Google Videos: 9/11 Cover Up (in Off-topic)


chappy [Soup Ream] October 9 2006 12:20 PM EDT

I watched it while at work ... caught most of it .. very interesting :) It's about 1.25 hours long so if you're up for checking it out just plan for a long stay .. you can pause it of course too ... Link is here.

NotSuitablForChildren [Yeeeaahh.................] October 9 2006 1:12 PM EDT

I got this from a friend earlier this summer. He told me that if I was caught with it I would be charged with treason lol. I have only seen people with DVDs of it. And I couldn't find it on the web when I tried several months ago. I can't say I believe most of it but it is really interesting. Makes for a better movie than event.

Admin{CB1}Slayer333 October 9 2006 1:16 PM EDT

Seen it before I think, raises some interesting questions.

AdminShade October 9 2006 2:32 PM EDT

why not google for "Loose Change" it's most likely the thing you tell but that website lets you download it.

AdminQBVerifex [Serenity In Chaos] October 9 2006 2:37 PM EDT

It is "interesting" but unfortunately it suffers from what many other conspiracy theories suffer from.

So, lets say that all they are saying is true. So what, what does it mean? Our government killed people to justify a war and new police state type laws. What can we do about it? Not a hell of a lot. Most people in this country are too distracted by things like this.

Want to see what people think is the most interesting? Check this out.

PirateKing October 9 2006 2:44 PM EDT

Oooo! Brangelina!



Sorry Verifex. Did you say something? :P

QBOddBird October 9 2006 3:27 PM EDT

Conspiracy theories like this are silly. If our government was really going to go to all the trouble to keep these pilots, airline officials, government officials, the President, and everyone else who would be in on this quiet about killing thousands of people, then why wouldn't they put forth the effort to go out and eliminate those creating these 'conspiracy theories' and snuff out objections before they begin? It's not like we don't have the technology to find them.

AdminShade October 9 2006 3:29 PM EDT

BBQ: its far more easy for either of those people to say that the other is false...

Thrasher October 9 2006 3:48 PM EDT

Theres some nutters out there.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 9 2006 4:24 PM EDT

This is an extremely touchy subject that can be argued either way.

I myself have followed Alex Jones closely in what he says about the government. He brings up a lot of interesting points and nearly all of his statements can be looked into further. I've spent hours authenticating some of the stuff he says. I've watched countless other Conspiracy movies such as Loose Change 2nd edition. (Actually watched this in school because I got into a debate with the teacher over this)

In the end, all the facts can tell us is there's some loose ends. It doesn't justify that the Government is actually behind it nor does it confirm they aren't. It's simply a "Conspiracy Theory". I’ve decided the government did in fact play a vital role in the tragic events not only here but around the world.

I'm willing to debate with whoever on this issues though, any takers? ;-)

Karmic Mishap [Soup Ream] October 9 2006 5:11 PM EDT

I'd love to chat about this stuff with you, especially clannies, but I'd like to ask that we call them 'hypothesis' here. Gravity and evolution are theories. ^.~

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 9 2006 5:17 PM EDT

If you're going to say "them", will you say "hyptheses"?

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 9 2006 6:00 PM EDT

Sure, where do you want to begin?

9/11, some of the bus bombings in Europe, past events where the government has been known to commit acts of terrorism on its_own_citizens to induce fear and blame its enemies. (Hitler for instance)

Godpanda October 9 2006 6:31 PM EDT

Yeah I thought this was about government attacking us. Thanks for verifying.


Quite simply, of all the targets in the United States why choose the trade centers?

You wouldn't. Not with so many other emotional targets around.

Want to incense the American people? Hit the Statue of Liberty and do less dramatic but much more serious scatter bombing. Kill 1 or 2 people throughout the country for a few months.

Nothing would inspire fear or rage more then that. So, nope, wasn't Bush this time.

ResistanZ October 9 2006 7:01 PM EDT

The government would have to have thought about this from a terrorist's point of view. Jihad is a belief where you will get into Heaven if you kill yourself and take out a lot of people with you. Now, if you're someone with this belief, you're going to try to hit targets with a large number of people that still hold a type of symbolism, which the World Trade Centers represented, as well as the Pentagon.

