PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used? (video / documentary)



pete2020
May 31st, 2006, 09:44 AM
Hey everyone,
I am new to this forum.. I googled "forums" and found this site... great forums guys!

I am just wondering if any of you guys have seen this video called "September 11th Revisited: Were explosives used?" I got the link today in a bulletin on myspace and I have to say I am speechless. I am just looking for others who have seen this video and what you thought about it...

You can watch it online here:
http://www.911revisited.com/video.html


No one really wants to look at this stuff. I thought it was all crap, but the evidence in this video is actually quite strong that explosives were used. One thing is for sure: we need a independent investigation into the biggest crime ever known; which never happened. It certainly has nothing to do about "left" or "right" wing.

Thank you,
Pete

BrooklynRider
May 31st, 2006, 10:16 AM
There are some here who find anything the Bush administration says hard to believe, including the explanation for the 9/11 attacks and the hundreds of questions and pieces of evidence missing from the 9/11 commission.

There are probably a majority here who find anything the Bush administration says hard to believe, with the exception of their explanation for the 9/11 attacks. In that instance, they seem to grant this administration unlimited license to say what he wants, associate and disassociate issues with it, and take to calling anyone who thinks otherwise a "conspiracy theorist." The experts in their evidence are unquestionably right. The experts arguing to the contrary are called "quacks."

America.

pete2020
May 31st, 2006, 10:30 AM
Hey BrooklynRider,

I have to admit I was one of those people calling others "kooky" when they monetioned this stuff about 9/11 too, until I saw this video. It is a real eyeopener.. it just asks a questions and doesn't place blame. I've never even seen seen most of the archived news footage in this video until now.

Thanks!
pete

lofter1
May 31st, 2006, 11:16 AM
Jimmy Hoffa (http://info.detnews.com/history/story/index.cfm?id=42&category=people) did it.

They tell us he's DEAD (http://www.carpenoctem.tv/mafia/hoffa.html) but so far no CORPSE (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=2022865). Where's the BODY (http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/Fall05/slewis/Ch6.html)?

Hoffa weren't no cupcake. (http://www.sploid.com/news/2006/05/hoffa_cupcakes.php) But a scary tough-guy (http://www.world-of-celebrities.com/gallery/apco/IMAGES/mmpo/503529.jpg).

The maxim used to be "Follow the Money". Now it's become "Follow the OIL (http://www.anwr.org/features/bush-labor.htm)" !!

You might ask: "But where's the link from HOFFA (http://dol.gov/21cw/magazine/020314/hoffamessage.htm) > BUSH (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Bush_Ground_Zero.jpg)?"

Oh, ye of little faith (http://www.anwr.org/images/bush-hoffa.jpg) ...

Ninjahedge
May 31st, 2006, 11:36 AM
No.

Explosives were not used.

If you want more I could go on for QUITE a while on this, as I have on other boards, but I will avoid that for now.

BTW, the answer is 42.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 12:01 PM
I have to admit I was one of those people calling others "kooky" when they monetioned this stuff about 9/11 too, until I saw this video..
I used to think they were "kooky" too. Then I saw the video. Nothing has changed except maybe one more "kook."

Schadenfrau
May 31st, 2006, 12:27 PM
I can't believe people are duped by something so poorly produced and half-assedly explained, but they are.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 12:54 PM
So...as BR speculates...those Administration degenerates...might have decided to level with us...just on this one issue...Right?

Schadenfrau
May 31st, 2006, 01:19 PM
What's...with...all...the...ellipses, ABlarc?
... ... ... ...

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 01:26 PM
Copernicus stated that the earth orbits the sun.

The Bush Administration stated that the earth orbits the sun.

I believe that the earth orbits the sun, because I have accepted what the Bush Administration has stated.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Amazing how those who ridicule the conspiracy theories are automatically characterized as blindly accepting the explanations of the Bush Administration by those who (blindly?) accept the "scholarly" evidence of pseudo-scientists and nutjob radio talk-show hosts from Texas.

