoat. Not to say he isn't to blame for anything, he is part of a global network of war and wealth-mongers, which ultimately is the problem we are facing.
Why safely evacuate his family from the country instead of interrogating them at Guantanamo? Lies, lies, lies. |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 11:04:41 AM
Dave, Ok I am a believer now. I just finished watching the movie, all 82 mins 11 sec's of it and I can't dispute what they show and say.
My emotions are all over the place right now, I just don't know what to say but shock comes to mind. As you know, my brother in law was right outside the WTC when the first plane hit and he got covered in debris. One of the students at my school lost his dad in the WTC. Many in my community, and I am sure in your community as well, died that day. I am not totally surprised about this, but I never wanted to believe it. A part of me just wants to believe no one would be that greedy to do such a thing. I was wrong.
I need time to digest all this, I feel like someone just punched me in the stomach. For what its worth, thanks, truth, however painful in the end, is better to deal with. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/26/2006 : 07:09:46 AM
what do you mean?
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 11:33:00 PM
i'm not really into bin laden being a cia agent, though. that's one other thing i don't care for. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 6:21:07 PM
A Navy missle did knock down flight 800...
But what you have to ask is...what was IN building 7?
The CIA, Department of Defense, FBI, IRS, Guiliani's BOmb proof control bunker, and thousands of documents relating to corporate crimes and thousands more on the Oklahoma City bombing.
Building 7 had a few small fires in it, which didn't happen until 3pm that afternoon and came down at 5pmish.
The 9/11 "Report" doesn't even MENTION building 7, that is highly suspect.
You can see in every angle the squibs from the explosives going off, and Silverstein admiteed it, what evidence is there that a few small fires (which never happened before) brought down this MASSIVE steel building? None...
So I find it odd to believe any other wise, because I have evidence to back up my claim, and the conspiracy theorists who believe highjackers carried out the attack on behalf of Bin laden (CIA Agent) have not once drop concluding that the building cam down in ANY WAY EXCEPT EXPLOSIVES.
:) |
| PJK |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 4:17:14 PM
Dave, a question for you. Who do you think set up the explosives in building 7? I am still having trouble with this because according to the video, no one died from that building. If it was part of the 9-11 plot, why spare those lives? Why didn't it just go down when the towers did? I am just trying to fit the pieces together and so far it isn't working.
Also, I remember reading about people who ran into a nearby building, I thought it was building 7 but I guess not, because I thought which ever building it was, some died when they tried to hide there to get away from the towers. According to the video no one died in that building collapse. I might just have it mixed up with another building. Wasn't there a hotel in the mix somewhere?
No problem being nice. I am enjoying the exchange of ideas. Like I said, I don't know what I believe about 9-11, but I like to keep the pathways of ideas open. I do know how it feels to be 100% sure about a conspiracy. I will never be convinced Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone shooter of Kennedy. I also believe one of our missils downed the jetliner that crashed off the coast of NY on its way to Paris a number of years ago.
When I get time, I am definitely going take a better look at all the information you've presented on 9-11. I will probably only get to do it a little at a time, but I will do it. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 10:35:11 AM
Larry SIlverstein said "pull" the demolition term for demolishing a building. "We decided to Pull the building and watched it collapse"
Sure this is fine to save lives, however it takes WEEKS to set up explosives.
The WTC was built to withstand multiple arline crashes and a 150 year storm says its main engineer.
marvin bush, brother of GWB, ran security at Dulles Int'l Airport, United Airlines, AND the WTC, his contract was set to expire on the dya of 9/11, that can be found in Barabara Bush's autobiography, "Reflections".
I could keep going but I think loose Change pretty much covers a lot of it, watch it at www.davecahill.com/loosechange.wmv
the WTC was one of the strongest buildings in the world and came down at the speed of gravity with no resistence which defies the laws of physics. 10.6 seconds after burning for about 506 and a 108 minutes respectively.
The rabbit hole is deep I am glad you show interest, we need a real investigation, not the Bush appointed whitewash.
And thank you fo rbeing so kind, you know, when this all started early 2002 I was told to kill myself, move out o fthe country, called anti-american, almost beat up for showing the evidence, it feels good to finally be in the majority, plus it gives me hope that people will finally wake up.
I just hope when Bush is impeached and Hilary runs for office, a 3rd partty wins, because of Hilary Clinton wins, whihc she will, our country is doomed and it will take another 8 years to wake everyone up.
