Conspiracy Theory Vids and Docs

http://www.911blogger.com/files/video/911truthCNN.mov

And on the one below, stop all the lower videos and watch the very top one, under:
"Update: World Trade Center 7 Imploded by Silverstein, FDNY and Others"
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html

More on Operation Northwoods:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/ope...northwoods.html

http://www.freepressinternational.com/cove...fair-video.html

http://freepressinternational.com/virus-sp...ead-nyc-sf.html

Accusation on HAARP:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/haar...rp-florida.html

The problem with conspiracy theorires is that they greatly overestimate the foresight and planning abilities of the conspirators.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
The problem with conspiracy theorires is that they greatly overestimate the foresight and planning abilities of the conspirators.

---

Don't take this the wrong way, but the problem with statements like that is that they usually have even less evidence to back them up than the conspiracy theory they're questioning.

Are you implying that the people that run this country (and in some aspects a major portion of the planet) can be more reasonably underestimated in their capabilities?

What in the history of our nation gives you the impression that, were these conspiracy theories to be taken more seriously, the American government could not be capable of orchestrating something like this, especially in the light of not only the very valid points that are being brought up right in front of you, but also the type of meticulous planning that has been the foundation of "national defense" since before you and I were even born?

I don't ask anyone to fall blindly in line with any conspiratory paranoia just because it seems esoteric and intriguing. Weigh the facts from all sides. Weigh what you hear from officials, what you hear from the media, what you hear from the theorists. After having done so, the rhetoric of "what's wrong with a Conspiracy theory" as if no conspiracy theories have bases and they can All be grouped under a "ficticious" label, doesn't quite stand up, ya know?

Implying that some conspiracy theories turn out to be false is so obvious it goes completely without saying, but implying that all conspiracy theories should be dismissed without investigation because they are most likely false is misleading and, some would say, a flat out lie.

9/11 – Bush, First Plane:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/789390596252748...6/bush1stplane/

Yeah. He saw the first plane hit. ....On TV...which was "Obviously On at the Time."

Give me a break.


9/11 – The Great Conspiracy:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/gre...conspiracy.html

9/11 – David Ray Griffin: 9/11 commission omissions and distortions:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/dav...commission.html

Secret Evil of 9-11:
http://videonewz.blogspot.com/2005/12/secr...vil-of-911.html

9/11 – Second Tower is about to collapse: (Who knew? Obviously someone did.)
http://www.freepressinternational.com/coll...8g10044691.html

9/11 – German tv “Bush behind attacks”
http://media.putfile.com/911bushadminbehin...germantv050610m

9/11 – The Road to Tyranny:
Road to Tyranny Vid

9/11 – Loose Change:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/911...ose-change.html

9/11- Code name able danger:
http://media.putfile.com/911codenameableda...angeratta050810

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
9/11 – Bush, First Plane:
http://www.zippyvideos.com/789390596252748...6/bush1stplane/

Yeah. He saw the first plane hit. ....On TV...which was "Obviously On at the Time."

Give me a break.

---

Another Great speach with Hilarious jokes by Mr Bush. Man how DID that man get re-elected?

But yeah, bush knew about 9-11 somehow. Being at a childrenschool seems like a nice cover-up and at the same time, it looks like bush is at schools all the time, while he actually went to like 5 schools in his carreer (probably).

And then I am counting his own highschool too :)

More Illuminati stuff:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/illu...nati-video.html

Subversive Use of Sacred Symbolism in the Media:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/subv...edia-video.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
You know, I was kind of taken by the emphasis Bush was putting on America's mission to "lead the world," and the "democratic future of all middle eastern nations," and hinting at the "Democratic future of Iran," specifically, during the address, last night. Now I've heard about the topic of this next video before, and read the declassified text on the quote he mentions at the end, and I think it offers definite Evidence of a motive behind the US's (Theoretical) involvment in 9-11.
The fact remains that, even if the Bush admin were not A) anticipating the 9-11 catastrophe or B) guilty of making the catastrophe bigger by pulling the buildings that, more than likely, wouldn't have fallen in the first place, the course of events that are unfolding keeps many of us questioning just how much of this stuff was and wasn't planned out, and quite logically so.

http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/pro...an-century.html

Any thoughts?

