submitted for your consideration...

the pentagon recently released this “video” of the 9/11 strike
have you seen it?

http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/video.html

follow the link to webfairy.org,great stuff!

if the events of 9/11 did not occur exactly as we were told,all arguments about the war are based on misinformation,right? ???

Yes that airplane crashed into the Pentagon. Sheesh! Where do these conspiracy theory nut-jobs come from?

1. Security cameras of this type rarely shoot full 30 fps frame rates.
2. IF it was shot at a full 30fps, the plane would have been moving so fast it would still have been only a blur.

Don’t believe everything you see/hear. Specially on the web…

D

Wow somebody really has too much time on there hands, and no productive outlet on that site.

Anyways, I fail to see the significance of this terrorist act, and the current war.

To unrelated events IMHO.

The mastermind of the crash being Osama, and his constituances.
Who according to intellegence reports was in Afganastan at the begining of this war.
And this war was started because a perceived nuclear threat; coupled with a need to retaliate and end a regeim that had previously taken over Kuwait.

Sure the terrorist act did fuel the polls and many Americans opinions of people from that area of the world. And this type of media and propaganda has often been succesful; tying two unrelated events together to motivate and justify another ajenda.

However, I wouldn’t go as far as saying that since this information is either correct or incorrect the justification for this war is any more corrupt than it is. Simply because the plain crashing wasn’t the catalist.
Bush has already confessed that it was faulty intel that led to this war. But as I have said, there was much more.
There was a regeim, that the US government felt was a threat. And they weren’t going to stop until there was some reason to eliminate it.
Any reason would have done.
Faulty intel was convenient, but not nec.
They weren’t gonna sit back and wait for Sadam to make his next move.
So, they did what they felt was nec. and would have done something else if they had too as well. (they being the US gov.)
Does it make it right? NO.
No more right than, how Sadam invaded Kuwait.
Do two wrongs make a write? NO.
Often morality doesn’t fit into foreign policy.
The only way it could, is if everyone played by the same rules.
Unfortunatly here on planet earth, that is not currently happening.
As long as there are, invaders, there will be defenders/retaliators.
And in that defence there is bound to be innocent lives lost, just as in the invations.
There is no standard on this planet.
One religion says “we are the chosen” and have the right to this land. The other says “no, we are”.
The opposing powers are not limited to countries and continents.
But to idealisms. Neither one of them correct.
So what we have is a union of countries, (UN). Who have made themselves the proprieters of the earth. In that unity able to dictate what is justified force and what is not.
Anyone not complying with the UN…well we’ve all seen what happens to them. And so, those countries in the UN, only need to make a good case, with whatever intel nec. And there ya have it, WAR. Huh, good God ya’ll what is it good for? Absolutely Nothin’!


keep shinin’

jerm






:cool:

fairly blithe dismissal,fellows…
D-film speed is hardly the only factor here,it looks to me like doctoring and missing frames…
jerm-i disagree with your conclusions,but i agree,“what is it good for”…
i think it’s like my dad says:"i can’t believe any of it ,because i would have to believe all of it"
i don’t believe everything on the internet-but don’t dismiss everything just to be comfortable
i don’t believe we know the truth around these events,that’s all…
i don’t believe what i saw that morning-
3 buildings fell-1 not even hit by a plane…

"splain dat

like i said -everyone believes what they want and need to…
:)
(i like the “nut-job” line,though)

Hi ya’ ‘bru,

Hey man. My response there bordered on condescending. It was not meant to be OK? Really I am just tired of the whole stinkin’ mess. Knowhattamean?

I’m sure we will never know the entire TRUTH behind all the events of 9/11. I’m not sure I wanna know… I can’t believe for a minute though that the whole thing was setup by a few of our high ranking politicians for some devious plan to gain major riches. Why not you may ask? I don’t think any of them are SMART enough to set up such a scenario. I believe it is what it is. A bunch of wacko fundies who hijacked some airplanes and crashed them into some seriously high profile targets to put the fear of Allah in the US citizens heart. No more. No less.

