Im doing a report on 9/11 truth

he doesn't actually. he uses source material such as the 9/11 commission report, the fema report and norad and department of defence documents to build up quite a persausive case against the bush administration. i know that these offical documents also propagate an outrageous conspiracy theory themselves: the official story, but this is the fantasy that griffin seeks to demolish which he does. and like changing times said be4 he only uses mainstream references and actually, studiously, avoids the kind of dolly sources you complain about which spread false and misleading information. this is very effective as you know yourself. for instance when you tried to tell everyone here that it took 70 minutes for a jet to be scrambled (which you tried to say explained why the air force failed to respond for an hour and half to the hijacked planes and wtc attacks) it could easily be shown from the 9/11 commission report that it only took 8 minutes and that the air force had plenty of time to prevent the attacks had they not been stood down that day by the president. so you see you also propagate false information which is what you accuse everyone else of doing and on this subject u have a closed mind as well. it usually pays to read a book first be4 you slag it off.

 

That's bullshit, and it shows how easily people are mislead. What mainstream media report says a missile hit the pentagon? That explosives were in the WTC? None. If you like to a CNN article that says the WTC collapsed, and then conclude on your own that it must have been caused by explosives, then you can claim you based your story on mainstream sources. But that's meaningless. In fact conspiracy theorists go out of their way to use second or third hand information which ultimately leads to anonymous sources or pure innuendo.


You are also a bullshit artist on this plane interception story. The standard lie is that Payne Stewart's jet was intercepted in minutes but nobody could reach the 9/11 planes because they "stood down". Yet the only reason Stewart's plane was intercepted in minutes was because a plane HAPPENED to be flying in the immediate vicinity. The scrambled plane took much longer to arrive, and in 9/11 they had no transponders to work with - it was a needle in a haystack of radar blips.

I do have a tip for the school paper though.
Remember to ask questions, but don't provide answers or theories. The only conceivable conspiracy theory explanations sound absolutely mind numbingly stupid. e.g.

In Washington, the US ZOG/NWO built a life sized missile firing replica of a 737 around a drone about 1/50th the size, flew it into the pentagon, scattered fake wreckage around but in the wrong places, diverted the real flight and kidnapped everyone on board with out being seen, subsequently killing them all and secretly disposing of the plane, created fake security camera footage, planted fake witnesses all over Washington DC, etc. The police, the fire department, Pentagon employees, the FAA, NORAD, the military, the FBI and CIA, whatever team of engineers built the drone, air traffic control and American Airlines are all in on it but have kept quiet. Why this is easier than simply flying a 737 into the Pentagon (like they did in NYC) is not explained.

In NYC demolition engineers secretly infiltrate the World Trade Center and wire all 110 floors of each building with demolitions (which would have been the largest controlled demolition in history by far) without anyone noticing, despite the fact that the towers are open 24 hours a day and would never be unoccupied. Keep in mind that controlled demolitions are normally done to buildings which have been stripped bare, not occupied and furnished buildings. They proceed to fly two planes piloted either by suicidal CIA agents or perhaps remote controlled from the ground into the towers, and then set off the explosives causing the buildings to collapse, although hundreds of pages of analysis by leading structural engineers have concluded that there is nothing strange about the buildings collapsing due to fire alone.

In Pennsylvania, they shoot down a plane piloted by a CIA suicide pilot for no particular reason and later deny it. Before the crash, conversations are faked between passengers and their families on the ground, although nobody figures it out.

A trail of evidence about the 9/11 hijackers is spread around the country. The real hijackers were either oddball muslims who somehow wanted to commit suicide on CIA orders to make Islam look bad, or else they just never existed. Fake videotapes are made of the hijackers boasting of their crimes before they carry them out. Fake videos are made of Osama, or else Osama works for the CIA, or he doesn't exist, or whatever. A network of countries around the world agree to cooperate in arresting fake members of the fake team which organised the fake hijackings.

Fake witnesses are placed around the country and the whole mainstream media misses the story even though the US can't even keep Abu Ghraib photos secret. Fake conspiracy theories are planted everywhere to disguise the real conspiracy theories (although they are difficult to distinguish and nobody agrees which are fake and which are real). The only people who figure it out happen to have extremist political views and a prediliction for believing in UFOs, alien abduction, and virtually every conspiracy theory ever invented. Conspiracy theorists around the world all believe there is a conspiracy yet COINCIDENTALLY each one concludes that their favorite enemy/usual suspect is to blame, e.g. on the right it is the jews/ZOG/NWO, in the muslim world it is the jews/israel/mossad/zionists, on the left it is global capitalists, oil barons and the military industrial complex (and sometimes the jews too, depending on which left you talk too).