Reagan and Bush's and Reagan and Bush's to Bush's to Clinton to Clinton to Bush to Bush to Clinton...see a pattern?
hilary is pro war too I just hope that the democrats, who are just as controlled, do not rejoice when she runs...that is IF we even have a fair election...but remember everyone, you can only rig an election if both candidates are controlled, as in Bush/Kerry (cousins and both Skull nd Bones members). |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/25/2006 : 09:07:17 AM
haha hey thanks...whats funny about the Popular Mechanics article is that the Editor in Chief is Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Michael Chertoff, DIrector of Homeland Security, who has his job BECAUSE of 9/11.
Well with 9/11, one thing that is for sure is that building 7 was taken down by controlled deomolition.
Here is the video of Larry Silverstein admitting it:
http://infowars.com/Video/911/wtc7_pbs.WMV
Here is video of building 7:
http://www.prisonplanet.com//video/squibview.mov
MORE:
http://www.infowars.com/Video/911/WTC7COLLAPSE2.WMV
How Could The Explosives Have Been Placed Beforehand?
Ben Fountain, a financial analyst who worked in the World Trade Center Complex, told People Magazine that in the weeks before 9/11 there were numerous unnanounced and unusual drills where sections of both the twin towers and building 7 were evacuated for quote ‘security reasons’. This was obviously the perfect opportunity to place those explosives.
How Did Larry Silverstein Benefit from the Collapse of Building 7?
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. So: This building's collapse resulted in a profit of about $500 million!
Here is the Firefighters tapes:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/firefighterstape.wma
Before you believe or not believe it, you must look at the facts. 9/11 changed the world, I will never wuit until everyone fully and willingly understands.
Oh and here are todays current poll results...
EITHER WAY...this discussion should be on the front of EVERY newspaper, and it is not.
THE VIDEO of building 7 should be on every media channel...but it is not, nor has ever been showed again since 9/11.
As Ghandi said:
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win."
If you want to watch the latest CNN video from last night:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/ShowbizTonight20060324/ShowbizTonight20060324.wmv
44mb.
|
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 6:22:56 PM
AHAHA, deleted my thread I started 7 seconds before Dave posted again. HA. Viva la resistance! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 5:52:55 PM
Make up something? Yea like finding a passport on the ground of the alleged highjacker. Or not even mentioning building 7 in the whitewash report, or let alone the footage of building 7's collapse ever again on mainstream television.
The truth is starting to finally emerge and people are sick of being lied to. Atleast we have facts not fantasy to prove 911 was an inside job. |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 4:31:13 PM
I'm going to conceed, atleast for this thread, because I can't keep up with Rubylith's posts, let alone everyone else.
....................../..\/\.//....
....................|.../|./....
..................../.././......
...................|.._/........
......________/_/..........
.....|UUUUUUUU|......_________
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
.....|UUUUUUUU|.....|UUUUUUUU|
___|UUUUUUUU|___|UUUUUUUU|____
Never forget.. even if you have to make something up.. I guess.. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 2:19:01 PM
Tonight, Friday, March 24th
Alex Jones on CNN again.
'Showbiz Tonight' Continues their 9/11 Coverage Tonight at 7pm EST
It ain't over yet, welcome to mainstream folks!! I assume this is not a repeat. Don't forget to vote in the poll on the left if you haven't already:
http://edition.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/
The response to Charlie sheen's charges of a government cover up on what really happened on 9/11. Find out who's praising him for speaking up. "Showbiz Tonight" airs live on Headline News at 7 p.m. and replays at 11 p.m. (All times Eastern.)
If coverage of 9/11 continues to pick up steam it would only make sense for us to have some sort of list of things that honest media should cover.
So, here is a challenge to both Showbiz Tonight and other mainstream media:
Show the footage of WTC7 collapsing on 9/11. This footage was shown on 9/11 and has not been shown since. In fact, the footage was provided to Tucker Carlson to show during his interview with Professor Steven E. Jones from BYU, but it was never shown that night, or in the following 2 nights of further coverage.
