Now it's time we get all serious political.
Charlie Sheen has some huge balls...
"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen. "It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."
story here
CNN video here
The best part of this is that critics of Sheen aren't attacking him based on the issues he brings up about 9/11, they're attacking him over his personal life. "Why would you listen to a guy who fucked a prostitute when he was married to Denise Richards, he MUST be crazy!" OR "Didn't Charlie Sheen do coke forever ago?"......funny, since there's strong beliefs that our president did the same thing.
Anyways, now that I know the FBI will be watching this board, let's discuss!
The period of mourning is over...
If you must!
Moderators: arclight, happywaffle
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
-
- Brian Boyko Offline
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 1:48 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
Here's what I love about the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
We already know the President was negligent.
Considering how much he benifited politically from 9/11, and his ties to the Bin Laden family, he has the motive.
He certainly has the means.
So, why then is every scrap of meaningful information about 9/11 still, 5 years later, completely out of the hands of the press. We knew more about the Kennedy Assassination on November 4, 1963, then we do about 9/11 today. Video files of the pentagon attack haven't been released, video of the hijackers boarding the planes haven't been released (both only still photos) -- I mean, hell... to date, there has been absolutely NO evidence released to the public (not counting the Osama video of 2004) that even links OBL to the crime! (There WAS an "OBL" video in 2001-- but that was a fake, reported as accurate at the time by all television news agencies and then later debunked... not by the news agencies.)
And of course, Mossaoui doing a complete 180 hairpin turn on a dime from "I'm an innocent man caught up in this" to "I did everything the government said I did and then some" raises a few "they have my mother in Gitmo and they will kill her" alarm bells to me.
But at the end, the conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that that happens to fit the facts... but nothing proven. Occam's razor may be -pointing- to a conspiracy, but you still need proof, which is why I do not believe they would have done any of this if they didn't have Diebold machines in every swing state, and a Democratic candidate could very well declassify that information and provide the proof. (Interesting fact: The exit polls were always "off" in Kerry's favor... and they were always off ONLY in states which either used electronic voting machines or optical scan ballots - both made by the Diebold corporation.)
We already know the President was negligent.
Considering how much he benifited politically from 9/11, and his ties to the Bin Laden family, he has the motive.
He certainly has the means.
So, why then is every scrap of meaningful information about 9/11 still, 5 years later, completely out of the hands of the press. We knew more about the Kennedy Assassination on November 4, 1963, then we do about 9/11 today. Video files of the pentagon attack haven't been released, video of the hijackers boarding the planes haven't been released (both only still photos) -- I mean, hell... to date, there has been absolutely NO evidence released to the public (not counting the Osama video of 2004) that even links OBL to the crime! (There WAS an "OBL" video in 2001-- but that was a fake, reported as accurate at the time by all television news agencies and then later debunked... not by the news agencies.)
And of course, Mossaoui doing a complete 180 hairpin turn on a dime from "I'm an innocent man caught up in this" to "I did everything the government said I did and then some" raises a few "they have my mother in Gitmo and they will kill her" alarm bells to me.
But at the end, the conspiracy theory is a hypothesis that that happens to fit the facts... but nothing proven. Occam's razor may be -pointing- to a conspiracy, but you still need proof, which is why I do not believe they would have done any of this if they didn't have Diebold machines in every swing state, and a Democratic candidate could very well declassify that information and provide the proof. (Interesting fact: The exit polls were always "off" in Kerry's favor... and they were always off ONLY in states which either used electronic voting machines or optical scan ballots - both made by the Diebold corporation.)
-
- Evilpandabear Offline
- Posts: 706
- Joined: December 19th, 2005, 4:09 pm
- Location: "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
- Contact:
dood. if occam's razor suggests anything, then the simplest explanation is ALWAYS that there is NO conpriracy. it's a far easier explanation for one and only one person to have shot jfk than all the ridiculous allegations surrounding the alleged conspiracy. occam's razor goes against conspiracy theorists completely.Brian Boyko wrote: ...Occam's razor may be -pointing- to a conspiracy, but you still need proof...
