I don't normally watch stuff like this, but the programme does come up with some interesting analysis of what happened on September 11th.
Take a look, see what you think
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 88263801&q
9/11 Conspiracy Theory Video
Am still watching as I write this.
I'm not normally a believer in most conspiracy theories either, though I do have some doubt over whether the technology existed in 1969 to send a man to the moon.
However. I've always had doubts about the Pentagon "crash", and this video does ask some obvious questions there.
That said, if even 25% of this is real, why have these questions not been asked in a more prominent way than this, by the people quoted in this film or others?
I'm not normally a believer in most conspiracy theories either, though I do have some doubt over whether the technology existed in 1969 to send a man to the moon.
However. I've always had doubts about the Pentagon "crash", and this video does ask some obvious questions there.
That said, if even 25% of this is real, why have these questions not been asked in a more prominent way than this, by the people quoted in this film or others?
I did a search on Google afterwards, and there is loads of conflicting information out there. But, the underlying problem seems to be the US Government's refusal to give out any more than the bear minimum of facts.marksi wrote:Am still watching as I write this.
I'm not normally a believer in most conspiracy theories either, though I do have some doubt over whether the technology existed in 1969 to send a man to the moon.
However. I've always had doubts about the Pentagon "crash", and this video does ask some obvious questions there.
That said, if even 25% of this is real, why have these questions not been asked in a more prominent way than this, by the people quoted in this film or others?
For example there were security cameras facing the Pentagon. One of these on top of a hotel with a very good view, but the video tape was convesgated. (sp) They've only ever shown about 5 frames of a video of the Pentagon crash which produces more questions than answers.
Basically, lots of quite thought out reasoning doubting the 'explainations' of most of the events on and around September 11th.Jamez wrote:I'm not back on broadband yet, so would someone explain what's on the video!
For example, the steel used in the Twin Towers, was designed to withstand much higher temperatures than would have been caused by the plane crash. Also, there are eye witness reports, with clips from Fox News, CNN and suchlike where people describe secondary explosions within the SAME building, suggesting the towers were blown up from inside, causing them to collapse.
Firstly, why would the US government WANT to blow up the twin towers? There are easier ways of starting illegal wars against fellow UN nations.
Secondly, I really really cannot see how the hell Bush is STILL in office, nearly five years after 9/11. This is a man beyond corruption, and it seems, beyond prosecution for starting an illegal war in a country which posed no threat to the outside world
Blair and Bush will never face prosecution for their crimes against humanity, so what can we do?
A slow and painful assassination for both these men would be the only suitable punishment.
Secondly, I really really cannot see how the hell Bush is STILL in office, nearly five years after 9/11. This is a man beyond corruption, and it seems, beyond prosecution for starting an illegal war in a country which posed no threat to the outside world
Blair and Bush will never face prosecution for their crimes against humanity, so what can we do?
A slow and painful assassination for both these men would be the only suitable punishment.
But I think it would achieve little or nothing. The decisions he makes and the paths he takes are largely due to advice from the group of people in the background, his advisers, consultants, cabinet members, Condi the bitch, Rummy, the rest of the neo-Con hawks.Jamez wrote:A slow and painful assassination for both these men would be the only suitable punishment.
Take George out and chances are that Cheney would replace him with much the same agenda, I doubt little would change, and I doubt that with or without GW in the chair little will change within the next two and a bit years.
-
all new Phil
- Posts: 1967
- Joined: Sun 13 Feb, 2005 00.04
- Location: Next door to Hell
Why oh why do people keep on coming up with frigging conspiracy theories? It's quite simple - a few extremists decided to hijack some planes and fly them into things. No conspiracy on the American side of things.
Why do people have to make this bullshit up out of nothing? Are you all seriously telling me that George W would really have had something to do with it all or something? Bollocks. I know it's trendy, taking the piss out of Bush and all that, but you don't have to believe every fucking word the people in videos like this say.
Bollocks bollocks bollocks (for good measure).
Why do people have to make this bullshit up out of nothing? Are you all seriously telling me that George W would really have had something to do with it all or something? Bollocks. I know it's trendy, taking the piss out of Bush and all that, but you don't have to believe every fucking word the people in videos like this say.
Bollocks bollocks bollocks (for good measure).
The amount of swearing in that post makes you as uncool as Cheese Head. I suggest you go and think about what you've done.all new Phil wrote:Why oh why do people keep on coming up with frigging conspiracy theories? It's quite simple - a few extremists decided to hijack some planes and fly them into things. No conspiracy on the American side of things.
Why do people have to make this bullshit up out of nothing? Are you all seriously telling me that George W would really have had something to do with it all or something? Bollocks. I know it's trendy, taking the piss out of Bush and all that, but you don't have to believe every fucking word the people in videos like this say.
Bollocks bollocks bollocks (for good measure).
Good Lord!
On the Pentagon incident (which as I said before, I've always had doubts about)... why was there NO visible trace of an aeroplane or any parts of an aeroplane left at the scene? The official explanation is that it was completely and totally destroyed. Which is bollocks.
The video does need a shovelful of salt thrown at it, but it does raise questions which at least deserving of some thought.
The video does need a shovelful of salt thrown at it, but it does raise questions which at least deserving of some thought.
The Twin Towers explosion was clearly real, as eyewitnesses, including BBC Cameras saw the planes crash.
However, the Pentagon does raise questions. Would the US government really plan an explosion in the Pentagon, just in case the trade centre was blown up.
For seconds, a third plane was actually missing, as are the passengers.
Although... it would be just plausible that they were inside jobs. And, of course, just as popularity for the Iraq war reaches an all time low, there is a 'terrorist attack' in London.
Certainly far fetched.... but not impossible.
However, the Pentagon does raise questions. Would the US government really plan an explosion in the Pentagon, just in case the trade centre was blown up.
For seconds, a third plane was actually missing, as are the passengers.
Although... it would be just plausible that they were inside jobs. And, of course, just as popularity for the Iraq war reaches an all time low, there is a 'terrorist attack' in London.
Certainly far fetched.... but not impossible.