Show the footage of the 'collapse' of WTC7 on 9/11, you can find the videos here.
|
| Biff the Pig |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 08:19:56 AM
the thing about it for me, is everyone takes sides on the issue. and by that i mean democrat and republican(for the most part). now i believe that all of this "9/11 conspiracy" stuff is very possible (especially after watching that video), but some people completely place the blame on President Bush and his administration. i happen to think that him and many politicians/presidents before have been involved in their own "conspiracies". believe it or not, they do know a lot more than we do about the world and what is likely to occur. keep in mind that this is only my belief, but i do not know the whole reason behind, or the real purpose of 9/11 and the Iraq war. there could be a much larger picture...such as china hates us so badly and they are growing so rapidly and we are establishing a base on that side of them in preparation of war..or something..my point is, i hate the fact that people are ignorant enough to take one side and think that they are completely right and the other side is utterly corrupt. pretty sure bill clinton was corrupt, and im not so certain that george bush is any different. im independent now |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 08:02:14 AM
haha
w...t....f?
Stop looging into my shit asswad!  |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 02:43:33 AM
Shit, that last post was me, sorry again, Dave, we stay up too late. You can fix it tomorrow, just IM me what I wrote.
ATTENTION: THE LAST POST BY RUBYLITH WAS ME, I AM RETARDED. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 02:33:23 AM
Dan the hardest thing for me to accept about all of it was realizing that the dominant powers in the world are by far and away, innately evil. I know good people, we all do; but the people who control the world's resources, finances, and regulations are not consdiering you and I except as a series of figures. We are numbers to these people, and fairly insignificant ones at that.
That is some hard shit to swallow man, but then you realize that there are people just as tired as you are of getting lied to, and not regularly recieving full and truthful facts about what is happening in this world right now, and we all know from reading our fucking elementary History books that we were fed from the beginning a highly rosy recollection of how this country was formed, and it never stopped. No substance, just dates and names. No 'WHY?'
Why? |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:58:19 AM
as of 1:59am EST on March 24th, 2006...
|
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:57:58 AM
i have, actually. and i think i'm going to have to think some things over before respond on what i think about what happened. something about your theory still isn't sitting right with me. it might be a) i can't fathom the amount of evil necessary to do that one's "own people" b) i would assume the people who are alledgedly responsible would do a better job at covering their tracks than to be found out by ordinary people c) i'm not conviced that, even if it was a controlled demolition, the us government is the only group to be held suspect. d) i'm surprised that it was allowed to air at all. if this were "the truth" and the government had gone to such great lengths to keep it covered, why let this on the air? seems like they've let fake "true stories the government doesn't want you to know" stories on tv before (fox's alien autopsy comes to mine.) not that i'm comparing the two things. just for the sake of an example. |
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:33:56 AM
I wish that they would have worded that poll differently, or maybe added another question. Covered up is one thing, staged is quite another. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:33:15 AM
Dan, have you seen any of these segments? I am curious to get your reaction. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:29:43 AM
Dan very well said, I am thrilled.
Anyway, I am happy to see an unbiased host, even though on an insignificant show, went bravely beyond that is normally accepted and allowed the view of the 911 truth movement come through. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 01:20:11 AM
it's been my experience that fluffy is ver rarely wrong.
and also, how the fuck does this "belittle" the people who died in the attacks? that had to be some knee jerk reaction. yes, it's very sad these people died, but their deaths do no enter the equation of who knocked the fucking buildings over. belitting the people who died would be if someone said something like "the people who died had it coming because they were too slow to make out of the buildings on time." that would be belittling. saying that one group killed them instead of another has no bearing on the significance of their deaths. and while i'm at it, you're acting like the people who died were significant enough to be belittled. as if they're heroes or martyrs. they were just people who went to work and then were killed. it's a terrible thing to happen, but let's just keep it in perspective. the dead are significant to their friends and families and no one else. so unless you lost someone in the attacks (and i don't care if you did) you should probably just keep your mouth shut about what belittles them and what doesn't. unless you lost someone, it isn't your call to make. go ahead and tell me you lost someone. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 12:37:57 AM
The Vote is on the right:
http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/showbiz.tonight/ |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/24/2006 : 12:34:43 AM
HERE:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/ShowbizTonight20060323/ShowbizTonight20060323.wmv
NEXT DAY FOLLOW UP CNN INTERVIEW WITH ALEX JONES
And a Poll that at this moment concludes:
Do you agree with Charlie Sheen that the U.S. government covered up the real events of the 9/11 attacks?
Yes 78% 4466 votes
No 22% 1246 votes
Finally, after 4 plus years, the discussion is actually aired on the mainsteam media.
And of all shows it comes from Showbiz Tonight, this just goes to show how controlled the General Elecric (largest manufacturer of nuclar weapons) owned NBC and Murdoch owned Fox and most newspapers and Ted Turner acquired media outlets are inentionally ignoring the 9/11 truth movement until a slightly well known actor says something.