---

I dont think theres any question that the PNAC folks (Bush's entire administration) were behind 9.11. Like you said, the buildings were obviously rigged with explosives and came down with no resistance. They weren’t going to mess it up this time, like in 93’. Have you seen that video talking about the 93’ bombing and how the man behind the attacks recorded the head of the FBI ordering him to carry out the attacks?

Anyway, here’s some more vids

This one has eyewitness testimony and then scientific analysis, its not really a conspiracy vid, but a good one for skeptics of teh 911 inside job theory
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=19...610169657809939

And this one is similar. Its Dr. David Griffin giving a lecture on all the coincidences of 911 that spell doom for the "official story."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=68...001821567284154

Oh yeah, and did you hear about the recent Zogby poll? Apparently 45% of Americans believe 911 was at least partially an inside job. Hopefully this leads to a new impartial investigation

I hadn't heard about the Zogby poll, but I'm glad to see that not as many people are as willing to lay down and take the "official" accounts of what happened without some degree of skepticism. Thanks for the vids, I'll check them out soon. :goodjob2:

And now for more things that make you go: "Hmmmmmmm..."
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...n-building.html

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
And now for more things that make you go: "Hmmmmmmm..."
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...n-building.html

---

a) there's nothing in that video that suggests it was filmed on 9/11.
B) it's posted on a blog by some dude from Texas.

What makes me go 'Hmmm' is that people take 'information' like that seriously.

A) Of course not. That was the first thing that went through my mind when watching the vid. However, there is nothing to suggest it wasn't filmed on 9/11. Those opposing points are what should intice you to look at the video a little more objectively. Whether you do or don't believe it was filmed on 9/11 requires a leap of faith that I haven't even eluded to, but you've obviously made. :wink:
What should make you say "Hmmmm" is whether or not the video is authentic as being a depiction of something that took place on 9/11, which may or may not deserve a little more scrutiny than "Oh, well that's just bullshit." The burden of proof you suggest must be present in any claim actually works both ways, in the real world.
B) Could you explain to me how a person's location on this planet (let alone strictly in the U.S.) affects whether or not their information is credible, in the age of satellite phones, gps systems, worldwide blogging, mailing lists and text messages?

If I was so quick to pass judgement on every new peice of "information" I ran into, based on a priori assumptions, I'd probably have the same reaction. As understandable as that is, though, you should really try holding off on the verdicts until you get a little more info on the subject, ya know?

http://www.freepressinternational.com/coll...8g10044691.html
(Real or fake? That takes investigation. As it stands, though, it's evidence.)

Quote:

---

However, there is nothing to suggest it wasn't filmed on 9/11.[/b]

---

There's also nothing to suggest that a '57 Chevy isn't orbiting Jupiter.

Quote:

---

Whether you do or don't believe it was filmed on 9/11 requires a leap of faith that I haven't even eluded to[/b]

---

You didn't even allude to it? Let's see, it's a video of an FDNY fighter saying there's a bomb in a building posted in a thread full of 9/11 conspiracies and makes you go "Hmmm". I'd call that a little more than alluding.

Quote:

---

Could you explain to me how a person's location on this planet (let alone strictly in the U.S.) affects whether or not their information is credible, in the age of satellite phones, gps systems, worldwide blogging, mailing lists and text messages?[/b]

---

There's nothing wrong with him living in Texas, it's the credentialess 'some-dude' status that bothers me.

As for the new video, the first building had already fallen, so it's reasonable to assume that the second one might come down as well. Informing bystanders that a disaster is imminent is a great way to get them to clear the scene.

