| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:36 pm Post subject: Five reasons to deny 911 was an inside job |
 |
|
http://rense.com/general75/five.htm
| Quote: | 1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.
Aging iconoclast, antiwar leftist, touchy-feely environmentalist and admirer of pioneers, eccentrics and free thinkers, Douglas Herman wrote the slow-moving crime novel, The Guns of Dallas, available at www.amazon.com. |
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:39 pm Post subject: Five Reasons To Deny 911 Was An Inside Job |
|
|
http://rense.com/general75/five.htm
| Quote: | 1.Comfort.
Comfortable people do not dissent. They rarely question authority, unless overwhelmed by fleeting pangs of conscience or momentary madness. Why would any self-satisfied comfortable person want to discomfort themselves? The whole purpose of a comfortable person is to acquire more comfort or to ensure a perpetual state of comfort. Why would comfortable people, contented with their place in the world--a comfortable home, a well-paid job, respect within their community--want to upset that equilibrium? Why would any comfortable person question his government about circumstances he cannot control? Why risk discomfort, disapproval, suspension from work and community scorn simply to question something like 911 that cannot be changed? To a comfortable person, that makes no sense at all.
2. Complacency.
Complacent people rarely make waves, create dissension, cause an uproar. They prefer not to talk about politics and religion, nor to do any independent thinking. Because a complacent mind is a safe mind. Complacent people prefer "to get along to go along," to swim with the tide, to run with the herd, to blow with the wind. They like to mind their own business which, on the face of it, seems like common sense and the safe thing to do. Because to get passionately involved in any cause or belief (aside from sports) would require a lapse of complacency. Complacency, unlike comfort, requires a more practiced inertia. To accept the state or the status quo, with mild complaint--but only the mildest, acceptable complaint--and plod along like herd animals. To dare question the state, or debate popular consensus, is not only foolish and insane but borderline treasonable to the complacent citizen.
3. Cowardice
Cowardice is the most understandable of denials of 911. It is convenient to deny 911 out of fear, because to do otherwise, to look at the evidence presented by the most powerful empire in the world, requires a heretical leap of independent thought. A mental insurrection worthy of revolutionaries, pioneers, patriots and outraged citizens. But cowards cannot sift the evidence and arrive at an independent conclusion. They have been beaten and cowed and, at most, can only cringe and howl in derision from the rear. At every original thought or contrary opinion (contrary to the state and the corporate media that is), they howl and scurry away, anonymously. At best, their children may lead them, by example, into a braver realm of thought.
4. Conviction
Conviction--to be convinced of one's rightness---and the courage to assert it, is admirable even if one is proven wrong eventually. A great many believers (in the official story) are as convinced of the Kean Commission version of 911, as we skeptics are of their error. These believers claim, with many, many intelligent professionals to back up their claims, that steel does weaken and melt from fuel fires and big buildings do indeed collapse, that falling concrete does indeed pulverize into micro-sized dust particles, that incompetence does not necessary indicate evil. We truthers, in turn, claim the mass of incriminating evidence overwhelms the experts and trumps their testimony. So who is more right? Time will tell. But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point.
5. Collusion
A secret activity undertaken by two or more people for the purpose of FRAUD. The definition of collusion. The US media colludes every day. They collude with the White House or Pentagon or State Department to perpetrate some fraud or other. And many of us collude right along with them. The smallest group of 911 deniers, numbering several million, which I call the Colluders, includes many who have worked for the US government, still work for the US government, receive huge chunks of money from that government to fund their work, depend on contracts from the US government and, more often than not, support the official US government line. Many of them, working high in the US government--NSA, FBI, CIA, Pentagon officials---know exactly what happened on 911 but keep quiet. Colluding all the way to the bank. Privately they may not agree with many aspects of the official version but, publicly, they will NOT utter a single statement, will NOT go on record, publicly, with a single dissenting word. Not while there is money to be made. And so, of all the 911 deniers, they are most complicit with the crime.
Comfort. Complacency. Cowardice. Conviction. Collusion. And sometimes a combination of all of them.
Footnote: A tip of the cap to those activists at 911Blogger.com Not only do I read the columns posted there but the remarks (an addiction) and sneers from the trolls. This column is dedicated to the 911 activists everywhere, in recognition of the five types of people you run up against every day--and I mean against.