"Anyone can teach improv. It's bullshit." -Andy Crouch on June 4th 11:33pm CST
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
That's fucking great. Not only are we teaching our kids to dress undercover and expose their terrorist "friends"...sara_anm8r wrote:http://www.fbi.gov/kids/games/undercover.htm
We're teaching them to be Jewish Transvestites with horrible dental hygiene. This is killing me.
Occam's razor may be -pointing- to a conspiracy
Yeah, what Jay said. Occam's razor points to us being too cocky for our own good and being caught with our pants down by a handful of determined individuals who used lax security rules (to sneak on the most simple of weapons), psychological terror (immediately killing one or more people as examples upon taking over the craft), downright lies (promising safety for those that sat still), and a false belief in precedent (probably said they were flying to Cuba or something and that so long as everyone sat still they would live to see their families again) to do what they did.
Occam's razor thus points to the only solution to this problem being a complete dismembering of civil rights and constant and complete watchfulness by the government on your library reading list, as well as through cameras at every intersection, in every building, and quite possibly installed in your home in the dead of night without a warrant or notification.
Yeah, what Jay said. Occam's razor points to us being too cocky for our own good and being caught with our pants down by a handful of determined individuals who used lax security rules (to sneak on the most simple of weapons), psychological terror (immediately killing one or more people as examples upon taking over the craft), downright lies (promising safety for those that sat still), and a false belief in precedent (probably said they were flying to Cuba or something and that so long as everyone sat still they would live to see their families again) to do what they did.
Occam's razor thus points to the only solution to this problem being a complete dismembering of civil rights and constant and complete watchfulness by the government on your library reading list, as well as through cameras at every intersection, in every building, and quite possibly installed in your home in the dead of night without a warrant or notification.
-
- Evilpandabear Offline
- Posts: 706
- Joined: December 19th, 2005, 4:09 pm
- Location: "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
- Contact:
how do you guys sleep at night with all these ridiculous conspiracy theories running through your mind? now the original occam's razor was in latin: "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem" which could be translated as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity." now i take that in the david thoreau since of simplify, simplify, simplify. theatre majors are familair with the phrase "self-imposed drama." regardless, only one man shot jf, we DID land on the moon, and the will be NO halo 3. sorry.
"Anyone can teach improv. It's bullshit." -Andy Crouch on June 4th 11:33pm CST
-
- phlounderphil Offline
- Posts: 621
- Joined: August 15th, 2005, 3:07 am
- Location: Austin
- Contact:
I don't give a shit about JFK...JFK's assasination wasn't used as the platform for a blatant robbery of our civil rights, privacy, and democracy. What I do know is that I agree with Brian. There is a whole lot of coincidence involved when you start researching the actual events of 9/11. A whole lot. Eventually, it doesn't all add up.
What about WTC #7, only the third skyscraper in history to collapse after a fire. The first two buildings in history? The first two towers. For 30+ years buildings with practically the same construction as the two towers (and WTC #7) have caught on fire for hours at a time and the fires spread to multiple floors, none of those buildings collapsed. The WTC towers burned for around ONE HOUR a piece, and the fire burned on only 3 or 4 floor, yet they DO collapse?
There are countless eye witnesses who reported hearing "secondary explosions", firemen, police, regular people on the street, and those who were still inside the buildings when they collapsed. Watch the video of the collapse of the buildings and notice it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Do some research and discover that several days before 9/11, different areas of the buildings were closed for a "re-cabling project". The electronics systems in the buildings were shut down for hours, meaning the security system was off, meaning anyone could get anywhere in the building for a short period of time. Look at pictures of the LOBBY of one of the towers, notice the massive amount of damage, marble ripped off of the wall, 400-pound firedoors ripped off their hinges and crumpled like paper. All of this damage from a fired that burned 90 stories ABOVE the lobby? None of this makes sense. Who knows who is responsible, but the time has come when we should start questioning things a bit more intently, and not just chalk this whole thing up to terrorists. IF there is so much popular consensus that somebody let this happen, or somebody helped, the next logical question to ask yourself is...if someone would LET this happen, why would they not have a hand in CAUSING it.