EDIT: The number 1 problem with conspiracy theories is that they greatly overestimate the power and foresight of the conspirators.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

There's also nothing to suggest that a '57 Chevy isn't orbiting Jupiter.[/b]

---

No doubt. But, by your logic, a first-person perspective video of a white, vinyl dashboard and fuzzy dice floating through space (whether or not the perspective is facing Jupiter) would be an immediate fake with absolutely no room for a defense. (Just humoring that one. I'm not even going to get into the chasm of factors that explain why it is much more possible for this video to be authentic than for a '57 Chevy to be orbiting Jupiter. For you to even throw the two into the same context shows a detachment from even trying to have a serious conversation on the matter.)
Or, as wikipedia would say:
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
You didn't even allude to it? Let's see, it's a video of an FDNY fighter saying there's a bomb in a building posted in a thread full of 9/11 conspiracies and makes you go "Hmmm". I'd call that a little more than alluding.

---

I posted the video in the exact same context that I found it. It was in a "9/11 video archive" along with a bunch of other videos that were (a little more obviously) "from 9/11." Unfortuntely for your case, without choosing to stay neutral on the video's authenticity, which is anyone's prerogative, there is more to suggest that the video was taken on 9/11, than that it was not (and we won't even touch back on the '57 Chevy.)

Quote:

---

There's nothing wrong with him living in Texas, it's the credentialess 'some-dude' status that bothers me.[/b]

---

So, exactly how far up the celebrity status ladder does someone have to be before you give them so much as the benefit of doubt?
[Edit: Nevermind the fact that many of the stories posted by "some guy from Texas" I've been able to verify through other sources after looking them up. The Divine Strake weapon test being the most recent.]

Quote:

---

As for the new video, the first building had already fallen, so it's reasonable to assume that the second one might come down as well. Informing bystanders that a disaster is imminent is a great way to get them to clear the scene.[/b]

---

True enough.

Quote:

---

EDIT: The number 1 problem with conspiracy theories is that they greatly overestimate the power and foresight of the conspirators.[/b]

---

Your having used this twice makes me wonder if I'm the only one missing it's significance.
Please expand on this by either educating me on the limits of the power and foresight of the international community, or backing-up (with visual aid, hopefully) the implication that no known conspiracy theory has ever been proven to be true over the course of time; a modest enough request for me not to dismiss that statement as rhetoric, no?

[Edit 2: Aaaaannnnnnnnnnd then there's this:
Fourth Amendment: Fourth and Wrong:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nsa-...-amendment.html ]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut
No doubt. But, by your logic, a first-person perspective video of a white, vinyl dashboard and fuzzy dice floating through space (whether or not the perspective is facing Jupiter) would be an immediate fake with absolutely no room for a defense. (Just humoring that one. I'm not even going to get into the chasm of factors that explain why it is much more possible for this video to be authentic than for a '57 Chevy to be orbiting Jupiter. For you to even throw the two into the same context shows a detachment from even trying to have a serious conversation on the matter.)

---

I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to use the "you can't prove it isn't" argument in this situation. Especially when the issue at hand involves such intense accusations (i.e. the US bombed three structures and killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda). Was my analogy obscure? Yes. Does it still get the point across? Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

Quote:

---

there is more to suggest that the video was taken on 9/11[/b]

---

I must've missed that part. It's faaar more likely that the video was taken in '93 when there actually was a bomb in the WTC.

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
So, exactly how far up the celebrity status ladder does someone have to be before you give them so much as the benefit of doubt?

---

Who said anything about celebrity status? I just want credentials of some sort (i.e. association with a respected news agency, oh wait, they're all in on it too right?).

For all you know that video was posted by a terrorist trying to trick you into distrusting the government. As for your verification through other sources, how about you post those instead? Hopefully they're more trustworthy than some blogger who, come to think of it, may or may not live in Texas.

How can someone who is so critical of authority blindly believe whatever he happens to see when he types 'conspiracy theory' into Google?

At least you have Charlie Sheen on your side.
http://www.wwtdd.com/index.php?type=one&i=756

Quote:

---

Especially when the issue at hand involves such intense accusations (i.e. the US bombed three structures and killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda). [/b]

---

i agree that such accusations require a reasonable basis...but really, it isn't too absurd to suggest the US goverment killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda..fits right in with many of their actions since 1492 (and yes, i know there wasn't technically an american government yet)...

