9/11 Conspiracy Video.

at least now we know how good you are at interpreting evidence.

No, you prove it was right. By doing your own research, without referring to the video directly.



I don't need evidence! I'm always right. Anyone who proves me wrong on something is an asshat, and therefore their statement is invalid.

Okay. Kevn --you go do what Toni says --and Toni --you go do the same to prove the Government story is right.

Meet back here when you're all done.

Actually, I wasn't asserting that the government story was right, merely that the video wasn't necessarily correct either. I don't know who's right on this one, personally. And being a solipsist, it doesn't particularly matter to me, either.

OK, I checked it out, and everything in the video was corroborated. Next?

And theyre neck and neck,
Neck and neck
Bancroft pulls away,
and yes,
Bankroft crosses the finishline with Kevn Kline in second,
and traling a full furlong behind,
Bentham limps over the finish.

all we money gone to hell

......and that, ladies and gentlemen, is today's "Race to be Wrong!" (Bears no, OK some, similarity to Stephen Colbert's "Race to be Fired!"

wOOt

It was Evel Knievel in his Snake River Canyon Scooter.

Get with it!

I was reasonably sure you understood basic chemistry and physics, my bad. Here is an astute analysis of how hot the jet fuel got that portion of the building:

http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/how-hot.htm

I'm sure you can reply that the analysis was faked, but it is pretty consistent with what I myself have researched on the subject. Rather than rewrite what was already there, I am simply using the link for expediancy of discussion. As an expansion on what I summed up before, the TT could burn all day and not worry about the complete collapse they encountered.

Further, we have pictures of both the portion of the wall (I happened to see it myself on tv) and the subsequent damage to that wall. If the particular plane that they claim hit the pentagon did, there would have been two very large engine indents in the wall (if not additional holes) to either side of the main hole where it is claimed that the plane in question hit.

Also the plane that supposedly went down in PA was not even there. In all previous plane crashes (even catastrophic ones at sharper angles), material from the plane is available to nearly rebuild the plane to determine what cause the crash. No bodies were present at this crash either. Bodies and pieces of bodies usually tell us how a particular plane came to crash. You may not that not too long ago a plane flying in Europe had a catastropic loss of cabin pressure at a high altitude. People froze or sufficated in seconds. Upon the subsequent crash this was easily verifiable from the remains and the black box. It is entirely reasonable for there to be evidence present at the crash in PA, but it was not. That, in itself, requires more investigation.

Further, the 'cell phone calls' which would have had to have been air phone calls could be easily verified as air phone calls should the government wish to do so. Cell phone calls run on different carriers than air phone calls. I'm sure you know this if you've ever flown on a plane in the last decade. You are not permitted to use your cellphone and it wouldn't even work. A record of the transmissions from the plane should be evident in the air carrier's logs. You could shut up a lot of 'conspiracy theorists' by producing these logs. Additionally the phone calls had a quality that a psychologist might easily identify as someone attempting to secretly relay a message that they are in trouble. One caller repeatedly identified he was on an airphone (which is redundant if his mother knew he was on a plane that day in the first place) as well as his name when talking to his mother. His mother may have been unaware he was calling from a plane, but it extremely likely she knew his name. Such tactics are consistent with what people see in movies, and thus might be something they might try if being forced to make such a call.

Would you like more analysis or is your curiousity of the situation piqued enough that you are willing to research facts on your own to debunk what you believe to be a conspiracy theory?

You have presented nothing that is any more believable than the Commission's report. I think it's great that someone was able to dig up and publish on a free web hosting site (not even a .edu domain, I noticed) something that 80 staffers, $15 million, and the power of subpoena couldn't figure out. Well done.

I suppose this hasn't been published by any reputable media because they're all part of the same corporate structure? Or was the media in on it too?

{frustrated]O.O;;; er the media in most cases reported what was happing as honestly as they could for like the first 4 hours.. it was after that they started playing ball with the "official story"

why WHY! if the american government HAS (and it does) tapes of the planes collision with the pentagon does it not just shut us all up by making them public??? MAKE THEM F**KING PUBLIC AND SHUT US THE F**K UP!

plus.. Im not a physisist and and far from it, Im not a demolitions expert and Im not an architect.. but when I watched the towers fall on Sep 11th the first thing I thought was WTF! did that building just fall straight down??? an idiot would tell you that that was just wrong!

OR! just spend the next 80 years making a scapegoat out of the wrong people and lead us into a world war... I guess the hawk ass Warmongers like that Idea.. [/frustrated]

Well, that incredible post just did it for me, that's it, you convinced me. I think it was all the emotes, capitalization, and excessive punction that got me. I always respond to that better than facts.

*edited*



So FEMA is in on the conspiracy huh?

I think Tony rathers Fox news to be honest...

Toni already lost this thread, on page 2 guys, we know her logic is flawed, stop disturbing her little pocket universe where she thinks she has all the right answers.

Yes, I must be wrong because I don't automatically believe a video on the internet.


Right, that makes no sense whatsoever and has zero bearing on the discussion, but I'm glad you have a rich fantasy life. I never supported one argument, merely argued against another. So what, I can't question it because you agree with it? That's good logic.

No, this is where you lost, you say you don't know whether the official story of conspiracy theory was correct, after swearing blind it was all baloney, you admit theres a chance it is correct.
Ergo you conceded the point.

Yet again this reply bears little actual relationship to what I wrote.

My argument was that there's no more reason to believe this documentary than the official story, or any other conspiracy theory. Writing that I didn't know who was correct isn't the same as writing that I believe them to be correct. I don't know whether they're right or wrong, but I think it's mostly bullshit.

What Toni doesn't understand is that the 9-11 Truth movement seeks answers to questions. It's not asserting how 9-11 happened. It's knocking the legs off the Government's bullshit "official" story.

What Toni doesn't understand is that the 9-11 Truth movement seeks answers to questions. It's not asserting how 9-11 happened. It's knocking the legs off the Government's bullshit "official" story.

Yes, I do understand that's their official reason for being. However, I have no reason to trust them any more than the government. Just because they're private citizens doesn't mean they're honest.

I'll go slowly so you really really understand.

They are asking questions that the Government has not answered.

Let me go slowly so you can understand:
They're no more trustworthy than the government.