Aging iconoclast, antiwar leftist, touchy-feely environmentalist and admirer of pioneers, eccentrics and free thinkers, Douglas Herman wrote the slow-moving crime novel, The Guns of Dallas, available at www.amazon.com |
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: Five Reasons To Deny 911 Was An Inside Job |
|
|
| Pikey wrote: | | .............But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. |
Not so, by trying to show that, you simply show how desperate you are to believe in a conspiracy that we say you have no evidence for. Evidence is what you need, not emotion, and evidence is what you have not got. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
More exciting stories on Rense:
How Israel Controls America
Ilya Ehrenberg - The Man Who Invented The 'Six Million'
Zionist Israel's Thermonuclear Blackmail Of America
Zionism's Key Role In The Holocaust
A Factual Appraisal Of The Holocaust By The Red Cross
Zionism Is Nobody's Friend
The Word 'Jewish' Does Not Begin With Z
The Hidden History Of Zionism
Zionists Made Deal With The Devil
Main Zionism Archive
Holocaust Debate
and don't forget...
Ancient Indian Spacecraft & Aircraft Technology
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | But the only way we will ever convince these true believers (our co-workers, friends and family) of the falsity in the official, government version of 911 is to show them what a lying, poisonous, murderous, mercenary, fear-mongering, war-mongering, fascistic group they have put their faith in. And every day more and more disgruntled citizens are becoming convinced we may have a point. |
_________________
Pikey
Peace, truth, respect and a Mason free society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE#
www.wholetruthcoalition.org
www.truthforum.co.uk
www.checktheevidence.com
www.newhorizonsstannes.com
www.tpuc.org
www.cpexposed.com
www.thebcgroup.org.uk
www.fmotl.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pikey
Banned
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 1491
Location: North Lancashire
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does it not even worry you a tad that this "excellent article" shares space with about 50 Holocaust denying pieces?
I just read some things on there that are utterly repulsive.
Leaving that to one side, we end up in the same place.
There are two front runners to explain why the BBC broadcast something incorrect.
1 It was a c***-up.
2. Someone was feeding the media with information. (I'm ignoring the more extreme position that the BBC, US Networks, Microsforf and YouTube (had it existed then) were all in on this.
One reason for this is that the BBC has 20,000 employees. A great number of them are arsey journalists who have a reputation for being difficult. If there were secret scripts then any one of them could have been the Woodward or Bernstein of their day, instead of still standing in front of a Turkey shed in Norfolk.)
Once again the c***-up theory sounds plausible, even likely. Unplanned live television is a mess. The people on the ground often know much less than the people in the office, and everyone is making it up as they go along.
To echo another poster, there were many errors in Loose Change. I don't think that proves it's all false. Just shows it was sloppy piece of work. And Loose Change was a documentary, made over a long time.
2 Someone was feeding the media with information.
Why? To establish the myth? Why? Why expose yourself by releasing information. if you know the building is coming down then why tell anyone??
So many things about this event seem to fly in the face of common sense. Why blow the building up when planes had already hit it? Why use (unproven in both senses of the word) demolition techniques never before used?
Once again, you can only believe this whole thing was so comprehensivly organised if you think Mission Impossible is a documentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikey wrote: | Yet another example of misinfo/disinfo from Supertroll Bushwacker:-
For the record I did not write any of that, but its an outstanding article imo.
Evidence we are all still waiting for you Critics/shills/trolls to furnish us with evidence which supports the official conspiracy theory of 911 (eg. Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, etc) |
Of course you did not write it, you merely quoted it off a conspiracy site, sorry not to have made that clear. Please read my comment as applying to the author, not yourself.
As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by.
_________________
".......some partial collapse [of WTC7] would not have been suspicious......." - chek |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Johnny Pixels
Moderate Poster
Joined: 23 Jul 2006
Posts: 932
Location: A Sooper Sekrit Bunker
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: Five Reasons To Deny 911 Was An Inside Job |
|
|
Or the version for truth seekers
Unknown factors scare people. Rewrite history so that the government did it and the enemy becomes someone we can see and fight
The government is run by the people and for the people. Assume they did it and then the usual rules of law can apply to them
Action against terrorists carries risks of retaliation. Confine the problem to an imaginary enemy who cannot be fought (the illuminati maybe) and then there is nothing we can do, so we choose to do nothing with our "evidence"
It feels good to be right, so why not change the facts so that you are, and everyone else is wrong, to put you in a position of superiority.
Maybe a step too far to say you support terrorists by avoiding the truth that they are responsible. But you collude amongst each other to elevate yourselves to truth level 2.0, making your own cosy worlds, like this forum, which is why the critics much sit in the shed, to avoid disturbing your dinner party.
_________________
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth. - Umberto Eco
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by. |
Don't forget those lamp posts which were struck by Flight 77. Given the number of people claiming to witness the plane hitting the Pentagon but offering very different stories, I think it sensible to only listen to people who have proof that they were there at the time and who would have actually been able to see what they claim to see.
For example if there was CCTV footage showing their location - and all of them agreed that the path of the plane did not take it near the lamp posts - then you must concede that these people are all unreliable witnesses who all just happen to verify each other's observations.
