Bill Maher gets in scuffle: but are the Conspiracy Theorists right?

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum, Oct 21, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Dude actually said on CNN: "Like it or not we are in that Brave New World and it might not be long before your boss is literally getting under your skin."


    [funny]

    What the fuck do you people need before something shifts from being a Conspiracy THEORY to a Conspiracy FACT? Do you want them to announce it on live television and say, "You will be our slaves. Deal with it."?
    test
  2. KingMenace

    KingMenace YOU MAD.

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,001
    First of all menaz, I don't know what Northwoods has to do with Loose Change, since Northwoods was known about long before Loose Change came out. What the Northwoods document proves is that people within the US government have seriously considered, on paper, murdering US citizens -- using a very similar scenario to what likely went down on 9/11 -- as a pretext for war. Whether it was implemented or not is not the point. The point is that the government openly wrote about this, so to all those who are too naive and think "their own government" would never consider such a thing, well, here's written proof they've considered it. They likely would have went through with it, too, if Kennedy hadn't put his foot down, and it makes sense that he would be dead only a few months later. Also, the government didn't simply just come out with this document. It was discovered by author James Bamford, who first broke the Northwoods story in his book, Body of Secrets. You automatically associate it with Loose Change because it's likely the only research into 9/11 you've done, with the exception of watching internet movies that claim to "debunk" the non-official conspiracy.

    Northwoods really doesn't mean that much to me because all one really has to do is look back on history -- whether it's the attack on Pearl Harbor, the attack on the USS Liberty, or the Oklahoma City bombing -- to see that this is nothing new and that governments have been waging war against "their own people" for centuries. Anyone who thinks that "their own government" would never do such a thing, doesn't understand how governments work, let alone the fact that none of the people in the government represent the American people, but the people who own this country -- most of whom are not American. The same government that you don't think would ever harm its own people has been admitedly behind the sterilization of women without their consent, biological and chemical experiments on US citizens, and mind control experiments on US citizens. This is all well documented and admitted, and it's ongoing.

    I could argue about 9/11 with people until I am blue in the face. Quite frankly, it doesn't interest me that much because people should have been awake long before this. 9/11 simply marked a quickening in their agenda and an excuse to re-engineer society into the Soviet-style police state which is now beginning to rear its ugly head. Anyone who cannot see what's going on isn't worth arguing with because they more that likely don't have the brain capacity to deal with the things that would entail pulling their heads out of the sand.
    test
  3. MikeMax

    MikeMax Guess Who's Back

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2000
    Messages:
    147
    This is interesting
    test
  4. Namor

    Namor Prodigal Sun-god

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    8,853
    lets not forget about the biggest, most obvious switch-a-roo of the century:

    after 9/11: Bin Laden is to blame-on to Afghanistan

    Then somehow, Sadam Hussein is the "TRUE" mastermind behind the attacks-on to Iraq?

    I still don't see the Iraqi-twin tower attack connection....

    Now were talkin Iran?

    HUh? what?

    I just feel that too many people in this country don't want to look at the ugly truth, its much easier to pretend that this is a "great country with great citizens".

    The truth is this country is nothing moe than a giant business that will do anything from falsifying election results to creating wars to killing its own citizens to achieve financial gain & influence over the rest of the world...
    test
  5. BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum

    BlackSoultan Ad Infinitum aka Billy Shoreview

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 1999
    Messages:
    33,123
    This IS a great country with great citizens; that fact is true. However, the President of the great country, who doesn't have the support of its great citizens, is being an ass. We cannot judge the rest of the nation by the actions of a few bonesmen.
    test
  6. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The Bonesmen aren't the problem. They are just the effects of a cause. It's the elite group within the elite group within the global group that are pulling the strings.
    test
  7. Namor

    Namor Prodigal Sun-god

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    8,853
    I agree that this Country has had(& still has) a number of remarkable people. My problem with Americans is this elitist attitude that this Country is favored by God(something Bush uses as a tool for manipulating the hoplessly religious).

    Bush used this elitist attittude to forge a war 1st based on the belief that we were "striking back at the terrorist" then to "spread the gift of democracy to the unsightly savages who don't know any better".

    Too many Americans are convinced that America is simply the greatest nation on earth. Where as we have not behaved in a manner to reflect that ideal on a national or global level in decades...

    Its easy to manipulate a mass notion like "America has the resposibility to spread democracy" for a front to exploit natural resources in the middle east....


