BBC Predicts Future on 9/11

[quote]Dustin wrote:

No, the amount is quite significant. If you cared to do any research of your own, you’d see this. But, it is easier to believe what the mainstream media tells you. [/quote]

Research what? The number of kooky websites?

Are there legitimate statistics on how much of the general public believes the attack on 9-11 was perpetrated by the US government? Show me.

I have no idea how I ‘come across’, but I can tell you I don’t suffer fools gladly. As stated earlier, what was once a good forum has been infiltrated by naive twerps like you, and that is disappointing.

[quote]Oh, okay. In that case I guess the guy that put this site together didn’t apply common sense either. That, or he just loves to be ridiculed by people such as yourself.

http://911studies.com/911photostudies119.htm[/quote]

Let’s start at the beginning.

Conspiracy theories require really two things:

  1. A government with the most sinister and evil of mindsets

  2. Plausibility of getting conspiracies accomplished

Now, as for #1 - why presume the government, across several political parties, has this collective sinister mindset? What justifies it? Politicians are many things, and I am sure there are some who are legitimately sinister - but what motivates you to assume the government uniformly has that kind of mentality?

As for #2, this is where it really falls apart. How can a government accomplish with such brutal efficiency something like 9/11? It would take complicity among not only varying levels of government and agencies, but also political parties.

So, for starters, the presumption is dumb and the plausibility is next to nil.

But you - in your infinite gullibility - believe these things to be the starting point and ‘conspiracy’ is a rebuttable presumption: as in, I will believe in the conspiracy until someone proves it different.

Plainly stupid.

Don’t be dishonest - of course the questions are ridiculous. And as for your second contention, I have no idea what motivates these morons - but I suspect paranoia plus a desire for attention has something to do with it.

Lied to? Where?

No one has shown that Bush lied. And it doesn’t even make sense. For example, if you are thinking of the WMD claims, why would Bush lie about their existence only to invade Iraq and prove his claim wrong and make himself look bad? If he were half as nefarious as you think, why not plant WMDs in Iraq to make his lie come true?

No explanation?

What, are you Vroom or something? Certainly I am not cheerleading - I am happy to give you a list of all things I don’t like about the Bush administration.

[quote]No, of course the government would never harm or deceive Americans

http://www.serendipity.li/cia/lyon.html

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/northwoods.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creel_Commission[/quote]

Pointless. What does that have to do with the specifics on the ground? What is hilarious is that you refer to ‘the government’ - well who? Democrats? Republicans? New Democrats? Rockefeller Republicans? Because it matters - they likely are not all on the same team at the same time.

I have seen the video. Nice try.

Well, here is where you fall short - I certainly don’t think I know everything, but I do think I know something, and that is a threshold I am not sure you have reached. Sorry to inform.

And, enough with the ‘cheerleading’. It is an ad hominem that is meaningless.

Nor do I think the leaders know everything - far from it. But again, the distance between questioning your government and believe every conspiracy theory that they read on the internet is a chasm.

Wrong, wrong, wrong - conspiracy kooks will keep asking, no matter what evidence gets shoved into their face, so the fact that ‘someone is still asking’ doesn’t demonstrate anything. They - well, you - would never believe a plausible explanation because…wait for it…you don’t want to. It’s more fun not to.

How would anyone overcome the presumptions discussed earlier? No amount of evidence would change your mind because you are convinced the government is sinister and acting in bad faith. Even the most bulletproof of evidence is a ‘coverup’.

Short answer - you aren’t operating with the open mind you want the rest of us to have. Your mind is made up. You start with a conclusion - the government is evil and trying to control us, and then you work backwards.

