It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I have never convinced anyone else that 9/11 was an inside job

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers." After that admission a strange thing happened - nothing. No follow-up stories. No follow-up questions. There was dead silence and the story disappeared. It was almost as if no one wanted to know what had happened. In fact, the FBI didn't bother to change the names, backgrounds or photographs of the alleged 19 hijackers. It didn't even deny the news reports suggesting that the names and identities of at least six of the hijackers may be unknown. Mueller just left the door open.

Until now. Now the FBI is sticking with its original story - regardless of whether photographs displayed of the suspected Sept. 11 terrorists were of people who never boarded those planes and are very much alive. FBI spokesman Bill Carter simply brushes off as false the charges from news reports that the FBI misidentified some of the Sept. 11 terrorists. Carter says they got the names right and it doesn't matter whether the identities were stolen. This comes as a complete about-face from Mueller's comment that there might be some question about the names of the Sept. 11 terrorists because they might have been operating under stolen identities.


www.prisonplanet.com...



They may or may not have been six misidentified hijackers, but the fact remains that the evidence still shows it was the work of al qaida, and the majority of the hijackers (including the ringleaders) were correctly identified.


What evidence? You mean the “planted” evidences like the goodies found in the rental car. Oh, and the Id card laying on top of the WTC rubble, yea, that evidences. No you cannot and you will never be able to prove who there alleged hijackers were.



Even the FBI says there is no evidence to link the above men to the 9/11 hijackings.
During an April 19 speech delivered to the Common wealth Club in San Francisco, FBI director Mueller flatly stated:

[The hijackers] “left no paper trail … In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper — either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere — that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. [iv]

Almost instantaneously after 9/11, the government had stated that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda “network” but also that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept.


911exposed.org...


You are deliberately misrepresenting this as intentional impropriety to use as innuendo to support your claim "the 9/11 commission was a lie", which is being intellectually dishonest.


I provided the text you felt I deliberately omitted. The fact is however, I provided the link to the story, in its entirety, in my original post.


When I say that these conspiracy websites are putting out bad information for their own self serving ends, you're not proving me wrong, becuase I know you didn't come up with this yourself. You had to have gotten this bit from one of those con artists. You didn't spend any money getting any of this, I hope.


The 911-commission report, the FEMA report and NIST report are fairy tales authored to make people like yourself feel safe and comfy when you go beddy-bye at night. You need to discover the truth by reading all sides to the 911 story instead of only the disinformation.




posted on Jun, 10 2009 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

The stunning news prompted FBI Director Robert Mueller to admit that some of the hijackers may have stolen identities of innocent citizens. In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is "no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers."


Just from memory, yet another Truther deception. Mueller is only said to have made those remarks, though no confirmed validation. More importantly, he made comments in Sept 2001, but reported on a website in Sept 2002, misdating and inferring it was contemporary.

It took a few weeks to nail down the identities of the hijackers in Sept 2001, given the commonness of names, incorrect information from various sources, name changes, etc.

Much Truther pseudo-information is based on early days confusion and media reporting errors. Even when retracted or corrected, iused forever.

A national pastime, finding mistakes in the Official Story and MSM reporting. But 7+ years later, still no paper trail of US complicity, or planned demolition, etc.

And still on the Net there are websites and DVD proving it was No Planes, missiles, holographs, etc.

A big growth sub-industry now. File under Kiddie Konspiracy Theory.

Mike



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by mmiichael
 



And still on the Net there are websites and DVD proving it was No Planes, missiles, holographs, etc.


So everyone including me who is looking for the truth about what really happened on 911 or are asking questions are “No Planes, missiles, holographs, etc.” conspiracy theorists. I have been researching 911 for years before I open an account on ATS and I can assure you that you are wrong. Your comeback to my response is typical for disinformationists and the like. As usual, your post has no sources for your theories, or alleged facts.


A big growth sub-industry now. File under Kiddie Konspiracy Theory.


It is clear you refuse to accept any proof contrary to the Government’s story about 911. If you fell for the FEMA report then I am sure you also believed the NIST report, as the same people edited them both. Until you open your mind to what really happened on 911, there is no point in continuing this debate.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:58 AM
link   
I personally have probably convinced 15-20 people that 9/11 was an inside job and god knows how many people they have told.

Even though i have convinced my mother and father i will agree that family and close friends are the hardest to convince because they have known you too long and generally will just think you are trying to be a "know it all" and will just ignore you.

The easiest people are strangers by far and acquaintances like work pals. You also need to have your facts straight.

