911 truth seekers argue among themselves

Byrnzie

Last Exodus wrote:

because you don't seem to make distinction. yesterday you directly held everyone who voted for George Bush to blame for Iraq. so I think you have made your position against our government AND our people quite clear.

They are partly to blame. If you vote for a neo-con frat boy then you are partly to blame for the consequences of his subsequent actions.

Last Exodus

angelica wrote:

This is your opinion, correct and not necessarily the truth? My understanding is that you have not proven the allegations as 'hogwash'. An assertion stands until proven otherwise. Keep in mind, I personally don't get behind allegations of direct, conscious, deliberate knowledge because I also see them as theoretical interpretation of the facts, imo.

Are you then admitting that your criteria for accuracy is that it must fall within your own acceptable framework and therefore accuracy for you is akin to 'opinion'?

I ask this because you realize there is information out there that supports all sides. Therefore if you are just choosing one side, even when presented with conflicting evidence, then you are choosing based on personal preference, rather than undeniable proof. Also, to minimize alternative theories without proof is not factually accurate, either, but rather, again, opinion.

Doesn't it make more sense to while believing what you believe, to also keep your mind somewhat open?

I merely stated my opinion based on the information available. You are free to have a contrary opinion. Thats the point isnt it?

Last Exodus

Byrnzie wrote:

They are partly to blame. If you voter for a neo-con frat boy then you are partly to blame for the consequences of his subsequent actions.

Ok then, so at least your being honest. Id be surprised if more than 3 people on this particular board voted for a Republican. I know I didn't.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

I merely stated my opinion based on the information available. You are free to have a contrary opinion. Thats the point isnt it?

Of course. That's perfectly acceptable. I was looking for clarity.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Im not debating the issue because I think it a moot point right now. All of these theories have been raised and investigated here. It's not like we don't have our share of conspiracy theorists in this country. I am not saying these views are impossible. Anything is possible. But I do believe the evidence of direct prior knowledge is tenuous. I agree that a high amount of negligence has been proven though.

I basically agree with this.

jlew24asu

Byrnzie wrote:

The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress. Go figure.

the 9/11 commission was not solely appointed by bush and were independent and bipartisan. are you implied bush appointed all his buddies who would keep his involvement hush hush?



The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the 9-11 Commission), an independent, bipartisan commission created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002, is chartered to prepare a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, including preparedness for and the immediate response to the attacks. The Commission is also mandated to provide recommendations designed to guard against future attacks.

Byrnzie

jlew24asu wrote:

are you implied bush appointed all his buddies who would keep his involvement hush hush?

created by congressional legislation and the signature of President George W. Bush in late 2002,

Point one. Yes I am. Just as Blair appointed his own cronies to whitewash the investigation into the bogus Iraq intelligence dossier and the death of David Kelly.

Point two. Go figure.

chopitdown

spiral out wrote:

Good point the video is not clear and in no part of it does it show a boeing 757.
And as that is the only prove of the plane hitting the pentagon because it also wierdly disapeared into pretty much thin air too, why would i believe it was flight 77?

Have you freeze framed the video in question and tried to make out what the object is?

i've looked at the video in question, but I haven't labored over it or pondered what the object could be.

here's why i believe it. flight 77 had lots of people on board. there were eyewitnessess who said they saw a plane fly into the pentagon. the people on board flight 77 haven't been seen since. That same day there were other planes that flew into buildings and another one that was hijacked over PA. Flight 77 had it's transmitter disconnected over WV/ohio and then a blip came on the radar a little later over DC. No wreckage was found in WV of a plane, there were no reports of an unidentified craft anywhere else along that flightplan. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that flight 77 did indeed hit the pentagon. Oh, and there are videos that show something flying into it.

spiral out

chopitdown wrote:

Oh, and there are videos that show something flying into it.

Yes something that looks nothing like a boeing 757.

I am pretty sure that if it was the plane you think it was they would happily release prof of it but they haven't, so i have no cause to believe it.

chopitdown

spiral out wrote:

Yes something that looks nothing like a boeing 757.

I am pretty sure that if it was the plane you think it was they would happily release prof of it but they haven't, so i have no cause to believe it.

i was thinking about the capture rate of the footage and found this on the pop mechanics website: The bigger problem is that the footage suffers from a glacially slow frame rate: It moves at approximately 1 frame per second, while the plane--or what theorists insist was some sort of missile--hit the Pentagon traveling 780 ft. per second (more than 530 mph). At these camera angles, Flight 77 hardly registers on either film before a fireball erupts from the building."

To base anything off of something that is so undersampled is crazy. If I tried to base a claim in science using something that had a resolution of 1 Hz that needed something with a much higher resolution there's no way I'd be taken seriously. I just don't trust the video quality to make any sort of judegement on the video.

MakingWaves

Ignore this one if you want too but it has been in my head ever since I saw the first thread about this conspiracy and I have been dying to ask it.

Do you think we landed on the moon?

ledvedderman

MakingWaves wrote:

Ignore this one if you want too but it has been in my head ever since I saw the first thread about this conspiracy and I have been dying to ask it.

Do you think we landed on the moon?

Yes, I think we landed on the moon.

About the Penatgon though, you say the plane was going 530mph just inches off the ground. Does that sound like anything any pilot (pro or not) can do? Does that pass your basic logic exam?

chopitdown

ledvedderman wrote:

Yes, I think we landed on the moon.

About the Penatgon though, you say the plane was going 530mph just inches off the ground. Does that sound like anything any pilot (pro or not) can do? Does that pass your basic logic exam?

how long before it crashed was it going 530 mph "just inches" off the ground?

MakingWaves

ledvedderman wrote:

Yes, I think we landed on the moon.

About the Penatgon though, you say the plane was going 530mph just inches off the ground. Does that sound like anything any pilot (pro or not) can do? Does that pass your basic logic exam?

Yes, it passes mine because it happened.

ledvedderman

MakingWaves wrote:

Yes, it passes mine because it happened.

I don't know what airplane you've been on, but when I'm cruising at 30,000 feet we're still bumping all over the place, and that's with nothing in the way (light poles, etc)

MakingWaves

ledvedderman wrote:

I don't know what airplane you've been on, but when I'm cruising at 30,000 feet we're still bumping all over the place, and that's with nothing in the way (light poles, etc)

Doesn't mean that pilot couldn't slam it into the side of a building if he wanted to.

ledvedderman

MakingWaves wrote:

Doesn't mean that pilot couldn't slam it into the side of a building if he wanted to.

Without the slightest mark on the ground? Going 530mph?

jlew24asu

MakingWaves wrote:

Yes, it passes mine because it happened.

lol. yea and we landed on the moon bunch a crazies

MakingWaves

ledvedderman wrote:

Without the slightest mark on the ground? Going 530mph?

If he doesn't hit the ground before hitting the building then yes. Without the slightest mark on the ground while going 530 mph.

jlew24asu

ledvedderman wrote:

Without the slightest mark on the ground? Going 530mph?

yea I know it was a crazy insane move that through the will of allah was able to pull off.

but since you dont believe that. what hit the building? where is AA flight 77 ?