And thanks to London Calling, now I have evidence supporting my statement:

Here it is.

There's evidence of planning, practising and explosions.

If you enjoy using the Politics Forum, please consider supporting PoFo by subscribing (to donate directly), or by using an affiliate link when you shop on-line (costs you nothing extra). PoFo costs a lot of money to run, so your support really is appreciated.

*waits for yet another one of these ridiculous threads to make its way into the hallowed halls of the Conspiracy Theories forum...*

War Angel, have you seen Loose Change? I'm trying to download it and I saw 8 mins of it, and it's more than enough to convince me that it was a U.S. governmental conspiracy.

Unless it's a video of George W. personally spilling the beans, I find that hard to believe. That is, you might be "ready" to embrace such a theory, yet it may take more than 8 minutes for an objective viewer to make up their mind. Then again, objective viewers are slightly less common than perfect circles.

abood, step back and look at the crap you're actually believing. It's quite amusing.

So you are saying that the US gov planned 9/11?

Motive?

Oh, and that article is stupid for one very big reason.

If the US was callous enough to kill 3000 of its own citizens, why would it warn an Israeli firm to get out of the WTC? Or do the big bad jews know everything?

Here's what the first 8 mins included:

"It definitely didn't look like a commercial plane, I didn't see any windows on the side. Again, it was not a normal flight that I've ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front, and it did not look like it belonged in the area." - Mark Burnback, a FOX reporter, describing the second impact live.

It showed a video of the first plane hitting the building, and the flash occurred before the plane met the building - which is what I always thought, ever since I saw the video on the 11th of September, 2001.

It also shows a pic of the second plane that hit the WTC, and it has some missiles on the bottom. Boeing representatives refused to discuss it due to "national security".

You can download the whole thing if you want, it's in YouTube - but I'm downloading it using LimeWire, 'cause the YouTube version wasn't clear.

I just watched multiple videos when the first plane hit and in NONE of them did and explosion occur BEFORE the plane hit. Keep trying...

and I just watched video of the 2nd plane and it CLEARLY was a 737. No doubt about it. it was clearly a passenger plane with NO missles onboard.

You should be ashamed of yourself. Pinning the deaths of thousands of people on OUR President!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E2_y2VimrU

What that video and tell me where the missles are on this plane...

If you saw that video on the September 9th, 2001 there are much bigger issues than any US involvement...

are you kidding me? That is the most factually incorrect video ever made. The conspiracy theorists themselves are disproving the video.

as can be seen here

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/reviews ... ction.html

Spin there is a motive section. Please read the full link before you attempt to slur it.

Loose change can be used for initial information gathering. Its not done in a particularly scholarly way. Preffessor Steven Jones has quite a good lecture on the subject for those have the attention span.

No one has benefitted more from 9/11 than the Bush administration. That doesn't mean he caused, but it's a fact. Thanks to 9/11 he has created the discourse for what American foreign policy is all about. America's foreign policy was without major guiding principles (beyond soft wilsonianism) after the Cold War. But Bush, thanks to 9/11, has dramatically changed that with the War on Terror. It's a doctrine, so vague and so analogous to WW2, that it can justify anything.

As a propaganda device, it is enormously superior to Truman's "containment", which is the closest historical parallel.

Sadly for George, though containment barely reflected reality in any meaningful sense, the War on Terror (and the way he has interpreted it to mean Iraq) is completely divorced from reality. Most Americans see this now, the American political class' commitment to the GWOT has always been pretense and theatrics. As soon as he leaves office, a new politician will be there, this phase of American foreign policy will end, and we'll have to find a new bogeyman (probably the Sino-Russian "alliance" again).

He's so ronery.

Abood, I agree that the evidence that Bush's administration were behind it is very compelling.

But no one wants to believe that their "elected" officials have gone mad, and are so consumed by self-interest and ideology that they would actually resort to killing thousands of people of the same nationality as themselves.

When it's foreigners that our politicians kill for personal gain, it's believable. But no one wants to acknowledge the dwindling impact of the nation state the used to protect us against this kind of internal violence.

Domestic violence is much harder to deal with than "foreign" violence.

The only people that believe those things are people that have reason to want it to be true. It's like when you lie to yourself for something for so long that you start to believe it. The whole thing is a big exercise in self-delusion.

Right, there's never been any examples of US state organs and officials killing, torturing or oppressing their own nationals.

[quote]

It was a mistake, I fixed it.

Here's a pic of the second plane:



Am I the only one who sees missiles? I've never seen anything that even looks similar to anything like that before on a commercial aircraft.

Could you, uh, mark on the aircraft where you think you see missiles?

Here is a picture of an undisputed Boeing 767 for comparison.