|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2007 8:14 pm
It is a very sad world when we can't even trust our leaders.
Not that its anything new.
I don't know if the government plotted 9-11 or not...but I think unless a consipercy is dug up, we will never know. People want to think that the government had something to do with it...(not saying that they didn't).
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:42 pm
I wish the government wasn't behind it, but there's essentially no solid evidence that says it wasn't, whereas the evidence that points at it kind of sticks out like a sore thumb. For example, if you look at a picture of what the pentagon looks like after the plane crashed into it, you'll see that there's no hole where the wings or tail fin hit the building. Also, I found that the engine found at the crash site from the plane that crashed into the pentagon isn't from the plane model that the government says crashed into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 11:06 pm
Still, just because something points in a general vicinity, doesn't mean it points to a specific point.
Just like movies and video games, the intimations and foreshadowing may point you in one direction, but, when you get to the end, it still can turn out to be a surprise ending.
Something that convinces me that some of the paranoia hype may not be true is that if there were people who would be capable enough to do something like that (as well as taking the time to do it), then what is the likelihood that they would allow as many mess-ups as have been claimed.
If it did happen that way, and there is a conspiracy, then I'm kinda glad. At least I know that they are pulling stuff. I'm actually more worried about the things that no one knows about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:45 pm
Azuren740 Still, just because something points in a general vicinity, doesn't mean it points to a specific point. Just like movies and video games, the intimations and foreshadowing may point you in one direction, but, when you get to the end, it still can turn out to be a surprise ending. That is a definite point you have there. After all, there isn't actually 100% proof. But you have to admit that the stuff I've brought up is almost impossible to deflect, although there is probably some way it could all be explained by a determined enough (or bribed enough) individual. Azuren740 Something that convinces me that some of the paranoia hype may not be true is that if there were people who would be capable enough to do something like that (as well as taking the time to do it), then what is the likelihood that they would allow as many mess-up. When you think about it, there really isn't any major slip-ups. There are only all of those tiny details, those many different pictures that just don't look quite right, the occasional witness saying, "Wait a minute. . . . What the heck was that?" It's why the conspiracy theories behind 9/11 aren't very well spread. The general population hasn't ever even heard of the possibility that it wasn't a terrorist attack. Azuren740 If it did happen that way, and there is a conspiracy, then I'm kinda glad. At least I know that they are pulling stuff. I'm actually more worried about the things that no one knows about. Now that is a new view on it. Never really thought of it like that. That's very interesting. . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:19 pm
The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:07 pm
Shikalee The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there. True enough. But you're then assuming that all of the resources I contract my 'facts' from are all false. You're also assuming that every picture, video, witness testimony, record, or other information I find of 9/11 or its preceding or following events is also false. I can't accept that, although you're free to do so. Also, you can generally figure out who the liar is, eventually, at least. It's the group that puts out information that people keep finding the holes in. That's why it's generally smarter for the liars to give out as little information to find holes in as possible. So, tell me if you find any holes in any of the facts I put out. I won't freak out and say "No, you're wrong!" If anything, I'll enjoy seeing some facts shot down. The more false facts that are shot down, the less things get in the way of the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:12 am
Kulshedra Shikalee The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there. True enough. But you're then assuming that all of the resources I contract my 'facts' from are all false. You're also assuming that every picture, video, witness testimony, record, or other information I find of 9/11 or its preceding or following events is also false. I can't accept that, although you're free to do so. Also, you can generally figure out who the liar is, eventually, at least. It's the group that puts out information that people keep finding the holes in. That's why it's generally smarter for the liars to give out as little information to find holes in as possible. So, tell me if you find any holes in any of the facts I put out. I won't freak out and say "No, you're wrong!" If anything, I'll enjoy seeing some facts shot down. The more false facts that are shot down, the less things get in the way of the truth. No, but I am assuming that I, with the knowledge I have, and you, with the knowledge you have (unless you're about 100 years old!), that neither of us can determine whether or not it is true. Sure, the conspiracies make a lot of sense. I do believe your story about the Spanish-American war is correct, except I heard an article stating that the ship exploded because of a malfunction. I suppose we'll never know. It could've been like Boxer from Animal Farm, who was murdered and than later said to have died from sickness. An information bit can be pure, and have no holes, but still be incorrect. That is why I cannot disprove your idea. You're pleased at my attempts because you know that they are pointless. gonk