Now, what that had to do with Iraq… I don’t know. Maybe Dubya had some weird desire to finish what dad started. George Senior had the tiger by the tail back then and let him go… that was the time to have removed Hussein IMO. Again, we’ll probably never know the truth behind that mess either.

D – found my lantern… but ran out of oil… $^%$^ it all!

Well D ya did come off a bit smug! :laugh:

How about we just set all the “Beliefs” aside and answer the question?

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
if the events of 9/11 did not occur exactly as we were told,all arguments about the war are based on misinformation,right?

Wrong.

I beleive I’ve laid out a pretty good reason this war was inevitable, with or without phantom planes. :;):
And bru, that’s not dismissing the ever important conclusion to the plain conspiracy; just failure on the part of the poster to form a connecting line between the two events.


keep shinin’

jerm :cool:

i share both your sentiments-
we are "war weary"
d- not condesending at all,always appreciate your points…
jerm-i personally see a huge connection-would most americans support this war (even temporarily,as it turns out) without this "pearl harbor-like event"
don’t think so-
even with all that “let’s stop the evil tyrant” stuff-
see, i don’t believe the admin ever believed a “nuclur” threat existed-
they trained and created this"enemy"which is conveinently nationless and basicly unidentifiable
yes,i think they could do it,they did

Am I hearing what I think I’m hearing. Did one of you guys say no planes hit those buildings.

Common now, that’s totally absurd!!! If this was all a hoax believe me, they would have gone to Iraq before going to Afganistan.

I would say that it is most probable that we haven’t been told all of the details - there are so many reasons not to - e.g., intelligence screw ups would be more obvious, or perhaps there are security reasons for not doing so. But it does not follow that

<!–QuoteBegin>

Quote
if the events of 9/11 did not occur exactly as we were told,all arguments about the war are based on misinformation


Sort of reminds one of the theory that a previous president knew about Pearl Harbor.
Quote (audiobru @ May 30 2006,22:59)
fairly blithe dismissal,fellows...
D-film speed is hardly the only factor here,it looks to me like doctoring and missing frames....
jerm-i disagree with your conclusions,but i agree,"what is it good for"....
i think it's like my dad says:"i can't believe any of it ,because i would have to believe all of it"
i don't believe everything on the internet-but don't dismiss everything just to be comfortable
i don't believe we know the truth around these events,that's all....
i don't believe what i saw that morning-
3 buildings fell-1 not even hit by a plane....

"splain dat

like i said -everyone believes what they want and need to....
:)
(i like the "nut-job" line,though)

who said "paranoia will destroy ya???"

geez.
Quote (clark_griswold @ May 31 2006,10:30)
who said "paranoia will destroy ya???"

Ray Davies, I think.

Three planes hit three buildings; one crashed in a field. Will we ever know the entire story? Probably not, we almost never do.

It amazes me sometimes how many people will get all worked up looking for conspiracies where there is little or no evidence to suggest one yet will completely ignore something like the Paul Wellstone case in which there are genuine unanswered questions.

In the final analysis, I guess the most entertaining conspiracies are those we make up ourselves.

uh,ozzie,i think-
very interesting,but no surprizes…
little or no evidence?there’s evidence all around,but you’ve decided not to accept it…
facts are,gentlemen,2 planes at WTC,3 buildings fell…start there
i don’t consider this entertainment but ok…
i did’nt make this up,i have nothing to do with any of these websites…
many fine,intellegent people cannot accept the official explanation
(i find the conclusion that all this made no difference,or somehow doesn’t matter absurd-however this occured,it has irrevocably changed the course of american history)
i leave it for others who are open-minded to consider
(oh,yes,there’s ample evidence that we did have prior knowledge of the attack on pearl harbor…)
but,to each their own…
www.fromthewilderness.com

yep, it was the Kinks. Thanks Bill.

