|
I just had a friend out himself as a 9/11 Truther the other day on Facebook when he posted some link about how pbs in Colorado apparently aired some Truther "documentary." That used those Engineers for truth or whatever. I thought it was great (read sad) being told I don't know how physics works, when they don't know that the outer skin of the WTC was holding it up. He said how many buildings have collapse from fires that were much worse. I responded by saying how many have a their load bearing supports torn away. And one pertain thought I was crazy for saying that. I blame myself, for years he'd been talking about the illuminati and flouride in the drinking water and we just let it go.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:I just had a friend out himself as a 9/11 Truther the other day on Facebook when he posted some link about how pbs in Colorado apparently aired some Truther "documentary." That used those Engineers for truth or whatever. For what its worth, most crazy conspiracy theorists live otherwise normal prosperous lives. My old boss was into crazy loving stuff, but he had a yacht, fancy car and 5 bedroom rich person house aaaand then he decided that his birth certificate being in capitals means he didnt have to pay tax anymore and now hes in prison after trying to fight with tax dept agents who came to his house. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, normal lives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:07
|
|
|
Overall, I think these people have an unrealistic image of buildings as unmovable and impenetrable objects. We really don't put that much effort into construction though. But do they redefine a concept they have probably had since they were children or do they think some greater force must be at work? Your truthers went for the ladder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
What's a good counter to Operation Northwood they always bring up when you ask why b they think the American gov't would kill it's own people in such a manner? I've that Even the Pentagon thought that was too inhuman, they inevitably say "well JFK was the only one against it, and look what happened to him."
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 21:55
|
|
|
With the whole Pentaton missle etc part. This is the US defence nerve center, and there is only 1 security camera? Surely there must be at least one clear shot of an airplane coming in. One that is not hiding in a coin booth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
I am fairly certain that the CCTV cameras inside the Pentagon area belong to the Department of Defence and I literally see no reason why they should disclosure that information to you or me, simply just to "prove X right". That said, I am fairly certain that the footage present will be worse than the one already seen, as the cameras are fisheyed and focus on the base of the building. I also believe that they have seized outside footage that show the plane, but that's another topic altogether.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
urseus posted:With the whole Pentaton missle etc part. Actually, this sort of works against them. All the security cameras are pointed out, towards gates, fences, and access points. Plus these would be pointed down, since people are usually on the ground. Also I heard they confiscated all the tapes, so there's that too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Actually, this sort of works against them. All the security cameras are pointed out, towards gates, fences, and access points. Plus these would be pointed down, since people are usually on the ground. Ya it's the case that because it's the center of the US Defense Dept. everything is classified. It's not to coverup things, it's just how it's done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Ya it's the case that because it's the center of the US Defense Dept. everything is classified. It's not to coverup things, it's just how it's done. I've seen a lot of historical scholars and researchers of different types talk about documents that were top secret for 50 years and when de-classified end up being the most mundane poo poo imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:18
|
|
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:I've seen a lot of historical scholars and researchers of different types talk about documents that were top secret for 50 years and when de-classified end up being the most mundane poo poo imaginable. And then you run into gems like how the CIA experimented with installing a radio antenna in to a cat's tail so they could spy on someone. The first cat they did this to was supposed to listen to a couple of Russian tourists on the National Mall, , but it got ran over by a car while crossing the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
Awe, poor kitty. Anyways, even if there isn't much in the way of public camera footage of the Pentagon hit, there are tons of photos of plane scrap everywhere. But that doesn't stop truthers from cropping the photos to show now wreckage and claiming its proof. And I completely missed the thing in the Ancient Aliens exposed where at the end they go all christian. I was too amused by the fact Georgio and Co. are talking about Annunaki but actually describing Djinn from a completely different culture that existed far later than the Sumarians.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 18:55
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Anyways, even if there isn't much in the way of public camera footage of the Pentagon hit, there are tons of photos of plane scrap everywhere. But that doesn't stop truthers from cropping the photos to show now wreckage and claiming its proof. Or expecting the hole in the building to be perfectly plane-shaped, as if real life followed the physics of Roadrunner cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
