Experts Claim Official 9/11 Story is a Hoax

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by ninjaface

I didn't see UB's post until just now, which is odd because I just got done watching Loose Change 2nd Edition. This video points out HUGE financial gains involving the WTC, comparisons between similarly constructed buildings that have burned longer (up to 24 hours) and over more floors than the WTC and still stand to this day and many more interesting points.

One thing I've noticed though... People that won't even give these theories a chance are quick to be assholes about them. Why is that? I'm sure many of you will be quick to say that "They are just stupid and so are you etc."
I think you come to such quick defense of what you've been told by the government because it is so mentally uncomfortable to consider, even for a second, that not everything they've said is true. If you don't like the ideas presented here, SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO WATCH MTV. These sort of ideas are being presented to you, so you have the option of not watching them. So if you have nothing constructive to add, go fuck yourself.

We get angry because all the theories are the same, bad flash videos with no documented facts. The videos throw out a gripchillion accusations, many of which even the "open minded" people agree are absurd or have been proven to be impossible, then we are left with the 5% of the videos that have valid points, most of which are explainable if you put the effort into it, and frankly Im fucking tired of doing it, becuase I can shoot down 999/1000 points and the conspiracy theorist will latch onto the new point, make a new video, and the whole process repeats itself.

These videos are repetitive, mostly proven false, and usually have an ultier motive. Its good to question any official story, but to throw up a video and then totally cop out and not stand behind it with the chickenshit line "Well I'm not neccesarily saying I agree, but it is interesting" well guess what, figure out if you agree or not, give valid documented reasons, or shut the fuck up already, we've seen all this before.

[Beebs]

Let me elaborate further, all the people in the case of if the plane hit the pentagon, who did the ordinary cop out "I'm not neccesarily saying its true....blah blah blah" instead of actually, I dont know, being ACTUALLY open minded and doing hard research on it, instead of CLAIMING to be open minded and clinging to anything which makes it look like a James Bond movie suddenly shut the fuck up when FC posted a reasonable, well documented page.

And to move on to the new video, the first minute or so, typical bullshit creepy music, random out of context quotes and all, is to put the viewer in an irrational mindframe, and is basically propaganda. This already shows this video is not open minded at all, and it pretty much loses any real credibility at this point, but I guess I can shoot down the first two points, although what the fuck is the point, people will just throw up another video and claim THIS one has the story right.

Moving on two the first two points, they show examples of unmaned, exploding aircraft, and even cover the problem of the missing pasengers. Problem: Cell phone calls, black box information, through documentation of the flights, and what really fucking pisses me off DEAD FUCKING PEOPLE, WITH MOURNING FAMILIES, the people on those planes were real, and I find it disrespectful to insuitate that the government made them up and used remote control planes

Second point, terror brochures had the world trade center in crosshairs implying the government was planning on using the world trade center as a cover up for a conspiracy theory, this is absurd, first off it implies that this has been in the works for several presidental terms. The big problem with this is gee, I don't know, maybe the WTC is on the terror brouchure BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN FUCKING BOMBED BEFORE. This could go on for pages.

Edit: Despite my intentions of turning this off, I happened to catch another hint at a conspiracy, gee the guy who leased the WTC complex got insurance against terrorism, I can't fucking imagine why....other than IT HAD BEEN FUCKING BOMBED BEFORE.

[ninjaface]

You say we need to figure out if we agree or not. I don't quite know what to think. I just don't believe everything happened the way the government says it did. So because of that simple fact, I'm some kind of retard conspiracy theorist? That is bullshit. The government's track record is not exactly pristine. I know they don't claim it to be, but that is not the issue. The government has lied many times before.. Vietnam, Watergate, Iraq, and who knows what else. I am not going to blindly accept what I'm told. I just don't operate that way. Same thing goes for the other end of the spectrum, the conspiracy theories. I treat information from the government the same way I treat information from these videos. I consider them both. Regarding 9/11, I don't accept one over the other. Reason being, neither side has sufficient evidence.

As far as the videos go, yeah, they are obviously biased. It is interesting that you said these videos are propaganda. So is much of the information given out by our government. As far as the videos not being open minded, I'd say you're the one that is not open minded. Most dictionaries define open-minded as being "receptive to arguments or ideas" or " Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others."
The video shows more open-mindedness than you because they are considering what the government has told us and offering their own opinions, while you consider only what the government has told you and nothing else.

Now for those first 2 points that you completely "shot down". The people on those planes were real. Really? Did you know any of them? What were their names? Also, I don't think they said those people were made up. Only their phone calls, which they explained. (I'll double check the video after work to be sure)

The second point. Yeah, could be, but you don't know that for sure. Personally, I think there are bigger fish to fry.

The third point contained in your edit. The issue was not that he had the insurance against terrorism. The issue was that the date they made the transaction was so close to 9/11. They also made mention of all the strange stock transactions that went on just days before 9/11.

[Ugly Bastard]

Nice arguements both of you.

I was going to rebuttle to Beebs, but ninjaface said everything I wanted to say, only he said it better.