In the end Building 7 will do it almost every time. Loose change Final cut and Terrorstorm are very convincing and no worries about the Screw Loose change sites because these people you give Loose Change too won't go looking up Screw Loose change and if they do they just think its government paid for propaganda which it is.

the most common response after they start to wake up is "the government wouldn't do this" Then you hit them with Operation Northwoods specifically




A "Remember the Maine" incident could be arranged in several forms: a. We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba. b. We could blow up a drone (unmanned) vessel anywhere in the Cuban waters. We could arrange to cause such incident in the vicinity of Havana or Santiago as a spectacular result of Cuban attack from the air or sea, or both. The presence of Cuban planes or ships merely investigating the intent of the vessel could be fairly compelling evidence that the ship was taken under attack. The nearness to Havana or Santiago would add credibility especially to those people that might have heard the blast or have seen the fire. The US could follow up with an air/sea rescue operation covered by US fighters to "evacuate" remaining members of the non-existent crew. Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.


signed sealed delivered. 9/11 was a False flag.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
It is clear you refuse to accept any proof contrary to the Government’s story about 911. If you fell for the FEMA report then I am sure you also believed the NIST report, as the same people edited them both. Until you open your mind to what really happened on 911, there is no point in continuing this debate.


No debate. I'm not American and don't give a damn about the US government. From what I've seen independent academics and scientists from the US and all over the world, disagreeing on some points and conclusions, agree the analysis from those US govt sponsored investigations answers almost all the questions.

A pile of claims accusations and speculations, is the alternative. Most of what I'm told is the proof is at spurious websites and Youtube videos.
And let's not forget all that self-righteous indignation from those who cannot believe building can collapse from anything other than planted explosives.

Hungry scientists and independent journalists who'd love to win a Pulitzer are out there. Proving 9/11 was an side job would guarantee a financially rewarding career. Any publisher would love it just for the controversy PR value. Foreign market contracts would materialize over night.

When and if a consolidated convincing version of alternate events emerges, I'm as open-minded as anyone.


Mike




[edit on 11-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 09:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme
What evidence? You mean the “planted” evidences like the goodies found in the rental car. Oh, and the Id card laying on top of the WTC rubble, yea, that evidences. No you cannot and you will never be able to prove who there alleged hijackers were.


Untrue. First, you are making an unsubstanciated statement that the evidence was planted, and second, I accept the fact that revealing the evidence showing how the attack was committed by al qaida might compromise intelligence sources. If, during WWII we revealed that, say, Jean the Paris taxi driver was secretly on the OSS payroll and was feeding us information about the Normandy beach.s, poor ol' Jean wouldn't have survived 24 hours, PLUS, the Nazis would start wondering what the heck was so special about Normandy. I'd certainly like to know, but I'm mature enough to understand I don't need to know THAT much.

However, the US *did* give it's sensitive intelligence sources to our NATO allies showing how al qaida was behind the attack, and after they compared our information to what their own intelligence services, they found it convincing enough to invoke article 5, stating that an attack on one is tantamount to an attack on all. We KNOW this is what they did becuase France and Germany took our intelligence evidence showing how Saddam was making nukes and they DIDN'T find it convincing. This is all in the public record and it cannot be refuted.

So, either the information showing al qaida was behind the attack is correct, or, you're forced to invent some f**ked up convoluted sounding secret plot about how all of Europe is a willing collaborator in our taking over the world too (but not always)...and I doubt you're THAT hard core in love with your conspiracy stories.



[The hijackers] “left no paper trail … In our investigation, we have not uncovered a single piece of paper — either here in the United States or in the treasure trove of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere — that mentioned any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot. [iv]


This is true, there WASN'T any mention of "we're going to attack the WTC on sept 11th. You're not trying to parlay this into sounding like there was no evidence AT ALL there were plans to attack the WTC on Sept. 11, are you?


Almost instantaneously after 9/11, the government had stated that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men were agents of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda “network” but also that they were indeed the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept.


That's becuase there was plenty of evidence AFTER the fact. When they look at the passenger lists of flight 77 and they see the names Joe Smith, Pete Jones, and Hani Hanjour, the red flag is going to go up and they're obviously going to look into what Hani Hanjour had been up to recently.

Don't you watch, "48 hours" or "CSI" at all?


The 911-commission report, the FEMA report and NIST report are fairy tales authored to make people like yourself feel safe and comfy when you go beddy-bye at night. You need to discover the truth by reading all sides to the 911 story instead of only the disinformation.


