9/11 Discussion >
Post-9/11 >
Conspiracy theories VS Reality
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Down
Author Topic: Conspiracy theories VS Reality (Read 22386 times)
Re: Conspiracy theories VS Reality
Quote from: mouse on August 11, 2009, 10:55:09 pm
All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing! (or words to that effect)
Are you assuming then, that because I refuse to run around shouting and screaming in worry about all this crap that I am doing "nothing?"
You could not be more mistaken.
freewoman
I do not intend to slam mouse here, but I am not sure I agree with that statement any longer. (Yeah, I know, that's heretical!)
I have found myself to be most effective when I choose to engage myself on a topic. I have also found that at times, choosing to ignore something is just as effective as engaging myself. When I turn my back to something, I refuse to give it power.
Personally I have chosen to engage myself in the areas of conspiracy theory, certain spiritual concepts, and preparedness. Some areas of life end up in the periphery of these topics. And other areas I turn my back upon--I refuse to accept those things as having any power over me. That's not to say I am ignorant of their devices, just that I refuse to engage.
There are lots of battles to fight. Not everyone can fight every battle. So it's important, IMO, to choose one's battles according to one's interests and abilities.
Quote from: MamaLiberty on August 12, 2009, 06:12:10 am
Yeah, I guess I owe you an apology.
I was thinking of "... it must be seen to be done ..." when I said that.
If we do not react to things that annoy us, it looks to others (maybe only me - can't find an "embarrassed" emote but I'm sure you get the gist) like we are ignoring it and don't care.
Being in NZ it would be so easy for me to not react to just about everything (because although there is most definitely no shortage of things to react to that happen in NZ, there are no 'juicy conspiracy theories to get your teeth into') but I don't let anything slide because I know pretty much that what happens in America, UK - or just about anywhere else for that matter - will soon happen here.
We don't get affected directly by most of the conspiracy theories, but we CERTAINLY were and are affected by 9.11. I don't want to have to show ID at the local airport (not that anybody is seriously expected to do so, it is taken as a bit of a joke) but I would like to be able to go to America or UK without being fingerprinted. In fact I feel so strongly about that that I just won't ever go to these places any more at all (not that I could afford it anyway - but that's not the point). It makes my blood boil, every time, to hear "... but since 9.11..." on the radio or TV. I seethe about it and brood on "how can people pretend so much when it is all so obvious ...."
As for preparing for when tshtf, well that's just impossible for me at the moment. I work in a factory for mimimum wage and live with a family who don't share any of my views. They tolerate my going to church, and my daughter in law even agreed to have her two babies dedicated to my church, but they won't have anything to do with it themselves and nobody takes down the wooden cross that I have hanging from the mirror in my car, when they drive my car (although I had to threaten my son with "never being able to use the car again" before he would leave it alone). I think they think that they are indulging me, or humouring me. And as for conspiracy theories, no I think I would just encounter hostility if I said anything about any of them.
So long live the internet.
Quote from: SoupMonkey on August 11, 2009, 08:45:33 pm
If Stanton had not strangled Lincoln and Oswald had not been Kennedy's love child, via Elenore Roosevelt,
then Reagen would not have bombed the Bush ranch and Obama would be bothering tourists on the streets
of Honolulu "Yo man, sell you the whole stick for five dollar".
You guys are so educational!
What about the theory that just after WWII there were twin boys born to princess Elizabeth (as was) of UK (now Queen Elizabeth) and Colonel (as was) Douglas McArthur of the US army.
Apparently the twins were sent to America to live with a cousin, and they were christened Luther and George. Luther became a famous historian and writer of childrens' books but history is unclear about what happened to George. Rumour has it that George was adopted into the Bush family of Texas, where the father of the family (who was also called George) was active in politics.
I have always wondered about that conspiracy theory, but can find nothing on the 'net about it. Wonder why. Got any info.?