And Bane, you seem to be forgetting that the President doesn't equal the government. He is only one person in one branch and responsible for a range of jobs. There are many other people whose jurisdiction covers everything else the President's small range doesn't. It's possible that he was informed about it, or accepted it, but it is much more likely he wasn't aware of it at all. To say he planned doesn't seem likely at all.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 9 2006 7:03 PM EDT

Why would a country attack one of their economic cores just to justify them starting their war on terrorism?
This time I agree with Wolf, there are other places less important to keeping the country running but equally important in the people's eyes.
If I was the English Prime Minister and I wanted to create this effect I wouldn't exactly choose the London Stock Exchange or the Central Bank of England as my target, that would be asking for more trouble than it was worth.
Trying it in the first place is stupid enough but if a government thought it the best plan I'm sure they wouldn't choose one of their main economic centres.

Mikel October 9 2006 7:10 PM EDT

"Kill 1 or 2 people throughout the country for a few months. "
That doesn't get your attention, like the hit on the Twin Towers did.
Then again, Rednecks would pull up next to a Foreign looking person, wave at them and when the other person tries to wave back, they'd get shot. The Rednecks would testify that they saw them reaching for something and that they shot them in self-defense. O wait, that already happens..
Call for a cop, call for an ambulance, and call for a pizza. See who shows up first.

Rubberduck[T] [Hell Blenders] October 9 2006 7:12 PM EDT

Thinking you have some understanding of the motivations and concerns of those in power is a common and easy mistake to make.

Godpanda October 9 2006 7:19 PM EDT

Wait Mikel you mean an isolated, if horrifying, incident would worry you MORE then 200 people dieing at random times throughout the country and no one knows what is going on?

ResistanZ October 9 2006 7:35 PM EDT

If you watched Loose Change at the end it was stated that underneath the towers were 160 BILLION USD worth of gold. And later only 200 million worth of gold was recovered. I think that shows an obvious motive.

It's hard for any realistic person to deny the claims of Loose Change because it raises so many questions based on the scientific impossibilities, eyewitness accounts, and the video recordings. I wonder if we'll ever find out the truth.

Godpanda October 9 2006 7:36 PM EDT

Aliens did it.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 9 2006 7:40 PM EDT

There's Gold in them there concrete hills there is!

ResistanZ October 9 2006 8:14 PM EDT

Uh, Zog. We're not talking about hillbilly California Goldrush claims. The towers actually stored gold bars.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 9 2006 8:24 PM EDT

And I'm claiming insanity after all that time waiting for the rollback to finish!

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 9 2006 9:56 PM EDT

Well, There being gold at the bottom of the WTC was interesting. In addition to that, what about the insurance claim the man owning the WTCs made that clearly stated Planes flying into the building. How coincidental, I forget the exact time but 3 months later both towers go down by planes being driven into them? C'mon, ridiculous!

Also, did you notice hitting the WTC caused so much economic chaos? I sure didn't, nothing to abnormal. I did see, however, a war emerge...That in itself always makes the economy rise.



( sorry for the bad grammar etc. I also didn't take time to read all of the previous posts prior to posting )

NotSuitablForChildren [Yeeeaahh.................] October 10 2006 4:54 AM EDT

I believe it was 6 days Leon. Although I don't believe any sane person would carry out an act so heinous, especially someone such as the president. I see a lot of coincidental information, when I look at the collective Bush presidency. Especially both wars in Iraq, and a huge family investment into foriegn oil. But also, the use of "terrorism" to gain control in political power. There have been numerous articles regarding GW's use of wire taps, and approving torture of inmates to collect information. All in the name of "National Security". Even after congress told the white house that they are not allowed to tape civilian phone conversation, they continued to do it. The white house has never held more power than it does today. Until Reagan, presidents vetoed bills very regularly until the exploit of the underwrite was used. Now a president may ammend a totally unrelated rule to be written into law, then approve it and send it back to the senate for review, skipping the entire process of creating a bill. It seems that our checks and balances program has been put to the wayside by a white house that believes it can do whatever it wants with impunity. We impeached a president for the act of adultery, however GW has never been impeached even though he has been caught red handed breaching a law recently passed by congress due to his actions. He is purposely overextending his power in the name of "National Security". I personally think that this is due in part to lining his families pockets. I have not studied far enough into this to think myself near an expert, however since 9/11 I have questioned his integrety, and compentance to handle this sort of situation.