Ninjahedge
May 31st, 2006, 01:58 PM
I find it ironic that the people that say they have a brain, and therefore do not trust Bush or the current administration, would be so ready to accept explanations from other people that are equally ludicrous, but on the other side.


People have to be a little more careful about how theydefine things or they might ed up fitting a category that they set up as a criticism of people whose opinions they differ with.

Not meaning to harsh you Pete, but this is a very emotional issue that really should be dealt with clinically and not by what people "feel" should be right.


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 02:20 PM
9/11 did not happen exactly the way the "conspiracy theorists" say, but it most certainly did not happen the way the administration claims either. Don't you people believe in shades of gray?

This regime is a pack of liars. Condi lied when she said they had never anticipated planes being flown into buildings. A memo was later revealed mentioning that exact scenario. This is one lie out of about a thousand when it comes to 9/11. You people, so sure that it went down exactly as you've been told, sound as crazy as the people who think the planes were flown by remote control.

This is nuanced stuff, not just 2+2=4. Sure, lots of conspiracy nutjobs are making money off of 9/11. So are loads of politicians and contractors.

You guys are so dismissive of everything, your attitudes scare me more than the "crazy" theories.

The official story is a "conspiracy theory" as well, by every definition of the term.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 03:19 PM
You people, so sure that it went down exactly as you've been told,You should just speak for yourself, and not make broad statements about what we people believe.

Speaking for myself, I have not in any thread expressed that I accept any "official story," whatever that is. I simply do not believe that the buildings were deliberately brought down as part of a government conspiracy. As for being dismissive of everything, I have researched these theories extensively, and have posted some of my views in this forum. I no longer bother to engage in lengthy point-by-point explanations with spammers who go hippity-hop around the internet, dropping these little turds of look at what I found on dozens of forums.

I stated on another thread that this all-or-nothing approach invites ridicule, and hinders any meaningful discussion about what really lead to 09/11. Ablarc seems to think that because the Bush Administration lied about everything, they must be lying about 09/11. Well, if you free your mind from conspiracy theories, the lie becomes obvious.

On 09/12/01, the worst thing for the Administration to admit was that a terrorist organization was solely responsible for invading the US. A nation, albeit a rogue one, had to be involved .

That's the lie. Of course, it's not good theater, like shaped charges planted in buildings.

NYatKNIGHT
May 31st, 2006, 03:25 PM
I wouldn't put any illegal or immoral act past this administration, but their biggest weakness is incompetence. There's no way they could pull off something so hugely complicated and without detection, please! Even more impossible would be that nobody would have leaked some inside information by now.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 03:39 PM
You should just speak for yourself, and not make broad statements about what we people believe...

Ablarc seems to think that because the Bush Administration lied about everything, they must be lying about 09/11. Well, if you free your mind from conspiracy theories, the lie becomes obvious.
No, I don't, Zippy. Or at least I don't believe this: "Because the Bushies are liars, they certainly lied about this."

Here's what I do believe: "If there's something they wanted to lie about, they would."

That's not the same as adopting this or that conspiracy theory.

If you take your own excellent advice you won't jump to conclusions about what folks believe. ;)



I do believe we're not getting the complete picture.

Don't you?



Sometimes when I ask a question, it's just a question.

.

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 03:53 PM
So then, Zippy, I will speak for myself and say this:

The lies go beyond the Iraq War.

Certain people, supposed to be on our side, willingly cooperated with the terrorist plan, even helping it along. This could have happened with, or WITHOUT, that complicity being known to those who executed the plan, or to inferiors honestly trying to stop such a thing. Remember the Coleen Rowley memo?

I think the loss of a few buildings and a few thousand lives would matter absolutley nothing to people poised to rake in hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars. Don't forget the political capital that would enable key parts of our Constitution to be trashed while the masses cheered on.

In the first few years after 9/11, I spent a lot of time learning the story behind the Story, most definitely as much time as you claim to have spent.
I dismissed many of the theories as ridiculous. Many of them, I did not. Like you, I no longer spend time trying to convince people with "point by point explanations". Here, I will continue to refrain from doing so.

