9/11 conspiracy theorists energized

[transplant99]

Found this, believe it or not, on one of those government controlled mainstream media sites.

The movement claims to be drawing fresh energy and credibility from a recently formed group called Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

The organization says publicity over Barrett's case has helped boost membership to about 75 academics. They are a tiny minority of the 1 million part- and full-time faculty nationwide, and some have no university affiliation. Most aren't experts in relevant fields.

however, it's not all roses for the non-believers...

The standards and technology institute, and many mainstream scientists, won't debate conspiracy theorists, saying they don't want to lend them unwarranted credibility.

Members of the conspiracy community "practically worship the ground [Jones] walks on because he's seen as a scientist who is preaching to their side," said FR Greening, a Canadian chemist who has written several papers rebutting the science used by September 11 conspiracy theorists.

"It's science, but it's politically motivated. It's science with an ax to grind, and therefore it's not really science."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08....ap/index.html

[HOZ]

Woohoo!!!!

Since they won't debate the Truth seekers that means... they are in on the conspiracy hiding the fact.....

....that the missile that hit the Pentagon was fired from the Grassy Knoll!

....that black helicopters operating in and around the Twin Towers on 9/11 activated the remote guided planes and controlled demolition explosives when Karl Rove activated the "Take over the World" signal by reading Catcher in the Rye.



Don't get me started on the Moon landings....that never happened!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Found this, believe it or not, on one of those government controlled mainstream media sites.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/08....ap/index.html

Funny, that link isn't from FauxNews (or the Murdoch empire), The Weekly Standard (or the think tank enterprises), or any of the hate radio (Clear Channel) stations out there.



You know, the drive-bys on this subject matter are pretty pathetic. If anyone had any balls, they would engage in debate on a subject, not just post an opinion that supposedly discredits the other because it is based on what is viewed as "the official story". After all, the "official story" is even questioning itself and admitting that they felt they were lied to by those they interviewed. And we won't even go into the testimony of the hundreds of witnesses whose testimony were completely ignored because they would not provide the cooberating evidence to the "official story". No, we'll continue to allow the uninformed natter on and on about a subject the know nothing more than what the White House, er Faux News (doesn't matter, its the same thing), tells them.

[transplant99]

Funny, that link isn't from FauxNews (or the Murdoch empire), The Weekly Standard (or the think tank enterprises), or any of the hate radio (Clear Channel) stations out there.

OK...so what? You have stated, very clearly and on multiple occasions, that the government controls mainstream media. Is that not your stance any longer? If it isn't, then I agree with you.

You know, the drive-bys on this subject matter are pretty pathetic.

No drive-by here. I read the article and posted it. The content stands on its own.

As for the rest....it's been done to death.

Two planes hit two towers in NYC...they collapsed. This I saw happen live.

One plane hit the pentagon. It was reported minutes after it happened.

Another plane was commandeered by hostages and crashed. Audio calls to numerous family members confirm this, some on tape to this day.

Those are my beliefs.

You can believe whatever you like, but you have absolutely no proof to back up your beliefs other than "theories" of some alternative story.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by transplant99

OK...so what? You have stated, very clearly and on multiple occasions, that the government controls mainstream media. Is that not your stance any longer? If it isn't, then I agree with you.

The issue is a little more complex than you try to make it out to be. But you know that and are attempting to turn it into a black and white issue to attempt to discredit the view that contradicts your own. There are certain media sources that promote what ever messge the government (RNC really) wishes to insert into public opinion. These outlets are the majority in this country. Then there are corporate owned outlets that can be influenced to promote or pull stories through political and economic pressure. These outlets are the large in number as well. These two entities are no longer true news media and become nothing more than signal repeaters, echoing what ever message is inserted into their stream. Finally there are sources that still do real news, and don't care who they run over to get to it. They focus on facts, not opinion. They get multiple sources on a story, and they cross check those sources. They do not bury stories because they may **** off an advertiser or some clown in office. They are the public record and they take their job of informing the general public of what is really happening out there very seriously. They are real media, the others are infotainment at best. But I think you already know this, but are just too proud to admit to it.

No drive-by here. I read the article and posted it. The content stands on its own.

Ah, gotcha. Whenever an article is friendly to your opinion its all good, but the minute it isn't, it isn't worth the light of day.

As for the rest....it's been done to death.

If its been done to death, then why post this article? You seem to contradict yourself.

Two planes hit two towers in NYC...they collapsed. This I saw happen live.

Again, on a simplistic level you are right. This is what we all saw on television, but sometimes what we see isn't always true.

BTW... You were in New York that day? You were in the WTC when it happened? Wow, you never shared that information with us before.

One plane hit the pentagon. It was reported minutes after it happened.

Was it? That's funny, because a lot of the information that came out in the minutes that followed contradict that story. Only an hour or two after the fact did the story become more aligned with what would become the "official" story.

Another plane was commandeered by hostages and crashed. Audio calls to numerous family members confirm this, some on tape to this day.

Or so the official story goes. There is evidence to suggest otherwise. Oh, but I forgot, there was a swell movie made about the incident, so its true.

Those are my beliefs.