This of course begs the question, did you even READ the 9/11 commission report? Since you're saying the report is "just a bunch of fairy tales", it obviously becomes your responsibility to read the report so you'll know exactly how "it's all a bunch of fairy tales" rather than just blurt out "it's a bunch of fairy tales" before running away giggling like a ten year old. You HAVE read the report, especially when you're lecturing to me how "we need to read all sides to the 9/11 story", RIGHT???

We both know the answer to that question, so you'll excuse me when I say your case for conspiracy is wholly underwhelming.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by impressme

So everyone including me who is looking for the truth about what really happened on 911 or are asking questions are “No Planes, missiles, holographs, etc.” conspiracy theorists. I have been researching 911 for years before I open an account on ATS and I can assure you that you are wrong. Your comeback to my response is typical for disinformationists and the like. As usual, your post has no sources for your theories, or alleged facts.

It is clear you refuse to accept any proof contrary to the Government’s story about 911. If you fell for the FEMA report then I am sure you also believed the NIST report, as the same people edited them both. Until you open your mind to what really happened on 911, there is no point in continuing this debate.




I had my suspicions of active complicity by the US on 9/11. There's little doubt there were things going on with the intelligence agencies having pieces of the puzzle and not sharing. And I don't take the Bush admin at it's word.

After 2 or 3 years of reading both government source material, neutral commentary, and conspiracy literature I was able to form some solid conclusions.

I won't go into them because on a thread like this it's just an inevitable set up for a bash fest.

But the thing that most makes me doubtful of the conspiracy theories is how much is focused solely on the collapse of the WTC buildings. My first questions is: exactly what is supposed to happen when buildings are hit by planes and massive raging fires ensue?

When it boils down to the belief the buildings didn't fall the way they should so therefore there were explosives planted, one has to wonder.

The loss of structural integrity that has been shown by so much evidence is far more convincing than plane attacks and then explosives to finish it off, for a dramatic climax.

Unusual designs, unprecedented destruction by virtually gigantic bombs, they fell.

As it becomes clearer with time and distance, the nature of those collapses is used now as a rallying point for a movement wishing to blame the government for 9/11 rather than the foreign agents that planned and executd it.

Kinda easier to accept that the US was attacked rather than attacking itself.
Particulalry when there is endless amounts of intelligence and forensic evidence saying the same thing.

But there are loads of armchair radicals who like to think they've caught the government is some massive deception. And they find their support in the analysis of how buildings should or shouldn't fall.

I think you need a lot more than that.


Mike




[edit on 11-6-2009 by mmiichael]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


Talking about how 9/11 was a planned, controlled demolition is a passion of mine (although obviously I can't speak of it often or everyone would have me commited lol)

I've convinced dozens, if not hundreds, of people to at very least think about the implications of it being an inside job.

My main point is to talk about the site ae911truth.org www1.ae911truth.org...
[side note: for some odd reason when I typed it in a "www4", then a "www1" was added... no idea why]

This is a site in which nearly 700 architects and professionals state the facts about 9/11.

A few facts I point out are:

* airplane fuel burns at 1100 degrees but it takes over 3,000 degrees to melt steel.

* high-tech, engineered nano-thermite explosives were found in the wreckage of all three buildings.

* Three buildings fell, two planes hit... do the math.

All I want to do is get the idea that something fishy is going on. I never expect an immediate answer, although many people immediately say something like, "Gosh! I always knew there was something weird about that! [9/11]"

*

hang in there peops! We must never forget - 9/11 was a planned, controlled demolition! Justice and truth are in the balance and this is the perfect way to show it.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
funny you started this thread. I commented in the other thread about 9/11 and the Fresno morning show video, that I had sent that video on to friends and family, and of course got back a snide remark from a family member, here it is:
" Please! There is not overwhelming evidence that suggests controlled demolitions on any of the buildings. Not now not ever! By the way, the earth’s temperature has been changing since day one, it’s called the Sun. And Al Gore is a moron. I think that bout cover’s it. Your dear Brother In-Law, Chuck"

I have sent really good info to people, all with just about the same response. I used to have hope that people could read something and change their old ideas, now, I've just about given up. Almost.

Forgot to mention, out of 8 people I sent that video to, that was the only response I got back at all.



I'm sorry you're not listened to by your family - I'm in the same boat and it hurts. I have stopped sending info like this to any family except maybe once a year lol

We here at ATS will listen to you SunnyDee! =)



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I thoght I'd post this link to a relevant panel discussion you might find helpful.

It at least shows what an unbiased audience does when presented with both sides of the story.


Maybe you could start this as it's own thread in the Psych section! =)



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by downtown436
I have found that some people just already know it. Those who believe the official story simply do not understand the physics involved with demolishing a sky scraper.


