Do you belive 9/11 was a inside job?

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]It could be a number of reasons, they were threatened, they were government agents, they were bribed..there could be a number of reasons. That picture being faked clearly shows that whoever took it was willingly working with whoever wanted it to happen.GabuEx

OK, and one final question: all of the witnesses that you say testify in favor of your version of the story, why did they not meet the same fate?

This question seems to have gotten lost.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

MushroomWig

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Why would I ask the government when all evidence points to the contrary. This is your theory....what is the motive? If you haven't a motive...you haven't a conspiracy.;)LJS9502_basic

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

No it wasn't. 9/11 was the blame for everything in the middle-east just ask Bush. WMDs was just a second option. In order to invade by policy you have to have a reason to go into war via attacks have always been the case. The people wanted to go to war over 911 and so did everyone else, 911 in the single handed pretext for the war and the only prob reason not WMD's. 911 was indeed the reason for the illegal infiltration of 2 big wars. If you disagree with that statement you need to go ask 90% of the population on the aftermath of 911. Now ask the very few.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="MushroomWig"]

The motive is pretty obvious - Iraq, Afganastan, oil, the patriot act and god knows what else.

jamesgj

No it wasn't. 9/11 was the blame for everything in the middle-east just ask Bush. WMDs was just a second option. In order to invade by policy you have to have a reason to go into war via attacks have always been the case. The people wanted to go to war over 911 and so did everyone else, 911 in the single handed pretext for the war and the only prob reason not WMD's. 911 was indeed the reason for the illegal infiltration of 2 big wars. If you disagree with that statement you need to go ask 90% of the population on the aftermath of 911. Now ask the very few.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Yeah there was a shooter in the book depository, oswald or not, but the evidence of multiple shooters is WAY too strong to dismiss. And the government is still saying one shooter and people still believe it:lol:

GabuEx

If it has been physically shown that one bullet under the exact same configurations could do all of the damage observed - the negation of which being the primary point people offer against the single-shooter idea - then why would we, as Occam's Razor puts it, multiply entities beyond necessity?

The one bullet would have to have changed trajectory a few different times and stop in mid air to land in whatshisface's lap.scorch-62

Which has been shown to be just what happens if, as I said, the conditions of the shooting are recreated.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Yeah there was a shooter in the book depository, oswald or not, but the evidence of multiple shooters is WAY too strong to dismiss. And the government is still saying one shooter and people still believe it:lol:

scorch-62

If it has been physically shown that one bullet under the exact same configurations could do all of the damage observed - the negation of which being the primary point people offer against the single-shooter idea - then why would we, as Occam's Razor puts it, multiply entities beyond necessity?

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No that isn't obvious. As for oil...prices went up after Iraq so that definitely doesn't fit. And Iraq was over WMD's.

LJS9502_basic

No it wasn't. 9/11 was the blame for everything in the middle-east just ask Bush. WMDs was just a second option. In order to invade by policy you have to have a reason to go into war via attacks have always been the case. The people wanted to go to war over 911 and so did everyone else, 911 in the single handed pretext for the war and the only prob reason not WMD's. 911 was indeed the reason for the illegal infiltration of 2 big wars. If you disagree with that statement you need to go ask 90% of the population on the aftermath of 911. Now ask the very few.

You cannot go to war under assumptions, that will not justify the deaths of a million civils. 911 was the pretext for the middle-east WMDs are the just escape goat of the matter. 911 never happened, no one would dare enter the middle-east. It was later justified WMDs we're the cause, but without any evidence you cannot invade on false pretexts. Thus illegal.

I could say England has become a threat and has a microwave weapon there planning on using in Israel or US. I don't invade the country and help contribute to a million deaths over it. 911 was the reason no matter what anyone uses as the escape goat.

You cannot go to war under assumptions, that will not justify the deaths of a million civils. 911 was the pretext for the middle-east WMDs are the just escape goat of the matter. 911 never happened, no one would dare enter the middle-east. It was later justified WMDs we're the cause, but without any evidence you cannot invade on false pretexts. Thus illegal.