Quote:

---

Who said anything about celebrity status? I just want credentials of some sort (i.e. association with a respected news agency, oh wait, they're all in on it too right?). [/b]

---

well, i doubt they're "in on it", but money seems to be the only thing that buys power and/or respect nowadays. the respected news agencies are "respected" because they are backed/owned by the richest portion of earth's individuals. those who give the people what they want.

fox news is an obvious example of how a widely respected news agent can spew biased, misleading, even downright false "news".

most people wouldn't consider the possibility 9-11 was orchestrated by the US, and so the major news networks aren't going to suggest or pursue that possibility. there is no money without viewers.

most people can only digest the communal cud fed to the rest of the cattle...others eat anything besides the communal cud...often complete bullshit.

as always, it seems balance is the key to finding the truth. neither eating cud nor shit, but processing the various angles on every story, and coming to a logical conclusion.

personally, the american government's explanation for the events of 9-11 does not seem any more believable than many of the various conspiracy theories.

Quote:

---

i agree that such accusations require a reasonable basis...but really, it isn't too absurd to suggest the US goverment killed thousands of innocent people to further their own agenda..fits right in with many of their actions since 1492 (and yes, i know there wasn't technically an american government yet)... [/b]

---

1492?

There wasn't even an American SETTLEMENT by then, let alone a government, technical or no. Jamestown wasn't until the 1600's, and even that was only a single town. The colonies didn't officially unite until the late 1700's, and then, up until about 1800, the colonies were so disorganized and apathetic in their views towards eachother that they were only a unified government in name only. They couldn't perform any dastardly deeds to further their own agenda, because they didn't HAVE an agenda. Or rather, they had too many agendas, most of which were conflicting.

It would be FAR more accurate to change that date to at LEAST the mid-1800's, with the large-scale abuse and removal of the Native Americans. In fact, the first truly controversial use of US power that could be construed as being to further the American government's own agenda would be the Spanish American war in 1898.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by wombing
well, i doubt they're "in on it", but money seems to be the only thing that buys power and/or respect nowadays. the respected news agencies are "respected" because they are backed/owned by the richest portion of earth's individuals. those who give the people what they want.

fox news is an obvious example of how a widely respected news agent can spew biased, misleading, even downright false "news".

---

I'm not talking about Fox or CNN. I'm talking about AP and Reuters. Heck, even an independent study by an educational institution would be nice. They don't censor content before a paper is published--as long as the research is properly referenced.

1492, isn't that when Columbus 'discovered' North America?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

How can someone who is so critical of authority blindly believe whatever he happens to see when he types 'conspiracy theory' into Google?
[/b]

---

If you have any conviction into your point of view, you can state your case without insulting my intelligence by accusing me of being That ignorant, as any confident adult should be able to do. Thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker@
oh wait, they're all in on it too right?

---

And another straw man goes up to replace the last one.

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
I was simply pointing out how ridiculous it is to use the "you can't prove it isn't" argument in this situation.

---

Every bit as ridiculous as suggesting that my not being able to "prove" something with present information is indictation that even the suspicion of it, and looking into evidence for it, is practically idiotic; Just as arguing that "Psi Doesn't Exist, you moron" is every bit as debatable as "Psi Does Exist, you moron."

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

I must've missed that part. It's faaar more likely that the video was taken in '93 when there actually was a bomb in the WTC. [/b]

---

Point taken. By the way, I love how you carefully pick and choose which items and points to and not to respond to. Very Covert. :roll:

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker

As for your verification through other sources, how about you post those instead? Hopefully they're more trustworthy than some blogger who, come to think of it, may or may not live in Texas.

---

Alrighty.