QBOddBird October 10 2006 7:15 AM EDT

OMGzOrZ we have a conspiracy on CB2

The server's been goin down alot

and yesterday we had a rollback

then fighting was borked

Coincidence? YOU DECIDE

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 10 2006 7:34 AM EDT

Six days only further proves the coincidence. I however, don't believe in coincidences, leaving me to try to understand what happened. The amount of evidence here is overwhelming.

Back to what you were saying NSFC: You're right in what you've said. Bush has violated many civilians rights in the name of security. This isn't entirely for his benefit, It's part of a larger plan. You exchange Liberty for security in this case, They've scared the hell out of Americans resulting in Americans demanding higher security. This unfortunately led to less freedom of the American people (i.g Patriot Act)

What about the larger plan? This isn't clear but it is believed to be world domination, Population Control, totaltalirism. The American people aren't educated enough and are being manipulated. We are, unfortunately, Stupid.

It always goes back to the Three Gs:

1. God
2. Greed
3. Glory

Strongest motivators, basically boils down to these.

Now, breifly because i have school in ten minutes.

Of course he wants to line his pockets. But, he has been in the oil industry all his life. "Coincidently" with Bin Laden. This is a known fact. I don't see how abusing his power of authority is lining his pockets but i don't doubt it isn't happening. The war in Iraq has had a significant impact on the Oil industry allowing them to inflate prices with a faily peculiar reasoning.But again, I doubt a president, Who has direct and openly admitted to being a member in "Skull and Bones", is a self made oil man, and is the President is in this for financial gain. It is possible more or less.

More when i return from school!

AvoidCXT October 10 2006 1:55 PM EDT

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 10 2006 2:24 PM EDT

Why complain about your oil prices rising? Our wage rates are still pretty bog standard across most of the board and we are now paying £1 a litre, costs my gf about £35 for a full tank in the C3 Pluriel which is classed as a "supermini", you can fill a Humvee for less than that.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 10 2006 3:56 PM EDT

Ha!

Avoid, thanks for the refresher. I've read that article before and found it to be very...bias. Many conspirists only show facts and then give there "hypothesis" asking those who oppose it to prove them wrong. In that article they present there "facts" wrong. They're telling you to believe it, they leave out the loop holes and loose ends about each of them.

That article is unreasonable and should give anyone a good laugh. An article for those that follow and do as they're told rather than looking further into it.


I won't completely bash it as it brought up a_few_ valid arguements. Again, this can be argrued either way.

QBOddBird October 10 2006 4:13 PM EDT

http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/

AvoidCXT October 10 2006 5:15 PM EDT

"many conspiracy advocates demonstrate a maddening double standard. They distrust every bit of the mainstream account of 9/11, yet happily embrace the flimsiest evidence to promote their wildest notions" - Jim Meigs, explaining why he wrote the article.

Yeah, that article is a bit biased. It's editors had a tendency to give more credibility to Ph.D.'s, Sc.D's, and P.E.'s rather than obscure blog sites.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 10 2006 6:10 PM EDT

"It's editors had a tendency to give more credibility to Ph.D.'s, Sc.D's, and P.E.'s rather than obscure blog sites."

That isn't a fair statement you can make and accurately say. I believe all other conspiracy theorists have sought help from experts as well.

The editor only sought to diminish the theories and didn't go into much detail as to what the theory really is. He was brief about the theory and quick to shred it.

He was only out to get the facts that didn't support the theorists "hypothesis" instead of looking at it with an open mind. This is clear by how he wrote the article.

( i know this is kind of hypocritical of me to say but initially when i was really into this i did have an open mind, not knowing which to believe. )

QBBast [Hidden Agenda] October 10 2006 6:20 PM EDT



Worse than this conspiracy, of course, is the way the oil companies conspire against pirates -- with the ignorant complicity of mass consumers. If you want to be outraged, be outraged by this! The evidence is clear and the conspiracy is a vast one.

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 10 2006 6:35 PM EDT

oh my, This should be looked into!

AvoidCXT October 10 2006 11:38 PM EDT

--"That isn't a fair statement you can make and accurately say. I believe all other conspiracy theorists have sought help from experts as well."