However, I find it hard to sit by while people try to mock those who do raise questions. Skepticism is healthy in a society where people are too disposed toward accepting the official line. As the very same administration was selling the Iraq War, more of such skepticism might have proven enlightening. Unfortunately, dissenters were crippled by the same attitude that pervades this thread.

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 03:56 PM
There's no way they could pull off something so hugely complicated and without detection,

There's been lots of detection. It's just been poo-pooed every time by people with louder megaphones.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 04:17 PM
Positive detection of Holocaust took place when tanks rolled into Auschwitz.

STR
May 31st, 2006, 04:26 PM
I wouldn't put any illegal or immoral act past this administration, but their biggest weakness is incompetence. There's no way they could pull off something so hugely complicated and without detection, please! Even more impossible would be that nobody would have leaked some inside information by now.

Thank you. Of all the points and counterpoints thrown by the sides on this subject, that alone is the most logical one (aside from the engineering studies, which are conclusive in and of thereselves and haven't been debated by the extremely critical academic community).

The Bush Administration can't do ANYTHING right. They can't even lie well, and when they try, it's 6 months max before they're called on it. To suggest they're responsible for the flawless destruction of the WTC is laughable.

Nevermind that the collapsing buildings are secondary. You don't think this country would still be screwed up if two 767's crashed into the towers and they more or less stood? No, not really. Sure, we wouldn't have a bunch of people hawking Trade Center momentos, and the images of people standing in the ruins wouldn't be there, but the fireballs would. The gaping holes would remain. A thousand people would still have died.

But that's arguable, the one thing you can't argue is the fall of Tower 7. Who ever gave a sh#t about 7WTC? There's people on this site, a forum of NYC urbanism and architecture, that couldn't pick Tower 7 out of a lineup of photos. To all but a few people, the trade center was the iconic Twin Towers and maybe the plaza. Tower 7 was as or even less important than Banker's Trust. Why go through the risk, the expense and the headache of blowing up this afterthought.

Look at the players. Look at the motivations, try to think like the conspracists. It doesn't add up.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 04:30 PM
Certain people, supposed to be on our side, willingly cooperated with the terrorist plan, even helping it along.To restate: I simply do not believe that the buildings were deliberately brought down as part of a government conspiracy. I never siad people in government don't lie.


I think the loss of a few buildings and a few thousand lives would matter absolutley nothing to people poised to rake in hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars.You have no way of knowing what people would do; you only can prove what they have done.


However, I find it hard to sit by while people try to mock those who do raise questions. Skepticism is healthy in a society where people are too disposed toward accepting the official line. I only mock the non-science of these videos, and the pre-determined conclusion. There are many published sources of infomation that expain these "anomalies.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 04:41 PM
The Bush Administration can't do ANYTHING right. They can't even lie well, and when they try, it's 6 months max before they're called on it. To suggest they're responsible for the flawless destruction of the WTC is laughable.
Even incompetents have their fortes. For the Bushies, it's lying.

They may not lie well enough to satisfy you (or now, even the American public), and they may not lie well enough to avoid being called --and even called on the carpet-- but they lie well enough to stay in power and out of jail (except for Abramoff). They lie better than Tricky Dick Nixon --and they have even more to lie about.

They're vindication of Goebbels' maxim that the bigger the lie the easier it is to get away with.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 04:41 PM
Here's what I do believe: "If there's something they wanted to lie about, they would."

That's not the same as adopting this or that conspiracy theory.

Sometimes when I ask a question, it's just a question.

And sometimes it appears otherwise.


So...as BR speculates...those Administration degenerates...might have decided to level with us...just on this one issue...Right?BR's speculations seems to cloud the nature of the question.

Ninjahedge
May 31st, 2006, 04:41 PM
Sometimes when I ask a question, it's just a question.

Have a cigar.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 04:47 PM
Even incompetents have their fortes. For the Bushies, it's lying.Lying requires no special skill. Any 5 year old can do it.

