NeoNaoNeo
Banned - Abuse Towards Forum Staff
Isn't Loose Change by that ******* nutcase Alex Jones?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
9/11 programme on 4
- Thread starter BadWool76
- Start date
- Status
Isn't Loose Change by that ******* nutcase Alex Jones?
NeoNaoNeo
Banned - Abuse Towards Forum Staff
To answer my own question it isn't his film, but he IS an executive producer. Just lol. This is the guy, I'll remind you, that made several Vodcasts on youtube after the Swine Flu outbreak, saying that it was created by the government in order to kill more than 20 million people.
But still:
Loose Change (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But still:
Loose Change (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
BadWool76
Player Valuation: £20m
I am not the one who keeps writting things designed to make other peoples opinions look stupid . There is a big difference mate .
BadWool76
Player Valuation: £20m
Chico I like you its impossible not too but come on mate open your mind alittle . It must be boring believing everything you get told to you by blatant liers .
Dude, its what makes here here. If that makes sense.
Were a massive bunch of snides who lambast everything which is outside of the norm/against our belief system.
As I said, I cant see us being alone in a universe so big we cant comprehend it but some of this stuff is trying desperately for evidence that as of yet doesnt exist.
Im not a fan of conspiracy theories, a lot of them are written by paranoid delusionists (as Neo has just pointed out) but people take them at face value and get all furious.
Science's standpoint is to remain sceptical until conclusive proof, you cant apply that to religion and then say its not applicable to aliens.
Scoredraw in my view, but I dont come on here pushing my views on religion to anyone so I reckon it should be the same for little green men.
It was interesting though.
Really? You prompted me to have a look through my recent posting history to see if I'd gone over the top in the last weeks, but to be honest I'd been trying to keep mostly schtum during the transfer window and I don't see what you're talking about here.
I'm not particularly worried about anyone's opinions and if they are stupid or not. There's enough issues that people believe in that I don't to go around in the world and certainly more than I need to get concerned about. But if you want to promote your opinions and put them up for debate on an internet forum then you open them up for people to make comments on them that you might not like. Whether they make you or me or anyone else look stupid is in the eye of the viewer, not whoever writes the post.
9/11 is like intelligent design or the war in Iraq or the NHS or the EU - or Hibbert or Kirkby or Kenwright. Some people think one thing, some the other. And plenty of them, as has been seen here in the past, think the other side are stupid for believing what they do.
BadWool76
Player Valuation: £20m
I didnt mean you . I thought you were talking about me
U
Upper Sturry Sherbets
Guest
I almost forgot to reply to this, just got have a mention.
I watched what i could from various channels, Sky news, CNN, and others on the day as they held the ceremonies in New York, and watched with interest as a major alert was made in Washington with the boats and all, turned out to be an exercise in the end, what were they thinking holding it then of all days, what with the president in the vicinity.
I still have the USA today edition of the day after somewhere to show future generations just what occured that fateful day. some people even relate it in size to the Diana crash in Paris, which is just freakin' absurd, she wasn't even royalty, and it was just two or three people who lost their lives that night.
It's like the John Lennon or JFK hits, you can always remember where you were when you first heard the news. Bin Laden still at large, no-one knows where he's at, hopeful they dig him out sooner or later.
I watched what i could from various channels, Sky news, CNN, and others on the day as they held the ceremonies in New York, and watched with interest as a major alert was made in Washington with the boats and all, turned out to be an exercise in the end, what were they thinking holding it then of all days, what with the president in the vicinity.
I still have the USA today edition of the day after somewhere to show future generations just what occured that fateful day. some people even relate it in size to the Diana crash in Paris, which is just freakin' absurd, she wasn't even royalty, and it was just two or three people who lost their lives that night.
It's like the John Lennon or JFK hits, you can always remember where you were when you first heard the news. Bin Laden still at large, no-one knows where he's at, hopeful they dig him out sooner or later.
oh alright then...
It would appear that there are a wide range of conspiracies - all with varying degrees of (im)plausibility.
At one end of the spectrum you have the 'controlled demolition' of the twin towers with super-mega thermite - all installed throughout both buildings in the space of a couple of exercise fire drills / or during a lift upgrade many years before (presumably on the off chance that it might come in handy)
-- One thing to bear in mind if you are planning to deliberately bring a large 101 story building down without damaging surrounding infrastructure and financial institutions - you probably don't want to fly a big **** off plane into the building first, that type of thing can really screw up your sums. You be better off picking a different cover story (McVeigh Mk II, or similar) -- And no, little Timmy wasn't told to do it by the man either.
