New 9/11 Documentary

I really dont understand what caused that third building to collapse. Like a controlled explosion. Thats what shows up the whole affair to have something more to it.

Reply 2

the most interesting bit on that is at 32minutes in.

where they show some news stories about evidence found in 1995 that they were gonna fly planes into the wtc

then where they have this british pakistani interviewed in 2000 about he was trained to fly aircraft into buildings.

Reply 3

Bismarck

You don't understand something, therefore there is a conspiracy at work. Brilliant logic.

Thats my personal sticking point after watching random number of these types of documentaries... that tips the balance for me from believing the governments version of events, and believing the investigators version of events. Wheres the failure of logic in that? everyone has different points in an argument which would sway them. That is the part which sways me.

Reply 4

Bismarck

Because you fail to grasp the fact that there are thousands of experts who don't agree with a handful of conspiracy theorizing lunatics and because you fail to account for the rather obvious fact that conspiracies as large as this would have to be are impossible to keep secret. I mean, Bush asks Rice if he can go to the bathroom at the UN; it makes the news. Bush secretly extends the spying program; it makes the news. Bush orders a massive attack on the US; everyone keeps silent. :rolleyes:

watch that movie above from 32mins in... theres nothing from conspiracy theorists in it. Its footage from interviews with the president and his aids.

Reply 5

Teehar

Bismarck

Because you fail to grasp the fact that there are thousands of experts who don't agree with a handful of conspiracy theorizing lunatics and because you fail to account for the rather obvious fact that conspiracies as large as this would have to be are impossible to keep secret. I mean, Bush asks Rice if he can go to the bathroom at the UN; it makes the news. Bush secretly extends the spying program; it makes the news. Bush orders a massive attack on the US; everyone keeps silent. :rolleyes:

theres one thing very clear about people like you, apart from "ZOMG LOLZ you are so wrong and liek wierd just cos you could like believe something the government denies :rolleyes:

"

you dont provide any credible evidence for the point he brought up about the third building, and saying thousands of experts disagree is not a credible argument.

Reply 6

New bizarre 9/11 conspiracy theory - You won't believe it

19 pissed off muslim males, were given detailed instructions on how to conduct a precisely timed military campaign against a world super power, by a bearded man with a walkie talkie in a cave, in the mountains of one of the worlds poorest countires.

Those men proceded to smuggle some razor blade knives through security check points, used them to take control of 4 airplanes, flew around the east coast erratically, evading military jets on exercises and proceeded to hit 3 buildings in exactly the designated spots. The fourth plane never made it to it's target, but have no fear because a fourth building fell down all by itself anyways.

The government was able to piece together almost every detail of the operation within a week, despite the fact that all of the evidence was incinerated, except for the hundreds of clues which were left behind by the extremely in-competant attackers.

Reply 7

pumpkin7

13

taking about knives... you know they have those boxes now which they put all the knives found on people in? well, in one box, there was a meat cleaver, and in the other, a samurai sword.. haha.

Reply 8

Teehar

Bismarck

I have no intention of wasting my time providing evidence to people like that.

which is just another way of saying "I can't" :rolleyes:

Reply 9

poltroon

I watched it and I think people need to move on.

Reply 10

Teehar

Bismarck

More like "there are plenty of non-lunatics who I can talk to instead".

once again you completely avoid producing any credible argument against his point and instead resort to personal slurs. would've expected better from somebody whose supposed to be a moderator of D&D :rolleyes:

Reply 11

Bismarck

13

6+6=6

once again you completely avoid producing any credible argument against his point and instead resort to personal slurs. would've expected better from somebody whose supposed to be a moderator of D&D :rolleyes:

Anyone who is willing to attack the memory of the victims of the 9/11 attacks is not human as far as I'm concerned. They do not deserve my respect.

Reply 12

Mad Vlad

19

Bismarck

You don't understand something, therefore there is a conspiracy at work. Brilliant logic.

I completely agree. The reason why there's not much in the way of hard evidence about 7 WTC is because nobody could give a toss about it, seeing as there was a pile of 1 million tons of rubble with people trapped inside it.

Conspiracy theorists have just jumped on this lack of strong evidence and are just shouting CONSPIRACY, with little evidence to back it up, other than a convenient photo that is hardly conclusive, and very little grey matter either.

Reply 13

rock_eleven

1

what is the debate about 7 WTC? Isnt the former owner on film mentioning the fact that a decision was made to "pull it", ie bring it down. I didnt think there was any debate that 7 WTC was demolished intentionally. This fact alone doesn't neccessarily add weight to any particular side of the issue.

Bismarck im confused by your contention that disbelief of the official story constitutes an "attack [on the] memory of the victims of the 9/11", rendering the speaker inhuman, indeed. Can you expand on this please.

Reply 14

Evil-Tuna

2

Bismarck

If someone from your family was killed by a serial killer, how would you feel if someone started telling everyone that this family member was murdered by your government?

I wouldn't think they were sub-human or something. That's slightly extreme. I'd think they were very confused though. Maybe I'm just too nice. :rolleyes:

Reply 15

Evil-Tuna

2

Bismarck

It's called grossly disrespecting the dead, and no human being with even an ounce of honor would do that.

They dont go with the intent to disrespect the dead. As I already highlighted, their possible confusion is more important, as they may be thinking they are somehow coming closer to the truth etc.

I dont think you can imply they are sort of sub-human, for them they believe they are challenging the facts. They may be confused/misguided on some or quite a few accounts, but I dont think they do it with malice for the people who died etc.

Reply 16

Logan

4

because they care too much about their personal interests

Reply 17

rock_eleven

1

Bismarck

If someone from your family was killed by a serial killer, how would you feel if someone started telling everyone that this family member was murdered by your government?

To closen the analogy; if my family was killed and some people told me it was this serial killer, while another group told me there was government involvement? I can't say "if my family was killed by a serial killer..." because that suggests i've already determined it to be fact. As a spectator to this, all I can do is hear what investigators tell me, since I wasnt there to witness the murder myself.

I would expect to see evidence and reasoning from both parties, to determine which story I believed. I can't see that i'd be offended by a disagreement on what happened.

I'm afraid I still completely fail to comprehend how you feel it is disrespectful to the dead to question the official story. Id definately appreciate it if you can try again to make me understand - or some of the other members who seem to support you?

Since the people killed weren't complicit in the events, it surely makes no difference to them or what happened to them, if it was terrorists, the government, or indeed a freak accident?

Are you saying that the inhuman disrespect is conveyed by any discussion of the events, and disagreement on what happened is a "strong" and detailed discussion. That the whole thing should be "forgotten" now and we shouldnt keep being exposed to reviews of it?

Or is it the disagreement with, or suspicion of, the official story, that is unacceptable?

Thanks for not giving up on me - i'm very interested to understand your point of view, which I find entirely alien at the moment

--Joe

Reply 18

caw123