Resolving the aftermath requires expertise. Very few 5 year olds, and so far Bush, are been able to do so.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 05:01 PM
Some aftermaths are bigger than others. Richard Nixon knows about this.

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 05:35 PM
And some aftermaths can be postponed until it no longer matters- by piling on MORE lies.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 05:40 PM
Have a cigar.
If I do, will I go far? Will I fly high? Will I ever die? Am I gonna make it if I try? Are they gonna love me?

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 05:53 PM
And some aftermaths can be postponed until it no longer matters- by piling on MORE lies. Which doesn't answer the question posed in this thread.

The aftermath is management of the "lie" of no conspiracy. Is there any evidence that the Bush team is particularly adept at this? Have any of the conspiracy theorists estimated the number of people that would have to be buttoned up to prevent the plot from unravelling?

Wasn't this recently attempted with a USMC squad in Iraq? Didn't work.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 06:18 PM
What you and I think of as not working is what Karl Rove and the boys think of as working. Their criterion: does the Prez stay in office?

The press drops it eventually.

That didn't happen with Watergate. Now that was one coverup that didn't work.



What do you hear about all those trucks that Halliburton "lost" a few years back?

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 06:21 PM
Which doesn't answer the question posed in this thread.

whaddaya want, a simple yes or no? Sorry.


Have any of the conspiracy theorists estimated the number of people that would have to be buttoned up to prevent the plot from unravelling?

Actually, not many. The number of people in a bureaucratic organization who have information or clearance about all operations is very small, usually only those at the top. Information is given on a "need to know" basis, and it's segmented.
Sabotaging an investigation can be as simple as moving budgets around, or ignoring a memo. Or issuing visas to people who have terrorist histories.

To assert that too many people would need to know is just wrong. The few people at the top who would need to know are the ones whose complicity ensures their own silence.

ablarc
May 31st, 2006, 06:27 PM
Actually, not many. The number of people in a bureaucratic organization who have information or clearance about all operations is very small, usually only those at the top...To assert that too many people would need to know is just wrong. The few people at the top who would need to know are the ones whose complicity ensures their own silence.
True.

And even if large numbers are involved you can maintain deniability. The Final Solution did that right up to the actual liberation of the first camp.




(And as we know, some folks still don't believe it actually happened --including the president of a soon-to-be nuclear power.)

Bright Lights, Big City
May 31st, 2006, 09:27 PM
It's funny that some people think the Bush administration with all the resources of the richest nation on Earth couldn't have possibly pulled off the flawless destruction of the WTC, but an oil-tycoon's son living in a cave in Afghanistan with a few million dollars and a tight-knit network of maybe a few hundred people were capable.

Bush may be incompetent, but don't doubt for a second that the people around him don't know exactly what they're doing. With resources like the CIA, the NSA, and the US military institution anything is possible. Even if I don't believe that the Bush government planned and executed this act, I certainly believe that they are far more capable of it than Al Qaeda. If not, the US would not be the superpower it is and we would all be speaking Arabic.

And the point doesn't have anything to do with getting caught in lies - this was happening a long time ago with this admin and they still got a second term and still close to half the American population supports them. It's the blind leading the blind and in those cases perception is everything. It's just like another poster said: getting caught in the lies means nothing if enough people can smear the investigators and their investigation - this is what the White House along with institutions and corporations like Fox News do every day. Even if Bush and his friends did blow up the WTC, and there was plenty of evidence to prove it, few would believe it when all the spin and diversionary tactics came pouring out of Washington.

peace

BL BC

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 10:16 PM
And the point doesn't have anything to do with getting caught in lies No, the point has to do with the ability to pull off a massive coverup involving possibly thousands of people.


and there was plenty of evidence to prove itFor instance.

Here's another one. Silverstein is alleged to be a key player in the conspiracy. It's amazing that politicians have been able to push around a man sitting on that information.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 10:40 PM
whaddaya want, a simple yes or no? Sorry.
There is no reason to get churlish just because I disagree with you.


