Page 3 of 10
Posted: 4/22/2006, 8:49 pm
by happening fish
I'd like to know why Loose Change took the pod stuff out of their second edition. It seems like there's pretty strong evidence backing it up.
Posted: 4/22/2006, 9:18 pm
by Hope
holy crap. i just read the couple last pages and i couldn't be more scared.
i'm going to watch this now.
Posted: 4/22/2006, 9:22 pm
by Axtech
take it with a grain of salt, though. I've found a couple of rebuttles to it.
granted, they were fairly superfulous.
For example, one rebuttle was about the supposed Osama confession video. One of the reasons they say this is a fake video is because Islamic law forbids wearing gold jewlery and "Osama" is wearing a ring. However, it only actually forbids wearing
solid gold jewlery, and there are plenty of photos of the real Osama wearing a ring and a watch.
However, the guy in the video still looks nothing like Osama.
the idea though, is that if they used a kind of half-truth like that, chances are there could be other "facts" of a similar sort in the video.
Posted: 4/22/2006, 10:10 pm
by Rusty
J-Neli wrote:For me personally this is really tough. This past year I took a course on Critical Security Studies which is basically a course on human security. We had a guy in our class who did a presentation on the holes in 9/11 and it was so hard to take him seriously, because from an academic standpoint conspiracy isn't looked upon very highly. So I come into it with a bit of skepticism to start.
With that in mind I think it's interesting how the pieces come together. There were some pretty big steps taken by the people who made the movie where some inferences were kind of missing a link. One in particular was the idea that explosions occured at the bottom of the towers as well as the top, which suggests to me that someone detonated one of the lower ones at the same time as the plane hit the building. Perhaps I misunderstood but they mention the 9 second gap between bangs, and I don't know if the idea that someone was sitting around waiting for it to happen is believeable. Sure it's possible, but it seems a little farfetched, especially to know in foresight what tower would be hit, and where that would hit specifically.
I also think that some of the eye witness accounts may have been skewed by what types of questions the reporters asked, as well as the magnitude of the event. If you just witnessed something slame into something else at an amazing speed, I think it would shock your system and I doubt most people would be able to think coherently under that much stress. But I could be wrong of course.
Again though there are some big holes in 9/11 that really makes a conspiracy plausible. I mean there is clearly bias in the movie. It's a movie that is trying to prove something. Of course they're going to leave out arguments that debunk their theories and only approach the ones that they know they can counter. I think it's definitely appropriate to question the events, but it is also as appropriate to question the movie as well.
There's already been some 9/11 debate in the last month or so. It seems like these conspiracies are really starting to take off cause I'm hearing a lot about them.
A question I have for you guys is, would you rather the events of 9/11 to have been an act by the American government? or by Terrorists? Keep in mind that if this was an event to spark an agenda, it is pretty much a one time thing at least for the forseeable future. The ball is already rolling. However, if it's terrorism, this can happen again and again without any real warnings and to me that seems a lot scarier. What do you guys think?
I agree with you about questioning the movie as well, it's important to look at the bias and reliability of everything.
One of the facts that stood out to me was, when the movie said that it was impossible for the plane to reach the speed it was said they were going at. That they would drop out of the air. Why report that they were going at that speed when it's impossible to do so?
Another one was dealing with pentagon. Such as, the hole in the wall and where were the jet engines then? Where was all the physical evidence, the lamp posts and such? What was under the blue tarp?
Also, why is the government hiding so much evidence? What are they hiding?
As important as it is to question the validity of a movie or any source reporting on a conspiracy, it is just as important to question the reliability or validity of the government. There are gaps in all the stories, gaps that need to be filled.
As for your final question. I think I would feel more scared if it was a conspiracy by the government. With a terrorist attack, then they would have reasons to do, anger, emotions all kinds of human aspects. They would have a point to make. Please don't take this as a justification for anything. The acts on 9/11 are very sad, so many innocent lives were lost. But if it was the government, and a conspiracy..what was their motive? Money? The thought that someone could do such a horrible thing for money is what frightens me the most.
Posted: 4/22/2006, 10:44 pm
by nelison
what I would find interesting is let's say we hypothetically said that next Wednesday a bomb will blow up the Parliament buildings, or the US congress. At the time of this hypothetical event occuring, could we look back and try to find coincidental events that happened prior to this hypothetical bombing that would have helped make the bombing successful?
Essentially what I mean is, is it possible to find evidence for anything? Let's say someone bombed the parliament building on Wednesday, could we then look back and find that coincidentally the parliament security cameras were in the process of being moved to new locations, etc?