I could say England has become a threat and has a microwave weapon there planning on using in Israel or US. I don't invade the country and help contribute to a million deaths over it. 911 was the reason no matter what anyone uses as the escape goat.

jamesgj

[QUOTE="Mecha_Frieza"]

People are just so oblivious. Its actually really scary.

mastershakez

It really is. People will believe whatever makes them feel the safest, no matter what common sense suggests.

"Common sense" is that pop rocks and cola will make your stomach explode. That you shouldn't swim for at least 30 minutes after eating. Or that you will get sick just by standing out in the cold. At least a lot of people believe it is.

Conspiracy theories like this work in much the same way. People believe them because they fit into what they perceive to be common sense.

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]The one bullet would have to have changed trajectory a few different times and stop in mid air to land in whatshisface's lap.GabuEx

Which has been shown to be just what happens if, as I said, the conditions of the shooting are recreated.

On Nov. 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m. Central time, President John F. Kennedy was shot twice while traveling in his limousine through Dallas, Texas. The first shot entered Kennedy's back and exited out of his throat. A second shot entered the left side of Kennedy's head and exited out the right side, spraying a nearby officer agent and the car's interior with bodily material. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. at Parkland Hospital. . . . The two experts found a simulated gunshot wound to the head that closely matched the wound Kennedy suffered. Most of the simulated body material had spattered forward into the car, consistent with a shot that entered the back of the head and exited toward the front. There was some back-spatter -- material that flew back in the opposite direction of the bullet's trajectory -- but not much.

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="scorch-62"]The one bullet would have to have changed trajectory a few different times and stop in mid air to land in whatshisface's lap.scorch-62

Which has been shown to be just what happens if, as I said, the conditions of the shooting are recreated.

On Nov. 22, 1963, at 12:30 p.m. Central time, President John F. Kennedy was shot twice while traveling in his limousine through Dallas, Texas. The first shot entered Kennedy's back and exited out of his throat. A second shot entered the left side of Kennedy's head and exited out the right side, spraying a nearby officer agent and the car's interior with bodily material. Kennedy was pronounced dead at 1:00 p.m. at Parkland Hospital. . . . The two experts found a simulated gunshot wound to the head that closely matched the wound Kennedy suffered. Most of the simulated body material had spattered forward into the car, consistent with a shot that entered the back of the head and exited toward the front. There was some back-spatter -- material that flew back in the opposite direction of the bullet's trajectory -- but not much.

There's nothing wrong with Kennedy being shot twice; the official story holds that Oswald fired three shots, the first of which missed, the second of which struck JFK in the neck, the third of which struck him in the head.

If you doubt that the fatal shot came from the book depository, watch this. If you doubt that the "magic bullet" existed, watch this, starting at around 77:00.

Ah, JFK and 9/11 conspiracies all rolled up into one easy-to-read and hilarious bundle. LZ71

Time to get back on subject. Was 911 a inside job? So many question arise as to who could have done it, via Ops or CSI/NSA. Also the JFK/911 deal has simular approch to the mysteries. For example, I have a middle grade textbook explaining that a lone gunman killed Abe Lincoln, when in reality over eight people we're known to be involved in that, still you hear about the lone-gunman. Thousands of examples of this are apparent, I don't buy "the crazy nut that acted alone" theory. I also do not think US Government was involved in 911, but known about the attack. If govern was involved you would no be-able to hold a secret such as this, thats why these deeds are done with ops and agencies other than affliated mainstream. One thing is proof positive, the commission report has lied out right into the poeple of the world, this much is for certain no matter how much people are in denial.

If people are buying the continues "lone nut" theory then that makes me question rather they have been sold a lie, even more interesting is how they defend it and enclose it. We need a real invest, not one which tells us the terrorist leave bags in airports with terrorist manuals without future research. Common thinking should be used when discussing REAL issues that effect our future. Even more so when we are in 2 wars over this, and be spied on without notice destorying the Bill of Rights.