OR
You may wonder how those lamp posts came down at all. An interesting conundrum don't you think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by. |
Don't forget those lamp posts which were struck by Flight 77. Given the number of people claiming to witness the plane hitting the Pentagon but offering very different stories, I think it sensible to only listen to people who have proof that they were there at the time and who would have actually been able to see what they claim to see.
For example if there was CCTV footage showing their location - and all of them agreed that the path of the plane did not take it near the lamp posts - then you must concede that these people are all unreliable witnesses who all just happen to verify each other's observations.
OR
You may wonder how those lamp posts came down at all. An interesting conundrum don't you think? |
Not really, the absence of such CCTV footage or statements by witnesses contradicting it makes it very hypothetical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rodin
Validated Poster
Joined: 09 Dec 2006
Posts: 2224
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | Does it not even worry you a tad that this "excellent article" shares space with about 50 Holocaust denying pieces?
I just read some things on there that are utterly repulsive. |
Could you give links to what exactly you find repulsive to see if others agree? 2 or 3 would do.
_________________
Belief is the Enemy of Truth www.dissential.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 10:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by. |
Don't forget those lamp posts which were struck by Flight 77. Given the number of people claiming to witness the plane hitting the Pentagon but offering very different stories, I think it sensible to only listen to people who have proof that they were there at the time and who would have actually been able to see what they claim to see.
For example if there was CCTV footage showing their location - and all of them agreed that the path of the plane did not take it near the lamp posts - then you must concede that these people are all unreliable witnesses who all just happen to verify each other's observations.
OR
You may wonder how those lamp posts came down at all. An interesting conundrum don't you think? |
Not really, the absence of such CCTV footage or statements by witnesses contradicting it makes it very hypothetical. |
So you don't accept that the individuals featuring in the Citgo CCTV footage were the same as the ones interviewed in the Pentacon video? And if they were the same, proving they were there on 9/11, then are they lying about what they saw? And all lying in exactly the same way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bushwacker
Relentless Limpet Shill
Joined: 07 Sep 2006
Posts: 1628
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by. |
Don't forget those lamp posts which were struck by Flight 77. Given the number of people claiming to witness the plane hitting the Pentagon but offering very different stories, I think it sensible to only listen to people who have proof that they were there at the time and who would have actually been able to see what they claim to see.
For example if there was CCTV footage showing their location - and all of them agreed that the path of the plane did not take it near the lamp posts - then you must concede that these people are all unreliable witnesses who all just happen to verify each other's observations.
OR
You may wonder how those lamp posts came down at all. An interesting conundrum don't you think? |
Not really, the absence of such CCTV footage or statements by witnesses contradicting it makes it very hypothetical. |
So you don't accept that the individuals featuring in the Citgo CCTV footage were the same as the ones interviewed in the Pentacon video? And if they were the same, proving they were there on 9/11, then are they lying about what they saw? And all lying in exactly the same way? |
Ah, you are talking about some video! I have not seen it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2007 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
You ask for some repulsive bits from Rense:
THESE ARE THE HEADINGS FROM A SUBSECTION
Most Jewish US Congress Ever
Encore - 2 Of America's Top Scholars Attack Israel Lobby In US
Jewish Defense League Declares War On Torah True Jews
Another Jew Boldly Speaks Out Against Zionism
'Zionists Were Spiritually & Physically Responsible For The Holocaust'
Rabbi Speaks Out About Zionist Role In Sacrifice Of Jews
'6 Million Died Because Of The Zionists' - Rabbi Teitelbaum
'The Millions Of Jews Who Could Have Been Saved'
Zionists Made Deal With The Devil
THESE ARE QUOTES FROM ONE PIECE. I COULD LOOK AT MORE BUT EITHER YOU THINK THIS MAKES MY POINT OR....
The Germans of the Third Reich wanted to extirpate the Jews from Europe but not to exterminate them. They sought "a definitive or final - territorial solution of the Jewish question" and not a "final solution" in the sense of any physical suppression (to want a "final solution of unemployment" is not to desire the death of the unemployed).
The Germans had concentration camps but not "Extermination Camps" (an expression forged by Allied propaganda). They used disinfection gas chambers operating notably with an Insecticide called Zyklon-B (the active ingredient of which was hydrogen cyanide) but never had any homicidal gas chambers or homicidal gas vans.
THEY KILLED BUGS
Never did Hitler order or permit the killing of a person because of his or her race or religion.
NEVER? WHAT A SWEET GUY THAT HITLER WAS.
The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one & the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political & financial swindle whose beneficiaries are the state of Israel & International Zionism and whose main victims are the German people - but not their leaders - and the Palestinian people in their entirety.