    This ideal can be morphed into any military action b/c in many Americans eyes we stand for truth, justice & all the other stuff that star spangled image conjures up....

    This government is trying to ride the wave of past accomplishments to justify anything they see fit in these modern times...
    test
  8. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Seeing how loosechange used northwoods in their video it had alot to do with the situation because you tried to do the exact same thing here. No US clivilians in the northwoods operation were called to be murdered. None of the locations in northwoods are the same as on 9/11. And after the bay of pigs fiasco, operation northwoods was not welcomed in the whitehouse. There is no logical connection. The two scenarios are not similar. I thought I made this very clear. lastly, that is the point. You tried to implament as if the two related similarly. They don't. Thus, no logical connection or proof of a pretext for war between the two events.

    Ok see now you're arguing northwoods. I'm not debating Northwoods authenticity. What I refuted was your connetion of northwoods to 9/11. You can invoke a diatribe until you're blue in the face it won't change the fact their is no connection. I like how you said "Considered northwoods". I'll get to that in the next section of fallacies.


    No, I've read the actual document, I've done the research. I simplely suggested where you might have got the info. And I don't think I'm wrong at all. It seems to me do to experience with you people the only ones who add northwoods to 9/11 are followers of loosechange. Because you try to connect it just like they did. But failed horribly just like they did.

    You're arguing northwoods for noreason. it's irrelvant to the 9/11 situation on all accounts. 9/11 was carried out, North woods was not carried out. Even hypotheitically if northwoods was carried out it wouldn't matter because after the bay of pigs fiasco, operation northwoods was not welcomed in the whitehouse. Also You're whole argument is past irrelevent events that have no connection to 9/11 but have happend in the past therefore 9/11 is an inside job. You are a illogical mess with no proof.


    This again has no connection or foundation of proof to an inside job on 9/11.
    It's nothing more than a Fallacy of emotion, straw man, and a attempt at red herring, as well. You also left out the Gulf of tonkin. The white water scandle. the water gate scandle. and just for fun The sinking of the Titanic. Not to mention, a electronic cure for Aids being surpressed by the AMA and All of which have no connection or suggest proof of a inside job on 9/11.

    See this is the part of the argument where you want me to argue the three assertions you just made. If I did we wouldn't be talking about the subject any longer instead we'd be talking about those three assertions mentioned.

    And those arguments would look like this...

    - A Better question to ask is what international agenda was sought after Oklahoma City bombing, USS Liberty?

    - How was Pearl harbor a flase flag when the japanese infact carried it out?


    FYI: And do not for get none of those attacks were in any way shape or form carried out similar to 9/11.
    You're just making Straw man arguments at this point.


    The argument is not would american harm it's own people. The subject is infact did bush as you claim to believe carry out 9/11.

    More appeal to emotion. more browbeating. More alarmist fear mongering.
    Ok, you know all about government everyone else is stupidier than you though you can't make the connection nor provide proof with any of those historic talking points to 9/11 but your lack of logic, no proof, and diatribes should be enough for me to believe 9/11 was a inside job? Problem is none of that is a connection or proof 9/11 was a inside job. very good, you've proved your point, which is nothing yet once again about 9/11.

    I'm also not going to sink to a CT'S level and lie about 9/11. That is the difference between a man with honest Integrity for truth and a man on an emotional psychosis for truth.


    I think everyone is a wake but they don't lose their sanity in time of crisis like others do. I take it we are done with the 9/11 conversation. Then answer me this are you a muslim? it's a yes or no question.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    I'm not and I'll say it without even thinking twice . . . "Planes did not hit the world trade center and the world trade center did not collapse from a fire."

    It would be the first time ever in history that two buildings were hit by planes and a 3rd building (building 7) collapsed from it, without being hit by anything (including debris).

    People who believe the WTC was dropped by terrorists are criminally naive.
    test
  10. KingMenace

    KingMenace YOU MAD.

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    6,001
    Am I a Muslim? No. Are you a redneck?

    And who said Bush carried out the attacks? Bush makes NO decisions himself. I doubt he can even tie his shoe. The man is a puppet and has very little power other than figuratively. Black ops are carried out by the highest levels of the shadow government, though I have no doubt Bush was aware of the attacks before they occured, as well as others in his administration.

    Loose Change has nothing to do with the Northwoods document, and it was mentioned in relation to 9/11 long before Loose Change came out. Loose Change didn't feature any new information that wasn't already known to people who question the official government lie.