These threads are so annoying. Its amazing how a couple of youtube videos can make people so paranoid. Popular Science & The Discovery Channel both disproved these conspiracy theories.

These threads are so annoying. Its amazing how a couple of youtube videos can make people so paranoid. Popular Science & The Discovery Channel both disproved these conspiracies theories.UnknownSniper65

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Looking at the facts.

Does anyone think that after the planes hit the buildings and the buildings came down into dust that they found a intact ID card from one of the highjackers. who is alive and well in another country on camera with the same face. Somehow got through the airports with boxcutters and hit the most secured building in the world? They could find his ID laying the rubble of New York, but couldn't find the black box for the plane? They could match DNA samples from the chaos but find a ID card and still couldn't find the black box? Thats what they said.That isn't even 98% of it, read the report.

The evidence points to absolute 100% distortion of the truth. I'm not saying the US government was behind it, as I think it is a classic staged false flag operation performed by an expert group.

jamesgj

And the thing about "somehow got through the airports with boxcutters" bit is annoying, because of course you could get a boxcutter on a plane, because at that time, regulations were that you could take a blade less than two inches onboard. You're applying post 9/11 mentality with a pre-9/11 world, and that doesn't work.

Also, the "living hijackers" bit has been debunked. A long time ago.

Yeah after that massive ball of fire it was ejected out of the plane. That makes absolute no common logic. If you buy this then I know there is no helping you.

Black box was never found, we don't know where its at.

Also the terroist left a bag full of information with plans in it to perform acts of terror. Gee, wonder why there was a Quran in there to? Please use logic.

There's nothing wrong with Kennedy being shot twice; the official story holds that Oswald fired three shots, the first of which missed, the second of which struck JFK in the neck, the third of which struck him in the head.

If you doubt that the fatal shot came from the book depository, watch this. If you doubt that the "magic bullet" existed, watch this, starting at around 77:00.

GabuEx

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]These threads are so annoying. Its amazing how a couple of youtube videos can make people so paranoid. Popular Science & The Discovery Channel both disproved these conspiracies theories.racer8dan

It's amazing what Youtube can get people to believe.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="UnknownSniper65"]These threads are so annoying. Its amazing how a couple of youtube videos can make people so paranoid. Popular Science & The Discovery Channel both disproved these conspiracies theories.ThePlothole

It's amazing what Youtube can get people to believe.

Take a look at this video its very interesting, kind of long but worth it. Everything he says lines up and makes perfect sense.

racer8dan

Interesting, but then one must answer this: if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll who was responsible to the shot in the head, then why was the observed reaction from a shot from the grassy knoll completely inconsistent with the Zapruder footage, and why was a shot from the book depository completely consistent with it?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Take a look at this video its very interesting, kind of long but worth it. Everything he says lines up and makes perfect sense.

GabuEx

Interesting, but then one must answer this: if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll who was responsible to the shot in the head, then why was the observed reaction from a shot from the grassy knoll completely inconsistent with the Zapruder footage, and why was a shot from the book depository completely consistent with it?

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Take a look at this video its very interesting, kind of long but worth it. Everything he says lines up and makes perfect sense.

racer8dan

Interesting, but then one must answer this: if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll who was responsible to the shot in the head, then why was the observed reaction from a shot from the grassy knoll completely inconsistent with the Zapruder footage, and why was a shot from the book depository completely consistent with it?

That doesn't answer the question at all.

Files is claiming to have been the one to have shot JFK in the head. Yet, as we saw, the trajectory of the skull and brain contents from such a shot from the grassy knoll were completely inconsistent with the documented footage of the Zapruder film. Furthermore, a shot to the head from the book depository was shown to have a completely consistent result.

How does one reconcile this fact with the idea that the headshot came from the grassy knoll as opposed to the book depository?