« Last Edit: August 12, 2009, 08:27:14 am by mouse »
Quote from: jimoutside on August 11, 2009, 11:34:27 pm
One thing that bugs me about 911-- I'm not trying to be smart here, just want somebody to answer my question because this doesn't make sense to me.
I've heard it said by several people that it could not have been an aircraft that hit the Pentagon, because it did not leave a big enough hole.
Ok, so maybe it was a missile or something. Amazingly, they say it didn't do a whole lot of serious damage or loss of life on the ground, because that part of the building was being revamped. OK. Got that part. Interesting.
BUT-- what happened to that fourth plane that we were told hit the Pentagon? What happened to all those people? We have been told there were four crashes. One at the Pentagon, one in a field in PA, and two into the twin towers. So-- if not the fourth plane that hit that building, where did the fourth plane crash? In the ocean? And why bother doing that-- wasting that plane on a dud run-- when they (whoever REALLY did mastermind it all) when that plane could have been used to actually hit another target?
Do you say that the fourth plane never existed? That would take a big coverup by the airlines personnel. With all the employees in the airlines, somebody surely would have come forward and said, there never was a fourth plane? We were told there were four-- where did they all go? And why use a missile to hit the Pentagon when you have already hijacked a plane to hit it?
Where did all four planes end up?
My view is that it had to be a missile because a plane couldn't have been flown that low and that skillfully to do minimal damage and cause a fuss without actually badly damaging the building. It is noteworthy that the "missile" hit the only part of the pentagon building that was reinforced to withstand an attack by an aircraft.
I don't actually believe that there was a fourth plane at all. I think it didn't exist. Normally when a plane is missing thought to have crashed somewhere you have the airport where it came from beseiged by relatives and friends of the passengers wringing their hands and waiting for news about their loved ones, hoping beyond hope that they somehow missed that flight, or were bumped off the passenger list or something. If this happened I sure didn't hear about it. This wouldn't really take a big cover up involving lots of airport staff, airport staff are known for "doing what they're told, and shutting up" and with a bit of "sleight of hand" here and there, not many people needed to know about it.
Even if there was a fourth plane, why so hard to believe that it ended up in the sea? Parts of the ocean are so deep that you'd never know anything was there in 100 years.
"Where did all the planes end up"? Well if I wanted to get rid of some physical evidence, I would dismantle it, carefully making sure that any marks of identification have been removed and "recycle" whe parts, sending them to China.
So the next can of cococola you get could be made out of recycled airliner (number - take your pick).
jimoutside
Ok, you could be right about that, but what about all those people who were supposedly on those flights, who got killed? Were they fictitious names? Does anybody personally know any of these several hundred people who were presumably killed in the aircraft? Were they going on a trip that day and disappeared? Did anybody see them off at the airport and watch them board planes? I do know that when I fly, somebody usually takes me to the airport and sees me get on a plane. That may not be the case for everyone, but I imagine at least 1/3 of the people who got on the planes may have had friends or relatives who dropped them off at the airport and waited to make sure their plane took off. So what about these people? Did they really die? This still does not explain the airline's silence, with them having so many employees who would know whether a plane actually did take off or not, or was missing.
Jim, Free Radical
Do what you can do first, do what you can't do second.
Quote from: mouse on August 12, 2009, 07:56:34 am
No offense taken, actually. Thanks anyway. I just get soooo tired of hearing this from well meaning people who just can't imagine that their way to "do something" is not and CANNOT be identical to that of others.
Our only real chance is to do everything possible, each within our own lives, location and abilities.
And, of course, those who wish to keep us slaves and steal our property are delighted when we fight about this sort of thing. In fact, they often do whatever they can to promote the division and fighting, don't you think?