Congratulations on imprisoning yourself in ignorance. You are naive and gullible, and nothing more than a cipher for these internet wackos.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:

Oh yeah, the Tube bombing (and related incident)…

But the investigation received a serious setback when it was discovered the CCTV cameras on the bus that blew up were not working so detectives will not get vital images of the bomber.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2005/130705buscamera.htm

None of the cameras at the scene of the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes at Stockwell Tube station on 22 July were working, a police document revealed.
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article307649.ece
[/quote]

Been to London? There’s a CCTV camera at every light and on every corner. Everyone I know that lives there says that only about 10% are functional and recording/broadcasting at any one time.

[quote]Its funny how conspiracy “nuts” are always accused of reading too much into something and trying to find conspiracy EVERYWHERE. The video IS what it IS. The question being asked is – is it what it really appears to be?

You’ve already drawn the conclusion that the video CANNOT be what it appears to be – then proceed to provide alternate explanations because one thing you do know FOR SURE – it CAN’T POSSIBLY be what it seems.[/quote]

I haven’t disagreed with the evidence, the video exists and is what it is. The story behind its creation is what’s in question. Neither of us is refuting the evidence, merely theorizing as to why it is what it is. In order for it to be what you portray it as being requires ESP or a much greater conspiracy.

For it to be what I’m asserting it is, requires two or three guys not to have synchronized watches. Between the simplicity of my explanation and the drastic complexity of yours, there are hundreds of other explanations of running the gamut of complexity and, ignoring that complexity, equally plausible.

Maybe some ethics/fraud issues on the part of the BBC, but even then, watch a broadcast of a live sporting event and call someone who lives closer to the sporting event (try just a state or two) and ask them to turn on the radio. Miraculously, one of the two of you will be able to ‘predict the future’ by anywhere from five sec. to two minutes.

As I said, rarely is live as fast as the photons that hit the photodiodes can be transferred to you, despite it being the intent.

Moreover, if we were looking into this issue 9/25/01 or 10/11/01, it might be resolvable. Six years later, it’s a question that will most likely go unanswered. If it were this crucial, why has no one from the conspiracy community said anything sooner?

I assert you’re seeing exactly what you’re seeing and there’s a completely reasonable explanation for it. To the point that it can be and is replicated everyday and that this explanation is equally valid for what happened in the BBC broadcast.

Further, you didn’t answer my question. If I could generate a conspiracy, would it be profitable? The conspiracy-based news agencies you cited as well as the rampant success of “Loose Change” would seem to indicate there is at least some interest.

And just because you compile selective news stories that question the official story doesn’t mean that all the news 9/11 disprove the original story.

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
That scenerio (and the web page) is ridiculous.

If your trying to maintain any semblance of a free nation – why would they start whacking people thus ultimately PROVING they were correct?
[/quote]

Ridiculous.

If the government - all sinister and draconian - needed to protect itself, how easy would it be to take out a no name exposer of truths? These are the low hanging fruit - who would ever raise a stink?

You have it naturally exactly backwards - killing the well-known dissenters causes problems. Killing the largely anonymous internet twerps in possession of the ‘truth’ would be time well spent.

Yet you still exist, JTF - and you haven’t moved out of America. Odds are, there are good reasons. Why do I get the feeling you don’t even believe the garbage you post? This is a ruse, no?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Are there legitimate statistics on how much of the general public believes the attack on 9-11 was perpetrated by the US government? Show me.
[/quote]

The fact that all these “kooky” websites exist tells me that there are plenty of people who still feel like the government’s official record on what happened is lacking. Also considering how much work the individuals put into these websites or documentaries says they must feel rather passionate about the event and having their questions answered.

I don’t see that as being foolish at all.

I was posting on this website when there were 3 different forums and about 15-20 “regulars”, so I’m not sure what you mean by infiltrated. How is asking legit questions and being critical of the government I work for “naive”?

The politicians that you speak of wouldn’t have had a clue that the government was involved, if it indeed had been an inside job. Much like Bush probably wouldn’t have been aware. Like the Kennedy assassination, if the government was involved, rank and file Democrats and Republicans would not have been aware. Except for maybe Lyndon Johnson.

