The Real Cause of 911?

Isn't latehorn in sweden?

So what you are really asking is:
Why are republicans the only ones seeing reality here and not believing fantasy?

You are actually wrong here. Yes, the reality based point is correct. But it is the truthers who have no evidence to support their claims. It's all been debunked. AGS doesn't even defend the position anymore, he just moves onto his next previously debunked point. Same with most truthers. Moving targets. People with an axe to grind. I haven't seen much evidence to the contrary.

There is proof of everything that happened; just the truthers want to spin reality in their direction. As if fact finding stopped on 9/11 - since that's where their pictures and quotes usually come from.

 

Mia, if I saw sufficient evidence about those things you listed, then I may be persuaded. It just happens I haven't yet.

Latehorn, I was watching Screw Loose Change, but honestly mate, it's 3 hours long, and it has subtitles everywhere If it was shorter and had its own documentary I would.

Nice twisting of words there lorien. I was actually saying that those avid bush supporters aren't going to take anything seriously that makes him look bad.

 

I think that many of the 9/11 deniers are those who have left Christianety or some other religious belief and need something else to believe in. Or maybe because they just want to stick out from the rest of the community. It's not about logic and research, it's about a belief in an alternative theory that they don't like to question.

 

But you had time to watch Loose Change..

 

Nice generalisation there. I've never been religious, and I don't question authority to stand out from the rest of the community. I do it because I saw the evidence provided by truthers, and I have yet to be persuaded by the *evidence* "officials" give.

Loose change is not 3 hours long. Also, I don't want to watch loose change all over again with the additional subtitles. If you find some other documentary that's just as good, I'll watch it

 

That generalization may not apply on you, but others. Although many that haven't been religious, may also seek a meaning of life in the truth movement. Just like many others seek a meaning of life in holocaust denial.

What evidence is still supporting an alternative theory?

Ok, skip the whole pentagon simulation and watch just half of the movie.

 

OK I'll watch Screw Loose Change after it uses Loose Change's footage - With popcorn

 

Yeah. You don't read these threads a lot do you? Or read any blogs by conservatives? Bush is taken to task on a lot of issues. Maybe you don't want to see it. If you think 9/11 (the real version) makes Bush look good and that's why you are inclined to believe the conspiracy, maybe its your own point of view that needs to be dealt with.

 

AGS gotta love what you say at times, i mean you complain about it at the start and at the end, you do the same thing yourself.
i love that, it really proves to me that you are an idiot

 

Ooo that's a very conservative approach indeed. my views need to be dealt with? hah, discipline eh? Also, I'd just like to point out that I didn't say the "real version" of 9/11 makes anyone look good; where do you get this stuff? I just said that 9/11 truther version, if you will, makes bush look very bad indeed.

 

i dont think he has, if he had, he would ahve seen the same stuff i seen, that shows were the movie mislead people, like the lamp posts ripped out of the ground, infact the lamp posts in the usa are made to fall if hit by a car so the people in the car are not killed by hitting something solid.

why windows next to the hole where intact, blast proof windows are made to remain intact.

just a few things they mislead people on it.

 

OK. Then how come the aeroplane meant to escort Bush Sr. was destroyed and completely offset after hitting just 1 lamp post? Whereas the "plane" that hit the pentagon made a nice direct hit after hitting 5...

 

I don't know anything about Bush seniors escort, can you post a link?

However, you must take into account where planes hit then lamp posts, in what speed they hit, how they hit and what plane type it is.

I don't think hitting more than 5 lamp posts is impossible for a Boeing 757 or most other commercial jet liners.

 

oh my, you are joking right?

seriously - physics here - a plane traveling at 500+ mph and the wings hit some lamp posts????

That is the biggest problem I see with all the loose screws videos, the physics are so wrong. Someone needs to take the VR glasses off these guys, video game physics are not always that accurate if you know what I mean.

 

Just pointing out the converse of your statement. And I think its fairly accurate too. I'm always forced to wonder if 9/11 happened under a democrat would these same truthers be out in force? I'd say chances are slim to none. It's partially partisan (at least acceptance of the belief if not the "facts" of the conspiracy, as you seem to have) and its partially an axe to grind.

 

It also hit an airhandling unit outside the pentagon, part of fence, etc. I'm not sure of your point.

 

Loose Change said Bush's plane hit the lamp post with one of its wings. It may be possible for a huge commercial plane to still keep direction etc after one lamp post, but at its speed it's amplified, so it seems very unlikely after 5 posts it'd keep straight. By the way, what does the official story say about those 5 street lamps? What caused them to uproot exactly?

Debunked, what are you talking about? I'm saying it's stupid to think a plane hitting 5 posts would remain able to hit the pentagon. I'm saying that basic physics would say a plane traveling at 500mph would tear up and become dramatically offset. What point are you making? This is evidence a plane could not have possibly uprooted those lamps and hit the pentagon.

Also Lorien, why would I have an axe to grind?

 

Not mad at all, nor were my words harsh. They may seem harsh because they require the reader (especially someone they may apply to) to reason with the cold hard truth. Just a red herring to avoid the issues I raised. Legitimate, logical, thought-provoking issues that are too tough for those with mental disabilities to handle.

These conspiracy theories *have* been debunked, time and again. Right here in this thread. As I pointed out, when one lie is debunked, the CT moves on to the next with "but, but, but what about {insert lie here}?" And it repeats, over and over and over and over again. The pattern is obvious to anyone.

The point I was trying to make, and illustrate to those who really are not interested in facts in the first place is:

1) How many lies must you be told by young angry white males with low IQs who each are fronting their own version of a conspiracy theory in order to take advantage of and profit off the gullible?

2) When will those that fall for these conspiracies, hook line and sinker, begin asking questions of those creating the conspiracies? If CTs demand that non lunatics should question the official story, then why do those who are so gullible that they can't help but fall for the conspiracy not question the actual conspiracy or the author of the conspiracy?

3) Why do conspiracy lunatics give a pass to those who intentionally create lies *for profit* when they are debunked, time and again? Yet they avoid any resemblence of truth in what *really happened* as skeptics? At what point does rational, reasonable thought take over the mind that has a mental disorder and say "hey, we can't make our master's story stick because all these real facts keep getting in the way?"

Food for thought. It is apparent that *some* here really don't care about the truth, as they have demonstrated willfull acceptance of outright lies in the face of overwhelming evidence that contradicts the lies of the people they want to be loyal to. Blind loyalty. The only thing they are sure of, that they are doing, is giving aid and comfort to terrorists by giving credit for their actions to others.

 

That's a question for you to answer, really, isn't it? You also think that the British government did 7/7 over there. So its certainly seems like its not based on anti-americanism. What the axe is, though. Please tell us. Don't ask us to psycho-analyze you.

 

GTech mate, honestly, you'll get no where saying I or others have mental disabilities - and saying that, is very harsh. It comes across as if you're using it as an insult. Have you ever read articles on the usefulness of the IQ theory? You really should, it's very interesting.

I'm not lying or believing lies. All I'm doing is asking questions from Loose Change, and I'll change my mind on my view when I've seen sufficient evidence, and as I've said, I haven't found any yet.

Which relates excellently to the fact that I actually don't have an axe to grind. Sure, I don't like bush, but then again, I don't like most politic figureheads. I was totally convinced that what the US government said happened, did happen; and I hate the terrorists who had done it. I saw evidence that made me think, and so I made up my own mind. About 7/7, I don't recall saying I believe it was the labour government which did it. All I say is that there is certain evidence that suggests particular things. Or maybe these head CTs are really clever right?