Island Nucklehead wrote:Ultimately, I think "each to their own". Some people refuse to believe that the US intelligence services (CIA, NSA and FBI) couldn't put the pieces together in time (or even pick up the phone and talk with one another), and the bits they did know about (possibility of terrorists targeting domestic airlines and using them as weapons) weren't believed or seriously considered by an inept Bush administration.
And it was a total coincidence that they just happened to be doing war-game exercises of a plane hitting the pentagon at the same time as it happened in reality? I agree, to each there own. I do not believe the reasons presented, and there are just too many indescrepancies to go into here. How about the free-fall of all 3 towers? How about the molten steel at the bottom of the wreckage? How about the fact that they're the only 3 skyscrappers in history to collapse due to fire? How about the lack of evidence surrounding the pentagon wreckage? How about all the criticism of the Pop-Sci article? How about the put-options on the target airlines BEFORE the attack took place?
Island Nucklehead wrote:
As for punks getting thier ass handed to them, I watched your youtube videos and he sure doesn't get his ass handed to him, he raises a ton of points, none of which are disputed very well, imo.
I'm not sure how many debates you've watched or been a part of. But sneering, laughing, and calling someone a "liar" without adding any shred of evidence, while your opposition takes apart nearly every one of your points with evidence provided by research done by experts in the field, generally means you lose.
I've been a part of a good many, and I realize that perhaps they were overly emotional but it's because they are up against a massive machine of lies, imo. But yes, they were a little testy with the Pop. Mech guys. However, attitude aside they repeatedly brought up very key points of contention that were either brushed aside or side-stepped by the pop-mech guys, who really didn't dis-prove even half of the objections brought up. If you watch parts 1 thru 5 this can be seen. I've no time right now to go back and pick examples at the moment, (tho I will later if need be) but several times the main issues brought up by the two "punks" are just not addressed by the pop-mech guys. Granted, there wasn't always time to continue the debate, but in answering claims they would often skirt the real issue and play the "crazy paranoid conspirators" card, a low blow imo.
**Edit** One that springs to mind is the discussion of the firemen in the tower min before the collapse saying they could put the fire out with 2 hand lines. They believed they could put it out fairly easily, and then boom complete collapse. This issue is totally side-stepped by the Pop-mech guys on 2 occasions. If the temps were hot enough to weaken the structure of the building (far above 1000 degrees) how were firemen there battling the flames min. before collapse? (If we want to continue I'll go through the vids with a tooth and comb
but this goes in to my point at the bottom about divisiveness)
Also, these two "young punks" should be freakin heros for having the guts to stand up to the amount of pressure and scrutiny they're put under, for no other reason than to expose what they believe to be the truth. Believe what they argue or not, at least given them credit for having the guts and the will to stand up for what they believe in in the face of great opposition. I wish more "old farts" would do the same, personally.
Island Nucklehead wrote:
I love a good Gwynne Dyer piece
, it's a highly thoughtful read, he makes too much common sense of things sometimes:
I don't think that Tenet,
Rice, Powell et al. would have deliberately plotted the deaths of thousands
of Americans. I don't believe even Dick Cheney would have done that.
Scary thing is, I do. You know that he's a chairman of Halliburton right? And thats just scratching the surface, dig deeper and you get the real dirt. The guy is scary.
Island Nucklehead wrote:
ten thousand people were in on it. They had to be, or it couldn't have
worked. And more than five years later, not one of them has talked.
Nobody has got drunk and spilled their guts. Nobody has told their
spouse, who then blabbed. Not one of these ten thousand accomplices to
mass murder has yielded to the temptation for instant fame and great wealth
if only they blow the whistle on the greatest conspiracy in history. Even
the Mafia code of silence is nothing compared to this.
I also have to point to the Manhatten Project as evidence that yes, this is possible. How about Kennedy, you think it was really Lee Harvey Oswald on his own that picked him off with two or more shots? It can be done, and has happened countless time throughout history. A GREAT read on this is The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
and when you look at what has happened since the war, and start to put the two together, it becomes even more clear. Without 9/11 there would be no war in Afghanistan, no invasion of Iraq, no Patriot Act, and the list goes on. Thats only in the states, I'll leave Europe out of it for now.
Again, I'm not saying I know the truth, I'm only saying that we DON't know the truth, and there is something they are hiding. If they wanted to prove once and for all that a plane hit the pentagon, show us the security footage taken from surrounding hotels that had a direct view of the crash. Put it to rest with 100% certainty. But they don't, they run smokescreens and dis-information, blasting it over any and all media they can. Meanwhile regular people with suspicions have no voice other then "young punks" trying to fill the void left by the corporate media.
It makes me think of a quote from those previous articles I linked,
More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation.
ClamRussel wrote:The weird thing is I find both the truthers and the media choir boys to be equally annoying. Neither of them seems to address the core issues in this controversy. The fact is the original official story is actually a conspiracy theory if you think about it and wasn't backed up with any evidence. Instead faces & names were flashed all over network television and print media.
I fully agree with this. What I find troubling is how this is so divisive, and people on either side are not willing to grant the other side anything. Maybe it wasn't 100% an inside job involving tens of thousands of people. But maybe they weren't blissfully 100% unaware either. Maybe we both have bits of it right.
As much as it might not seem so after these posts, I'm not 100% sold on the Loose Change story either, but they do bring up a host of interesting points that deserve valid, fair, unbiased consideration
of very important issues and discrepancies of one of the most important, world-changing events of our time. What is usually the retort is condescending, "crazy conspiracy theorist" type remarks without taking a hard look at the claims. That hasn't been done, and I'm sorry but an article in a magazine that is a right-wing conservative-owned "cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operations", by the cousin of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security just doesn't cut it. Also as Clam says, a full inquiry has never been done, now almost a decade after the fact. Well why the hell not? I can think of no valid reason as to why it should take 10 years. But hey, convince me otherwise