At first I figured yea ok who cares, he's nothing compared to Dr. Stephen Jones, Physics Professor or the others who are well educated who accept that a controlled demolition brought down the towers.
it is hard to accept, but finally, it is time that we accept that we all have been had and hold these criminals accountable for the most horrif crime in the history of humanity.
Let's roll...
|
| Erich |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 11:09:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by peewee_zz
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
So ruling out conspiracy by our govt in any matter is pretty naive
Nope, not biased at all
If you start finding out that some important events between you and a friend were really lies, would you rule out that he could be lying to you from then on? That would be naive, right? Fluffy is making a pretty accurate statement: The fact that the government has lied to us, and that conspiracies have been shown to hold truth many years later, means that to rule out the idea of consipracy is to be naive to what the government can do and has done in the past. He said that without any implication that he believes, or doesnt believe, the 9/11 stuff thats on this thread.
Im not trying to take sides here, but if you honestly thought his was a biased comment, im going to kindly suggest not trying to provoke actual point for point debates with other posters. |
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 9:39:05 PM
Anyway..... Did anyone watch the CNN thing? |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 4:34:33 PM
He meant completely ruling it out without doing serious research on either side is biased. In addition, he cited a SPECIFIC EXAMPLE where the goverment lied; and what he is saying is that they lied once, why not again.
I believed that 9/11 was a terrorst attack for 2 yaers after it happened...it SEEMED to make sense, but after researching and looking into other possibilities, it seems more like the government's story is the conspiracy. If you would resign to looking into these things for yourself, maybe you wouldn't be so quick to judge; but it seems you clearly refuse to seek out the other side of the story that so many scholars and ex-government officals are now backing whole-heartedly.
WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change
All mainstream media, all gov docs, all real articles posted on reputable sites. You are in DENIAL of the other side of the story. Open your mind.
Remember I was once you, but I couldn't deny the wealth of information that disproves what you believe happened on that day...and so many others. |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 4:14:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fluffy
So ruling out conspiracy by our govt in any matter is pretty naive
Nope, not biased at all |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 3:39:16 PM
First let it be said that I am not taking sides on this particular issue, that makes me the only unbiased voice in the thread about this topic. LOL
With that said, it is painfully obvious to me that there are those among us who feel the govt doesn't have a seedy underside and want to throw out any possibilities of conspiracy. There I said it, that nasty word, CONSPIRACY. Lets look back on history for second shall we? I will only use 2 small examples of of govt cover-up, there are plenty more if you would like to crack a book or two. So ruling out conspiracy by our govt in any matter is pretty naive. Generally only time will tell what happened as we have come to find out many years after the fact. It has been said that the conquerer writes the history books. Noone can deny that fact. As a small example I will post this: quote:
On Dec. 29, 1890, American soldiers slaughtered more than 350 Lakota men, women and children in an event known to history books as the Battle at Wounded Knee.
Twenty of those soldiers were awarded Medals of Honor -- later renamed the Congressional Medals of Honor -- for their actions.
One hundred years later, the U.S. government changed Wounded Knee's designation from a battle to a massacre and issued a statement of regret to the Lakota people.
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=1355
100 years it took for that to be properly renamed what it was. I grew up listening to it called the "Battle of Wounded Knee" all the way thru school. Please don't try to tell me that the govt was not responsible for the name that I grew up hearing this called. It is called propaganda and your govt like almost all other govt's is guilty of it.
In larger CONSPIRACY terms, read any of the following books to see the conspiracys of 40 years ago that are coming to light now. Conspiracy's that our govt was responsible for, and remember this is only the tip of the iceberg. If you think they haven't gotten better at it in the last 40 years you are very naive.
Ward Churchill "The Cointelpro Papers: Documents from the FBI's Secret Wars Against Dissent in the United States"
Ward Churchill "Agents of Repression"
Now, lets try to put ourselves back in the 60's and say someone posited the notion that Cointelpro was going on. Most would have hollared from the highest mountain, "Nutbag, conspiracy theorist, our govt is not capable of such behaviour!" Well, guess what, our govt did it. Hindsight now tells us it is true. What will hindsight tell us about 9/11 and possible govt involvement in 50 years? Only time will tell. Completely ruling things out is a pretty bad idea this early in the game. I would ask all of you to be open to ALL possibilities because you are more likely to LEARN with an open mind than a closed one.
