Dude we can go one forever, lol.

 

Shit... I have a paper to write...

 

Fuck! I could've written one in all that time I was typing out crap.

 

Damn.

 

Well, I'm off to write my paper--thanks for the enlightenment about the many different theories about what happened on 9/11. :)

Cya later.

check our posts in this thread' date=' we've posted alot of stuff that debunks 9/11, but because it doesnt come from prisonplanet.com, gareth refuses to belive it.[/quote']

 

Hey, saying "but because it doesnt come from prisonplanet.com, gareth refuses to belive it" is a complete a utter lie. That is not how I think.

 

I'm dealing with idiots. Seriously blind.

 

People who believe the ofiical story are kidding themselves. It's that simple. They are kidding themselves.

We can debate it forever but it doesn't change the fact the we have the government on record, lying about so many different things.....

 

It's gets to the point where if someone can't see how suspect this whole event is then, well, there's nothing else you can do. You know, there's a cut off point where you just let them get on with it....leave them be, they aren't really needed in the fight against this crime.....there's already enough people who CAN get past the lies which are written in the offical report and in laughable books like popular mechanics 9/11 Myths. < which is a complete joke by the way.

apparently a expert was inside one of the towers before it went down and made a call saying with the fire the structure was unstable and in danger of falling. guess he was in on it too:rolleyes:

 

I saw that special on the Discovery Channel, if that's what you're referring to. You realize it was just a dramatization? There's basically no proof of anything he said due to the fact that he and the other guy he was with were killed in the collapse.

It's the people who believe the government who are really running around clutching at straws. Repeating the same hollow arguments, put forward by the government, that caused so many people to spot their lies and show it as a fraud.

 

If the amount of evidence we have to show that the government are lying was ignored in any other crime then it would be re-opened and all the questions would be addressed.

But try and take the government to court over this and, well, it just gets blocked.

Well your the one who posts stuff on the lines that prisonplanet.com tells the truth whislt all the others lie - unless they support my theory.

 

I dont believe politicans, i couldnt care less who did 9/11, i just believe in common sense. Common sense says this was not an inside job.

Well your the one who posts stuff on the lines that prisonplanet.com tells the truth whislt all the others lie - unless they support my theory.

 

Common sense says this was not an inside job.

 

No it doesn't. And others do lie.

 

I'm not just saying this for fun - I have found that other sources lie, that's it.

Of course prisonplanet.com never lies because it supports my theory on9/11 and other american conspiracys while anything else that dares to debunk them is government propaganda blah blah blah.

 

Thats the gist of what you say.

No it isn't.

 

Stop lying about what I think.

 

What you are writing is very typical, I expect it.

No it isn't.

 

Stop lying about what I think.

 

What you are writing is very typical, I expect it.

 

Typical response from a conspiracy nut.

 

Just because you think your right doesnt mean you actually are.

Gareth likes to pick and choose what facts he like. as do most people:dozey:

No, no, no...

 

Another false sentence trying to discredit my character.

 

People like me are not involved in the crazy and outlandish theories that get branded around in the mainstream media propaganda "hit pieces". We have factual information, we have witness accounts, we have proof on video, we have scientific experts, we have professors and even government officials going public on 9/11 saying it's an inside job - yet none of these vaild questions get answered. More academics claim 9/11 was an inside job everyday which puts their jobs on the line.

 

"conspiracy nut" this, "conspiracy nut" that. This sort of rubbish you people shout out ain't going to fly much longer. People want answers, not avoidance of the subject with "conspiracy nut" sort of comments.

 

You know you both sound stupid, right?

 

 

 

Propagandise the children

 

It's sick.

No, no, no...

 

Another false sentence trying to discredit my character.

 

People like me are not involved in the crazy and outlandish theories that get branded around in the mainstream media propaganda "hit pieces". We have factual information, we have witness accounts, we have proof on video, we have scientific experts, we have professors and even government officials going public on 9/11 saying it's an inside job - yet none of these vaild questions get answered. More academics claim 9/11 was an inside job everyday which puts their jobs on the line.

 

"conspiracy nut" this, "conspiracy nut" that. This sort of rubbish you people shout out ain't going to fly much longer. People want answers, not avoidance of the subject with "conspiracy nut" sort of comments.