Time for a reality check, friend- the "truth" as you seem to regard it isn't the truth. It's a SUSPICION. Moreover,it's a suspicion based not upon the truth, but speculation being used to fill the large gaps in your knowledge of the events of 9/11. Are you a demolitions expert? Are you a materials engineer? Have you ever actually set foot inside the WTC? Did you talk to anyone who was actually there and saw what happened with their own eyes? Did you even read the 9/11 commission report?

I'll wager it's all a big, fat NO, so when you try to claim you're all oh so wise and in the know when the entire summary of your knowledge comes from con artists running those conspiracy websites trying to get paranoid people to buy their books, DVDs, t-shirts, baseball caps, etc, well, let's just say that it's sorely lacking in credibility.


Please check out the empirical evidence, videos of demolition, and reported experience of nearly 700 architects and thousands of demolition experts at

www.ae911truth.org

(They won't ask you to buy anything...)



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
 


Have you noticed the thread where Richards Gage's architects and engineers speak?

These people do not come across as intelligent at all. You should take the 40 minutes to listen. It's pretty hilarious actually.



..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive
reply to post by downtown436
 


Talking about how 9/11 was a planned, controlled demolition is a passion of mine (although obviously I can't speak of it often or everyone would have me commited lol)

I've convinced dozens, if not hundreds, of people to at very least think about the implications of it being an inside job.

My main point is to talk about the site ae911truth.org www1.ae911truth.org...
[side note: for some odd reason when I typed it in a "www4", then a "www1" was added... no idea why]

This is a site in which nearly 700 architects and professionals state the facts about 9/11.

A few facts I point out are:

* airplane fuel burns at 1100 degrees but it takes over 3,000 degrees to melt steel.

* high-tech, engineered nano-thermite explosives were found in the wreckage of all three buildings.

* Three buildings fell, two planes hit... do the math.

All I want to do is get the idea that something fishy is going on. I never expect an immediate answer, although many people immediately say something like, "Gosh! I always knew there was something weird about that! [9/11]"

*

hang in there peops! We must never forget - 9/11 was a planned, controlled demolition! Justice and truth are in the balance and this is the perfect way to show it.


I assume you read NIST's final report that was released last August on the collapse of WTC7. Can you name 1 fault in the report?



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit
I assume you read NIST's final report that was released last August on the collapse of WTC7. Can you name 1 fault in the report?


If one of the parties in question is the government I don't consider the NIST report relevant (aka I don't trust them).

If we can't really trust what any specific group is saying, including most conspiracy websites, etc - we need to look at verifiable facts.

Here's what I base my 'truth' on:
[again from www.ae911truth.org - architects and engineers questioning the facts]

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY


(By the way, Big Unit, I have noticed Mr. gage and many of those guys do not seem to behave like paid actors...)



[Also a special invitation to GoodOlDave and mmiichael to please read the facts on this post and verify them yourselves at the given website before responding]

[edit on 11-6-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive

Originally posted by Big Unit
I assume you read NIST's final report that was released last August on the collapse of WTC7. Can you name 1 fault in the report?


If one of the parties in question is the government I don't consider the NIST report relevant (aka I don't trust them).

If we can't really trust what any specific group is saying, including most conspiracy websites, etc - we need to look at verifiable facts.

Here's what I base my 'truth' on:
[again from www.ae911truth.org - architects and engineers questioning the facts]

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)

1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
NOT TRUE

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
NOT TRUE

3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
NOT TRUE

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
NOT TRUE

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
DOES NOT OCCUR IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS

6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
NOT TRUE.

7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
NOT TRUE

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
NOT TRUE

9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
NOT TRUE

10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY
TRUE.

1 OF 10. Nice Job.


(By the way, Big Unit, I have noticed Dr. gage and many of those guys do not seem like paid actors...)


[edit on 11-6-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
NOT TRUE


Sorry FEMA, the facts you found on-site must be wrong because Big Unit's integrity says "NOT TRUE" in caps!

Edited to add the following...

I have to say I'm interested, from a Psychological perspective, how someone like you feels when he (I assume 'he') outright claims something is "NOT TRUE" when you can watch a video that simply shows you're wrong. It did freefall collapse, the entire world can watch the video - yet you claim it didn't.
Maybe in your world the twin towers are still standing; it's just as credible.


Originally posted by Big Unit
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
NOT TRUE


www.youtube.com...
"NIST has reversed its earlier denial of freefall and acknowledged a period of freefall comparable to this analysis in their final report on WTC7 released in November 2008."