I agree, they sought lots of help from experts, they just didn't find any. A little digging at letsroll911.org reveals no experts, just a bunch of blurry pictures. For pete's sake, they featured an image of a toy plane as evidence! I was going to do some digging at other sites, but that would just be a waste of time. I'll leave it up to you to find someone with a little knowledge and credibility that supports these conspiracies.

--"The editor only sought to diminish the theories and didn't go into much detail as to what the theory really is. He was brief about the theory and quick to shred it."

He was quick and brief because it was a magazine article, not a book. Speaking of books, one of the editors was on talk radio discussing a book they are working on to expand the article.

--"He was only out to get the facts that didn't support the theorists "hypothesis"...."

They consulted more than 300 experts and organizations for that article, a partial list is here.

So, if that was being out to get one-sided facts, then they:
a)received hypothesis-supporting evidence from those sources, and ignored it.
or
b)made sure all of those sources were a part of the conspiracy before consulting them.
or
c)made up that number.

--"...instead of looking at it with an open mind. This is clear by how he wrote the article."

So you honestly believe websites like letsroll911.org is more open-minded than Popular Mechanics?
letsroll911.org sees a blurry picture that looks almost like a missile and decides to make a website calling 9/11 a conspiracy.
PM sees a blurry picture and decides to ask Thomas R. Edwards, Ph.D., video forensics expert, along with many others about what the picture really is.


*sigh*I hate it when I let myself get roped into these special olympics threads. My general policy is to let crazy people be crazy people, but sometimes I get a little itch and I'll tell myself something like, "I'll just post a good link and be done with it." But before long, I find myself digging through a ridiculous page filled with blurry pictures being hailed as incontrovertible evidence.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 11 2006 3:46 PM EDT

Before this goes any further and stumps down to name calling ( "My general policy is to let crazy people be crazy people")

I challenge you, AvoidCXT, to sit down and watch both of those movies.

Watch Chappies and/or this one:

Alex Jones

After you gain a little more knowledge about this topic from other sources, I'll be happy to answer your questions and debate with you. I won't be insulted by your ignorance.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 11 2006 3:53 PM EDT

lol, wrong link. Let's try this one.

Terror Storm

Godpanda October 11 2006 3:58 PM EDT

This is funny.

Everyone goes both ways about bias and blah blah.

Here are some general facts that (if you think about it) are always true.

1) When you right a story you have a ending in mind. This makes every single book/article/thesis/ limerick/ postcard biased in one way or another. Say what you want about objective, but its BASICALLY impossible. At least I have never been exposed.

2) Same applies to movies, documentaries, clips and anything else that gives a message.

No one will know. Let it die =D



For The Improvement Of Wolf:

I know I had nothing inflamatory, but I hope this isn't TOO bad. CM me if you have anything about how I said it. I really am trying to get better :)

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 11 2006 4:04 PM EDT

no, great post i've semi said this before.

It can be argued either way. However, if you preview both sides of it and make a decision based on all you've read/watched etc.

He, and i hate to directly point to you Avoid. Is leaning on that one source, I have already read it prior to this along with many other similar things. In the end Neither of us will be right.

My intention isn't to prove I'm right ( bc there is nothing concrete enough to make such an intention) but to inform others that it is a Possibility! It's a HUGE one, in fact.

ResistanZ October 11 2006 10:43 PM EDT

I see how it's possible to debate over the possible motives and the validity of the eyewitness interviews as memories can change over time such, but honestly, how can you refute scientific evidence? I mean, the explosion of the jet fuel isn't hot enough to melt the steel on the towers, and on the video it hightlighted explosions on the towers as it was collapsing. And the clean damage done to the Pentagon is impossible for a plane to do.

I mean, whether you believe the government's responsible or not is one thing. But these things are very hard to argue with.

Oh, and the person bought terrorist attack-specific insurance for the towers 6 weeks before the attack I believe the video said, not 6 days.

QBOddBird October 11 2006 10:58 PM EDT

If you read Avoid's link to the article...:

The melting steel:

Steel doesn't have to melt for the building to collapse, it only has to weaken. To quote said article, ' Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F).... "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." '

The highlighted explosions:

'Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction.
Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception." '

And as for the Pentagon:

'Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. '

The smaller hole?