    You dodge the argument by making claims about how Northwoods called for nobody to be murdered. OK, so they didn't use that word. But what happens when you blow up a ship or shoot down a plane, as called for in the document?

    I really could not care less what you believe about anything, nor do I feel like arguing with people I feel don't want the truth. You can believe the world is flat for all I care.
    test
  11. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    Really azues? What is used to forge metal? DUh!
    Are you even aware that Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart?
    And yes debries did hit it.

    http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2116/144/1600/WTC7AerialObliqueWTC1Collapse.jpg
    http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/blogger/2116/144/1600/ViewofWTC7and1.jpg

    The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor -- as the building straddled an electrical substation. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder: "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

    If you need pictures look at this link.
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
    Do the research. Good pictures on this page.
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/wtc7videoincludingeastmechanicalpenthous
    http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/conspiracistsmisrepresentwtc7'scondition

    2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights. Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

    Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time," according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

    3. Demolition experts: wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

    NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition."

    http://wtc.nist.gov/media/WTC7_Approach_Summary12Dec06.pdf

    Read it.

    And Correct this was the first time ever in history that two buildings were hit by two 747 planes and fell. So you have nothing to compare it too. I can tell you didn't read a lick of what I posted.
    test
  12. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [funny]

    [youtube]Khm423m6DD0[/youtube]


    What debris could have hit building 7 to cause its collapse? The building was supposed to have collapsed by a fire.

    Menaz, if you want to reject science and choose to believe that the laws of physics have been defied by these boogy-man terrorists then you are more than welcome to do so, but I'm not going to debate it with you and I'm not interested in your arguments. I've heard it all before and you are not going to say anything to the subject to alter the impossible and make it possible.
    test
  13. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    it's a question. Just answer it. or don't. Nope not a redneck.

    Oh scary the shadow government. Bush was aware? I don't think so. According to you he can't tie his own shoes laces without tripping.

    Yes they do. Loosechange second edition. It wasn't a lie You're the lie.
    Infact, I just caught you in another lie.

    There was never anything about shooting down a plane. Only destorying unmanned drones so I would suppose noone dies wouldn't you? That is the second time I've had to explain that to you.

    The world is without question round. We can agree here.
    test
  14. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]o1w_6nd0kj4[/youtube]
    [youtube]O5HTp9QwFLI[/youtube]
    test
  15. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    If you think that Physicists and MIT Engineers don't know what they're talking about and that you have not been deceived by your government then you're just closing your eyes, plugging your ears and refusing to see and hear the truth.
    test
  16. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Still didn't look at the link. Though I posted it directly to the page and everything for you.



    DIDO

    It's you who rejects science not me.

    Or the fact that the buildings did NOT fall at free fall speed but slower.

    "When I [Dr. Greening] say that the SPEED of collapse was LESS than free fall, I means the top of the Tower was moving SLOWER than it would for free fall, (because the structure of the building was offering resistance to the collapse)."

    A SLOWER speed means a LONGER TIME. Hence instead of about 9 seconds required for free fall, the collapse of each Tower took 12 or more seconds.

    Unfortunately it is difficult to measure the actual collapse times precisely because the lower part of the Towers was hidden in the great dust cloud that formed.

    Good to know when conspiracy theorists simply state as religious fact the opposites.


    I've got to leave for work.
    Later, azues.
    test
  17. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    [youtube]4TWD-W-cupY[/youtube]


    That's all I'm adding to this thread.
    If it's not enough for you, nothing will be.
    test
  18. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    hahahah
    test
  19. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807

    Not one creditable professional structrual engineer not one of them agrees with you're side. Not to mention, those guys you showed are not criditable and work for the truth movement.

    http://digg.com/videos/educational/9_11_Collapse_Analysis

    Stop azeus.... "800 degree C heat will allow the metal to creep and it will fail.. the rest is up to gravity."
    test
  20. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    They are MIT Engineers and fucking Physicists you dolt.
    If they aren't credible then who is? The politicians? They're credible?
    The major news stations which all had simultaneous blackouts are credible?
    How are theese men not credible? Who gives them credibility?

    Are you serious?
    Tell me you're joking.

    So you're not credible if you speak against the system, but if you speak for the system then you are credible? But, if the system is the problem and you work for the system then why would you speak against it?

    Your logic is all sorts of fucked up, son.


    If the building had collapsed (and not been brought down) then it would not have fallen straight down in the manner in which it did. It would have fallen straight down for a brief few floors and then the top would have went over the side.

    You can't be this stupid, Menaz. It's not possible.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)