 

You know you both sound stupid, right?

 

 

 

Propagandise the children

 

It's sick.

 

 

They do get answered but you conspiracy nuts always dismiss them as governent propaganda. And they still have jobs because they are wrong. If they were right and this was a government conspiracy then shouldnt they be dropping like flies?

No, no, no...

 

Another false sentence trying to discredit my character.

 

People like me are not involved in the crazy and outlandish theories that get branded around in the mainstream media propaganda "hit pieces". We have factual information, we have witness accounts, we have proof on video, we have scientific experts, we have professors and even government officials going public on 9/11 saying it's an inside job - yet none of these vaild questions get answered. More academics claim 9/11 was an inside job everyday which puts their jobs on the line.

 

"conspiracy nut" this, "conspiracy nut" that. This sort of rubbish you people shout out ain't going to fly much longer. People want answers, not avoidance of the subject with "conspiracy nut" sort of comments.

 

You know you both sound stupid, right?

 

 

 

Propagandise the children

 

It's sick.

 

 

Nothing sounds more stupid then your conspiracy theories..wait i take that back when people say our goverment is controlled by aliens that's a little more stupid sounding:laugh3:

The sad thing is, they are NOT stupid and most people are too dim.

 

 

 

Fringe Theories Harming 9/11 Truth Movement

Five Years Later Part 1: The obstacles we have overcome, the dangers we face

 

Paul Joseph Watson | September 5 2006

 

The 9/11 truth movement is characterized by an increasingly credible veneer - largely thanks to the 9/11 scholars. As media attention builds to a deafening crescendo in anticipation of the fifth anniversary of the attacks, it is necessary to step back and distance ourselves from the more outlandish 9/11 theories and offset their damaging effects.

 

Over the course of the next week we will continue to take a critical and discerning look at the 9/11 truth movement, celebrating both its obvious measured progress while also highlighting areas of concern that need to be resolved before the next rung on the ladder to bringing criminal charges against the guilty parties can be climbed.

 

Our sole purpose in this piece is to weed out and discredit an element of 9/11 embraced by 'conspiracy theorists' as oppose to 'skeptics' of the official story. We will treat conspiracy theories that are as implausible or more so than the government version, which in itself a conspiracy theory, with the same contempt - because they are harmful to the 9/11 truth movement as a whole.

 

It is not the intention of this article to create in-fighting or bickering nor is it advantageous to attack anyone's character and that is why we refrain from citing any individuals by name. Many speculative tenets of what happened on 9/11 have been courted - including by this author - and then dropped after the evidence evaporates and common sense kicks in. We should be loathe to jettison reason and logic even in times of unparalleled absurdity.

 

Advocates of the 'blue screen' or 'hologram' theory hold that the planes that hit the World Trade Center, or at least Flight 175, were ghost aircraft and that sophisticated image projection technology was used to fake the illusion of them entering the towers.

 

The evidence they present to validate this notion is the contention that Flight 175 should have "bounced off" the tower yet sliced through it like a knife through butter.

 

The vast majority of the evidence is supported not by scientific analysis of what one would expect to happen when a large commercial airliner impacts a skyscraper at over 500 miles per hour, but with grainy Internet videos and hastily interpreted statements made by news reporters at ground zero.

 

If we are to believe, and the evidence suggests it to be so, that western intelligence agencies are carrying out acts of terror, to go to such lengths mandates the necessity of multi-layered fallback options if the criminals are caught red-handed. This is why a large scale terror attack is always shadowed by an almost identical government drill, as was the case with 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings. If significant and damning evidence were to be presented in a court of law powerful enough to have any impact that implicated high officials in acts of gross treason - the fallback option that it was "just part of the drill," remains as a last chance saloon.

 

If we are to consider that some form of high-tech hologram technology was utilized as part of a David Copperfield style sound and lights magic show that only made it appear as if Flight 175 had hit the south tower - then we are seriously entertaining the notion that the criminals who ran the attack did not bother to construct any fallback explanation if this massive public stunt had gone wrong.

 

What if the bombs inside the tower had failed due to faulty wiring or had only detonated a second after the hologram had been sent into the tower? How could that one be explained away? Who in their right mind would make such a huge gamble with no fallback option?