TVs Ian posted:Or expecting the hole in the building to be perfectly plane-shaped, as if real life followed the physics of Roadrunner cartoons. I love that particular line of bull because it's so frigin easy to disprove. If you take 30 seconds to google you can see pictures of them finding the more "solid" parts like engines and landing gear of the plane in the wreckage. I mean it's all pretty easy to disprove but this in particular just comes from sheer laziness on the truthers' part.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Actually, this sort of works against them. All the security cameras are pointed out, towards gates, fences, and access points. Plus these would be pointed down, since people are usually on the ground. I always liked the "confiscated tapes" argument, as if the military would have to confiscate their own tapes from themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:I love that particular line of bull because it's so frigin easy to disprove. If you take 30 seconds to google you can see pictures of them finding the more "solid" parts like engines and landing gear of the plane in the wreckage. When thousands of photographs are taken of something, its pretty easy to find a handful that fit what you want.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
But then the decide to release 2 still photos which don't actually show a plane? Why bother. If your going to release a picture release one that shows the plane.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
urseus posted:But then the decide to release 2 still photos which don't actually show a plane? Why bother. If your going to release a picture release one that shows the plane. What's the point? Who would really drop this conspiracy nonsense if the government released blurry pictures of a plane? I'd like to think the DoD is just trolling conspiracy nuts. As stated, there are already plenty of pictures of aircraft debris around the Pentagon which should be sufficient to demonstrate that a plane did in fact crash into the Pentagon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:56
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:What's the point? Who would really drop this conspiracy nonsense if the government released blurry pictures of a plane? I'd like to think the DoD is just trolling conspiracy nuts. Not to mention all the people who saw a low flying plane, not a missile. If cell phone cameras were ubiquitous at the time I'm sure they would fall back on holograms
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
urseus posted:But then the decide to release 2 still photos which don't actually show a plane? Why bother. If your going to release a picture release one that shows the plane. Planes move very fast, security cameras generally record at a low frame rate, especially back then, because it saved tape usage. There were no security cameras placed at angles particularly suited to catching the plane as it dived in at 300+ mph (because your ground security cameras aim at ground level to catch dudes trying to sneak up, while aerial stuff would instead be caught on radar not visual), hence no good pictures out of it. The security cameras could probably have caught a plane landing "safely", but pretyt much anything else not really. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
As I recall, the images that were released of the plane striking the Pentagon came from a gas station across the street which was far enough away to capture a couple hundred feet of vertical dimension. Which, of course, failed to satisfy the missile/hologram contingent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2013 22:07
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:As I recall, the images that were released of the plane striking the Pentagon came from a gas station across the street which was far enough away to capture a couple hundred feet of vertical dimension. Which, of course, failed to satisfy the missile/hologram contingent. Well it's been too long, obviously they doctored it by this point 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Well it's been too long, obviously they doctored it by this point This is the most infuriating thing about conspiracy nuts, they literally have answers for everything. No matter how implauseable it is, they can explain every rational fact away with "It was all faked" or "all the experts are bought off!". Always say "offical story" in a derisive manner, as if its the offical story, its inherently incorrect. You know, sometimes its the offical story because thats what happened. Its all good and well to question authority, but blinding accepting anything that goes against is just as bad as blinding following it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:23
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:As I recall, the images that were released of the plane striking the Pentagon came from a gas station across the street which was far enough away to capture a couple hundred feet of vertical dimension. Which, of course, failed to satisfy the missile/hologram contingent. Hologram? These people give the US Government way too much credit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:33