I agree with this, which makes me wonder how the groups within the government would have pulled it off.

This isn’t really how I was thinking at all, but that is cool that you can read minds.

See, this paragraph is more of your arrogance I spoke of. Individuals much smarter than you or I aren’t satisfied with the original explanation. Kind of silly to call them morons and me dishonest.

Essentially everything involving Iraq, and they’re not even good liars.

After the U.S. invaded Iraq Bush and his handlers were shown to be liars, but it didn’t matter by then. The “mission” had already been accomplished. Bush, I doubt seriously, has much to do with the formulation of foreign policy. He’s not the brightest.

This has been argued already and I don’t care to drag that dead horse out again. I was just using Bush as an example to show how people still believe what he says, despite the fact that they shouldn’t.

I would have preferred that you had said something negative about my mom and Army boots than to call me Vroom. I’ll let it slide though.

Did you not say that the government wouldn’t harm its own? That is why I posted those links. Far from pointless. I’m sure you didn’t read them either.

I’m also not going to argue semantics when I say the government was involved. I’m sure you are aware of agencies within the government. Look at my previous statement regarding regular politicians and how they wouldn’t be involved.

Cool, you’ve seen it. So how do you explain what I pointed out in the video? How do you explain tall steel structures resembling torches burning for hours without falling, while the Twin Towers fell within minutes? That was a question asked in the other video. Did you even watch the videos I provided?

Kind of like “naive twerp”.

Why don’t you just let me explain what I may or may not believe instead of you trying to act witty and guess what you think I might believe.

The government(the state capitalist structure) isn’t necessarily sinister, but it does act in it’s own self-interest at the expense of other nations and sometimes Americans. Those self-interests are, by and large, making profit and maintaining power.

See my above comments. Again, please stop trying guess what I’m thinking.

The government (the state) does make a conscious, rational effort to control its citizens. There has been quite a bit of scholarly research into this very topic. It’s very interesting.

[quote]
Congratulations on imprisoning yourself in ignorance. You are naive and gullible, and nothing more than a cipher for these internet wackos.[/quote]

Quit it. You’re 0 for 3 on this mind reading stuff. Plus, it’s very annoying.

But hey, at least you didn’t call me Vroom.

Dustin

I think some of you suckas should read up about Operation Northwoods, a previously classified document that shows just what the government is willing to do to justify military action against a percieved threat to the US. Some of the propositions in that document are eerily similar to some of the events of 9/11. Food for thought.

[quote]Dustin wrote:

The fact that all these “kooky” websites exist tells me that there are plenty of people who still feel like the government’s official record on what happened is lacking. Also considering how much work the individuals put into these websites or documentaries says they must feel rather passionate about the event and having their questions answered.[/quote]

Passionate? These are the same folks that were passionate about the Illuminati and UFOs long before 9/11 occurred - I wouldn’t use passion as my yardstick for validity.

Infiltrated is a bad word - how about “cluttered up the forum and ran quality posters away”…?

Wait, wait wait - now you are telling me that the actual decisionmakers really are likely to not be a part of the conspiracy? When it is nearly impossible to accomplish the conspiracy without the ability to make decisions at the highest level and command secrecy and loyalty among the co-conspirators?

Your frivolity knows no boundaries, does it?

Good - dwell on that for a while. Maybe there is hope yet.

That is the hardest part of all - plausibility. If it seems implausible - or even impossible, as most conspiracies do - why would you presume a conspiracy is taking place? Wouldn’t your presumption be the other way around?

Instead, you base your presumption - a conspiracy is afoot! - on the absolute slimmest of practical possibilities. And you wonder why I won’t take you seriously?

Sure it is - you said yourself that plausibility is very low and you haven’t quite figured out how anyone could pull of the grand conspiracies you buy into.