 

There is one video that soundly debunks the blue screen theories and should be used to put this deception to bed for good. Japanese news footage of Flight 175 striking the south tower shows the fuselage of the aircraft briefly exiting the opposite face of the building before the entire plane is engulfed in flames from the exploding jet fuel (located well behind the nosecone). Watch the clip below.

 

[media=350,225]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpw4FZcfiqM[/media]

 

To maintain that this was a hologram necessitates that the "ghost plane" was also somehow superimposed inside the tower so it could be seen exiting at the exact right moment. This is a ridiculous concept.

 

Here is a close-up frame of the nose exiting the tower.

 

 

Here is debris from the fuselage of Flight 175 at ground zero.

 

 

I could spend hours attempting to dismiss the multitude of claims made by blue screen advocates but I don't doubt that for every point I make they could uncover another grainy video or edited piece of eyewitness testimony to counter my argument. This is why I can only try and appeal to reason and rational thinking.

 

If the criminals who organized and carried out 9/11 could execute the operation -

 

a) in a manner that would have more or less the same psychological impact they were trying to achieve even if the planes had missed their targets (which one of them did)

 

and

 

b) by using the most straightforward means available and minimizing the potential that the plot would fail (using giant holograms and attempting to hoodwink millions watching both on television and in person is not the most straightforward means)

 

Then they would choose those options.

 

A great deal of the hit pieces we have already encountered and several more that will undoubtedly emerge on or around the fifth anniversary on Monday excel in setting up straw man arguments, attributing minority fringe theories to the entire 9/11 truth movement and then using them to debunk the entire field. Popular Mechanics seized upon the no planes at the WTC theory and dishonestly exhaulted it as a core argument of the 9/11 truth movement.

 

Therefore it is our remit to distance ourselves from completely unsubstantiated theories which have the effect of eclipsing proven holes in the official story. The hologram theory is severely damaging to the credibility that the 9/11 truth movement has fought so hard to obtain and should therefore be sidelined and shunned at all costs.

thats a cool vid, i had no idea that the nose of the plane went straight thru like that, i havent seen/noticed that before.

 

 

 

^ easy.

 

I know how to do it, I've studied how....;)....and you only need a handful of people who know what's really happening.

Have you ever worked in the corporate world? Theres so much red tape - It takes half a dozen people to change a light bulb.

What??!??

 

Jesus, you make some stupid comments.

 

No wonder we are going to win on exposing the governments crimes when we have people such as you making really pointless comments like this.

 

Keep them coming.

I take that as a no then. Its true if you want to change a lightbulb you have to fill forms in, notify someone, who then calls someone who sends someone else and someone else checks it, someone signs the bills of, someone loses the paperwork someone else finds it and reports it etc...

 

can you imagine how many would be involved at the top? a few in control of hundreds in control of thousands. All who knew what they were doing.

 

there would be thousands of people who knew about 9/11. THOUSANDS not a few as you claim.

no, no, no....

 

You don't get it.....and to be frankly honest, me writing out how compartmentalisation works in the cover up probably won't change I thing.

Go on explain it.

 

Explain how the people laying the dyanmite in WTC7 had no idea what they were doing. Or the suppliers who sold them the dynamite.

 

Explain who these mystery men are behind George Bush - name them!

See, my efforts will be wasted on you and are pointless.

 

Because you'll just say "I don't believe it".....and not like Victor Meldrew.

 

I might do it tomorrow....it's late now (or early), as you know.

I like the part where it says an entire agency would have been needed to handle the paperwork.

 

Its from rotten.com, make of it what you will but they arent Bush fans, its quite a reliable souce - facts from the rotten libary are on wiki.

 

 

The only part of Meyssan's premise that is really compelling is the motive -- to provide a rationale for the U.S. to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and steal their oil.

 

Everything else in Meyssan's theory contradicts the notion that the conspirators possessed even the a shred of common sense. If the U.S. was really behind the attack, wouldn't it make sense for them to just hijack the planes themselves?

 

Come on! Why in God's name would they undertake a massive plot using sci-fi technology costing probably billions of dollars, when they could just hijack the planes themselves for only the cost of life insurance? For that matter, if they remote-controlled two jets to crash into the WTC, why not just do the same thing at the Pentagon, instead of hitting it with a missile and then pretending it was a plane?