Beebs, since you seem pretty confident in your ability to shoot down 9/11 conspiracy arguements, I'd like to offer two of them that bother me the most. I know you said that you're sick of playing this game and shooting down the arguements, but please humor me and take a few minutes to reply to me with your explanation for these two things:

1. The pilot who our government fingered as having flown the plane into the Pentagon; his flight instructors said he had a hard time flying a single engine Cessna, yet, the manuevers he took with the commercial jet in order to fly it directly into the Pentagon were something that even experienced professional pilots would likely not be able to do. How do you explain this?

2. Cell phones don't work in planes. I can give you my personal guarantee they don't. I've made over a hundred skydives in my life. In doing so, I've gotten bored and tried to call people from the plane ride to altitude. Phones don't work past about 1,000 feet off the ground. How do you explain the cell phone calls people were able to make to their families from altitudes far exceeding 1,000 feet several minutes before their death?

I'm not getting defensive or shitty or cocky here. These are genuine questions that I would love to hear your take on. If you don't have a decent rebuttal for my questions, just admit that you too are at least a little puzzled. That's all I am; a little puzzled and confused and curious. I'm not smart enough to be able to immediately see why these two conspiracy theroy points are bullshit.

1) Of course a professional could hit the Pentagon.... they regularily hit something smaller than that - a landing strip, and their record of hitting that is pretty fucking good.

[Ugly Bastard]

Do I even need to explain why that's a piss-poor arguement? If I do, let me know and I will.

Oh hell I'll do it anyway just 'cause I can't believe you actually think that's good logic:

Okay, all auto-pilot assist factors aside (which fly for pilots more than you probably think they do); hitting the Pentagon is much harder than hitting a runway.

First off, the runway isn't a "smaller target" than the Pentagon. It's designed to land on. There are huge open fields around them, and they are usually more than two miles long. This means you can touchdown at the very beginning of the runway, or half a mile into it. It's a massive fucking target that leaves plenty of room for error. Ask any pilot if it'd be harder to fly a plane into the Pentagon or land one on a runway. You're a fool if you think a single one of them will tell you that flying it into the Pentagon would be easier.

It's just impressive that this guy, who had difficulty landing a Cessna, was able to avoid several obstacles like crashing into the interstate outside of the Pentagon, skidding on the lawn, or overshooting the fucking thing and crashing into the roof. He did none of that. He plowed the thing perfectly right into the side of the fucking building like he'd been flying the damn thing every day for 20 years. Allah is good I guess...

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

the pentagon is fucking huge dawg

[Ugly Bastard]

Right. But it's not a skyscraper. Flying a plane into the side of it would be harder than landing a plane on a runway. Mayyyyybe flying a plane into the top of it would be easier. But I don't think that's what FC was saying.

Enough of this rif-raf. I want to hear from Beebs in regards to my two questions from above. With all respect, I value his counterarguements much more than FC's (let alone ID's - but ID is just crazy). Beebs seems like a pretty reasonable person who can probably admit when when someone makes a good point and stop trying to counter it. FC lacks this ability, so there's no point in arguing with him.

I would love it if Beebs could convince me to think differently than "something fishy is going on here" in regards to the two points from above...

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by ninjaface

You say we need to figure out if we agree or not. I don't quite know what to think. I just don't believe everything happened the way the government says it did. So because of that simple fact, I'm some kind of retard conspiracy theorist? That is bullshit.

It is interesting that you said these videos are propaganda. So is much of the information given out by our government. As far as the videos not being open minded, I'd say you're the one that is not open minded. Most dictionaries define open-minded as being "receptive to arguments or ideas" or " Having or showing receptiveness to new and different ideas or the opinions of others."

The video shows more open-mindedness than you because they are considering what the government has told us and offering their own opinions, while you consider only what the government has told you and nothing else.

I phrased it wrong, figure out what you don't think happened, figure out an explanation, find documentation for it.

Wrong, I do not "look at only what the government has told us" I listen to what credible sources, preferable with academic sourcing, not google videos

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Nice arguements both of you.

I was going to rebuttle to Beebs, but ninjaface said everything I wanted to say, only he said it better.

Beebs, since you seem pretty confident in your ability to shoot down 9/11 conspiracy arguements, I'd like to offer two of them that bother me the most. I know you said that you're sick of playing this game and shooting down the arguements, but please humor me and take a few minutes to reply to me with your explanation for these two things:

1. The pilot who our government fingered as having flown the plane into the Pentagon; his flight instructors said he had a hard time flying a single engine Cessna, yet, the manuevers he took with the commercial jet in order to fly it directly into the Pentagon were something that even experienced professional pilots would likely not be able to do. How do you explain this?

2. Cell phones don't work in planes. I can give you my personal guarantee they don't. I've made over a hundred skydives in my life. In doing so, I've gotten bored and tried to call people from the plane ride to altitude. Phones don't work past about 1,000 feet off the ground. How do you explain the cell phone calls people were able to make to their families from altitudes far exceeding 1,000 feet several minutes before their death?

I'm not getting defensive or shitty or cocky here. These are genuine questions that I would love to hear your take on. If you don't have a decent rebuttal for my questions, just admit that you too are at least a little puzzled. That's all I am; a little puzzled and confused and curious. I'm not smart enough to be able to immediately see why these two conspiracy theroy points are bullshit.