Oh and if the books I recommended above seem to POLITICAL for you, may I offer a suggestion in the Music field since we all seem to be music people. Same outcome as above books done with a music background might be more appealing for those here for researching what exactly YOUR govt is capable of.
Jon Wiener "Gimme Some Truth:The John Lennon FBI Files"
|
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 3:16:23 PM
quote:
Originally posted by peewee_zz
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, if you actually believe that going there was a good idea, or staying there is a good choice, or that it has ANYTHING to do with "freedom" "liberation" or "keeping America safe" then you are just uninformed, naive, and probably watch television.
I am not gonna waste anymore of my time, obviously your imediate family is pro war so so are you.
Funny I didn't mention that. This reminds me of something:
"Did you see $5 laying around"
"I DIDNT TAKE IT!"
"...I never said that it was stolen"
This is so transparent as being ENTIRELY about stopping the war effort (whether you agree with it or not) that it's patetic. Go to the legistlature. Run for office. Just stop re-writing national disasters just for politics. This is no more than "George Bush bombed the levy's"
Prove to me that this is not the case (and talk point for point instead of everyone making fun of me) and maybe we'll start into actual arguments. (little advice, stop being so transparent)
I just want to point out that nobody is arguing points. As much as I believe that I'm not name calling, I'm gonna agree almost completely with fluffy. I'm willing to discuss or argue providing that "read more books" I mean "watch more movies" is not going to be YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT. |
| Fluffy |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 2:50:16 PM
peewee zz wrote: quote:
Rubylith is probobly the absolutely most biased person. YOU don't have the ability to take this information in objectively. YOU'RE the one doing the name calling because if we ever call you or challenge you on anything we become closed minded.
Having followed this thread it seems ironic to me that you are saying this to Rubylith. You could easily read that above statement about yourself or Rubylith could write it about you. You BOTH seem biased and unwilling to listen to any other position but your own. Thats called an argument and not a discussion.
Just food for thougtht.
slinging words, lets know what they mean. From MerriamWebster:
quote:
Main Entry: bi·ased
Function: adjective
1 : exhibiting or characterized by bias ; especially : PREJUDICED
2 : tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment <a biased coin>
Now if I am not mistaken, 2 differing opinions would leave the 2 persons BOTH biased to their belief. So to call someone biased because you don't agree only establishes your BIAS. Therefore you are BOTH biased and no better than other because you have different opinions on a matter. Why the fuck can't people DISCUSS things? Why must they always resort to name calling when they don't agree? And we wonder why wars start. Pretty fucking childish if you ask me and of course as always this is JUST MY HUMBLE FUCKING OPINION! |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 2:38:11 PM
no idea....
And this isn't the only thing, this movie should make you reaearch the videso yourself, this video is just an easy to swallow version for people who believe everything the government says. It is very well done and was created by a 22 and 23 year old, one of whom spent time in Iraq recently. |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 2:24:27 PM
Watch the fucking documentary PeeWee, your denial to is childish.
And Joe, I don't know what that post meant. It makes no sense. |
| JoeGamo05 |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 2:15:17 PM
if u watch loose change... the terroists win... that movie is actulyl pretty scary. i watched it fromn beginning to end... dunno what to say really, but, the beers on me  |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 12:57:16 PM
I am not re-writing a disaster.
the government did it man, period.
That's all... |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 12:36:02 PM
quote:
Originally posted by rubylith
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, if you actually believe that going there was a good idea, or staying there is a good choice, or that it has ANYTHING to do with "freedom" "liberation" or "keeping America safe" then you are just uninformed, naive, and probably watch television.
I am not gonna waste anymore of my time, obviously your imediate family is pro war so so are you.
Funny I didn't mention that. This reminds me of something:
"Did you see $5 laying around"
"I DIDNT TAKE IT!"
"...I never said that it was stolen"
This is so transparent as being ENTIRELY about stopping the war effort (whether you agree with it or not) that it's patetic. Go to the legistlature. Run for office. Just stop re-writing national disasters just for politics. This is no more than "George Bush bombed the levy's"
Prove to me that this is not the case (and talk point for point instead of everyone making fun of me) and maybe we'll start into actual arguments. (little advice, stop being so transparent) |
| peewee_zz |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 12:26:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by spaceoddity
quote:
"Ive been without a computer at work for almost a week and I come back to this".(peewee zz)
I'll tell you I cant figure out how to insert this quote properly to save my life(sorry).I am also sorry to post or ask a question about something that is probably not pertinent to the subject matter.I was thinking though that maybe peewee zz could help me as he is a specialist and all.I'm a bit worried though,as he might not have the ability to post.As it appears that all of the computers in the 6 stores he is in charge of did not work for the last week.Im guessing from his post that he doesnt have one at home either.I guess I should just consult the FAQ page, srry to waste anyones time.