All linked through, to, or first read about by myself on freepressinternational, referencing more mainstream media:
(Again, despite your accusations: I've never claimed everything I read to be true. I put them up for debate and discussion, and would like to get a little more opposition than "the government wouldn't do that so it must be fake" Or as "Zen and the Art of Debunkery" would satirically state from your position: )

Quote:

---

• <> Imply that investigators of the unorthodox are zealots. Suggest that in order to investigate the existence of something one must first believe in it absolutely. Then demand that all such "true believers" know all the answers to their most puzzling questions in complete detail ahead of time. Convince people of your own sincerity by reassuring them that you yourself would "love to believe in these fantastic phenomena." Carefully sidestep the fact that science is not about believing or disbelieving, but about finding out. [/b]

---

Vids:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/12/bil...government.html
http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/co...oncentrate.html
http://win20ca.audiovideoweb.com/ca20win15...untdown_56k.wmv
http://www.freepressinternational.com/unma...speed-boat.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/brai...e-detector.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/stil...-navy-ship.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/fox...es-founder.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/cbs...-and-bones.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/01/ins...-and-bones.html
Divine Strake: (Just an introductory vid. The test was postponed, but if you want to read more about it, look it up.)
http://www.freepressinternational.com/neva...une-2-2006.html
Northwoods: (Familiarize yourself with this one, and then get back to me about how all conspiracy theories are, unequivocally, such-and-such)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2006/03/ope...northwoods.html
The Fourth Amendment:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nsa-...-amendment.html
9/11
http://www.freepressinternational.com/911-...-911-tapes.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/fbi-...negligence.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush...addam-9-11.html
N.W.O.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...world_disorder/
B. Grove:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bohe...ohn-conner.html
War Memo:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/bush...r-war-memo.html
Stun Belt:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/zaca...ourt-msnbc.html
Martial Law:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/mart...ed-america.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/warr...l-searches.html
War on Terror:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/tds-...iran-video.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/lega...ader-james.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/hele...mptive-war.html
Weather:
http://www.freepressinternational.com/owni...ther-video.html
http://www.freepressinternational.com/nbc-...er-control.html


Docs:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/25/...ain676613.shtml
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4535661.stm
Reuters - Divine Strake
http://www.livescience.com/scienceoffictio...rfid_chips.html
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...L&type=politics
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/
http://news.com.com/Terrorism+invoked+in+I...?tag=nefd.pulse
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107...07:H.R.2977.IH:
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst122004.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/special/iraq/index.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/1...k.devilworship/
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/0.../01/pope.ny.ap/
http://www.army.mil/fcs/index.html
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2005/03/sci...type-metal.html
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...MNGM393GPK1.DTL
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/02/...ain576332.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12591414/
http://www.weather.com/newscenter/atmosphe...e.html#military
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/art...ther_change_it/
SourceWatch:
Down in External Links :
“Peter Starck, Secretive Bilderberg group to meet in Sweeden – Source: Free Press International (Reuters)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bilderberg
http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/01/3...30/ronson.them/

Let me know when you’re done, and I’ll dig up some more for you.
Or then, you could try looking into a few of the subjects yourself? Just a thought. It could help (or hinder) the faith-based defense of government you seem to relish enough not to deny having. Might want to start with Operation Northwoods.
[Edit:
I'm still waiting for your evidence that suspicion of government and its agenda is unfounded. I'm waiting for evidence behind your implications that all conspiracy theories can be labled as unfounded, or...basically evidence for any portion of your argument that isn't either propagated by the government in question or simply a faith-based opinion. I'm sure it shouldn't be hard to gather, so maybe you could share some of it with us to convince anyone other than yourself that yours is the most logical position, without simply relying on self-sustaining rhetoric.]

i readily concede:

1. my post was sloppy, flawed, and hasty.
2. i was on my last glass of 1.5 liters of wine when i wrote it :shakehead2:

in the future i will try to restrict semi-drunken posts to senseless banter :wink:

---

just for the record, my (rather foggy) train of thought while writing my last post was that columbus represents (for myself) the beginning of the "american spirit".

many americans recognize this every columbus day by moreorless identifying with columbus as an honorary "founding father".

if i had clearly and (correctly) placed the start of the american government's killing of innocents later than columbus, my point would still be valid. the american governemnent's track record justifies suspicion of killing of innocents.

----

Quote:

---

I'm talking about AP and Reuters. Heck, even an independent study by an educational institution would be nice. They don't censor content before a paper is published--as long as the research is properly referenced. [/b]

---

understood.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Oneironaut)</div>

Quote:

---

If you have any conviction into your point of view, you can state your case without insulting my intelligence by accusing me of being That ignorant, as any confident adult should be able to do. Thanks.[/b]

---

Alright, I take that comment back and apologize. Just got carried away when making my point.

