9-11 cover up

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
Say this to yourself outloud, and then think about how stupid of a statement it is.

How is this a stupid statement?  They don't need to kill people when they have a bunch of people watching Fox news and CNN, thinking they are well informed of what's happening in the world and calling those who actually research stupid.

Shuckins,
Michael Moore is a hack who does shoddy research and makes it fit whatever he's trying to sell.  I love how Alex Jones turns his own tactics against him and Moore does the same thing as all those corporate executives that Moore made so much money off 'exposing'.

When he opens his mouth he only hurts the arguments he tries to advance.  I hope he keeps to himself and stops confusing and diluting the issue as he did with 'Farenheit'.

Bush makes himself look foolish enough by his own actions.

[lukster]

There are enough real boogeymen in the world that we shouldn't allow ourselves to be distracted by make believe ones. Think it through 68Hawk, consider the details and what it would take to pull this off. It wouldn't be possible without many being on the inside. It would take only one guilt ridden individual to bring this whole thing down.

[Nifty]

yeah, the media loves to help the current administration in their coverups and "secret" information gathering techniques.

Please, if there was a shred of real evidence that 9-11 was an elaborate scheme by the Bush Administration, the media would be all over it.

[GRUNHERZ]

Not to mention the Democratic Party - well most of it...

That ncurageous lady represenative  McKinney thought Bush was behind 911 nad llokwhat the Dems did to her..

[68Hawk]

I've said it many times and will gladly repeat it again:  The core of the democratic party is sold out to the same interests as the core of the republican party.  As are the tops of the major 'news' networks, a large slice of big business, most if not all of the military industrial complex and especially anyone connected to the Bush political dynasty.  They are all the same animal.  There's not really much of a difference between Kerry and Bush, except their 'views' on social policy.

The tools on the news say what they're told, and package it in a bright shiny picture for your consumption.  

There are news organizations that have touched on this.  The major news networks almost always gloss over the arguments or grossly missrepresent them.  Sometimes though there is someone at CNN or elsewhere that does some real journalism.  It's there, but buried pretty deep and certainly not on the half hour of evening news that most people rely on for their info (more of which tends to be sports, weather or mindless public interest pieces than news stories anyway).  

A couple examples:
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/sheen_showbiz_monday_recap.htm
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/110806_lou_dobbs_911.html

Saying that the media would tell you if you needed to know is an easy way to decieve yourself.

And really, saying that the media is not covering this ignores the huge group of independent journalists that are actively covering the lies of the administration (and other administrations for that matter).  The independents are not always right, but they are not being paid by large corporations that are in bed with the powers that be.

Almost every interview I have seen with soldiers in or returning from Iraq shows them saying that what you see on the news (regardless of network) is not really what's happening over there.  Why should the home front be any different?

Next someone's going to try to tell me that Bill O'reily is compassionate and credible.  If you have an example of either I'd love to see it!

[Squire]

"CNN the most trusted name in news"

If that doesn't scare the s*** out of you, nothing will.

...but they are not alone, have a hard look at the "news" and ask yourself how much has to do with pop culture, sports or "fear news" designed to just scare the crap out of you, if there is no scary news to report, thats ok, they run a special on pedophiles or serial killers, just in case you had a peacefull week.

[Masherbrum]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Squire
"CNN the most trusted name in news"

If that doesn't scare the s*** out of you, nothing will.

...but they are not alone, have a hard look at the "news" and ask yourself how much has to do with pop culture, sports or "fear news" designed to just scare the crap out of you, if there is no scary news to report, thats ok, they run a special on pedophiles or serial killers, just in case you had a peacefull week.

Exactly!  Don't forget the stories about runaway gun violence.  When do they air stories about people defending themselves with firearms?  Not enough.

-------

Either and?  Gosh I'm really hurt.  People who can't bring good arguments usually prefer character attacks than honest discourse.  The spitting image of O'reilyesque journalism and deliberation.

[Elfie]

I watched the towers fall. I've seen buildings that were deliberately demolished with explosives. Wasnt the same thing.

[cav58d]

http://www.debunking911.com/

[68Hawk]

Originally posted by Elfie
I watched the towers fall. I've seen buildings that were deliberately demolished with explosives. Wasnt the same thing.

Wasn't supposed to look like the same thing, though WTC7 did look exactly like a controlled demolition and Larry Silverstien (if I got that name right) the leaseholder admitted on camera that he ordered the building pulled.
    
cav58d, I checked out the link you put up and I'm really not impressed.  It's rather sparsely documented, and relies on a meager body of evidence compared to the claims of the 9/11 research movement.  It also fails to even address half of the arguments, and relies mainly on discussions of the collapse of buildings themselves.