So you see if you spell it out you will look like a complete moron so its better to just say "hey i don't care what MIT engineers say, some guy on the internet says the WTC wouldn't collapse like that".

 

what mainstream sources have reported seven of the alleged hijackers are still alive pointbreak? none. what mainstream sources have told us that building 7's collapse was caused by a small fire on two floors, something that cannot be explained by any convoluted theory of physics that seeks to explain the impossible: that a small fire can cause a skyscraper made of concrete and steel to collapse in its own footprint in a pile of pulverised dust, something that happened three times that day in the one place, never be4 and never since? what newspaper has reported that an air force base is only 10 miles from washington yet no jets were scrambled to form a cordon of security around washington when it was known for over an hour that planes were hijacked and heading for new york? none.
in case you really hadn't noticed, the corporate media has got a blackout on information that contradicts or embarrasses the official fantasy story about what occured on 9/11. that's b/c the corporate media has everything to gain in supporting the war on terrorism and the bush regime and nothing to gain in reporting the truth. what dr griffin has done in his two books is present the available evidence in a coherent fashion so ppl can make their own mind up. why you should become so hysterical about this i can only imagine.

the last time you called me a liar was over this same issue of payne stewart's plane. i don't care for being called a liar so i would like to go over this once again just to get it straight: you claimed that it took 70 minutes to scramble a jet yet you declined to say on what evidence you based your claim. you gave us no links or sources to back it up. we just had your word for it. i showed you that the 9/11 report and the norad timeline said it took about 8 minutes to scramble a jet. so, who's the liar?

concerning the proximity of fighter jets to stewart's plane, by comparison andrews air force base is only 10 miles south east of washington which is much closer than any jets were to payne stewart's plane, yet according to general myer's testimopny to congress on 13 september 2001 (another source document which griffin uses) no jets were scrambled until after 9:40 am although it had been known for nearly an hour that a hijacked plane had hit the first tower in new york. there can be no other logical explanation for this bizarre failure of the air force to respond other than it was stood down by the president.

i have a good one to add to your list:
a group of cave people in afghanistan send off 19 hijackers to defeat the world's most powerful military machine using only box cutters and false passports.

 

The only time i attack somebodys sources..is if it clearly does not say within that source , what is being implied.. On the whole i don't... It is generaly the usual 9/11Truth.org or something from Rense..The best is 9/11WRHappened.. that stuff i don't complain about anymore.. I have never seen anything 'irrefutable' personaly.. Just material from the usual sources.. If i don't reply it is generaly because .. its about comparisons too Hitler .. The wild illuminati conspiracy [that to respond to would just fall into cliched retorts]... I do my best to respond with my POV 99% of the time.

I think i gave a good link within this thread James..

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

''Clinging to fantasies and when an aspect of the truth stares them in the face and they refuse to acknowledge it''

*cough* how can you say such things with a straight face.

 

there's nothing incredible in reporting the fact that andrews air force base is only ten miles from washington yet not one newspaper mentioned this fact (except for one small paper) after the attacks. if the fact were widely reported then ppl would want to know why planes ten miles away failed to protect the pentagon from air attacks they knew for nearly an hour were likely to happen. i don't think it's about credibility, more like the censorship of news... sorry, what's dan rather got to do with it?

 

What mainstream sources said 7 of the highjackers were still alive? None, because they arent' staffed by complete and utter morons. Why would the fact that someone has the same name and is living in the middle east prove the hijacker is still alive?

This is the con. In the early days after the attacks, the BBC reports that some of the hijackers are still alive. Conspiracy theorists link to this story. Later, further investigation reveals otherwise. ( http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,265160,00.html ) The BBC corrects the story, but con artists continue to link to the original story because they know that people like james g are to simple minded to understand how even links to "mainstream news" can be used to con the gullible.

I mean seriously the clowns at whatreally happened are saying that Said al Ghamdi is still alive. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html . The guy made a videotaped will before he joined the hijackers (http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/09/12/hijack.tape/) yet still the conspiracy theorists go through the meaningless fraud of pretending that they can't find any evidence he was one of the hijackers. It is beyond absurd.

Thank you for not commenting on the conspiracy theory version of events. Stupid isn't it. EMBARRASSINGLY stupid. That why you won't defend it even though it is exactly where all your theories lead. There is no escaping it - anyone who thinks that is a more likely version of events would have to be completely nuts.