QUITE
The surrounding grounds are free of obstruction and visible from all directions. The flowerbeds in the patches of garden round the crematories are neatly laid-out and bear no trace of being stamped upon, every day, by thousands of people. Crematorium n°3, for instance, abuts on what we know to have been, thanks to sound documents from the Auschwitz State Museum, a football field and is close to a volleyball court (Hefte von Auschwitz, 15, 1975, plate on page 56 and page 64).
THIS IS DISGUSTING. I PARTICULARY RANKLE AT THE UNSTATED SUGGESTION THAT THE INMATES WERE PLAYING FOOTBALL AND VOLLEYBALL.
ENOUGH? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Enough already?
Where are you?
Holocaust deniers, please make yourself known.
Don't be afraid. We already think you are mad, so what ahve you got to lose? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KP50
Validated Poster
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 526
Location: NZ
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | KP50 wrote: | | Bushwacker wrote: | | As for evidence of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, I refer you to the eye witnesses, the photographs, the aircraft debris, the DNA evidence and the Building Performance Report, which must all have passed you by. |
Don't forget those lamp posts which were struck by Flight 77. Given the number of people claiming to witness the plane hitting the Pentagon but offering very different stories, I think it sensible to only listen to people who have proof that they were there at the time and who would have actually been able to see what they claim to see.
For example if there was CCTV footage showing their location - and all of them agreed that the path of the plane did not take it near the lamp posts - then you must concede that these people are all unreliable witnesses who all just happen to verify each other's observations.
OR
You may wonder how those lamp posts came down at all. An interesting conundrum don't you think? |
Not really, the absence of such CCTV footage or statements by witnesses contradicting it makes it very hypothetical. |
So you don't accept that the individuals featuring in the Citgo CCTV footage were the same as the ones interviewed in the Pentacon video? And if they were the same, proving they were there on 9/11, then are they lying about what they saw? And all lying in exactly the same way? |
Ah, you are talking about some video! I have not seen it. |
I wouldn't recommend it for thrill packed viewing so I will summarise the gist of it. If you have some time to kill go to http://www.thepentacon.com/
Basically they idendified people who were at the Citgo petrol station at the time the Pentagon event occurred on 9/11. They interviewed them and asked them to describe the path the plane took. They all agreed that the plane flew to the left of them as they faced the Pentagon - which would mean that the plane could not have knocked over the lamp-posts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
marky 54
Mega Poster
Joined: 18 Aug 2006
Posts: 3293
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Batrabill wrote: | Enough already?
Where are you?
Holocaust deniers, please make yourself known.
Don't be afraid. We already think you are mad, so what ahve you got to lose? |
who are the holocaust deniers? this thread if you have not noticed isnt about the holocaust. what so becasue some information was taken from a site that mentions it that makes us holocaust deniers? grow up.
why not go to rense.com and post this nonsense there as it is their information you refer to NOT ours. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was asked a question. I answered it, and then things went quiet.
RODIN
Batrabill wrote:
Does it not even worry you a tad that this "excellent article" shares space with about 50 Holocaust denying pieces?
I just read some things on there that are utterly repulsive.
Could you give links to what exactly you find repulsive to see if others agree? 2 or 3 would do.
So does it worry you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pepik
Banned
Joined: 08 Oct 2006
Posts: 591
Location: The Square Mile
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | what so becasue some information was taken from a site that mentions it that makes us holocaust deniers? |
It means you visit websites that deny the holocaust and talk about American Indian spacecraft.
There's no law against it, just like there's no law against people thinking you're a loon.
_________________
"could it be that ww2 and the extermination of jewish people was planned as a way of creating a race of people who it would be difficult to blame for anything, a cover race for the illuminati?" - a quote NOT from the 'controversial theories' section. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Batrabill
Banned
Joined: 19 Feb 2007
Posts: 89
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pepik, thanks for that. I laughed and laughed.
Actually, and seriously for a moment, I do feel bad sometimes. It's like shooting fish in a barrel. My favourites are "faster than free-fall" and of course, Thermate.
How about we start something on the bits that are a bit strange?
I absolutely believe that the notion of CD on any of the buildings at WTC is just ridiculous.
The only way you can really believe that is if you think that essentially everyone is in on the plot except truthers.
But, there are some things that I think are odd.
The Pentagon is fine. The Truthers, because they trust no-one except other Truthers can only work on what they see with their eyes on YouTube. They look at the pentagon and say "where has the plane gone", but they don't understand the energy involved and the total destruction of the plane against a very solid object.
But the 93 site is a little odd. Unlike truthers I don't assume because I dont fully understand something that it is the result of a conspiracy, but that plane did make a small hole. Lockerbie (the back of the plane) is the closest I can think of and that made a hell of a hole.
I always think that if they had shot it down then I would have approved. Sensible decision in the circs. Tough but sensible. But that doesn't link to the crash site.
I know this will give succour to the one-eyed, but actually I couldn't care less what most of them think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