'The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.'


Read the article next time so I don't have to go through and pick out the information you need, please. =)

ResistanZ October 11 2006 11:11 PM EDT

Alright. I'll give you that the weakened steel is probably right. The pancaked air holds water, although I don't believe it. However, with the plane, if the building had in fact sheared off one of the wings, why wasn't there a wing at the wreck site? All the pieces of the plane were small enough to be carried by one person. And what about the pieces of the engine that didn't match the type of plane? Or the fact that not even a single drop of blood was recovered, much less any human parts?

QBOddBird October 11 2006 11:15 PM EDT

Read the article.

They did indeed find human parts, and larger pieces of aircraft.


It doesn't mention anything about parts of an engine that don't match the type of plane, but that's one out of 5. I mean really - if they're going to have a conspiracy theory, they should at least have done some decent research behind it.


Besides the article about motives that I posted a link to...which was probably also left unread.

ResistanZ October 11 2006 11:38 PM EDT

Oh. I'm reading the article now and even though you've read it, it doesn't seem you fully comprehend what you wrote. When the article talks about the pancaking effect, they're talking about the large amounts of debris and other stuff that looked like it went shooting out of the building as it collapsed, not the repeated small highlighted explosions that seemed to happen much lower than where the building was collapsing.

QBOddBird October 11 2006 11:51 PM EDT

I understood the article just fine.

I was giving an example of the explosions that the article covers, and didn't realize you meant the highlighted explosions on the bottom of the tower.

That doesn't mean you should insult my ability to understand the article.

Anyways: The explosions. Explosions do not equal a bomb. After all, there were electrical systems, transformers, generators, and countless other things within the tower that could have blown (and should have, considering an entire building was falling on them, and blazing jet fuel was coming down around them)...I mean really, it is a gigantic 100+ story building that was just hit by a 280,000 lb. jet airliner at 550 mph. Two of them, in fact. Why shouldn't anything explode?

Note: I'm not saying there's no possibility that there could've been bombs there, I'm just saying there's more than one explanation for explosions. It certainly isn't basis for a conspiracy theory.

ResistanZ October 11 2006 11:57 PM EDT

But I'd dare say most electrical transformers and generators aren't placed next to windows. Because the explosions came out of the windows. And it would be understandable if they exploded while the collapse was hitting them or even close to them. But they weren't. They were exploding before the force of the collapse even go close. I'm not saying they're bombs either. I'm just saying what happened seems highly unlikely to happen naturally, given the scenario.

Zoglog[T] [big bucks] October 12 2006 7:10 AM EDT

Even before the floors have collapsed to near that point the pressure is felt on the lower floors, compressing the equipment and causing fuses and such to blow, with the amount of electricals in that building it doesn't matter whether they were perfectly in the centre of the floor they were on the combined shortages would easily be enough to cause an explosion to reach the window, which then break and cause the flashback effect.

ResistanZ October 12 2006 5:08 PM EDT

No, the pressure would come from the actual collapse itself. Where else would the pressure come from? The air? Well, if you've seen that article BBQ was talking about earlier, it was stated that the condensed air pressure was being forced out of the windows, which is why you see all that smoke and dust as the towers are collapsing. So tell me how there would be pressure that travels down faster than the momentum and force traveling through the towers from the collapse when it's being ejected out the sides?

QBOddBird October 12 2006 5:26 PM EDT

I think the point is here, if you are determined to believe there's a conspiracy out there, no mountain of evidence will ever be enough to convince you that there isn't.

For example: If you fold the 20 dollar bill the right way, you can see what appears to be the Twin Towers burning! And let's not forget that 9+11=20! Whoooaaaaa...

Karmic Mishap [Soup Ream] October 12 2006 5:53 PM EDT

The opposite point is also true, BBQ.

QBOddBird October 12 2006 5:55 PM EDT

You do have a point, as innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold out for governmental affairs.

Sir Leon [Soup Ream] October 12 2006 6:00 PM EDT

Which is why i gave up on this thread and in general.

It can be argued passionately both ways.
This thread is closed to new posts. However, you are welcome to reference it from a new thread; link this with the html <a href="/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001vMt">Google Videos: 9/11 Cover Up</a>