Another reach is the deliberate act of flying the planes into their targets by agents of the US Government, this has been advanced in various forms from substituting the aircraft at the last minute, through providing a trained crew to buying a crew via ISI to do the job.
-- I had to giggle at the revelations of the head of ISI wiring Atta $100k on the 10th Sept. What the f#ck was he planning to spend it on? Maybe he just wanted to make sure his bills would be paid after he'd gone - it'd be a bummer to be blacklisted by his hotel. The paper trail in any of the above would be far too much of a risk for an organisation to proactively set out to orchestrate this attack, there are far easier ways to make a point.
Slightly more plausible (and this is relatively speaking mind you) is the idea that the Intelligence was available that the attack would take place and it was decided that the losses would be acceptable for the benefits they brought (bear with me and don't go off on one, purely a hypothetical exercise).
It is an accepted fact that a wargame was proposed (and declined by the Pentagon as too unrealistic) to 'run' the attack using a hijacked aircraft against the Pentagon building. Modelling exercises on potential losses in such a scenario had also taken place in the run up to the attack.
It is also a fact that aircraft that would usually be tasked to intercept straying passenger aircraft had been diverted that day to play with Migs and go on training exercises. I still find it difficult to believe however, that there were no aircraft available on task to run interference on an attack on the Capitol (this is day job, and the fundamental reason you have a widely dispersed Air Force, to provide Civil Defence).
Of course, nobody expected the Towers to fall. As conspiracy nuts (sorry, theorists) the world over would delight in telling you, it's unthinkable. There are many buildings that have survived aircraft impacts, there are also many buildings that have survived larger fires... someone clearly got their model wrong.
IF this was a deliberate failure to act, it was in anticipation of a couple of hundred casualties (less than have been suffered in the Mid East by service personnel since) not the thousands that occured due to the double collapse and certainly not the cruel twist of fate that led to the deaths of so many first responders and emergency service personnel.
The cost/benefit analysis would have to have been phenomenal to outweigh both the risk of getting caught and the moral objections involved in letting innocent people be killed (which is the way it would be couched - we certainly wouldn't kill innocent American's - we just might not stop them from being killed any more than we would patrol the nations highways 24/7 to stop people getting killed there - 42,196 in 2001, since you ask).
Sometimes, I think we all watch too much 24.
It is just about possible that the open goal the pilots had on the 9th September was down to negligence and incompetence, rather than a wilfull failure to act. Bearing in mind there would be an awful lot of people in both the military and civil aviation fields who's professionalism and better nature would put your carefully planned inertia at considerable risk, is it not more likely that this was just really crappy bad luck?
A bad thing done by bad people for bad reasons.
It would appear that there are a wide range of conspiracies - all with varying degrees of (im)plausibility.
At one end of the spectrum you have the 'controlled demolition' of the twin towers with super-mega thermite - all installed throughout both buildings in the space of a couple of exercise fire drills / or during a lift upgrade many years before (presumably on the off chance that it might come in handy)
-- One thing to bear in mind if you are planning to deliberately bring a large 101 story building down without damaging surrounding infrastructure and financial institutions - you probably don't want to fly a big **** off plane into the building first, that type of thing can really screw up your sums. You be better off picking a different cover story (McVeigh Mk II, or similar) -- And no, little Timmy wasn't told to do it by the man either.
Another reach is the deliberate act of flying the planes into their targets by agents of the US Government, this has been advanced in various forms from substituting the aircraft at the last minute, through providing a trained crew to buying a crew via ISI to do the job.
-- I had to giggle at the revelations of the head of ISI wiring Atta $100k on the 10th Sept. What the f#ck was he planning to spend it on? Maybe he just wanted to make sure his bills would be paid after he'd gone - it'd be a bummer to be blacklisted by his hotel. The paper trail in any of the above would be far too much of a risk for an organisation to proactively set out to orchestrate this attack, there are far easier ways to make a point.
Slightly more plausible (and this is relatively speaking mind you) is the idea that the Intelligence was available that the attack would take place and it was decided that the losses would be acceptable for the benefits they brought (bear with me and don't go off on one, purely a hypothetical exercise).
It is an accepted fact that a wargame was proposed (and declined by the Pentagon as too unrealistic) to 'run' the attack using a hijacked aircraft against the Pentagon building. Modelling exercises on potential losses in such a scenario had also taken place in the run up to the attack.
It is also a fact that aircraft that would usually be tasked to intercept straying passenger aircraft had been diverted that day to play with Migs and go on training exercises. I still find it difficult to believe however, that there were no aircraft available on task to run interference on an attack on the Capitol (this is day job, and the fundamental reason you have a widely dispersed Air Force, to provide Civil Defence).