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] It was a passport. It was ejected from the plane when it exploded, and landed on the ground below, as opposed to the black box, which was lodged somewhere inside the building, which was there when it collapsed. A bit easier to find something that hit the sidewalk than something lodged within tons of rubble.

And the thing about "somehow got through the airports with boxcutters" bit is annoying, because of course you could get a boxcutter on a plane, because at that time, regulations were that you could take a blade less than two inches onboard. You're applying post 9/11 mentality with a pre-9/11 world, and that doesn't work.

Also, the "living hijackers" bit has been debunked. A long time ago.

guitarshr3dd3r

Yeah after that massive ball of fire it was ejected out of the plane. That makes absolute no common logic. If you buy this then I know there is no helping you.

Black box was never found, we don't know where its at.

Also the terroist left a bag full of information with plans in it to perform acts of terror. Gee, wonder why there was a Quran in there to? Please use logic.

Make them look like Islam nuts, seriously do I need to answer such a question? Why don't you go ask them.

Heres another shorty

Yeah that was said already, thanks though.

racer8dan

So why do you keep posting youtube videos?

Heres another shorty

racer8dan

Yes, we've already established that Files alleges that he assassinated Kennedy.

We have not established why that allegation stands in opposition to the recorded data from a recreation of two proposed origins for the headshot that killed Kennedy. Showing Files repeating a statement we have already seen does make this establishment. If Files shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll, then why is a headshot from the grassy knoll inconsistent with the Zapruder film, and why is a headshot from the book depository consistent?

[QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"]Are they still sticking with the story that they found the passports of the pilots in the debris of the towers? Cause if they are, I'm still on the fence.Fuhgeddabouditt

Then again, what are the odds of a rag-tag troupe of amateur pilot-wannabes getting boxcutters past security on four different flights?67gt500

The entire reason why you cannot get a boxcutter on a plane today is precisely because the security at the time did make that possible.

Yes

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Interesting, but then one must answer this: if there was a shooter on the grassy knoll who was responsible to the shot in the head, then why was the observed reaction from a shot from the grassy knoll completely inconsistent with the Zapruder footage, and why was a shot from the book depository completely consistent with it?

GabuEx

That doesn't answer the question at all.

Files is claiming to have been the one to have shot JFK in the head. Yet, as we saw, the trajectory of the skull and brain contents from such a shot from the grassy knoll were completely inconsistent with the documented footage of the Zapruder film. Furthermore, a shot to the head from the book depository was shown to have a completely consistent result.

How does one reconcile this fact with the idea that the headshot came from the grassy knoll as opposed to the book depository?

People that believe this was an inside job need to go to an asylum with those weirdos that think aliens are in Area 51...CHOASXIII

Yeah I suppose you are for taking the rights of the american people. The right for a guy with Nazi flags waving it while walking down the sidewalk is his right in this country. I may not agree with him, but if I take his rights away it will take ALL our rights away eventually. Shame on you. People wonder why we are in debt and how to get out of it, not understanding our system is a debt based monotary system, all money is issued debt, and is worthless, not backed by anything. If we can get a real investigation into the event of 911 people are going to go to jail, and anyone who questions anything if we don't. You have a right to your opinion, as do I, however taking away our god given rights by force is one thing which should be not put up with.

[QUOTE="67gt500"]Then again, what are the odds of a rag-tag troupe of amateur pilot-wannabes getting boxcutters past security on four different flights?GabuEx

The entire reason why you cannot get a boxcutter on a plane today is precisely because the security at the time did make that possible.

People seem to have forgotten that level of security we must endure at the airport now is mostly because of 9/11.

The "melon" video is debatable, i'm not saying it was james files, i'm saying that he makes a pretty good case, I can throw some more stuff at ya but, I have to get up earlyin the morning so, maybe tomorrw i'll put some stuff up.

racer8dan

Wait, so a video using advanced ballistics to simulate precisely what happened when JFK was shot is debatable, but the testimony of Files is not?

