Pet Shop Boys Community

Your Funny Uncle wrote:The explanation they give is beside the point. The footage clearly shows the building starting to collapse considerably before the alleged "free fall". That's all I wanted to show. By the way, someone who relies on information provided by people whose sole goal is to prove that 9/11 was an inside job is on pretty shaky ground when it comes to accusations of bias.

The early collapse doesn't rule out a controlled demolition. And I trust a grass-roots activist a lot more than a suit with a cushy job.

Your Funny Uncle wrote:As to the rest, 9/1 truthers are just like creationists and UFO believers. All you guys do is look for tiny anomalies and use them to try to cast doubt on the accepted story. "far too many little problems" sounds like "far too many unexplained sightings" and "far too many gaps in the fossil record/cases of scientists falsifying fossils/errors in dating techniques". Picking endlessly at the edges of the status quo does not a good case make.

This is not about character. I can just as easily ridicule someone for supporting mainline ideas. You don't want to get into a debate but this is the reason these things are so exasperating.

Your Funny Uncle wrote:Addressing your last point, correlation does not necessarily mean causation. Just because elements in the Bush administration took advantage of 9/11 doesn't mean they organised it. I'm not discounting the idea completely, but if they did it then I'd posit that simply organising a small bunch of people to fly planes into national landmarks would have been a FAR easier conspiracy to cover up than all the rest of this nonsense.

I didn't say it did, but even if 9/11 was 19 muslim hijackers you have to admit TPTB sure took full advantage. Your weakest point so far is that organizing hijackers to do the deed would have been easier. First of all, I'm open to that idea, in fact its admitted on tape that the 1993 WTC bombing was FBI backed.

Yep.

Secondly, it would have been extremely risky and unlikely they would have pulled it off. You know how hard it would be to steer a jet into a building? The maneuvers at the Pentagon are especially unlikely. And they had to have the jets in each building for the justification for both towers to fall, as it had to leave an especially profound scar on Americans. Missiles dressed up as planes would have been a much safer bet, in fact if you believe its even possible it was an inside job then you have to admit it had to be missiles or whatever, instead of relying on mind-controlled erratic suicide bombers. FAR easier? Extremely unreliable I'd say.

whateverman42 wrote: The early collapse doesn't rule out a controlled demolition. And I trust a grass-roots activist a lot more than a suit with a cushy job.

Listen to yourself. What you are saying is that you trust someone who is desperate to prove that 9/11 was an inside job and has set out with that goal in mind more than someone who has trained in his/her field and knows the relevant area of science/engineering. This is because every qualified person who disagrees with the truthers is necessarily untrustworthy and in the pay of "the man." do you realise how big the conspiracy would have to be? Do you realise how ridiculous the idea of a conspiracy that size holding together is?

whateverman42 wrote: I didn't say it did, but even if 9/11 was 19 muslim hijackers you have to admit TPTB sure took full advantage. Your weakest point so far is that organizing hijackers to do the deed would have been easier. First of all, I'm open to that idea, in fact its admitted on tape that the 1993 WTC bombing was FBI backed.

Yep.

Secondly, it would have been extremely risky and unlikely they would have pulled it off. You know how hard it would be to steer a jet into a building? The manoeuvres at the Pentagon are especially unlikely. And they had to have the jets in each building for the justification for both towers to fall, as it had to leave an especially profound scar on Americans. Missiles dressed up as planes would have been a much safer bet, in fact if you believe its even possible it was an inside job then you have to admit it had to be missiles or whatever, instead of relying on mind-controlled erratic suicide bombers. FAR easier? Extremely unreliable I'd say.

Even if your first point were the case and I somehow think it would be far bigger news if it were (oh wait no it's the gargantuan conspiracy covering it up but somehow allowing you conspiracy theorists to know.) The stuff about the reliability of the pilots is questionable also. There are statements going around that the guy who flew into the pentagon was a poor pilot, but others that state that he wasn't so bad, and he certainly did a LOT of training over several years. It seems that his lack of ability in English was a major factor in the problems with his interactions with instructors. It's hardly necessary to speak good English to crash a plane. There are statements by pilots that claim he made amazing aerobatic manoeuvres to hit the pentagon, and yet there are others by pilots that say that these are precisely the type of manoeuvres you'd expect from a poor pilot who "got lucky." You are relying on the disputed need for one pilot to be more than just reasonably competent and lucky as the basis of your whole house of cards conspiracy theory.

If you think that the supposed unreliability of the suicide pilots makes the scenario of just letting them make their attack unhindered less likely than a massive conspiracy theory (which necessarily involves the paying off of literally thousands of people who have no particular reason to keep quiet) then you seriously need to work on your understanding of probability.

Edit: (11:50pm UK Time) Here's a thought experiment for you. Take as a starting point the idea that the 9/11 hijackers were real and they did indeed hijack the planes and intend fly them into buildings. Now imagine that they screwed up. Imagine that the one who hit the Pentagon actually missed and crashed into a nearby residential area. Imagine that the two who hit the WTC both missed and crashed into smaller skyscrapers in Manhattan. Imagine that the death toll was, say 800. Do you think that the impact would've been hugely decreased? Do you think that there wouldn't have been a huge international outcry and do you think that "the powers that be" couldn't have used this as an excuse to invade Afghanistan?

everything you just posted is so on point. about them not needing to do anywhere near the level of destruction just to have a pretext to do this or that in the world.americans dont care. just blow up an aircraft carrier at sea,or better yet blow up a outback steakhouse.

cripes sake these genuis masterminds couldnt even be bothered to make all the pilots Iraqi,they made them saudi, the administrations supposed friends. OOPS!


plus its always been kinda telling for me when alot of thse conspiracy theorists go on and on about the supposed controlled demolition of these other by comparison rinky dink buildings in the vicinity of the towers, as if it wasnt an undertaking and statement enough to knock down the actual towers, they sent secret teams in to demolish these other inconsequencial buildings.

"missiles dressed up as planes', and the recent notion that the missiles had holographic imagery on them to make them look like planes.

we have to just leave these people alone to their notions.I dont think there is any stepping back for these people who put stuff like that out there.

This is not a thread about 9/11....

Lucy wrote:This is not a thread about 9/11....

Indeed not. Sadly whateverman can't resist any link to his nonsense conspiracies however tenuous.

Anwar al-Awlaki, the number 3 man in Al CIA-da at the time, met secretly with the top brass two months after 9/11 at the Pentagon. Do I have to add anything? I'm sorry if I'm stating it as fact, but what more can I say?

NIST hoarded 5 terabytes of video of 9/11 until they were sued and forced to release videos like this:



Yeah, can't imagine why un-biased NIST would keep that video from seeing the light of day. There are loads of witnesses who all proclaim secondary explosions.

Why hasn't the Pentagon released a single video or image of a plane hitting?

And etc.

But I'm a kook, technology to put wings on a missile doesn't exist, and there is no secret technology 30 years ahead used by the government.

Enjoy your BBC. How anyone can even watch television anymore is beyond me.

Okay let's start posting examples of why the BBC is great even if they're behind the Pyramids.

The greatest drama series EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



The greatest comedy series EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Greatest comedy series ever? Surely there's more than one contender...

I,for one, do not doubt the great progs the BBC produce. But to envoke the great philosopher
Antonio gramsci they have an ideological function. Their output is fundamentally bourgeois.

That's OK. The output of practically every other channel is aimed squarely at the proletariat.

-