Project for a New American Century

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Azure

I'm still waiting for those links of civil engineers, and military generals who said the 9/11 commission report was fabricated and completely untrue.

Take 2:

http://www.WantToKnow.info/officials...mmissionreport

Just read through the first few names and what they've said. They don't jump to any conclusions whatsoever. They stay level headed about the entire thing, and just say their are many more questions than answers. Keep in mind these people are much more accomplished than both you and I...And anything they have to say about this matter holds extremely relevant merit.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by peter12

Oh come on... I could pull anything out of my old rear end off of youtube. Don't believe in AIDS? I'm sure I can find something on youtube...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=FoxCtYBXNpc

There ya go... Evil pharmaceutical companies.

This is the worst form of arguing...At least from an effectiveness perspective.

I can't believe so many people don't even bother to entertain the fact that there may be more to this story than meets the eye. If you watched the second youtube video, or read 'Rebuilding America's Defenses", you'd notice they directly mention an event just like we saw in 2001. That document came out a year earlier.

I guess people will believe what they want to believe.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Take 2:

http://www.WantToKnow.info/officials...mmissionreport

Just read through the first few names and what they've said. They don't jump to any conclusions whatsoever. They stay level headed about the entire thing, and just say their are many more questions than answers. Keep in mind these people are much more accomplished than both you and I...And anything they have to say about this matter holds extremely relevant merit.

I read through most of it.

I agree that they hold merit.....but I did skip over most of the idiots(yes idiots) who think their army career, or politician's life suddenly gives them knowledge on how planes act when they fly into buildings.

Sorry, but I'll listen to qualified experts, such as the people who did the Prague Simulation, instead of these people.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

I'm going to slap something together on this subject but give me some time. The games on!

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

They stay level headed about the entire thing, and just say their are many more questions than answers.

Unanswered questions aren't evidence.

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Keep in mind these people are much more accomplished than both you and I...And anything they have to say about this matter holds extremely relevant merit.

Appeal to authority #2.

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This is the worst form of arguing...At least from an effectiveness perspective.

Says the guy who just used appeal to authority twice in a row

I can't believe so many people don't even bother to entertain the fact that there may be more to this story than meets the eye.

I can't believe so many people believe the earth is 6000 years old, or that the moon landings were faked, or that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition, but they do.

I doubt most polled here would say they buy the "Fox News" account of the whole story. Reality is always more complicated than can be presented in a 30 second sound byte.

I guess people will believe what they want to believe.

That they will. Fortunately evidence doesn't care what people believe.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

This is the worst form of arguing...At least from an effectiveness perspective.

I can't believe so many people don't even bother to entertain the fact that there may be more to this story than meets the eye. If you watched the second youtube video, or read 'Rebuilding America's Defenses", you'd notice they directly mention an event just like we saw in 2001. That document came out a year earlier.

I guess people will believe what they want to believe.

And Tom Clancy had a pilot crash a fully fueled plane into congress in a book written before 9/11, oh my god, he's in on it too.

[Top Shelf]

In the Zeitgeist documentary, during the 9/11 part, there was an engineer (i think it was an engineer) who was explaining about the molten metal that was still in pools long after the collapse of the building. He provided scientific evidence that proved the only way those pools of molten could get that hot was with a substance (can't remember the name right now) that had to be present.

Interesting stuff, I would recommend watching Zietgeist to everyone, http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

[HotHotHeat]

Photon, other than blatant dismissal of this topic, what is the rationale of your side of the argument? It's clear you, along with others, have chosen to keep a very black and white opinion of what happened on September 11th. This attack on my appeal to authority argument is very weak. It does not discount these peoples opinions - and they remain much more valid than yours or mine. Another continuing argument you make is comparing people who believe 9/11 needs more investigation to people who believe in God? Are you kidding? Another extremely weak argument. It is also interesting how you almost became angered this argument was being held in this forum. As if it's only an acceptable argument for other places...I know you didn't go as far as to say that, but it's implication was apparent.