And even if large numbers are involved you can maintain deniability. The Final Solution did that right up to the actual liberation of the first camp.Are you equating the control over society by the Nazis with the US?

In any case, the Final Solution was proved by the existence of the camps. The conspiracy is proved by what - a president who lies?

MidtownGuy
May 31st, 2006, 10:51 PM
There is no reason to get churlish just because I disagree with you.

Funny, it was you who I believed was being churlish when YOU singled out MY post for not answering the question posed in the thread title. Being churlish toward me is certainly the way to elicit a similiarly flip response.


Are you equating the control over society by the Nazis with the US?

Yes. Most Germans didn't even know they were being controlled in the way we think of it. Read They Thought They Were Free by Milton Mayer.

ZippyTheChimp
May 31st, 2006, 11:00 PM
Don't be so sensitive. I didn't single you out. I answered your post. Reread my ENTIRE reply.

My question about Nazis was directed at ablarc, but your response speaks volumes.

BrooklynRider
May 31st, 2006, 11:47 PM
...The Bush Administration can't do ANYTHING right. They can't even lie well, and when they try, it's 6 months max before they're called on it. To suggest they're responsible for the flawless destruction of the WTC is laughable...

The Bush Administration has succeeded on many fronts - including the hijacking of the last two presidential elections. They lied very well in the beginning and they got away with it because the pile of lies had not yet accumulated. Six years in and the wires are getting crossed. One uncovered lie reveals a track to many others. Bush is less of an idiot than we think. They succeeded in the beginning because there was cohesion and support for the neocon philosophy. They circled the wagons at the onmset, but have since been running for the hills. The rogue government we have running this country has proven it will let its citizens be killed with little care about public opinion. If 9/11 doesn't convince you, look at Katrina. Incompetence would imply they performed poorly in defense of the citizenry. In both cases, they simply failed to show up. That's intentional and, when the resources are there, its murder.

Side note: I am delighted to have demonstrated restraint by waiting until page 3 of this thread to weigh in once again. [Personal best on "conspiracy theory" threads.] Hooray for me.

STR
June 1st, 2006, 12:48 AM
Criminal negligence is one thing, deliberate destruction is entirely another. That's what's been advocated here, it's bullshit and you should know it. At the very least, it doesn't even come close to standing the test of Ockham's Razor. At a deeper level, no 9/11 conspiracy I've read really goes very deep. It's basically goes

Bush (substitute Neocon's, PNAC, Illuminati, Free Masons or "The Man," if you want to) lied about Iraq and got Americans killed to serve his personal ends.
Therefore Bush lied about 9/11 and got Americans killed to serve his personal ends.

The conclusion does not follow the the precedent.

Fact is, the great WTC and the powerful United States was crushed and brought to its kness, respectively, by a couple of people with box cutters and pocket knives. Some people can't handle that. They don't like the idea that their world can be so greatly altered and thrown into chaos by so few weak men. So they make up theories of the powerful being at control; that there is indeed order to the chaos. It oddly gives them, likely you as well, comfort on some level.

Unfortunately, it isn't true. A few weak, random people, brought the deaths of thousands and the destruction of billions of dollars of property and due to incompetence, the government did nothing to stop it. Deal with it.


It's funny that some people think the Bush administration with all the resources of the richest nation on Earth couldn't have possibly pulled off the flawless destruction of the WTC, but an oil-tycoon's son living in a cave in Afghanistan with a few million dollars and a tight-knit network of maybe a few hundred people were capable.

First, 9/11 wasn't flawless. The 4th plane did not reach the Capitol. Al Qaida, seeing its NYC attacks go above and beyond expectations, claimed a total victory, but that's PR BS. Their planes hit the buildings and everything after that was luck.

Second, the government has many tools. Some of these tools, namely the CIA, frankly suck. They couldn't even kill Castro. They couldn't keep their prisons secret. They couldn't hide their prisoner abuses.

Third, no operation on the level of 9/11 could have been flawless. By anyone. A purposeful collapse especially. Why? Because prior to 9/11, no one had any idea how a braced tube like the WTC would collapse. Nevermind how to control it in a way that look like a 'natural' (for lack of a better word) collapse. It required a level of knowledge that didn't exist.