I said it in my first post in this thread and no one has wanted to touch it, so I will say it again:

Please explain to me how Osama bin Laden, or anyone else outside of our government could schedule wargames for NORAD and the FAA.

I'll refer you to:
Operation Vigilant Guardian
Operation Vigilant Warrior
Operation Northern Vigilance
all of which were running on the morning of 9/11 as the attacks unfolded (amongst others).

Some involved false blips on FAA radars simulating hijacked airliners.  Some actually involved live fly exercises where planes were simulating hijacked airliners.  This is why those who were charged with our air control and defense asked themselves 'is this part of the drill, is this a mistake?' when they heard reports of real airliners crashing into real buildings.  

Very fishy that the real thing happened as a drill for it was taking place.  Fishier still that Condi told people 'we had no idea they were planning to do this.'  

Dr. Steven Jones' chemical analysis showed that thermate, not thermite was used.  Residue confirmed this.  If there was nothing to hide, why wasn't the evidence preserved?

If the fire, fueled by jet fuel, burned as hot as some claim (which only approaches plausibility when combusted in ideal mixtures and conditions as in a jet engine, not as it did in puddles with thick black smoke coming out),  on its own with no demolitions to aid it, then why are there pictures of people standing in the airplane holes, and why are there radio messages from the fire fighters in the buildings claiming that they were almost under control?

Answer some of these serious questions (with real answers, not jibberish or supposition) and you've made some headway.

[Eagler]

4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Eagler
4- Members should post in a way that is respectful of other users and HTC. Flaming or abusing users is not tolerated.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

A. There aren't but a few companies around capable of doing controlled demolition of the type needed to bring those buildings down.

B. It takes weeks, if not a month or more, to do all the work necessary to make it happen.

C. It takes tons of explosives, miles of wiring, and all sorts of equipment, including torches, drills, saws, and jack hammers to get the job done.

D. There were THOUSANDS of employees and dozens of companies in those buildings every day of the week.

E. There were even more visitors to those buildings on a daily basis.

F. Surely someone here, like Toad, can tell us how many people are involved in the airlines with two aircraft that crashed into the buildings, but surely it numbers in the hundreds at least.

So, you conspiracy nuts are going to tell us that somewhere around THIRTY THOUSAND or more people involved in this conspiracy to bring down these three buildings with two airliners and controlled demolition?

Now remember, that means you're going either get 100% participation by EVERYONE or you're going to KILL a bunch of them.

Don't forget, NONE of these people involved can ever develop a conscience, never change their mind, never get drunk and talk, never go under an anesthetic, and must remain silent forever. Further, there can be no paper trail or anything else for the rabid media to get their claws in.

Or are you going to tell us that all of that equipment, and all of that work, went on while all of those people were completely oblivious to it, for an extended period of time?

Either way, one thing is certain. Idiocy and paranoia are rampant in places. And the relatively sane and intelligent know where it is.

[Mini D]

I don't think anybody predected the collapse of the WTC buildings whether it be the terrorists, the government or the designers of the buildings. Aircraft collisions with the buildings were modeled as were fires, but I don't believe jet fuel fires were completely modeled.

The main circumstance that raised suspicion is the way the buildings collapsed. It just looked so neet and clean. It is a very easy thing to explain (as has been done numerous times), but impressions formed are hard to dissuade. It just LOOKED like it was planned.

Once the painfully obvious incidents are explained completely, the conspiracy theorists cling to the fringes in hopes of finding some kind of chinc in some suposed armor. Be it a cruise missile into the pentagon, or the intentional demolition of a nearby building.

I find 68Hawk's use of the phrase "I checked out the link you put up and I'm really not impressed. It's rather sparsely documented, and relies on a meager body of evidence compared to the claims of the 9/11 research movement" to be quite ironic. It's the ludicrous aspect of conspiracy theories: They don't really need to prove anything. They just make a statement and insist that someone needs to prove them wrong.

There is no proof that a building was demolished. There is no proof that a cruise missile hit the pentagon. There is no proof of any of the conspiracy "theories". There is absolutely zero proof of any of it... That's why they're called "theories". A conspiracy theorist will cite eye witness testimony for a cruise missile attack on the pentagon, but ignore the fact that people said the same thing about the WTC prior to seeing the media coverage of it. A conspiracy theorist will insist on demolition of a building without knowing exactly how much work is done to demolish a building. A conspiracy theorist will make it sound as if installing remote controlls on commercial aircraft is an easy thing to do because NASA did a fuel retardant explosion test 25 years ago. A conspiracy theorist will cite the "fishyness" of operations that traditionally occur during the summer months as if somehow, this year, ORIs are rare.