Good for you. My beliefs are different. I've taken the time to investigate the matters and educate myself on whta happened that day, and there are too many inconsistencies and coincidences for my liking. If you did the same research I suspect you would come to the same conclusion. Any intelligent being would. The difference is that there are too many people out there that are too damn lazy to do the work, or are too afraid to confront their greatest fear, that they are sheep being lead to the slaughter (figuratively).

You can believe whatever you like, but you have absolutely no proof to back up your beliefs other than "theories" of some alternative story.

Really? There is more scientific proof to support my beliefs than there is to support yours. There is plenty cooberative evidence to support my claims, much of it from people that were on the ground at the WTC. Oh wait, I keep forgetting that you're on the "side" that also defends Intelligent Design as the only true story of how the universe was created. So scientific proof has no room in your little world. All you need is a "story" from some "authority figure" for it to become "truth". Well, you have that. Bush has said that the "evil doers" perpetrated the act and that they acted alone. Good enough for you! Sorry, not good enough for me. I remain a skeptic, and the number of people that share those views are growing each day.

As I said, any time you want to go head-to-head on this subject I'm game (no dogpiling). I'll poke so many holes in the official story that you'll think its the Oilers defense. Until you want to buck up, please refrain from posting stuff like this as it encourages the juvenile drivebys from *******s like your pal HOZ.

[Staypuft]

I'll start by saying that I don't really want to debate anything here, because I know Lanny's superior skills would drown me in "conflicting reports" and "contradicting facts"...gosh how that could happen in a time of mass chaos and panic is beyond me.

But seriously...we all know Criss Angel did it.

The guy can pull a woman in half and levitate....making this happen would be like taking a dump to him.

[metallicat]

I've talked to a police officer that was at the Pentagon very shortly after the plane hit, and I'll take his word over anything I hear or watch on YouTube. If he says it was a plane, I think I've got that on pretty good authority.

[CsInMyBlood]

People really need to do some research on things, before blowing it off.

I did my research, and too many things are VERY strange coincidences.

Once again, the best message I can give is, go do some of your own research...then tell me that the story adds up.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The information can be slanted either way.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by CsInMyBlood

People really need to do some research on things, before blowing it off.

I did my research, and too many things are VERY strange coincidences.

Once again, the best message I can give is, go do some of your own research...then tell me that the story adds up.

Exactly. Those who dismiss those who raise questions about the events without being able to say they have done the research are doing themselves a dis-serevice IMO. If they think they know what happened because they watched events unfold on TV, reported through the filter of government license, they are sadly mistaken. I think people should do the research or not approach the subject.

[KevanGuy]

I have a couple question for you Lanny. I dont want to debate anything either way, I am just curious. I havent religiously followed these types of threads in the past, so forgive me if you have answered these before.

1) Do you believe planes hit the WTC?

2) Do you believe the government (or a similar entity I guess) imploded WTC 1,2 and 7? If so, what was reason/benefit?

Again, Im not dogpiling. Just curious.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Exactly. Those who dismiss those who raise questions about the events without being able to say they have done the research are doing themselves a dis-serevice IMO. If they think they know what happened because they watched events unfold on TV, reported through the filter of government license, they are sadly mistaken. I think people should do the research or not approach the subject.

Those guys who made Loose Change sure did their research, didn't they?

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by KevanGuy

1) Do you believe planes hit the WTC?

Of course I believe planes hit the WTC. There is irrefutable proof of multiple video streams, many of which were shot by amateur's observing the events after the strike on the first tower.

2) Do you believe the government (or a similar entity I guess) imploded WTC 1,2 and 7? If so, what was reason/benefit?

Yes, I support the implosion theory. There is just too much evidence to think otherwise IMO. There is not enough damage to the buildings to force their collapse. These structures were designed to take the stike of a fully loaded 707 to the central core of the building, a plane larger than those employed, and survive. As well, the fires that ensued were not hot enough, nor last long enough, to create catestrophic failure that took place. In is interesting to hear some people chase their tails while they try to explain the explosions on the other floors of the building, saying they were a result of jet fuel pouring down the elevator shafts (which were staggered and not connected as some would suggest). The central core was "broken" into a series of 8' length chunks of steel, a highly improbable result from the collapse suggested. Most damningly, the top of the first tower pitched greatly to one side, and its momentum should have carried it further away from the building and created much greater damage to surrounding buildings and a wider debris field.

So why would someone do this? The usual motivations? Money. Power. Delusions of grandeur? The PNAC had published their Mein Kampf and had stated that America needed to go back to the Reagan years of having a massive military with ungodly spending in this area. They acknowledged the only way to do this was through an event like a new Pearl Harbor. As well, they had designs on getting back into Iraq since before 1998, and they needed a viable excuse. Bush had been elected with the backing of smoe very powerful lobbies that needed to be paid back. Those lobbies just happened to be the military industrial complex and big oil. So how did things unfold because of 9/11? The military industrial complex got paid in spades. Business has never been so good for them, even during WWII and the cold war. Big oil is making record profits each and every quarter (billions). The PNAC found their way into Iraq, and Afghanistan as an added bonus. War profiteering is taking place on epic proportions. As well, they managed to claw back on our civil liberties, making it easier to monitor and prosecute us without just cause. Everyone got what they wanted, and the biggest ###### in Presidential history got elected for a second term. All of this took place because of the events of 9/11. Without this event, Bush would have been a lame duck president and would have been bounced after one term.