My point in more friendly language:
If you are going to count ambiguous videos on random internet blogs as possible evidence for a conspiriacy theory, you can't count official government reports (ie. evidence against the theory) as complete fabrications since it's obviously the more reliable of the two sources.

A question, which is more probable:
1) the US government (in cooperation with countless other individuals and agencies) devised and successfully excuted plans to destroy 3 structures, kill thousands of innocent civilians and make it all look like Islamic terrorists.
2) the video on the blog was actually taken in '93 when there was a bomb in the WTC (or at any other time in recents years when a bomb was in an NYC building).

Sure it's possible that its #1, but this is where the '57 Chevy analogy comes in.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Oneironaut@
And another straw man goes up to replace the last one.

---

Haha, I was kidding. But really, they'd almost have to be.

<!--QuoteBegin-Oneironaut
By the way, I love how you carefully pick and choose which items and points to and not to respond to. Very Covert.

---

I try my best to respond to all revelant portions of every post. If you'd like me to respond to something specifically I'd be happy to.

As for your immense load of linkage, I read through a good amount of it. The situation in Cuba in the '60s was of particular interest, obviously.

The key difference, it's muuuch easier to 'attack' a target in the middle of the ocean than in Manhattan. But interesting nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker

A question, which is more probable:
1) the US government (in cooperation with countless other individuals and agencies) devised and successfully excuted plans to destroy 3 structures, kill thousands of innocent civilians and make it all look like Islamic terrorists.
2) the video on the blog was actually taken in '93 when there was a bomb in the WTC (or at any other time in recents years when a bomb was in an NYC building).

---

You appear to be sidelining the argument. Why you choose to attack that one video is interesting. There have academic papers published, many scientists and professors, and engineers who are supporting this particular "conspiracy:" theory regarding 911.

Such as MIT engineer and research scientist Jeff King
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8...904938803031452

Or Steven Jones, physics professor at BYU
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=96...034652002408586

Or the dozens of eyewtiness accounts available only because some families of the victims of 911 sued the City of New York to have them released to the public...

the truth about 911 is far from a conspiracy, which traditionally hinges on coincidences only, not hard scientific evidence and eyewiteness testimony. so you could only be justified in calling what happened on 911 a conspiracy if the only evidence people cited was the stock trades on the two airlines used in the attack just prior to 911, or the fact that the owner of the WTC just bought and took out a record insurance policy on the buildings, etc...

Yeah, I thought the whole insurance policy thing was pretty interesting too. How about all of the tapes from security cameras from the hotels surrounding the pentagon area? The ones that May Actually Show a plane smashing into the Pentagon, as opposed to the obscure, unidentifiable, two-frame shot of the "nose" of the plane just before impact, actually taken at the Pentagon that they put on the news? Where are they?

to Brady:
“Random Internet Blogs” is another assumption implying that I’m just going from blog to blog, blindly, looking for anything that has to do with “9/11 Conspiracy.” Once again, that’s not true and does nothing for your case. You asked for links giving at least some credibility to the stories posted on FPI, I gave you enough that you actually remarked on them as an “Immense load.” Again, the point of that was not to prove anything but that there are enough factual stories on FPI to at least consider Some of it’s information as credible, which is a far cry from the worthless drivel you’ve been trying to label them as. Aside from that, I think they go well into dispelling your comical implication that “at least having Charlie Sheen on my side” is the extent of the culture that question Washington’s agenda. The information on Northwoods, alone, renders your rhetoric of conspiracy theories being collectively fallible completely false.

And I didn't quite mean that you couldn't defend with anything relevent and factual from the government. I just meant some blanket peice of cover like their declaring the piss-poor images of the "plane" hitting the pentagon as a means to "dispell the conspiracy theories." That was my miscommunication..