In my opinion, everything you've dismissed is based on your lacking understanding of the world around you. History is full of examples where governments have orchestrated events to provoke and sway the public during times of national urgency. If you allow yourself to look at the past few decades retrospectively, you realize that what happened on September 11th was essential to the course US foreign policy has taken since that time. It allowed the Bush admin to enter into a war with Iraq when there was absolutely no reasonable explanation to do so. The imperativeness they did so is now commonly related to oil...Well no kidding, right?

To truly understand the magnitude of American willingness to protect it's national interests, you can look all the way back to the 70's when Nixon realized the US could no longer rely on the gold standard to support it's economy. If you look at the history, you'll find that at the same time America went off the gold standard was the same time they started developing relationships with the Saudi royal family. This relationship allowed the U.S to convince the worlds richest oil nation to make the USD the oil trading currency. Since that time the US has used it's currency value to expand it's worldwide influence. Nixon also realized oil would be the most powerful tool in the coming years to control world opinion, and one might say he was right. He protected corporate American interests and in doing so made America a long term world super world.

Fast forward a few years to Iraq, you'll find America's relationship with Saddam was very close right from the time in took power. Do you know why he came into power? His predecessor was assassinated shortly after a speech he made to his Iraqi people that he was going to nationalize the country's oil reserves, stating 'Iraq's oil should belong to the Iraqi people'. Doesn't exactly sound like a time a leader would be killed by his own people, does it?

From the start, Saddam had a deal with the US to protect the oil reserves on behalf of American corporations. If you doubt any of this, feel free to look it up as it's all very available to read about. However the relationship went sour years later when Saddam refused to buy into American business deals.

The rest is easy enough to fill in. America needs an event to garner up support for long term preemptive foreign policy. Enter September 11th. Say what you want about the degree to which the US was involved, but its undeniable that the timing has continued to benefit America's interests.

You've heard it before and you'll hear it again. It comes down to the oil.

I hope you actually consider this post with serious thought, without dismissing it as too much of a stretch. This is the way the world is, like it or not.

[flylock shox]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And Tom Clancy had a pilot crash a fully fueled plane into congress in a book written before 9/11, oh my god, he's in on it too.

To be fair, Tom Clancy was never in any position to actually have an influence on 9/11...

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

To be fair, Tom Clancy was never in any position to actually have an influence on 9/11...

That's not what this engineer (I think it was an engineer) says on this youtube video I've stumbled across!

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

And Tom Clancy had a pilot crash a fully fueled plane into congress in a book written before 9/11, oh my god, he's in on it too.

You're right. My lack of post history and red squares discounts my perspectives. They have pretty much no use other than to leave to open to elementary mockery. Must be a nice view from the top...

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You're right. My lack of post history and red squares discounts my perspectives. They have pretty much no use other than to leave to open to elementary mockery. Must be a nice view from the top...

No one is attacking your red square count. Theyre disagreeing with your arguments. Welcome to an internet board.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

You're right. My lack of post history and red squares discounts my perspectives. They have pretty much no use other than to leave to open to elementary mockery. Must be a nice view from the top...

Pathetic.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Pathetic.

Frustrated.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Top Shelf

In the Zeitgeist documentary, during the 9/11 part, there was an engineer (i think it was an engineer) who was explaining about the molten metal that was still in pools long after the collapse of the building. He provided scientific evidence that proved the only way those pools of molten could get that hot was with a substance (can't remember the name right now) that had to be present.

Interesting stuff, I would recommend watching Zietgeist to everyone, http://zeitgeistmovie.com/

The gentleman you are refering to is Prof. Steven Jones, late of BYU. Like many of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth, Jones has had his job threatened because of the work he has done to promote his views of the truth and how they conflict with the official story. It should be noted that his work, as with all of those involved in the Scholars for 9/11 Truth movement, is peer reviewed. Of course that means nothing to most people, but to those who understand the academic process it brings credibility to the work. Sadly, HE has been attacked rather than the science of his work, and for that his efforts have been deminished. This has been a common thread with those who question the official story.