1. His flight instructer might be exagerating, when exactly did this instructor note his ability, how much did he improve? My explanation? He got better, got a little lucky, and wasn't as bad as the instructor thought. If you agree he was on the plane and the plane hit the pentagon, which I hope to god we have cleared up by now, then I see it as a pretty damn likely explanation, what other ones make more sense?

2. Shit, this was on "The Loop" on Fox last week, cell phones do work on planes, and there is no evidence they interfere with the equipment. Step A)Search yahoo for "cell phones on airplanes" Step B)Find what appears to be a credible article discussing the issue (the .edu and Wall Street Journal sourcing seem good enough for now, but I'm sure there are better sources)...man, that was fucking exhausting, let me tell you.
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=cel...&cop=&ei=UTF-8
cs.ccsu.edu/~pelletie/local/news/telecom/Cell_phones_on_planes.html

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

Right. But it's not a skyscraper. Flying a plane into the side of it would be harder than landing a plane on a runway. Mayyyyybe flying a plane into the top of it would be easier. But I don't think that's what FC was saying.

Enough of this rif-raf. I want to hear from Beebs in regards to my two questions from above. With all respect, I value his counterarguements much more than FC's (let alone ID's - but ID is just crazy). Beebs seems like a pretty reasonable person who can probably admit when when someone makes a good point and stop trying to counter it. FC lacks this ability, so there's no point in arguing with him.

I would love it if Beebs could convince me to think differently than "something fishy is going on here" in regards to the two points from above...

I've never been active in this debate so shut your fucking mouth.

And actually the cell phone issue is the best objection I've found to the "official story"

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

From what I read, no cell phones should have worked at that altitude.

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

what would be the point of faking cell fone callz? and wouldn't the family members of those who were called recognize their voices?

[ninjaface]

The video claims voice morphing technology was used.

[Ugly Bastard]

I'm drunk right now so don't take this all too seriously, but:

1. FC, I didn't mean to offend, but the simple fact is, you're pretty bullheaded and hard to have a logical arguement with.

2. Beebs, I wasn't fucking around when I told you "cell phones don't work in planes". I've tried it myself a dozen times. I wasn't joking. They don't fucking work. Forget whatever BS source on Yahoo told you they do work. For once I agree with FC.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

I'm drunk right now so don't take this all too seriously, but:

1. FC, I didn't mean to offend, but the simple fact is, you're pretty bullheaded and hard to have a logical arguement with.

2. Beebs, I wasn't fucking around when I told you "cell phones don't work in planes". I've tried it myself a dozen times. I wasn't joking. They don't fucking work. Forget whatever BS source on Yahoo told you they do work. For once I agree with FC.

Your cell phone didnt work on your plane, cell phones can work on planes, this is not even up for debate, the FAA and FCC would not be considering allowing people to use them in flight if it was impossible to use them; you are wrong, admit it Mr open minded.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8587672

[Ugly Bastard]

Alright I conceed the point. (For the record I didn't see the need for a snidy comment, but enjoy your victory).

This makes the conspiracy theorists lose a lot of credibility in my mind if part of their "case" entails mentioning that cell phones don't work in planes when it appears that they do indeed work.

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

(For the record I didn't see the need for a snidy comment, but enjoy your victory)

Because I'm a snide asshole

The debate isn't all about whether to allow cell phone use or not, it's whether to impliment equipment onto the plane to send and recieve wireless traffic. As it currently stands, cell phone communication is banned and hardly possible anyways unless you are above a highly populated area or flying at low altitude.

[Ugly Bastard]

BEEBS IS THIS TRUE?!?!? I've been told cell phones don't work in planes after all!

[THEINCREDIBLEdork]

Originally Posted by DJ FC

The debate isn't all about whether to allow cell phone use or not, it's whether to impliment equipment onto the plane to send and recieve wireless traffic. As it currently stands, cell phone communication is banned and hardly possible anyways unless you are above a highly populated area or flying at low altitude.

a highly populated area? such as... new york!

[Beebs]

Originally Posted by Ugly Bastard

BEEBS IS THIS TRUE?!?!? I've been told cell phones don't work in planes after all!

No, it is possible to use a cell phone in a plane, just look further into it. It might not always work, it might be hard, but it can, and has been done.

[St. Anky]

Yeah, so I just watched this "Loose Change 2nd Edition" movie and am entirely convinced that it was all a planned attack. Too many things don't add up. Too many actions have been made by the government that bring questions to their motives.

Not that I wasn't nearly entirely convinced before seeing this movie... its just that it was so well done. There are just too many questions being asked with no good answers.

Oh, and hi again after being gone half a year.

[Repugnant Abomination]

This is just part of the end times, you noobs. It's all in bible prophecy. Wake up!

[Beebs]

Think these are fitting;

9/11 "Truth": How believers in the 9/11 conspiracy theory respond to refutations. - By Jeremy Stahl - Slate Magazine
9/11 Truth: How conspiracy theorists react to apostates like Charlie Veitch. - By Jeremy Stahl - Slate Magazine