For thousands of years, monarchs and dictators (even the American CIA) have used staged terrorist attacks as ways of controlling their people through fear. (Nero supposedly burned Rome and blamed it on the Jews, there is very little proof to refute this OR prove this, but the story remains strong.) In Iran in the 1950s, the CIA and British governments helped to stage several terrorist attacks as a way to bolster opposition to Prime Minister Mossadegh, eventually replacing him with Reza Pahlavi (a brutal leader we supported for years until the Iranian revolution). There is a lot of proof that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, and allowed it to happen. Fear is one of the best ways to control a populace, why would our government NOT stoop that low.
I'd like to have a discussion about this that doesn't involve the words "conspiracy theory". Everything is a theory, we have very little knowledge about 9/11, so no-one can claim to know what happened and not call their belief about the events a theory. Just because the government agrees with your side of the story means nothing, the government also told us there were WMD in Iraq (and some politicians still attempt to claim this), the government also told us that Saddam was connected to 9/11, the government also told us that the Patriot Act would ONLY take rights away from "terrorists". Our government is a "terrorist", and I am sick and goddamned tired of watching people live with more fear, apathy, and ignorance every day.
"People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people!"
What about WTC #7, only the third skyscraper in history to collapse after a fire. The first two buildings in history? The first two towers. For 30+ years buildings with practically the same construction as the two towers (and WTC #7) have caught on fire for hours at a time and the fires spread to multiple floors, none of those buildings collapsed. The WTC towers burned for around ONE HOUR a piece, and the fire burned on only 3 or 4 floor, yet they DO collapse?
There are countless eye witnesses who reported hearing "secondary explosions", firemen, police, regular people on the street, and those who were still inside the buildings when they collapsed. Watch the video of the collapse of the buildings and notice it looks exactly like a controlled demolition. Do some research and discover that several days before 9/11, different areas of the buildings were closed for a "re-cabling project". The electronics systems in the buildings were shut down for hours, meaning the security system was off, meaning anyone could get anywhere in the building for a short period of time. Look at pictures of the LOBBY of one of the towers, notice the massive amount of damage, marble ripped off of the wall, 400-pound firedoors ripped off their hinges and crumpled like paper. All of this damage from a fired that burned 90 stories ABOVE the lobby? None of this makes sense. Who knows who is responsible, but the time has come when we should start questioning things a bit more intently, and not just chalk this whole thing up to terrorists. IF there is so much popular consensus that somebody let this happen, or somebody helped, the next logical question to ask yourself is...if someone would LET this happen, why would they not have a hand in CAUSING it.
For thousands of years, monarchs and dictators (even the American CIA) have used staged terrorist attacks as ways of controlling their people through fear. (Nero supposedly burned Rome and blamed it on the Jews, there is very little proof to refute this OR prove this, but the story remains strong.) In Iran in the 1950s, the CIA and British governments helped to stage several terrorist attacks as a way to bolster opposition to Prime Minister Mossadegh, eventually replacing him with Reza Pahlavi (a brutal leader we supported for years until the Iranian revolution). There is a lot of proof that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor before it happened, and allowed it to happen. Fear is one of the best ways to control a populace, why would our government NOT stoop that low.
I'd like to have a discussion about this that doesn't involve the words "conspiracy theory". Everything is a theory, we have very little knowledge about 9/11, so no-one can claim to know what happened and not call their belief about the events a theory. Just because the government agrees with your side of the story means nothing, the government also told us there were WMD in Iraq (and some politicians still attempt to claim this), the government also told us that Saddam was connected to 9/11, the government also told us that the Patriot Act would ONLY take rights away from "terrorists". Our government is a "terrorist", and I am sick and goddamned tired of watching people live with more fear, apathy, and ignorance every day.
"People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people!"
-
- Brian Boyko Offline
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: March 18th, 2006, 1:48 am
- Location: Austin, TX
- Contact:
The big thing that I think is important in the above paragraph is that we have very damn little evidence of the government's version of events. Every piece of evidence that could confirm the popularly accepted version of events (Al Queda operatives used boxcutters to take over planes) has been locked up and stored away.