Fourth, well, never mind. I read the rest of your post and when I read the part where "if the US wasn't great enough to pull off 9/11 we'd all be speaking Arabic". Which doesn't make sense in any way shape or form, nevermind that it's a loaded question. So I figured arguing with you further would yield a diminishing return.


True.

And even if large numbers are involved you can maintain deniability. The Final Solution did that right up to the actual liberation of the first camp.

Problem with that argument is that the locals knew damn well what was going on in their name. All those cars going into the camp full of people were coming out empty. Those camps have a finite amount of space and they weren't doubling the housing every 3 months. The locals weren't stupid, they did the math.

Just like how you couldn't hide the hundreds of people needed to drill, place and wire tons and tons of explosives in the towers without the workers noticing. Someone would figure out, or at least remember it once the towers were gone.

Schadenfrau
June 1st, 2006, 01:09 AM
Welcome, STR.

STR
June 1st, 2006, 01:11 AM
^Glad to be here.

Bright Lights, Big City
June 1st, 2006, 01:43 AM
STR said:

"First, 9/11 wasn't flawless. The 4th plane did not reach the Capitol. Al Qaida, seeing its NYC attacks go above and beyond expectations, claimed a total victory, but that's PR BS. Their planes hit the buildings and everything after that was luck."

I don't believe I said 9/11 was flawless. I said the destruction of the WTC was executed flawlessly.

Also, my use of the term "flawless" was in response to an earlier poster who had said something very similar earlier in this thread, but claimed the Bush government was incapable of pulling off something this well-executed. I was simply responding that the Bush government would be far more capable of something like this than Al Qaeda any day of the week. I'm not saying that Bush and friends planned this or anything like that - I'm just saying that in terms of resources and capabilities, the US government is in a far better position to execute something like 9/11. Personally I don't believe this is the case, but I do wonder if perhaps the attack was knowingly allowed to take place. There has been plenty of evidence that senior government officials knew of specific threats to New York and the WTC in particular (remember the 1993 bombing?), yet we know now that essentially 0 precautions were taken to stop it, and when the time came, the government was woefully unprepared to deal with it.

Point is, if the government knowingly allowed this act of terrorism to occur, they are guilty of mass murder. If not, they are still guilty of criminal negligence causing death for failing to protect the populace of New York, Washington, and America in general when there were specific threats known, and Saudi nationals on US watch lists were enrolled in flight training schools in Florida. I mean, come on!

The whole Katrina mess was just more proof that the US government picks and chooses when it wants to use its power and resources. Iraq is a perfect example. The "conquering" of Iraq took a few months, but the "rebuilding" has barely even begun three years into the occupation, and sectarian / anti-american violence has the country on the brink of civil war. But the oil is flowing faster than ever, though gas prices are higher than ever. And the US military is trying to rebuild Iraq when the Lower Ninth Ward and much of the city of New Orleans is still devastated from Katrina, and the levees aren't ready for the 2006 hurricane season.

Now is a tough time for America. I only hope that this great nation has the will to change its direction before it's too late.

I also know in my heart that it is cities like New York and other progressive urban centers that can change the political climate in the US, and try to bring some common sense back to the foreign and domestic policies of the world's only superpower.

peace

BL Bc

ablarc
June 1st, 2006, 08:36 AM
Problem with that argument is that the locals knew damn well what was going on in their name. All those cars going into the camp full of people were coming out empty. Those camps have a finite amount of space and they weren't doubling the housing every 3 months. The locals weren't stupid, they did the math.
Proves my point. It doesn't matter what the locals think, just as it doesn't matter what tens of thousands of conspiracy theorists think. It only matters what is accepted as the official version of proven truth.

Hundreds of people can know about something, and it's still a secret.



I'm not saying the government blew up the World Trade Center (I don't think it did). I am saying that the difficulty of keeping a secret is not proof that they didn't.

.