Call me closed-minded, I guess. I was at ground zero days after 9/11 feeding firemen…I saw how, quite easily, three buidlings could have collapsed from the damage. No conspiracy there.

oh wait! was this part of the “Vast Right Wing conspiracy?”

Bru,

Regardless of your wealth of data and supporting information presented I still am failing to see the connection between these events and the current war in Iraq. You abviously have made one, but haven’t presented it. I conceed these events swade public opinion in the US, nothing more. Public opinion doesn’t dictate foreign policy.

The war in Iraq was decided at the UN, not soely in the US. With many other countries.(some of which have also had attacks by extreemist Muslim groups)
The evidence presented at that summit did not include anything from this crash. Or any of the other terroist attacks by simular groups around the globe.
It included evidence from intel sources within Iraq regarding it’s ability to produce nuclear weapons. Had Sadam allowed the inspection of his facilities, which were later found to be empty of such material, this conflict could have been delayed, possible even avoided.

keep shinin’

jerm :cool:

Audiobru,

No offence intended man, but four planes are gone. The crews from four planes are gone. The passengers from four planes are gone. Apparently there are air traffic control records that tell us where the four planes went. Put that on one side of a scale and put the blurred images from a security camera on the other side and see if it balances.

Is it possible that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon? I suppose so, it’s possible that aliens abducted the passengers, crew and the airplane itself and then blasted the Pentagon with some sort of weapon. It’s possible - but extremely unlikely.

There are enough bizarre and frightening things really happening in the world; we don’t need to go looking for more of them where there is precious little to suggest that they exist.

I mentioned the Wellstone case. I personally don’t believe there was a conspiracy there but I have to admit that there are lots of unanswered questions with serious implications, so I could understand if people got worked up about it and started reading things into it that (maybe) aren’t there.

But the Pentagon thing - it makes no sense. Even if there was a home grown conspiracy behind it, it would be easier for the conspiracists (is that a word?) to actually crash a plane into the Pentagon than it would be to attempt to make it look like a plane crashed there.

If it was all smoke and mirrors the time stamps on the security camera photos would read exactly what you would expect them to read. You think somebody would go to all this trouble and miss a detail like that? If it was all smoke and mirrors they would manufacture photographic evidence that clearly showed the plane crashing. If you’re going to fake a photo you’d fake it right, not leave anything to the public’s imagination.

Edit - Regarding ‘conspiracists’ I don’t know why I would opt for the creation of a new word when there is a perfectly good one available - conspirators. Just part of a tendency to overly complicate things that could remain simple, I guess. - Edit

I like when new words are created!

Quote (clark_griswold @ May 31 2006,13:49)
I like when new words are created!

Oh - when there's a reason to create it - I absolutely agree with you.

But in this case there already exists a perfectly fine word to say what I was trying to say so I really didn't need to create one.

Jeremy, I think you’re mistaken when you say:

“Had Sadam allowed the inspection of his facilities, which were later found to be empty of such material, this conflict could have been delayed, possible even avoided.”

- actually, Saddam WAS allowing the inspection of his facilities. The inspections were going on right up until Bush told the UN to get their inspectors out of Iraq because he was getting ready to unleash some shock and awe. Sure, Saddam wasn’t exactly making it easy, but the UN inspectors clearly complained that their work was left incomplete because of Bush’s timetable to invade. Remember the invasion was timed for weather reasons - early spring being the very best time to start an invasion of Iraq (for whatever reason).

So, it may be niggly of me, especially so long after the point, but it does help to get history right. FACT: It was actually George W Bush who terminated the UN WMD inspections of Iraq.

my own conjecture: He didn’t want to wait for them to complete their inspections for 2 reasons:
1: It would have delayed his invasion, which would have meant US troops were exposed to full summer heat during the fight, and the US military didn’t want that.
2: All the preliminary reports from the UN investigation team indicated that no trace of WMD had been found thus far. He certainly didn’t want them to complete that investigation and produce a final report saying ‘NO WMD found in Iraq’. That would have made it much harder to justify the invasion.