Let's not encourage them.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2009, 12:15:34 pm by MamaLiberty »
I'm NOT saying that the article at this link is true, but I just bring it to people's attention to show what the official word is.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
And they are right about steel appearing to be melted when it is heated partway to the melting point and then put under force that causes it to shred, twist, bend, etc. And steel really does lose much of its strength the more you heat it. Combine that with the actual physical impact of the plane's wings hitting the building at high speed, many of the steel structural components would have been destroyed from the force of impact, even though the plane is made of softer materials than steel. The same thing happens when a lead or copper bullet penetrates a certain thickness of steel-- it is the inertia or kinetic energy that can cause a high speed projectile to penetrate a substance harder than itself.
Just throwing this all out for food for thought. I'm not an expert, and y'all can jump all over me as much as you want for not toeing the line. I am neither proving nor disproving anything, I just say I have doubt in my mind about the conspiracy, and do not have PROOF of what really happened, one way or the other.
Not sure if that is a conspiracy theory--more likely a conspiracy hypothesis, or conspiracy "WTF is that supposed to mean"; IWO, not much actual research done there. Unfortunately stories like this don't help the conspiracy cause at all. Makes us all look loopy. (Personally I don't need any help in that department! I have enough crazy ideas on my own.) I'm not calling you loopy, mouse--you didn't originate the rumor!
jimoutside: Please see the many threads in the 9/11 part of the section on steel melting, etc. In that way, this particular thread won't get too far off track. Thanks!
Elias Alias
I'm like Paul Revere. I can't beat the Redcoat army, but I damn sure can pass the word of encroaching danger.
There is nothing I can do about the social security number. There is nothing I can do about the Federal Reserve. There is nothing I can do about the Federal income tax. There is nothing I can do about Pentagon lobbies. There is nothing I can do about the military-industrial complex. There is nothing I can do about the NYSE. There is nothing I can do about one damned thing - if I choose to look at life that way. Right?
So why bother? Why is TMM even here? It's a waste, an exercise in futility, right? Because nobody can do anything about anything anyway, so why bother? I should just close down this place and go mow my lawn, lay in some more rice and water in my basement, clean my guns, write some poetry, play with my cat, and wait until the tyranny comes to visit me at my home. Then I can do something, right?
Of course, if I'm wrong to think that way, (which I would be, of course), then perhaps it's a good idea to host a discussion forum where all sorts of views and questions and analyses can be aired and debated. Maybe that's why I leave this place up and running. And if I'm correct in my motive for leaving TMM up here on the Net, then why can't we at least let some of our more informed post-makers discuss 9/11 without trying to throw cold water on the discussion by claiming there is nothing we can do about it anyway?
TMM is one of my horses. The British are coming! 9/11 Truth is important! Please don't block this horse.
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."
Quote from: jimoutside on August 12, 2009, 08:45:27 am
Ok, you could be right about that, but what about all those people who were supposedly on those flights, who got killed? Were they fictitious names? Does anybody personally know any of these several hundred people who were presumably killed in the aircraft? Were they going on a trip that day and disappeared? Did anybody see them off at the airport and watch them board planes? I do know that when I fly, somebody usually takes me to the airport and sees me get on a plane. That may not be the case for everyone, but I imagine at least 1/3 of the people who got on the planes may have had friends or relatives who dropped them off at the airport and waited to make sure their plane took off. So what about these people? Did they really die? This still does not explain the airline's silence, with them having so many employees who would know whether a plane actually did take off or not, or was missing.
My personal theory (I am not trying to "push anything down anyone's throat" here, I acknowledge that I could be wrong and invite correction) is that the planes did, of course, take off from the airports where they were supposed to have done, landed somewhere (forced landing, or maybe trickery) and military planes - maybe painted to look like commercial airliners - took their places and were flown into the buildings by remote control. The "real" planes were landed somewhere (probably at military bases) and then the plane and all the passengers was disposed of.
"Snake Plissken" puts it succinctly in 'flight of the bumbleplanes' when he says:Â "The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control. You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough. The mimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled".
It is worth noting that there wasn't a single piece of evidence ever recovered from anywhere relating to the alleged commercial aircraft. Everything was destroyed, black boxes, flight recorders, alleged passengers, everything.