There are a lot of coincidences and I think it would be interesting to determine if sometimes things are taken out of context.
Posted: 4/22/2006, 11:29 pm
by Rusty
That is a good point. A lot of this could be mere coincidence and blown out of proportion. But once there is a string of coincidences it becomes harder to pass them off as such. The problem society faces would be, how much is just coincidence, and which is something more?
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:16 am
by happening fish
I found this
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 11&pl=true
which has two more parts to it if you search google video for "martial law"
and basically it scared me shitless, and now i don't know how i'm going to go to sleep.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:25 am
by Axtech
okay, just started watching this...
first thing that I didn't know about ... John Kerry and Bush are cousins? wtf?
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:29 am
by Hope
whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:34 am
by Axtech
just looked it up, it's something like 16th cousins 3 times removed ... not exactly closely related, and I don't think that's really enough to jump around shouting "Bush and Kerry are cousins!!!!!!!"
This guy is clearly an extremist, and (far more so than the loose change video) needs to be watched skeptically. He jumps to conclusions quite often, always taking the furthest extreme view whenever possible.
That doesn't mean he's 100% wrong, just that there's no way I'm going to believe it as 100% correct based on this video.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:38 am
by Axtech
haha, I love his argument with the old guy.
"You're a capitalist!"
"You're a capitalist!"
"You're a capitalist!"
"You're a capitalist!"
Posted: 4/23/2006, 12:59 am
by Axtech
I think it's rather disappointing that somebody who has something significant like this to say ends up undercutting his point with BS like postulating what Michael Moore's internal monologue might be. Plus, like I said before, rather than questioning the "official truth," he poses the question and then gives a possible answer, stated as if obvious fact, while it's really just assumptions of the extreme worst possible explanation. It comes off as really immature.
Edit: Just watched the first one, didn't realize there were more parts. I don't think I'll bother with the others, at least not right now.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 2:34 am
by happening fish
oh yeah, there's a lot of foofera that you have to ignore. keep watching them though, it gets more serious and unsettling as it goes on.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 4:15 am
by mosaik
Okay, first of all I have to make one point in large font. I'm not using large font to imply "yelling", i'm only using it to make sure if you read nothing else in this post you read this:
There are no coincidences.
a coincidence is "A sequence of events that although accidental seems to have been planned or arranged."
Coincidence is not a disproof. You cannot refute the facts of this event by saying it could have been coincidence.
Fact: it was physically impossible for the plane crashs to have brought those buildings down. They were demolished by explosives.
Fact: No plane ever hit the pentagon
Fact: Flight 93 was staged
The united states government has lied and covered up what happened on september 11th, and they are never going to clarify their position. They will never explain further. They will never investigate the issue again. Their agenda will never become completely known.
You can speculate about who or why, but you will all walk away from this thread knowing the following:
The official version of the events is nothing close to what really happened. The few parts of it that are true have been skewed or altered to fit the version of events that the government wants you to believe.
The only reason some of you are defending the government is because to believe the truth is to horrifying for you.
This is not something that can be solved by getting a democrat elected.
It is not enough to shrug your shoulders and say "interesting movie! i really liked it! TWO THUMBS UP!"
you have to make a commitment to yourselves to revolt.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 5:56 pm
by naseoj
i think you're right in that some events are staged to make them seem like coincidences. However, a lot of the time, they simply are coincidences.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 7:18 pm
by naseoj
http://www.ogrish.com/archives/disturbi ... _2006.html
This website shows two transcripts and recordings of phone calls from two people in the WTC buildings who called 911 before they died. The second one with the man is especially sad and disturbing, because at the end, there is a huge imploding kind of sound, and the man kind of screams. Apparently this was the point the tower collapsed. It's really quite sad. Just makes you realize how so many normal, everyday, innocent people died, and the terror they had to go through.
Posted: 4/23/2006, 9:15 pm
by happening fish
wow i didn't need to hear that
Posted: 4/23/2006, 10:54 pm
by Axtech
holy shit I wish I hadn't listened to the last one ... the end is ... wow
Posted: 4/24/2006, 7:20 pm
by naseoj
i know, pretty disturbing...
...just imagine, after he screamed at the end he fell 105 storeys in about 10 seconds. pretty scary. and sad.
Posted: 4/24/2006, 7:40 pm
by Axtech
happening fish wrote:oh yeah, there's a lot of foofera that you have to ignore. keep watching them though, it gets more serious and unsettling as it goes on.
I think I'm going to watch the other parts tonight