On what grounds do you base your assertion that hard, empirical data is less reliable than personal testimony?

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

The "melon" video is debatable, i'm not saying it was james files, i'm saying that he makes a pretty good case, I can throw some more stuff at ya but, I have to get up earlyin the morning so, maybe tomorrw i'll put some stuff up.

GabuEx

Wait, so a video using advanced ballistics to simulate precisely what happened when JFK was shot is debatable, but the testimony of Files is not?

On what grounds do you base your assertion that hard, empirical data is more reliable than personal testimony?

I've seen other "tests" with different results

racer8dan

Where?

I've seen at least two ballistics tests that validate that shots from the book depository can inflict the damage that was precisely what was observed to have been caused.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I've seen other "tests" with different results

GabuEx

Where?

I've seen at least two ballistics tests that validate that shots from the book depository can inflict the damage that was precisely what was observed to have been caused.

okay all you conspiracy folk....just one question....do you really think that our govt. under this guy was competant enough to orchestrate such an assault?....remember...during his admin every "top secret" document showed up in the press 20 seconds after it's discussion behind closed doors......:roll:....seriously people.....get a grip...Omni-Slash

No I don't. No way he was the primary consp. He has lied about 9/11 miltiple times, and used 911 as a pretext for illegal wars, which caused invasion of Iraq even though George Bush used it as such when none of the highjackers we're from Iraq. Ask him why we're battling terrorist "911", ask him why we're in trouble the answer he'll give you 9/11 now ask him why his taking a dump he'll say 9/11 lolz. Every top secret document huh, wow nothing more to say.

[QUOTE="67gt500"]Then again, what are the odds of a rag-tag troupe of amateur pilot-wannabes getting boxcutters past security on four different flights?GabuEx

The entire reason why you cannot get a boxcutter on a plane today is precisely because the security at the time did make that possible.

[QUOTE="jamesgj"]

You cannot go to war under assumptions, that will not justify the deaths of a million civils. 911 was the pretext for the middle-east WMDs are the just escape goat of the matter. 911 never happened, no one would dare enter the middle-east. It was later justified WMDs we're the cause, but without any evidence you cannot invade on false pretexts. Thus illegal.

I could say England has become a threat and has a microwave weapon there planning on using in Israel or US. I don't invade the country and help contribute to a million deaths over it. 911 was the reason no matter what anyone uses as the escape goat.

LJS9502_basic

Same goes to you. I don't know where you we're the last 9 years.

[QUOTE="guitarshr3dd3r"][QUOTE="jamesgj"]

Yeah after that massive ball of fire it was ejected out of the plane. That makes absolute no common logic. If you buy this then I know there is no helping you.

Black box was never found, we don't know where its at.

Also the terroist left a bag full of information with plans in it to perform acts of terror. Gee, wonder why there was a Quran in there to? Please use logic.

jamesgj

Make them look like Islam nuts, seriously do I need to answer such a question? Why don't you go ask them.

Maybe, but I'm pretty sure 'retractable razor-sharp blades' were on the Airport Security no-fly list back then as well...67gt500

Actually no. Prior to 9/11, any knife up to four inches long was permitted as a carry on item. Though there was a bit of confusion with box cutters specifically, since they fell under two contradicting categories.

[QUOTE="67gt500"]Maybe, but I'm pretty sure 'retractable razor-sharp blades' were on the Airport Security no-fly list back then as well...ThePlothole

Actually no. Prior to 9/11, any knife up to four inches long was permitted as a carry on item.

Seriously? It was okay only 9 years ago for passengers to bring a blade into the passenger compartment of a commercial aircraft? Are you sure about that?67gt500

[QUOTE="Fuhgeddabouditt"][QUOTE="PS2_ROCKS"]Are they still sticking with the story that they found the passports of the pilots in the debris of the towers? Cause if they are, I'm still on the fence.67gt500

This is the problem of applying post-9/11 security mentality to a pre-9/11 world.

idk i saw a few youtube vids lol