Your “which is more probable” question gives the false impression of the two choices being opposites. I’ve already admitted that you made the point of the vid more probably being from ’93. I agree on that, but to state your question as you did implies that, if the video was made in ’93, that somehow makes option #1 any less probable, which it doesn’t. In turn, my stating how that makes #1 no less probable makes the official story of the attack having no US influence or co-operation no less probable either. Cases with this amount of circumstantial evidence for either side aren’t always as black and white as you seem to be trying to reduce them to.
That video was a weak addition to my side of the argument, but its omission makes the argument itself no less valid. I have another vid somewhere that states there were reports of “secondary devices” going off inside the building.(which I thought the last vid was referring to, until you opposed it) I’ll see if I can find it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(bradybaker)</div>

Quote:

---

The key difference, it's muuuch easier to 'attack' a target in the middle of the ocean than in Manhattan. But interesting nonetheless.[/b]

---

Two points on this one:
1) How is the simplicity of something the “Key” difference? We are talking about conjuring up a pretext for war here, not the “simplest way to get a quick scare out of the population.” You honestly deduce that, if these allegations were true, the US Military would compromise the concept of Simplicity over Believability? That they would choose Convenience over Horrific Realism? I’d say that’s a pretty remarkable claim, myself.
<!--QuoteBegin-wikipedia

A line frequently quoted by critics from Rebuilding America's Defenses famously refers to the possibility of a "catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor" (page 51). This quote appears in Chapter V, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", which discusses the perceived need for the Department of Defense to "move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts” (page 50). The full quote is as follows: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor." Some have used this quote as evidence for their belief the US government was complicit in the 9/11 terrorist attacks. See the article 9/11 conspiracy theories for further information on this topic. Many critics also claim the PNAC believed this "new Pearl Harbor" would justify war on Iraq.

---

The “---like Pearl Harbor” thing may or may not be evidence toward US involvement in 9/11. So much remains to be seen. However it is important to note the awareness of the ideologies that go into war pretext when speculating how such and such “overestimates the foresight of the conspirators.” When all else fails, how hard is it to classify something and have it locked away for twenty years, as a fail-safe?

2) What is “more probable” is more subjective than you seem to acknowledge. What is “more probable” to you, as a means to an end, is probably a bit different from what’s “more probable” to a four-star general. What’s “more probable” to you; some guy from Canada (to use your same characterization) is probably a little more different than those at the head of an entire branch of government who, likely, think more in terms of Macro- than Micro- when it comes to pros, cons and human life. Such a scope of measurement is so far beyond your and my subjective experience that to try to speculate on what is more probable in a situation like this, without knowing who stands to gain what, and where all possible interests are, (not to mention the ends and outs of how the government really works) is foolish. It is awareness of that uncertainty that justifies investigation of a conspiracy theory such as this. Using faith-based assumptions like “Well the government wouldn’t do that,” just doesn’t hold up. It is because of this principle that scandals at Abu Graib (sp) and Haditha weren’t simply left as allegations and have led to full-fledged investigations. Blind belief is just as illogical as blind opposition.

Call 9/11 (most of the "evidence" rolled up into one)
http://fpidocument.blogspot.com/2005/12/call-911.html

Found this interesting:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/06/06/nazi.crim...imes/index.html

These too:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/06/07...tion/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/06/inv...i.ap/index.html

Wow. :shock:
The case for voting fraud:
http://oldamericancentury.org/ConyersOhioH...aring_chunk.wmv


And an email to Michael Brown about FEMA's Katrina response:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/09/kat...mail/index.html

Wow, Thats very convincing, I have never seen any of this before and its all very eye opening. Too bad there no real Jack Bauer to save the day. Though you think with almost unlimited resources they could do a better job if its all true that is. Then again (it this is true) it all worked, the mass majority of people do belive what they wanted them to. The few that dont are not taken seriously and can do nothing about it. So the bad guys win.

I agree, landsquid. But whether or not all of this stuff is true, I&#39;m happy to see that there at least a large number of people out there who are conscious enough to try to find truth, for themselves, instead of being spoonfed whatever the powers-that-be tell them is truth.
Even "good" parents often tell "little white lies" to their children.


9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony
Commissioners considered criminal probe of false statements
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/02/9-1...agon/index.html