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Hologram? These people give the US Government way too much credit. My conspiracy minded facebook friend explained that they were actually small bush planes that hit the twin towers and the explosions came from energy weapons the US government developed with technology they received from aliens. All the videos of the planes hitting the towers were faked and anyone who saw it is either in on the conspiracy or lying for whatever reason. Edit: he also believes that all the people who supposedly died in the twin towers/recent mass shootings were faked. His citation for this was a blurry youtube video where some random guy compared parts of peoples faces and determined that they were all composite faces made from a database of face parts that the government used to create fake victims. All the victims' families/friends interviewed are/were crisis actors (who apparently the government reuses in all their false-flag attacks). Fuck You And Diebold fucked around with this message at 03:42 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
gently caress You And Diebold posted:My conspiracy minded facebook friend explained that they were actually small bush planes that hit the twin towers and the explosions came from energy weapons the US government developed with technology they received from aliens. All the videos of the planes hitting the towers were faked and anyone who saw it is either in on the conspiracy or lying for whatever reason. From the government that cannot even get their Joint Strike Fighter program to work properly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:As I recall, the images that were released of the plane striking the Pentagon came from a gas station across the street which was far enough away to capture a couple hundred feet of vertical dimension. Which, of course, failed to satisfy the missile/hologram contingent. I don't even understand why, if you were the DoD nefariously planning a false flag attack, you'd actually use a missile. I mean, call me out of my loving mind, but even just a cursory examination of the logic involved makes it clear a false flag attack would not happen in the way the truthers describe. First of all, there's no need for them to use a missile, they could just use an actual plane. If you are going to go to the trouble of fabricating an entire plane and all the passengers on it, why not do that, then fly the plane into the pentagon? That way, you are not actually lying about the plane hitting the pentagon, it would be a thing that actually happened. It's also very obvious that people will be more outraged if the fake terrorists kill a large number of civilians, so that's a clear reason why you would say it was a plane, but as a bonus if it actually is a plane it will probably do less damage to your crucial military infrastructure and personell than a cruise missile, so there's really no reason not to just use a plane. And even more than that, faking the existence or the fate of an entire plane and it's passengers, and then launching a cruise missile at a friendly target when by all likelihood someone somewhere with some level of involvement in the undertaking is going to have a friend at the pentagon who would be directly endangered by the act, makes it loving impossible to successfully cover up. Someone would talk, at some point, even if they risked being silenced, after all we've seen people like Snowden and Manning take those risks in subsequent years. Now compare that to the difficulty of successfully covering up a false flag attack involving remote controlled dump trucks filled with tons of explosives that are driven straight into the wall of the pentagon. Now all you need to do is create some fake terrorists and the job is done, no fake passengers, no cruise missile team from the US military that has no qualms about killing friends working in the Pentagon, no fabricated or vanishing plane, none of that, just plain old "terrorists drove a bomb into a building and set it off". It's also an extremely plausible avenue of attack for pretend terrorists, in fact with pretty much the sole exception of this event, "exploding motor vehicle" has been the favourite tactic of every terrorist before then or since. gently caress it, why not just find some young and impressionable muslims and convince them to hijack some planes and fly them into the things you want people to think planes hit? Then the planes really hit, it really was muslim terrorists, and lost of innocent people really died. That way literally the only thing you need to lie about is who trained the terrorists. One single thing. Why wouldn't you just do that? The way truthers think these false flag attacks happened are literally the dumbest way you could ever perform a false flag attack, and were I a member of the Illuminati I would immediately fire anyone who came up with such stupid suggestions. It's the conspiracy equivalent of a James Bond Death Trap, insanely complicated and incredibly likely to fail, when a much simpler solution would resolve the problem with 100% certainty. Reveilled fucked around with this message at 03:51 on Nov 6, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 03:47
|
|
|
Reveilled posted:I don't even understand why, if you were the DoD nefariously planning a false flag attack, you'd actually use a missile. I mean, call me out of my loving mind, but even just a cursory examination of the logic involved makes it clear a false flag attack would not happen in the way the truthers describe. Because all my MKUltra pilots are notoriously unreliable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
HootTheOwl posted:Because all my MKUltra pilots are notoriously unreliable. We've been able to wire up a plane with radio controls for 50 years now. Hell the controls we use for drones would have been available in prototype stages by then, just use those.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