Yeah that's crazy, because they couldn't have er.. uh.. what exactly was it that couldn't have been done in a cave? Wait, did Osama live in a cave before 9/11? No. Did anyone suggest that he personally planned it all out from a cave? No. Wasn't it Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? Didn't he live in Pakistan? Yes. And Osama had millions right? OK so it was guy in Pakistan with millions of dollars at his disposal, how is that "cave people in Afghanistan"? Er, well you know, conspiracy theorist have to lie sometimes to make things sound more exciting.

OK but box cutters and false passports! Pretty crazy! Why? Er, well, because. Because what? Becuase slashing a stewardess's throat with a box cutter and then claiming a box you are carrying is a bomb is somehow not enough to hijack a plane? Well no but... But what?

My version is simple. Planes get hijacked and flown into buildings. Yours involves fake hijackers in some cases, the inexplicable decision to use missile firing drones instead of planes in other cases, disappearing 737s, the worlds largest controlled demolition, plus one more on the side for no particular reason, a cover -up job to hide the fact that fighters deliberately failed to intercept planes, except in pennsylvania where the fighters do intercept and then there's a cover up to say they didn't. That is the simplest version of your conspiracy theory.

 

i see, so i'm an idiot, complete moron, bullshit artist and liar b/c i happen to disagree with you. i think you need to moderate your language and your anger b/c your behaviour does your case no good.

 

Sounds about as good as the credentials for the man Bush put in charge of disaster management for the united states...good 'ole Brownie.

Anyhow, I never expect to get the whole truth from our gov't. I see nothing wrong with people second-guessing thier account of things.

I personally don't think that the gov't did it, but I do think it is possible that they knowingly let it happen.

 

Hipster... seriously... no really... are you saying this is evidence? What sound should a 130,000 pound airplane slamming into a building at 500 miles per hour make? I'd say "Bam" like a bomb went off is a pretty good approximation.

This is so weak. I have never even read a conspiracy theory that said the WTC plane was wired with explosives so this is evidence to back up a theory which doesn't even exist.

Do a google search on "sounded like a bomb going off" you'll find pages and pages of people describing things which were not bombs going off. Sorry dude.

 

are you talking about the top secret andrews air force base? or the 1 everyone know's about? you say it like it's not common knowledge. the location of andrew's IS widely reported. guess it's location made it past the censorship ey?

 

if it's such common knowledge that it's 10 miles from washington then don't it make u just a teensy bit curious why they didn't shoot the mothereffers down?

 

ok fair enough, but did you watch the video i linked to?

 

I was thinking that..

 

It was the Germans they finally got even for Dresden.

 

well one of the first times i posted in hip forums i linked to professor dewdney's physics 911 page and u got stuck into me for falsely representing it, when i wasn't (you hadn't read it properly actually). so forgive me if i don't see it as so benign. anyway it doesn't hurt to have your views challenged. not sure i'm mad about being attacked tho'. it also forces one to think through what one wants to say knowing that other ppl are waiting to pounce if u fuck up. i don't care for the highly combative thing too much. i'd rather have a disagreement without rancour if possible, but it's not always possible. i just thought it was unfair the way everyone jumped on the boy as soon as he opened his mouth.

i'll check it out.
'

i know. it must sound like the pot calling the kettle black to you b/c you see me as a conspiracy led poofter. but that's ok. we all have our necessary illusions, no?


***

 

I never attacked him.. i was a little sarcastic maybe even a little dismisive 'attack' no.. heck i gave him a link that has just about everything anybody would wish in favour of his point of view....
I did read it but maybe because we were being a bit intense at the time some miscommuncation occured...i am not that articulate after a day at work..so apologies wherever they maybe required.. even if you do think things through..some bugger will pounce on what you say..you never know how it is going to be interpreted.

It is very good i have to say...it swiched me onto all of this.. but like i said it did not convince me .. maybe it just helped me come to a POV..so i have to give it credit for that..as wrong as you may think my POV is.

I was joking James..i also said i liked you...we do.

 

You are right, I apologise.

With regards to the Andrews AFB story, this - like so many others - involves people pretending that they "just can't find an explanation", and therefore "reluctantly" have to conclude there was some sort of conspiracy, when in fact the explanations are readily available.

It relies on a number of assumptions - that jets at any AFB can be scrambled instantly, that they knew where the flight was, and that they knew it was headed for the Pentagon. None of the above is true.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

 

Actually Pointbreak, yes, jets can and ARE scrambled *almost* instantly. They are trained for such tasks. Being the most powerful airforce on the planet, I should hope so!

 

Mac, you're trying to write a persuassive essay on a conspiracy?

Save your self-respect while you still have it.