What happened to the family members of this flight? This was looked into for for two years and it was impossible to locate a single relative of any "passenger". Not one family member of any of the passengers took a single penny from the government!!! Why? Where are they? I cannot find an answer that makes sense.
When you read about "victims families", they are all the families of victims of people in the buildings or near the areas.
And quoting "Snake Plissken" again in "flight of the bumblplanes" "Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights. The hijackers' names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 — the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93".
And:Â "The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day. Easy to do. Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold. Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe".
Also an unusually low number of passengers were aboard each of the hijacked flights that morning. Flight 11 and Flight 175, both Boeing 767s with approximately 180 available seats, had 76 and 46 passengers respectively. Flight 77 and Flight 93, both Boeing 757s with approximately 200 available seats, had 50 and 26 passengers respectively.
So that's not a heck of a lot of people anyway.
What this 30% passenger occupancy essentially means is that on each of the flights that were hijacked that morning, every passenger on every plane had an entire row to themselves to lie down.
Very interesting. Thanks for that. I did read through the entire passenger lists for all four planes right after it happened. I didn't expect to find anyone I knew (I would have already heard, right), but there were all the names and I read through them. If no one with relatives from the flights has stepped forward, then it could be that the flights and passenger lists were bogus.
So tell me about the one that went down in the Pennsylvania field? They found remains there, didn't they? Now, as for the cell phone "couldn't work", I don't look to that as proof because it wasn't so much that cell phones didn't work in an aircraft as much as that they were not allowed to be used in an aircraft to keep the signal from interfering with navigational aids. At higher altitudes, they probably couldn't get a signal anyway, but weren't the "terrorists" supposedly flying at low altitude?
jimoutside: There is a ton of information in the 9/11 section of the forum on these very subjects. Let's allow usmc41wife's thread remain as is. It will take some reading--there are some long threads in the 9/11 section!--but your questions can mostly be answered there. And if you have further questions, post them in the 9/11 area. Thanks!
The truth is that they found surprisingly few remains of anything in the Pennsylvania field, and it has been suggested that what they did find were "plants"; to quote from an article on 9.11 truth:
Wally Miller, the coroner at Shanksville said he found no blood, but found human remains. When pushed on the question of finding human remains, Miller said...Yes/No/Some....and then said that the only remains found were hands and feet - nothing else. So, did Mr. Miller find 40 pair of each? If so, how is it that no other body parts survived? How is it that there was no blood?
Also apparently the body parts were (specifically) half of a left arm and 2 internal organs, which were not "discovered" until the next day. Â "Hands and feet" - a bit exaggerated I think. Â I know I have a nasty suspicious mind, but it sounds just like a "plant" to me.
I believe that in 2001 it wasn't that "you weren't allowed to make cellphone calls from aircraft because they interfered with navigational aids" at all. Â You couldn't make cellphone calls from aircraft while it was in the air because that was an impossibility, there is no way you'd ever be able to get a proper signal. Â In the time since 2001 the technology has been upgraded so that you now can do this, but then, there was no way. Â There was no way cellphones would work on aircraft in 2001 even at low altitude, but I have not read anything to suggest that they flew all the way at low altitude.
OK, so this was pointed out and the story was changed to "but most of the calls were made from the aircraft's airphones. Â Now apparently the people who allegedly talked to people on the ground said that all passengers and crew were "herded to the back of the plane and guarded by hijackers", so how is the use of an airphone possible?
Also presumably they have not had "willy nilly" access to credit cards, and without credit cards airphones just cannot work. Â There is no doubt at all, at least for me, that any "telephone calls" of any kind between hijacked aircraft passengers and relatives, friends, "emergency services" or airport ground staff have been faked bigtime. Â The technology to do so has been around for some time now, remember the most famous line (I think it was in an advertisement) of Colin Powell saying "I have been treated well by my captors" - voice morphing technology.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 Go Up