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 2:53 pm
Shikalee Kulshedra Shikalee The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there. True enough. But you're then assuming that all of the resources I contract my 'facts' from are all false. You're also assuming that every picture, video, witness testimony, record, or other information I find of 9/11 or its preceding or following events is also false. I can't accept that, although you're free to do so. Also, you can generally figure out who the liar is, eventually, at least. It's the group that puts out information that people keep finding the holes in. That's why it's generally smarter for the liars to give out as little information to find holes in as possible. So, tell me if you find any holes in any of the facts I put out. I won't freak out and say "No, you're wrong!" If anything, I'll enjoy seeing some facts shot down. The more false facts that are shot down, the less things get in the way of the truth. No, but I am assuming that I, with the knowledge I have, and you, with the knowledge you have (unless you're about 100 years old!), that neither of us can determine whether or not it is true. Sure, the conspiracies make a lot of sense. I do believe your story about the Spanish-American war is correct, except I heard an article stating that the ship exploded because of a malfunction. I suppose we'll never know. It could've been like Boxer from Animal Farm, who was murdered and than later said to have died from sickness. An information bit can be pure, and have no holes, but still be incorrect. That is why I cannot disprove your idea. You're pleased at my attempts because you know that they are pointless. gonk Pleasure at futility is something none should have. It's not that I want you to struggle pointlessly, it's that I'd like to see some of the facts proved incorrect. The more things that we prove incorrect, the more likely that the remaining are correct. More than anything, I would find pleasure in truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:36 pm
The government can do what ever they want, just as long as they don't obviously bother me. however i do think it's an intresting idea for what they might be planning. Maybe hitler's not really dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:46 pm
Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra Shikalee The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there. True enough. But you're then assuming that all of the resources I contract my 'facts' from are all false. You're also assuming that every picture, video, witness testimony, record, or other information I find of 9/11 or its preceding or following events is also false. I can't accept that, although you're free to do so. Also, you can generally figure out who the liar is, eventually, at least. It's the group that puts out information that people keep finding the holes in. That's why it's generally smarter for the liars to give out as little information to find holes in as possible. So, tell me if you find any holes in any of the facts I put out. I won't freak out and say "No, you're wrong!" If anything, I'll enjoy seeing some facts shot down. The more false facts that are shot down, the less things get in the way of the truth. No, but I am assuming that I, with the knowledge I have, and you, with the knowledge you have (unless you're about 100 years old!), that neither of us can determine whether or not it is true. Sure, the conspiracies make a lot of sense. I do believe your story about the Spanish-American war is correct, except I heard an article stating that the ship exploded because of a malfunction. I suppose we'll never know. It could've been like Boxer from Animal Farm, who was murdered and than later said to have died from sickness. An information bit can be pure, and have no holes, but still be incorrect. That is why I cannot disprove your idea. You're pleased at my attempts because you know that they are pointless. gonk Pleasure at futility is something none should have. It's not that I want you to struggle pointlessly, it's that I'd like to see some of the facts proved incorrect. The more things that we prove incorrect, the more likely that the remaining are correct. More than anything, I would find pleasure in truth. There is no reason to prove them incorrect if they have not been proven correct in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:39 pm
Not to enter anything new or interesting, but I have to disagree with you when you said that not many people have an idea that it may not have been a terrorist attack after all.
Here, in Texas, where we are all well, you know what yall think about Texas, I hear it all the time, even to the point that I get tired of hearing it, kinda like I'm hoping there's a secret service guy sitting in that tree, targetting this dummy-head who won't shut up........
I think it is good to keep a watchful eye on the government, but who is to say that there are not other people/ organizations/etc that have such power.
....
....
....