My Facebook feed is usually devoid of anything particularly political, but several of my friends have posted this link over the past couple of days. I don't really know how to deal with it. http://thelibertydigest.com/2013/11/05/same-crisis-actor-interviewed-at-lax-shooting-and-911-twin-towers/ I agree that it's strange, but can't come up with a reasonable explanation as to why. The Cracked.com article that was posted earlier in the thread has been invaluable in dealing with the facts related to 9/11, and the "Loose Change" crowd, but these are the types of things that people tend to cling to and say "Ah, but what about this?!!" Anyone know anything about these videos? edit: and yes, I know Liberty Digest isn't exactly a reputable source.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Skinny Bins posted:My Facebook feed is usually devoid of anything particularly political, but several of my friends have posted this link over the past couple of days. I don't really know how to deal with it. I watched those videos today and thought the same thing as you. Not that they're the same guy, but that 2001 clip is one of the strangest 9/11 related things I've ever seen. The best explanation I can think of is that there's always dudes who want to sound like a know-it-all in front of a news camera and this guy happened to be commenting on the twin towers falling instead of, y'know, a local dry cleaner fire or whatever. I would expect a Fox News "freelancer" to say poo poo like "...and then I witnessed both towers collapse, one first, then the second, mostly due to structural failure because the fire was too intense." Reminds me of this similar coincidence: http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/05/13/berg.encounter
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:20
|
|
|
How do they know it was the same guy? And the LAX thing shows a whole lot of nothing. Why didn't he have ID? Maybe he had handed his ticket to someone when the shooting started? Maybe he was holding it in his hand and dropped it? I find these so annoying sometimes. They don't try and come up with a plausible hypothesis. They just make the tiniest nit-picks and expect it to coalesce into something bigger. You can't comment on how a police investigation went from a 30 second soundbite of one shaken up guy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
I love the idea that the Illuminati/Bilderbergers/"International Bankers" can control every aspect of everything but keep trotting out the same guy to comment on their false flag attacks.... "Do you think we can rely on actual people who just witnessed a shooting in an airport to be interviewed on local news and say it was pretty scary?" "We can't take that risk... let's call in Doug from 12 years ago, he did a great job on 9/11"
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
I love the Crisis Actors thing. For those who have not heard of it, some nutbars think that the people who are interviewed or reponding to shootings and terrorist attacks are actually actors as part of a false flag. Because the names of these people are used in the media, then they are found on facebook and what not, so the tinfoil hat crowd harassies and threatens them. Like that guy who helped the kids at Sandy Hook; he's gotten death threats from info wars people (they identified themselves as such) and basically they made his life a living hell because he helped save some kids from being killed. Next time someone says conspiracy people are harmless, tell them that. The second thing, that's hilarious is that some of these fruitcakes believes that big name actors are used. You end up with stuff like this http://i.imgur.com/7rltbY4.jpg Yes, James Holmes was really Jack White. And all these people, who look nothing alike other than sex and some other vague similarties are REALLY THE SAME PEOPLE. And the guy posting these little selfie makes me laugh, you look totally truthworthy with the wrap around shades and backwards camo baseball cap. I he's at either a monster truck or Klan rally.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
wellaware1 is literally a paranoid schizophrenic. But that hasn't deterred gun nuts from using his ideas to deflect how we react to mass shootings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 03:45
|
|
|
I wish they'd tied the Royals and baseball connection together and ultimately tried to convince us that all of these acts are perpetrated by the Kansas City Royals for some nefarious scheme.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
I always thought the  CRISIS ACTOR people clearly have some sort of face perception impairment, which kinda lends something to those who might try and pathologize conspiracy theorists/ies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:14
|
|
|
McDowell posted:wellaware1 is literally a paranoid schizophrenic. But that hasn't deterred gun nuts from using his ideas to deflect how we react to mass shootings. Yep. Now the first reaction to senseless gun violence is "Another false flag to TAKE AWAY ARE GUNS!!!!!!!". Big Beef City posted:I wish they'd tied the Royals and baseball connection together and ultimately tried to convince us that all of these acts are perpetrated by the Kansas City Royals for some nefarious scheme. To remember which Kansas City they are from?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
Radio Prune posted:I always thought the I can't wait till they say Pearl Harbor was all a setup.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I can't wait till they say Pearl Harbor was all a setup. There really are people who honestly believe Pearl Harbour was made to happy. Not that FDR planned it with the Japanese, but more he and the others in charge of the US saw that the Japanese were going to attack and let it happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 12:51 |
|
|
The Liberty Digest posted:Have to love when the government gets caught in their own web of lies. First you have a shooter with the last name of “CIAnCIA” Hiding in plain sight, hmmm?!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2013 05:59
|
|