Of course, nobody expected the Towers to fall. As conspiracy nuts (sorry, theorists) the world over would delight in telling you, it's unthinkable. There are many buildings that have survived aircraft impacts, there are also many buildings that have survived larger fires... someone clearly got their model wrong.
IF this was a deliberate failure to act, it was in anticipation of a couple of hundred casualties (less than have been suffered in the Mid East by service personnel since) not the thousands that occured due to the double collapse and certainly not the cruel twist of fate that led to the deaths of so many first responders and emergency service personnel.
The cost/benefit analysis would have to have been phenomenal to outweigh both the risk of getting caught and the moral objections involved in letting innocent people be killed (which is the way it would be couched - we certainly wouldn't kill innocent American's - we just might not stop them from being killed any more than we would patrol the nations highways 24/7 to stop people getting killed there - 42,196 in 2001, since you ask).
Sometimes, I think we all watch too much 24.
It is just about possible that the open goal the pilots had on the 9th September was down to negligence and incompetence, rather than a wilfull failure to act. Bearing in mind there would be an awful lot of people in both the military and civil aviation fields who's professionalism and better nature would put your carefully planned inertia at considerable risk, is it not more likely that this was just really crappy bad luck?
A bad thing done by bad people for bad reasons.
davek
Player Valuation: £150m
That is the official conclusion and it doesn't sit well with the 'primary function' of a Government: to protect its citizens. Little wonder some people cant accept it...it would be tantamount to calling the world's only superpower a failed state.
I certainly am no W fan (even though I hail from the great state of Texas) but Hitler comparisons?
No doubt that the premise for invading Iraq has turned out to be fictional but what good is an investigation going to do? It's not going to bring any dead Iraqis or American or British soldiers back.
Hopefully, in your Hitler vein, what comes out of this is that we never forget and never repeat.
Talking about why the US invaded Iraq isn't a crazy conspiracy. I think we invaded to establish a US-friendly regime in a volatile area and to secure the oil fields on generous terms for us and our allies/business partners. That's not really a conspiracy like the US government knowlingly caused/perpetrated the 9/11 horror.
The Gulf War taught us Iraq was easy pickings militarily and Saddam was a ripe target. Nonetheless, it's long past harping on now - ain't nothing going back to Square 1.
McBain
Player Valuation: £80m
No, but where does it end? You have the right to walk into any country you feel like and 'secure' it so you can get the best deals on resources for yourselves? Where did it start? Whats the genesis of the mobilisation? For what reason? You needed oil and you took it. Its these things I can't understand why no-one really cares. Because its benefitting you you by keeping the petrol in your cars much cheaper than the rest of world. Keeping your businesses palms greased with the blood of other countries. If the US are so righteous in their movement why havent they taken down all of the dictatorships. Burma, North Korea, their people suffer daily and what does the superpower do? Who cares they havent got resources for us to pilfer.
The argument for the negative stems around your Government would never intentionally kill its citizens, yet it does so every day in the distant battlefields, not merely defending your home, but advancing your empire, taking what you want. We send in our troops to back up yours. We send our guys into die defending what America thinks is the best way forward for the western world. If we don't you'll push us around too. I have no doubt that the US would invade any country if they felt like it would benefit them, and have no qualms in constructing intricate propaganda to assist their agenda. Thats the real danger of this philosophy, because it cant work forever. Another Bush in the White House and another war is nailed on somewhere.
And a whole bunch of people ready to defend its actions by having the wool pulled over its eyes.
While I'm certainly no fan of young Georgie, let's be fair.
Western governments have fiddled about with the middle east for more than a hundred years. Between ourselves, the French and the Americans, we are largely responsible for the turmoil in the region and the mistrust for the West. We have been massively interventionist, we drew up slightly barking arbitrary borders, we looked the other way during the Israeli land grabs.
Young George is no saint, but neither he, nor the US as a whole, can claim exclusive responsibility for the clusterf#ck that is the Middle East of today.
Western governments have fiddled about with the middle east for more than a hundred years. Between ourselves, the French and the Americans, we are largely responsible for the turmoil in the region and the mistrust for the West. We have been massively interventionist, we drew up slightly barking arbitrary borders, we looked the other way during the Israeli land grabs.
Young George is no saint, but neither he, nor the US as a whole, can claim exclusive responsibility for the clusterf#ck that is the Middle East of today.
Not a failed state, just a state that experienced failures on that day.
F#ck ups happen, all too regularly. On that day, the consequences were horrific, most days, you'd get away with it.
BadWool76
Player Valuation: £20m
To explain away such a catastrophic multitude of 1000/1 shots with " we had an off day " excuse is frightening .
- Status