THat's right Time Warner/AOL, HunnyBee Ham, and Tori Spelling! I KNOW ABOUT YOUR TRIFECTA OF EVIL!!!!! I WILL NOT BE SILENCED! MY VOICE WILL BE ---- [transmission interrupted]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:44 pm
[[.machiavellianism.]] The government can do what ever they want, just as long as they don't obviously bother me. however i do think it's an intresting idea for what they might be planning. Maybe hitler's not really dead. Ok, I get your point here, but, seriously, are you kidding me with that last sentence? I understand what the example is for, but do you really think it possible that Hitler, the man who caused one of the three greatest genocides in all the history of the Earth, who is hated and despised by nearly every single person in the population of mankind, who tricked men of his own country into murdering God knows how many innocent people using chlorine gas, incinerators, letting them freeze in cold water, shooting them, burying them alive, and other things that I don't want to know about, could be celebrating his 118th birthday in less than a month? Please, for the love of all things holy, reconsider that example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:46 pm
Azuren740 Not to enter anything new or interesting, but I have to disagree with you when you said that not many people have an idea that it may not have been a terrorist attack after all. Here, in Texas, where we are all well, you know what yall think about Texas, I hear it all the time, even to the point that I get tired of hearing it, kinda like I'm hoping there's a secret service guy sitting in that tree, targetting this dummy-head who won't shut up........ I think it is good to keep a watchful eye on the government, but who is to say that there are not other people/ organizations/etc that have such power. .... .... .... THat's right Time Warner/AOL, HunnyBee Ham, and Tori Spelling! I KNOW ABOUT YOUR TRIFECTA OF EVIL!!!!! I WILL NOT BE SILENCED! MY VOICE WILL BE ---- [transmission interrupted] Sorry, I suppose I was generalizing about that bit. Nobody around where I live has ever even considered the thought that it's false, as far as I can tell. Then again, the reason I really wanted to join this guild is because most of the people around me are nitwits that don't deserve the peanuts that they use as a brain. And those that do, aren't interested in any form of debate. They are just short of what I would call 'squandered intelligence.'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:49 pm
Shikalee Kulshedra Shikalee Kulshedra Shikalee The problem with conspiracies is that no one knows who to listen to. Your "fact" is just as credible as what the government says. None of us were there. True enough. But you're then assuming that all of the resources I contract my 'facts' from are all false. You're also assuming that every picture, video, witness testimony, record, or other information I find of 9/11 or its preceding or following events is also false. I can't accept that, although you're free to do so. Also, you can generally figure out who the liar is, eventually, at least. It's the group that puts out information that people keep finding the holes in. That's why it's generally smarter for the liars to give out as little information to find holes in as possible. So, tell me if you find any holes in any of the facts I put out. I won't freak out and say "No, you're wrong!" If anything, I'll enjoy seeing some facts shot down. The more false facts that are shot down, the less things get in the way of the truth. No, but I am assuming that I, with the knowledge I have, and you, with the knowledge you have (unless you're about 100 years old!), that neither of us can determine whether or not it is true. Sure, the conspiracies make a lot of sense. I do believe your story about the Spanish-American war is correct, except I heard an article stating that the ship exploded because of a malfunction. I suppose we'll never know. It could've been like Boxer from Animal Farm, who was murdered and than later said to have died from sickness. An information bit can be pure, and have no holes, but still be incorrect. That is why I cannot disprove your idea. You're pleased at my attempts because you know that they are pointless. gonk Pleasure at futility is something none should have. It's not that I want you to struggle pointlessly, it's that I'd like to see some of the facts proved incorrect. The more things that we prove incorrect, the more likely that the remaining are correct. More than anything, I would find pleasure in truth. There is no reason to prove them incorrect if they have not been proven correct in the first place. Umm . . . yeah, they have been. If you want me to track down all of the resources I've used for the facts so far, I can try. That, and most of them shouldn't be too hard to find in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 7:59 pm
Azuren740 Not to enter anything new or interesting, but I have to disagree with you when you said that not many people have an idea that it may not have been a terrorist attack after all. It is true. Not many people were witness to the events. Azuren740 Here, in Texas, where we are all well, you know what yall think about Texas, I hear it all the time, even to the point that I get tired of hearing it, kinda like I'm hoping there's a secret service guy sitting in that tree, targetting this dummy-head who won't shut up........ I think it is good to keep a watchful eye on the government, but who is to say that there are not other people/ organizations/etc that have such power. With today's technology, it is hard to know what we are really looking at.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