Now before anyone tries to suggest that Bush and Co. would not have had the cojones to sit back and watch this unfold, consider what he has done while in office. The invasion of Iraq was done without support of the military commanders because they knew what would happen to the soldiers who had to try and keep the peace. Bush didn't care. He still doesn't care. The body armor issue has been front and center, and he has done nothing. He has allowed thousands of Americans to be killed or maimed because they do not have the proper equipment, something he could have fixed with a sweep of a pen. Let's not forget that he sat and watched Katrina destroy New Orleans, even though he had advance notice of what was likely to happen. There are other examples, but these three are more than enough. Bush and Co. do not care about anyone but their own special interests. They have no conscience and would have no problem allowinf thousands to die to further their cause. They have allowed it to happen repeatedly.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Those guys who made Loose Change sure did their research, didn't they?

In some regards yes, in other regards no. They fit the evidence to their theory, not allow the evidence to stand on it own. Don't confuse those guys with the people who actually look at this thing objectively and see if the evidence stands up. Doing so would be like allowing Pat Robertson to be the spokesman for all Christians, or Usama bin Laden to be the spokesman for all Muslims. Some people get some air time that don't deserve it. I will give the kids that Loose Change some credit, they got people talking about the subject. A lot of the conversation has been negative, but some of it has been positive. Some of their theories are way out there (there are a lot of people who have unrealistic theories) but some of them have lead to some good questions that have lead to other discoveries. Out of bad can come some good.

Now if you want to continue this discussion, and care to post particulars, and not try to paint the whole subject with that paint roller, I'll discuss your objections. But if you're going down the road you appear to be, its no use. Your mind is closed on the subject.

[KevanGuy]

Thanks for answering Lanny.

[4X4]

Just a thought aboot the body armour point you made, Lanny... Wasn't one of your original points aboot military spending stuffs? Why are they chintzing on the body armour when they could be padding the pockets of friends AND keeping soldiers safe?

And please tell me that you know how to spell 'Usama bin Landen' properly...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Just a thought aboot the body armour point you made, Lanny... Wasn't one of your original points aboot military spending stuffs? Why are they chintzing on the body armour when they could be padding the pockets of friends AND keeping soldiers safe?

You sort of answered your own question. They're too busy padding the pockets of friends to BOTHER about keeping soldiers safe. Ever think the body armor is probably not made by one of those lobbies that supported the Bush campaign, hence the refusal to sign off on the bill for the armor? It's better for Bush to continue to replace vehicles (and soldiers) that get destroyed than retro-fit vehicles with armor plating from a company that didn't play well during his campaign. Or was that just too straight forward to consider? You never work for a business who had prefered vendors and would rather replace a whole system than pay another vendor to repair a broken one? There is a reason why there is billions unaccounted for in Iraq you know.

And please tell me that you know how to spell 'Usama bin Landen' properly...

Sorry, fat fingers when typing fast. I think I've posted the name enough around here to prove I can spell the name correctly. Jesus 5X5, you never make a typo before when typing fast?

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Now if you want to continue this discussion, and care to post particulars, and not try to paint the whole subject with that paint roller, I'll discuss your objections. But if you're going down the road you appear to be, its no use. Your mind is closed on the subject.

Thanks for the response Lanny.
My mind is not yet closed on the subject but it is getting that way, and Loose Change was one of the reasons why. I am NO fan of the Bush administration, the war, and the "war on terror", but I have to say that the ad hominem method of attack from many of the conspiricists has done enough to make me believe there are axes to grind. The science I have seen is simply not very convincing, and while I do believe the current regime is probably the worst administration in over 100 years (Nixon and Carter were not great, but at least neither was a religious zealot), it is entirely another matter to accuse the lot of high treason.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

...it is entirely another matter to accuse the lot of high treason.

Unfortunately, it is only high treason if THEY say it is high treason. How the hell does that work? I guess its like war crimes. You only get accused and tried if you are on the losing side of the battle.

Speaking of treason, how much more treasonous can you get than outing a CIA agent to the press during a time of war? Okay, we're not really at war, but if the Bush admin wants to use that line, they have to defend themselves from similar accusations. How a head has not rolled after this is beyond me. Clinton got demonized in the media and impeached for getting blow job. Bush can illegally invade nations, send Americans off to die under false pretenses, and profiteer off of the war, and he doesn't even get a passing glance from the media. How screwed up is this country getting?

[transplant99]

Ah, gotcha. Whenever an article is friendly to your opinion its all good, but the minute it isn't, it isn't worth the light of day.

How, and i really mean HOW, did you come to this conclusion based on that article exactly?

Fer chrissakes...the thing is ABOUT your "theory" gaining strength.

Wow, it's becoming all too obvious that your blinders are wrapped tight and have no hope of seeing anything but what you want at this point.

No more to say on the matter.