In short, we have no idea what happened 9/11 and there's no more evidence of the boxcutter theory being true than there is of the "bush rigged it all" theory being true. This stuff is all done in a massive vacuum, and it seems to mee that Occam's razor's simplest events imply that the government is hiding this information because it has something to hide. It sure as hell doesn't make us any damn safer - not five years on.
In short, we have no idea what happened 9/11 and there's no more evidence of the boxcutter theory being true than there is of the "bush rigged it all" theory being true. This stuff is all done in a massive vacuum, and it seems to mee that Occam's razor's simplest events imply that the government is hiding this information because it has something to hide. It sure as hell doesn't make us any damn safer - not five years on.
-
- HerrHerr Offline
- Posts: 2600
- Joined: August 10th, 2005, 12:14 pm
- Location: Istanbul, not Constantinople
- Contact:
-
- Evilpandabear Offline
- Posts: 706
- Joined: December 19th, 2005, 4:09 pm
- Location: "Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn."
- Contact:
sorry phil, but your claims on 9/11 still fall under the territory of conspiracy theory. you're looking for a complex solution and reasoning behind this horrendous act of terrorism. keep in my that these buildings had an airplane CRASH into them. as for testimonies of people, i can assure you those are hardly trust worthy. why? well from my friend who was working in NYC next to the WTC, they assure me that no one knew what the fuck was going on. let alone the people inside the building. police and fbi reports constantly state that eye witness testimony is highly unreliable. some crazed arabs crashed a big ass plane into a building that's already had countless terrorist attacks against it. infact, most people in the business world knew the WTC would be attacked again after the van bombing. donald trump even predicted so in his autobiography. look at it this way, in order for a conspiracy of that size, you would need far more people to pull it off as opposed to the small group that DID pull it off. we've seen time and time again that the more people who are involved in a project the more difficult it is to keep them all quiet. you know why the buildings collapsed. you know who was behind it. and you know why they did it. sure it's nice to blame the president and he is an easy target, but to say he was apart of this gives the man waaaay too much credit.
"Anyone can teach improv. It's bullshit." -Andy Crouch on June 4th 11:33pm CST
That's my primary problem with conspiracies. As much as I want to believe in them, and I DO want to believe in them, the number of people required to carry out things like fake moon landings and 9/11 would be enormous and I have to believe that it would be nothng short of impossible to keep them all quiet.
Do you know how many 10s of millions a whistle-blowers story would be worth on either of those, but especially on 9/11? And I have to believe they'd be relatively safe because public opinion would turn so fast on the administration as to make your head spin and anything happening to them would only serve as further proof of their claims. And I can't believe that even our most dedicated, loyal, patriotic participants wouldn't be feeling twinges of guilt and regret at the civilian deaths, the follow-up policy, and the wars that have come about.
I can easier buy a JFK "conspiracy" because it involves foreign governments, mafia, etc., who I can see staying quiet about it, at least for a while, but I just can't see the government convincing people to plant bombs in a civilian building, to sit on damning evidence in the form of video tapes, to set up elaborate covers and smokescreens, to supress the media, to do all the things that would be necessary and have all those people stay quiet (and what do you do with the people you tried to convince, but didn't? What if that first guy you told to plant a bomb said no?)
Do you know how many 10s of millions a whistle-blowers story would be worth on either of those, but especially on 9/11? And I have to believe they'd be relatively safe because public opinion would turn so fast on the administration as to make your head spin and anything happening to them would only serve as further proof of their claims. And I can't believe that even our most dedicated, loyal, patriotic participants wouldn't be feeling twinges of guilt and regret at the civilian deaths, the follow-up policy, and the wars that have come about.
I can easier buy a JFK "conspiracy" because it involves foreign governments, mafia, etc., who I can see staying quiet about it, at least for a while, but I just can't see the government convincing people to plant bombs in a civilian building, to sit on damning evidence in the form of video tapes, to set up elaborate covers and smokescreens, to supress the media, to do all the things that would be necessary and have all those people stay quiet (and what do you do with the people you tried to convince, but didn't? What if that first guy you told to plant a bomb said no?)