[edit on 11-6-2009 by notreallyalive]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Big Unit
 


Have you noticed the thread where Richards Gage's architects and engineers speak?

These people do not come across as intelligent at all. You should take the 40 minutes to listen. It's pretty hilarious actually.



..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 12m8keall2c]


Hey Brad Jam...er uh, Big Unit, since you just registered your brand new account and you are all over the 9/11 threads like white on rice polluting them with your unsubstantiated opinion, why don't you go a. and give us some idea of exactly WHY said people don't come off as intelligent?

Richard Gage and the whole AE 9/11 Truth group have provided us all with a lot of scientific evidence. Your debunking attempts, and I'm referring to the ones in threads that don't get locked or removed by mods, have been based solely on your opinion. You fit right in the group with GenRadak, WMD_2008, etc.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by P1DrummerBoy

Originally posted by Big Unit
 


Have you noticed the thread where Richards Gage's architects and engineers speak?

These people do not come across as intelligent at all. You should take the 40 minutes to listen. It's pretty hilarious actually.



..............................................................................
[mod edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 11-6-2009 by 12m8keall2c]


Hey Brad Jam...er uh, Big Unit, since you just registered your brand new account and you are all over the 9/11 threads like white on rice polluting them with your unsubstantiated opinion, why don't you go a. and give us some idea of exactly WHY said people don't come off as intelligent?

Richard Gage and the whole AE 9/11 Truth group have provided us all with a lot of scientific evidence. Your debunking attempts, and I'm referring to the ones in threads that don't get locked or removed by mods, have been based solely on your opinion. You fit right in the group with GenRadak, WMD_2008, etc.



Example 1. One man thinks mini-nukes brought down the towers.

Example 2. 2 people think some of the hijackers are still alive.

I could go on, but its really not necessary.

I forgot a couple of my favorites. The guy who thinks thermite is commonly used to implode buildings and the guy who thinks the 45% angle cut is evidence of Inside Job. Those were funny.

[edit on 11-6-2009 by Big Unit]



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Beefcake
In the end Building 7 will do it almost every time. Loose change Final cut and Terrorstorm are very convincing and no worries about the Screw Loose change sites because these people you give Loose Change too won't go looking up Screw Loose change and if they do they just think its government paid for propaganda which it is.


Oh good GOD every time I hear someone say "go watch Loose Change" I just want to bang my . against the wall. I took their advice to go watch Loose Change, and just what did I see...?

LIES- in one scene, they showed a photograph of several people at the Pentagon carrying a large object, and Loose Change tells us "what is this covered object they're carrying out". It didn't take a 30 second google search to discover this wasn't some secret object they were carryign out, it was a triage tent being carried IN. that's how they were carryign it on their shoulders to begin with- it's just a big tent that weighs 20 pounds.

DISTORTIONS-They show one grainy clip from a mile away perportedly showing how the aircraft that hit the WTC may have launched missiles at the building by analying suspicious light reflections. This completely ignores all the five thousand OTHER video clips taken at ever angle that show no missile launch whatsoever. They discarded all those other videos and picked this specificone what kinda-sorta showed what they wanted it to show. There's no way this stunt could be unintentional.

INNUENDO-They showed a cover of a gov't report discussing terrorism released before 9/11/2001, showing the crosshairs of a rifle scope on the WTC, and implied it was proof of foreknowledge. Am I the only one who remembers the WTC was attacked by terrorists in 1993?

Apparently, the Loose Change producers themselves acknowledge their flick had too much bad information, since they relesed a second version where the claims like the ones they made above were removed. Apparently they didn't get THAT version right either, so they released a THIRD version. Yet, when you go to their web site, they're STILL selling versions one and two (as well as a bundled version of all three), despite knowing full well they have bad information in them...along with all sorts of lovely T-shirts, baseball caps, etc. The Loose Change site is one big shopping mall!

Oh, and the people who actually produced this and are putting this out, are they physicists, engineers, fire technicians, or anything like that? NO! They're a bunch of college kids who made this thing in their dorm room.

I'm sorry, but you have to be one real hard core Kool-aid drinker to not see those people are out solely to take people for a ride. When I say these conspiracy web sites are self serving and deliberately feeding people bad information for their own financial gain- pinch yourself- it's really true.



posted on Jun, 11 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Glad to see you're on Dave - care to talk about the facts posted above?
So we're clear - the 10 facts about bldg 7, posted by me, as taken from www.ae911truth.org.

p.s. Big Unit's "NOT TRUE" does not count as a debunk



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join