Ninjahedge
June 1st, 2006, 10:16 AM
If I do, will I go far? Will I fly high? Will I ever die? Am I gonna make it if I try? Are they gonna love me?

When pigs fly.

ablarc
June 1st, 2006, 10:56 AM
^ Be nice.

ZippyTheChimp
June 1st, 2006, 11:47 AM
Proves my point. It doesn't matter what the locals think, just as it doesn't matter what tens of thousands of conspiracy theorists think. It only matters what is accepted as the official version of proven truth.

Hundreds of people can know about something, and it's still a secret.

I'm not saying the government blew up the World Trade Center (I don't think it did). I am saying that the difficulty of keeping a secret is not proof that they didn't.

The difficulty in keeping a secret is directly related to the nature of the two societies, i.e. the ability to act upon the information.

Just as a 09/11 conspiracy would be difficult to contain, the Holocaust was hardly a secret. Its implementation required integration with the fabric of German society. The original mechanism of extermination was trucks built by the Sauer Company, with controls which diverted exhaust gases into the cargo compartment. People were loaded into the trucks, and by the time the trucks arrived at the burial sites, they were dead. This method was used until it could no longer handle the workload.

The German railroads had the responsibility to transport victims to the camps. There were timetables, and a fare structure (one-way tickets only).

The banality of evil.

Whereas the knowledge of such information would eventually lead to a feeding frenzy of media coverage, if not in America, certainly worldwide, there was no such mechanism in Nazi Germany. You shut your mouth, or rationalized that it wasn't happening, or profited from it. A suggestion that there is an equivalence with conditions in America is an insult to Americans, and to a greater degree, Germans who had to live through a time of madness.

Let's take this discussion, and make a few substitutions:

Remove New York 2006, Bush, and 09/11; add Berlin 1942, Hitler, and Holocaust. Where do you suppose this forum and its members would wind up? Would Pete2020 be parading up and down the Unter den Linden handing out pamphlets?

Indeed, would there be any cottage conspiracy industry? Would there be a Cathy Sheehan protesting WWII outside the Berghof?


The supporters of the conspiracy theories seem to be basing its validity on Bush's character as revealed by his actions. I'll go one step further and hypothesize that Bush planned the conspiracy for the following week.

It doesn't matter, because the rejection of the conspiracy theory is not based on the notion that an American government would never do such a thing, but on technical and logistical issues.

Ninjahedge
June 1st, 2006, 12:38 PM
^ Be nice.
http://pinkroioart.myftp.org/2000-06-06%20-%20When%20Pigs%20Fly/whenpigsfly_front-thumb.jpg

Was I being mean?

ablarc
June 1st, 2006, 01:27 PM
Was I being mean?
Well, since you put it that way...

Ninjahedge
June 1st, 2006, 02:06 PM
Well, since you put it that way...

That's what SHE said.

....nudge nudge....

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 18th, 2006, 09:23 AM
This new video was released on the 5th anniversary. Filmed by residents 36 floors above the city and only 500 yards from the WTC, the video shows the ground beneath the WTC after the first attack, and the fire engines attending the scene.

http://www.revver.com/view.php?id=59686

Ninjahedge
September 18th, 2006, 01:46 PM
What about it?

What is the point of you posting this? I am not slamming it, but you give no direction or meaning of the link, and it also requires QT, which I cannot install here at work, so.....

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 19th, 2006, 03:14 AM
Well I first got the link from a site saying that it was "evidence" that a military plane had crashed into the building, but that is just what "apparently" one of the persons behind the camera utters (although I didn't hear it myself and you cant see the second plane from the angle from which the video was shot).

So forget about all of that as a reason to watch this (as I was induced to originally)

The reason to watch is that the videographer is remarkably close (only 500 yards) and there is a lot of video of the fire and rescue guys and the general chaos on the ground surrounding the WTC Towers before they collapse.

What struck me was just how clean it all looked on the ground before the towers collapse. You can hear and see the fire and rescue teams approaching and there appears to be nothing wrong at all on the ground at that stage.