Something everyone should think about is the media coverage of the day and how events unfolded. In the begining, all outlets were reporting exactly what the reporters were seeing and hearing on the scene. It was honest and there was a level of integrity to it, because the people being interviewed on the street were saying the exact same things. Every station mentioned hearing explosions before the towers fell. Every station mentioned the erie similarities to the destruction of the towers with that of an intentional demolition. It stayed that way until about noon, when the first "official" story came out and who had perpetrated these attacks. At that point, the stories changed and the buildings collapsed because of the jets hitting them, causing a pancake, even though this conflicted with the information from those on the scene reported. Even when the architects and engineers who designed and built the building had their say, it was too late, the story had taken root. That story had been repeated enough where it became "the truth", no matter how unlikely or implausible it was.

What was also interesting about this was the fact the information was so concise and delivered to the media so quickly. Security camera images showed the alleged hijackers, and full dosiers were available on each individual. By the evening we knew where they had gone to flight school and where they had stayed and exactly how the whole plan had come together. For a system that had "not known about the attacks" and had suffered "massive failures at every turn" they certainly managed to pull all of that intelligence together pretty quickly. That later became the red flag for me. That told me they had developed this story in advance and it was a plant. Intelligence that concise is not developed in a few hours, not in the real world. But all it took was for the story to be repeated enough that it became the truth.

As obvious as this is, it has just never dawned on the vast majority of people out there. Why? Because we accept what ever authority figures tell us to accept.

[RougeUnderoos]

I don't buy into the conspiracy theories about 9/11, but I've never understood why they don't just release all the video of what happened at the Pentagon. Have they ever given a reason?

[HotHotHeat]

nvm

[photon]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Photon, other than blatant dismissal of this topic, what is the rationale of your side of the argument?

See, right off the bat it's "your side". Define my side. Define your side. What issue are we talking about?

It's clear you, along with others, have chosen to keep a very black and white opinion of what happened on September 11th.

And yours isn't? I already said most here would probably agree the official story doesn't (for whatever reason) reflect 100% of the truth. I've already said the world is complicated.

This attack on my appeal to authority argument is very weak. It does not discount these peoples opinions - and they remain much more valid than yours or mine.

Look up what an appeal to authority logical fallacy is. I didn't discount their opinions, I discounted ALL opinions. Facts and evidence are what matter, not opinions and speculation and gaps.

Another continuing argument you make is comparing people who believe 9/11 needs more investigation to people who believe in God?

This kind of tactic shows me that it's not worth discussing with you. I didn't say anything about people believing in God and equating that with anything, you're stretching what I said into something else and responding to that that instead of what I actually said.

It is also interesting how you almost became angered this argument was being held in this forum.

Again with making things up, where did I say I was angry? I simply asked if we wanted to do this all again.

As if it's only an acceptable argument for other places...I know you didn't go as far as to say that, but it's implication was apparent.

Again with the making things up, seeing implications that simply aren't there. I only said there are places better suited for it.

...stuff...
You've heard it before and you'll hear it again. It comes down to the oil.

See, I don't disagree with some of the things you've said. Like I said the real world is complicated. You're the one who's assuming things about what people are thinking, telling me that I see things as black and white.

The way you form your arguments and how you respond to posters and your prior history here shows me that it's not worth the effort; I wouldn't gain anything from it, and neither would you. I'd spend as much time dealing with all the crap like being accused of implications that aren't there and being attacked for things I didn't even say as I would actually discussing real issues. Which unfortunately seems to be typical, at least in my experience.

Not worth the effort. I've spent my time in this area long ago, I see no new "evidence" that compels me to revisit it.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

I came across this video a while back. Sheds a bit of light on the whole thing...

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

That doesn't really answer anything. It's just someone's interpretation of what they believe happened and uses some essentially anonymous quotes and background noise of Hitler and nu-metal for dramatic effect.

I'm quite willing to accept the official story, since I don't have a clue what happens when a plane crashes into a building like that, but what I don't get is why they just don't let everyone see it.

Why not?

And I don't need to hear "because it's a cover up" or anything of the sort.

What is the official reason, if there is one, why the footage has been buried?

"The American government hasn't released the footage of the plane striking the Pentagon because ___________________".

Can anyone fill in that blank?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by photon

Not worth the effort. I've spent my time in this area long ago, I see no new "evidence" that compels me to revisit it.

Exactly.

But I'm sure the people at the James Randi Educational Foundation would love to go over it.

forums.randi.org

Ask them HHH.