I read through this thread and was very interested but saw no need to respond because I don't think there is any way to convince either side to "switch" and admit they were wrong. I looked under my user-name and saw "You last visited: 09-11-2009" and thought that was a pretty good sign that I should post.
I'm fairly well educated, fairly sensical, and not at all prone to flights of fancy. I'll listen to the conspiracy theories with just as much attention as the government reports. That said, there are a few things that could go either way, like the metal melting. There are also things that to me, are so off in the realm of common sense that they make the conspiracy theorists very easy to dismiss, and I wish those people would shut up. They're giving the smart ones a bad rap.
First, I almost entirely reject immediate eyewitness accounts. Not because people are stupid, but because they are almost always wildly inaccurate and ridiculous. I'm not saying I don't start believing until the government spins things, I just mean in the few traumatic events I've been in, I had no clue what the heck happened, but I was more than happy to share my flawed account only to realize I was pretty wrong later. In many scenes of Loose Change, people like Wolf Blitzer or other trusted newspersons are shown or heard talking about what they see or don't see. I realize this is a great time to say "Wolf doesn't see wreckage, game, set, match." But there are pictures to the contrary.
Second, the idea that the buildings collapsed far too "perfectly" and pancaked indicating they were a controlled demolition. Tell me, within the realm of common sense, how this helps the conspiracy theorists? So what I'm hearing is, this entire thing, one of the worst events in our history, was perpetrated by a select group of people who are basically all-powerful and who either saw money, power, oil, or war (or something else) as such a motivator that they would go to EXTREME lengths to kill 5000 people, crash jumbo-jets, cause nationwide panic, war, a stock market failure, insurance and reinsurance companies in default, and the destruction of two of the most important buildings in the U.S. both in symbol and in finance, but then care an awful lot that they might fall like a tree and strike other buildings? Really?! Honestly, who cares at that point?
Third, in Loose Change, Avery talks about the Pentagon plane and, while showing a picture of the mangled Pentagon with some sort of wreckage all over, says "indeed, from these pictures it seems like there's absolutely no trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757." As he says that, they pan out slowly from center then oddly faster. If you look at the picture, to the right you see what appears to very closely resemble the huge landing gear of a plane. Now, I agree and disagree with other points from both sides, but really, why say "no trace of a fully loaded Boeing 757" then show a picture with landing gear. Surely I'm missing something. Were these from another aircraft?
Quote:
Originally Posted by atutt
There are too many discrepancies with the terrorist theory. In my eyes anyways.
I thought it was interesting how the 9/11 Commission asked the president and the douche bag to appear separate and under oath. When asked to be interviewed about 9/11. However.
They're were not under oath.
They appeared together.
No families members present.
No transcript.
No official statements.
Why no transcript though?
|
This is another something I see as RIDICULOUS and makes conspiracy theorists rather easy to dismiss. So again, speaking in common sense, you think those evil people that I mentioned above, who went to great lengths to pull the wool over everyone's eyes, kill innocent people, manage to silence anyone with real evidence to the contrary, etc. would ACTUALLY care if they were under oath or had other people there? Really?! That's the big evidence? Of course they wouldn't. Murder is worse than lying under oath methinks.
Quote:
|
Also, WTC 7 is a pretty interesting topic too. So is the fact that the gov't refuses to release the footage of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon. Why not release them if it was in fact what they claim?
|
Again, the government hardly ever releases any footage like this until long after. Heck, it took how long to get the Nixon tapes out? They couldn't care less whether a few people believe it's a conspiracy I'd bet. And more importantly, if it
is indeed a conspiracy, someone would sneak the tapes out, or say something, or they'd fabricate tapes.
My problem with all of this is that many of the conspiracy theorists want us to believe that some all-powerful group is running the show of 9/11. They had people cutting fail grooves in beams, thermite loaded onto planes, fabricating tapes and phone calls of loved-ones heading to certain death, destroyed, again, the two most important buildings in the U.S., and many more unspeakable acts...yet they screw up a few things here or there to drop hints for the great skeptics of the land.
What would've been MUCH easier would be to just hit the twin towers with an ACTUAL missile. Fire off an ICBM with Iraq on the side if we want to go to war with them to secure oil so badly. Smuggle a couple of suitcase "dirty" bombs in with known terrorists still handcuffed to them. There are so many ways to handle this that would've been cleaner, easier, required much, much less planning, and would've probably been met with much less skepticism.
Serious questions/answers?