So your presumption should be that a conspiracy doesn’t exist - yet you do the opposite. I don’t have to be a mindreader - your mindset is loud and clear from your own statements: you presume a conspiracy even when your own mind is telling you it likely could not be accomplished.

Rebuttable presumption - see?

The Unabomber is as smart as you and I put together - so what?

And many, many very smart people are satisfied - including scores of engineers that have evaluated the falling of the towers.

You desperately want people to take you seriously and you want people to credit you for asking the questions you do - but you must wake up to the reality that we aren’t here to improve your flagging self-esteem. If your statements and questions fail on their own merit, I am not going to sit back and make sure I am tolerant of them for the sake of it.

You have stated that even you can’t get past the implausibility of conspiracies at work - how the hell am I going to when I don’t even have your desire to see them be true?

Interesting deflection. This is a non-answer.

Ridiculous. How hard would it have been to plant WMDs and vindicate all of Bush’s claims? Can you imagine what his popularity would be? Can you imagine how much further he could push his “imperialistic” agenda if the world knew and worshipped him for being so right about the WMDs?

Planting WMDs would have been a masterstroke to further the neocons “evil” plan. But no one did it, despite have no moral qualms about staging such a thing.

You don’t have a good explanation - that’s because there isn’t one. All the evidence leads to Bush being wrong about WMD and not lying about WMD.

The facts are in your face - why ignore them and create a nefarious tale that seems unlikely given the facts?

And now do you see why I have no faith in your ability to be objective? Fact is, you want conspiracies to be there.

You already did. You don’t think the conspiracies look all that plausible, and yet you still desperatley cling to them. That is deduced from what you have written - no more, no less.

I am not mindreading - I don’t have to. I am reading what you wrote.

Well, this is a fair point - such a label is one of the worst you could have pinned on you in these forums. Accept my apologies.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Passionate? These are the same folks that were passionate about the Illuminati and UFOs long before 9/11 occurred - I wouldn’t use passion as my yardstick for validity.
[/quote]

How do you claim to know this? you can’t just dismiss them as weirdos. The fact that these people are ridiculed by others makes me think the attention you claim they want is untrue.

So you think Nancy Pelosi would have been told of this? In a conspiracy only people who need to know would be aware. I’m not sure why this is confusing. For the government to pull this off, it would go much higher than the rank and file politicians, which I previously said.

I’ve already said I’m not sure. I find it interesting that others feel the same why I do and are continuing to look for answers.

Initially, I assumed that 19 Muslim Arab hijackers were responsible, as we were told. In light of the Bush administration’s inability to be totally honest, and some of my own research, I can’t be honest with myself and totally disregard the possibility that maybe the official record isn’t totally accurate.

I don’t wonder, nor do I care if you take me seriously or not. It doesn’t bother me if you disagree.

Look at my previous comments.

You failed to answer my questions in my previous post in regards to other tall structures remaining after being on fire literally hours, yet the Twin Towers fall in minutes. This was discussed in one of the links I provided.

I normally agree with what you say, so it’s not that I totally dismiss your opinion. At the same time, I don’t care if you or anyone else takes me seriously. If people do give me credit for asking questions that’s fine too. I gain nothing either way.

As for my self esteem, considering what I’ve accomplished in the last 3 years of my life, I can assure you my self-esteem is just fine. But thanks for the concern.

I wasn’t deflecting anything. I was giving an example and I said I didn’t want to discuss this. Your set in your views of the Iraq situation, as am I. I see no reason to rehash this argument.

All I will say is that you need to look at some non mainstream media sources.

If your still referring to Bush, the facts of his deceit are clear to many here in the U.S. and basically everyone outside the U.S. You won’t see this however, if you use the mainstream media as a source for news.

Why would I want them to be there. I don’t gain anything by conspiracies existing or not. Your accusations are getting old.

[quote]
Well, this is a fair point - such a label is one of the worst you could have pinned on you in these forums. Accept my apologies.[/quote]

Alright, but just this one time.

Dustin