These are the questions with simple answers that nobody wants to answer like I've talked about before...
I post at work because I get board at work. For the past week I've been working on other computers which have been using the Cat5 cable and keyboard from my work station. Because that computer, with all my links, has been down I've not checked back. At home I'm involved with a development project that I've mentioned. Also I have twin infants that I've mentioned. I choose not to spend my time at home on this message board. Last night i decided i'd use the time i had to check back.
So understanding that I don't normally check this MB at home: At work I've been working on other peoples computers without access to my desk's computer.
Are we reduced to this kind of retarded bickering? If anything i'd expect someone to point out that it's been more like 3 days without posting. When i mentioned 1 week i expected not to have access to my work computer for the rest of this week. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 08:52:28 AM
as a 9/11 family member I would say it does NOT belittle those who perished, why want to see the ones in charge of setting up the explosives in jail. There were explosives man, no doubt.
As far as Iraq and Afghanistan, if you actually believe that going there was a good idea, or staying there is a good choice, or that it has ANYTHING to do with "freedom" "liberation" or "keeping America safe" then you are just uninformed, naive, and probably watch television.
I am not gonna waste anymore of my time, obviously your imediate family is pro war so so are you. Take some time to watch Loose Change since it doesn't take any effort to watch a movie, then if you are inclined, do some research on the scientific data, how the buildings fell, speed, gravity, resistance, the corner's comments in Shanksville, who ran security, Operation Northwoods....etc.
Anyway, I wish you luck in findind out the truth, it is only a matter of time before everyone accepts what these criminals did and hold them accountable for it.
It was just very nice after watching the 9/11 truth movement grow from this little group of "crazies" to a group of highly educated scholars, scientists, 9/11 family members, musicians, engineers, former CIA agents, former goernment officials and even average Americans that they FINALLY aired something on the corporate controlled media. |
| rubylith |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 07:41:39 AM
HIGH QUALITY FILE HERE:
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/ShowbizTonight20060322.wmv
WATCH LOOSE CHANGE 2ND EDITIION HERE:
http://www.davecahill.com/loosechange.wmv
Tonight marks the first instance where those that question 9/11 were given a fair shake at voicing their opinions. While little can be said in just 10 minutes of coverage, it was at the very least a reasonable discussion and an important milestone for the 9/11 truth community. 911truth.org's media coordinator Mike Berger did a great job with the short time he was allotted while the host A.J. Hammer allowed for a good live discussion and avoided the all-to-familiar Bill O'Reilly style of 'news'.
Despite the numerous questions surrounding 9/11 which have gone unmentioned by the mainstream media for the last 4+ years, and the growing number of respectable scholars, government officials, and family members demanding answers - this is the first time a major news station has covered 9/11 questions in any reasonable format, even if it was on a Hollywood celebrity show. If the mainstream media were to truly desire to cover 9/11 further I would hope in the future they might consider a longer format so that all of the news and facts they haven't bothered reporting over the last 4+ years might have a chance to finally be seen and heard. (Hey Showtime and HBO, are you listening?)
I urge all of those who support 9/11 being further discussed by CNN and their affiliates to contact them via their feedback form here. Be sure to reference the host A.J. Hammer, and the show 'Showbiz Tonight'.
|
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 05:53:34 AM
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! BURN HAHAHAHAHA 2 points for the newbie! |
| spaceoddity |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 05:33:36 AM
quote:
"Ive been without a computer at work for almost a week and I come back to this".(peewee zz)
I'll tell you I cant figure out how to insert this quote properly to save my life(sorry).I am also sorry to post or ask a question about something that is probably not pertinent to the subject matter.I was thinking though that maybe peewee zz could help me as he is a specialist and all.I'm a bit worried though,as he might not have the ability to post.As it appears that all of the computers in the 6 stores he is in charge of did not work for the last week.Im guessing from his post that he doesnt have one at home either.I guess I should just consult the FAQ page, srry to waste anyones time. |
| guitfiddler |
Posted - 03/23/2006 : 05:33:11 AM
I have resisted this since the first time I saw it. I am not usually swayed by "propaganda" But this might have convinced me. Thanks for the link. CRAZY SHIT!!! |
|
|