 

How could the conspirators be such morons and yet execute the most successful cover-up in human history? (OK, maybe the second most successful.) The obvious answer is probably also the correct answer: They can't, they didn't, and this whole line of thought is even less worthy of your consideration than the secret of Area 51.

 

The Usual Suspects

While Meyssan's rantings are pretty far beyond the pale of reason, the general idea that the attacks were sponsored by the CIA or the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, is extraordinarily widespread, particularly in the Arab world. Variations on this idea have been published in Egypt's government-run newspapers and aired on Arab television all over the region. Even the king of Saudi Arabia has hinted as much, recently blaming a spate of al Qaeda-linked terrorist attacks on "Zionists."

 

One variation on Meyssan's theories also embraces the logic-challenged notion of remote controlled planes, but argues they were controlled by the Mossad instead of the CIA, in order to goad the U.S. into attacking Israel's enemies. Although this theory still suffers from being terminally elaborate, the Mossad is at least a slightly better suspect than the CIA, which couldn't even kill Castro, let alone 3,000 people in a synchronized attack on live TV.

 

The main problem with all this speculation is that it's based on the idea that al Qaeda was not responsible for the attacks. This flies in the face of a mountain of evidence. Even if we grant that evidence presented after the fact by U.S. government officials is automatically suspect, there is ample documentation to support al Qaeda's role in the attacks.

 

The most obvious example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed admitted to planning the attacks in an interview with Arab media. al Qaeda documents reported by al Jazeera also confessed the attack. Hundreds of al Qaeda-linked propaganda pieces celebrate the attacks. The hijackers left suicide videos which were subsequently circulated by al Qaeda-linked Web sites around the world.

 

Furthermore, the historical record clearly indicates that al Qaeda had long been planning exactly this kind of attack, including copious material in the public record long before 9/11 ever happened. Ramzi Yousef was planning to crash airliners into U.S. landmarks, including the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, and that plot was reported years before 9/11 ever happened. al Qaeda-linked terrorists were looking at ways to crash airplanes into U.S. buildings as early as 1993, when the FBI and the Egyptian government were clued into a plot to steal an airplane and crash it into the U.S. embassy.

 

 

 

And while you can't always trust what the government tells you, the sheer volume of U.S. documentation released after the 9/11 attacks is staggering. In addition to the extremely improbable scenarios under which the CIA or the Mossad would actually have executed the attacks, an entire agency of the U.S. government would be needed just to handle the hundreds of thousands of pages of document forgeries now in circulation supporting most elements of the official story.

 

 

 

In addition, the mythical conspirators seem to have carefully planted a series of whistleblowers who would inexplicably pop up to blame the government for its mind-blowing but strictly bureaucratic failures to prevent the attack. Just for verisimilitude? It boggles the mind.

 

The conspiracy theorists do have one explanation which makes all of the above problems go away: Everyone in the media is working for the Mossad. Including this author.

 

 

 

OK, Fine. But Still...

 

Of course, a 9/11 conspiracy doesn't have to involve remote control planes, false flags and Jewish spies infiltrating Rotten.com. There are a number of more modest proposals in circulation.

 

Many conspiracy theorists argue that the U.S. had advanced warning of the attack, but allowed it to proceed anyway. Let's just get one thing straight right up front: This is a much easier case to make.

 

That doesn't mean it's right, of course. But you don't have to skip your medication in order to wonder.

 

A favorite among Americans on the far right and far left, this theory usually proposes that the U.S. allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place so that the Bush administration could revoke the constitution, declare martial law, conquer the Middle East and cancel the elections.

 

A problem with this plan, so far, is its obvious failure. After all, the Constitution hasn't been revoked (just severely diluted). And the Middle East hasn't been successfully conquered (though not for lack of trying). Martial law hasn't been declared (although thousands have been rounded up with no charge and detained without legal counsel). And the elections weren't canceled (though there's the usual debate as to the validity of their results). Um, did we say "obvious" failure? Let's move on.

 

The idea that the American government would allow a massive attack on its homeland for political purposes isn't new. For decades, rumors have swirled that government was warned of the attack on Pearl Harbor, but allowed it to take place anyway, in order to catapult the U.S. into WWII. And it's a lot easier to cover up an ignored warning than to cover up remote controlled planes and false-flag hoodoo.