If you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy...

If you don't believe in the 9/11 conspiracy, or the New World Order, I would suggest watching this video:

TV Links - Video

It's a little over 2 hours long, but please watch it. This isn't a joke, this stuff is very real. The documentary is called "9/11: The Road to Tyranny"

Now, I've known about this NWO stuff, and that 9/11 was planned by our government, etc etc... but how much detail this video goes into absolutely scared the shit out of me at the end. This is a video by Alex Jones - you can get other info at Alex Jones' Infowars.com :: There is a War on for Your Mind!.

Please watch this. It's something that everyone needs to AT LEAST think about. This documentary has insurmountable evidence of a New World Order, who only wants to control the whole world. This is the kind of stuff that is even beyond George Orwell's 1984, in terms of tyranny and oppression. Please, watch it. And spread the word further. Let's start to understand what's really happening, and let's start to spread this knowledge.

i found the video......"disturbing".

I find it more disturbing that some people actually consider Alex Jones as a credible journalist.

Have a good one!:jointsmile:

You have to be a little crazy to watch 2 planes full of gas ram some buildings and say well. that wasn't the reason they went down. Controlled demolition? should they have just toppled over on there sides of break in half. "Jet fuel burning for two hours, nope dont buy it"......TARDS!!!!!

Its not on there anymore, I guess the government found out.

Ok, I didn't mean to say it was insurmountable evidence, I was really tired at the time, so I have no idea why I said that. And no, I don't think he's a credible "journalist". He's more of a sensationalist. But it's worth watching. Here's one that focuses more on just 9/11, it's called "The Great Conspiracy - The 911 News Special You Never Saw". This one is better, and doesn't talk about the NWO that nobody wants to believe. Here, watch it.

TV Links - Video

In fact, here's a plethora of videos you can watch about 9/11, and about it being a conspiracy or not.

TV Links

Really, I believe that it only makes sense that it was an inside job. Afterall, this kind of tactic has been used for a long time to gain support for a war that is on a government's agenda. Stop denying it. I think anyone who doesn't believe that it was an inside job needs to snap out of the brainwashing hypnosis and realize that this is not the first time they've done it, or that any government has done this, to support certain agendas. Government-funded terrorism to sway the masses into totally supporting the US agenda to go to Afghanistan and Iraq. Nobody would have allowed it before 9/11. The official story leaves too many anomalies to be trusted, so I don't know why anyone believes in the official story. Perhaps some of you watch too much news on TV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaidZeppelin

You have to be a little crazy to watch 2 planes full of gas ram some buildings and say well. that wasn't the reason they went down. Controlled demolition? should they have just toppled over on there sides of break in half. "Jet fuel burning for two hours, nope dont buy it"......TARDS!!!!!

---

Oh, geez, that's a good argument. I have to be "crazy" to believe it. You have to be crazy to not question your government! Now, I'm not sure about the jet fuel thing. Jet fuel burns at about 599 - 1796 degrees F. Steel usually melts at about 2500 degrees F. Considering that, you don't think it's a bit weird that jet fuel that could have been burning at any temperature in that range melted steel in the building, causing it to collapse in on itself, like an implosion that you'd see in Las Vegas? It's strange. But don't take my word for it, why don't you go and watch some of the videos I posted, called "The Great Conspiracy: The 911 News Special That You Never Saw" or some of the others on that TV-Links website. I would suggest "The Great Conspiracy," however.

I think Maddox puts it in terms that even the dumbest of the dumb can understand.. that there was no conspiracy.

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

I think someone smoked up too much and got super paranoid and came up with crazy ideas, such as conspiracies, but it doesnt mean they aren't true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaidZeppelin

You have to be a little crazy to watch 2 planes full of gas ram some buildings and say well. that wasn't the reason they went down. Controlled demolition?

---

:jointsmile:
lol i agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blitzed

I think Maddox puts it in terms that even the dumbest of the dumb can understand.. that there was no conspiracy.

There is no 9/11 conspiracy you morons.

---

I'm not sure how you want people to reply to that. Maddox is saying that Loose Change doesn't prove anything, which is true.

However, that still does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

There is a long history of governments carrying out attacks on their own soil, and blaming it on whoever they want to go to war with, to get support from everyone to go to war with a particular country.

The fact is, there are lots of unanswered questions. Considering the anomalies in the official story, and the unanswered questions... it should be questioned. Why does everyone seem to imply that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are "kooks"?

Here is a credible book on 9/11, backed by lots and lots of careful research. If any of you are interested in reading some research that is backed by real evidence, read this book:

Amazon.com: The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism: Books: Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed

Maybe you can find it as an e-book.

Conspiracy theorists aren't nuts, they're just people looking for the truth. Obviously we don't get that enough, so people take it into their own hands to come up with ideas of what may have happened. Then of course, by questioning authority, they are seen as "kooks" and "idiots." People who blindly believe the official story of 9/11 are the idiots. Let me also say that 9/11 has brought us into a war in two countries already. Let me also reiterate that a government conspiring to attack itself to gain more power or sway people to support a certain agenda, is far from unheard of - 9/11 is not the first time this has happened.
How do you think Hitler took over Germany? That's right, he constructed a terrorist attack on his own country and blamed it on communists. Sound a bit familiar? Maybe very similar? Well, I know what you're going to say already. You're going to say that it does not mean that's what happened on 9/11. Sorry, but the official story does not make sense! It seems like all evidence points to some kind of conspiracy within our government, friends. Whether it be a controlled demolition or not - our government conspired to create and manufacture this terrorism. You cannot deny that our government has completely taken advantage of 9/11 in their favor, not ours! That cannot be denied, everyone knows that.

Read that book, and you can see why this kind of attack is used, and what purpose it serves. I won't go on about the NWO - it looks like not many people here believe in the NWO (eventhough George Bush Sr. did speak of it on national television, but I won't get into that).

Read the book, or die! And yes, I mean that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

[...]
However, that still does not mean that there was no conspiracy.

---

ahh yes, the "you cannot prove me wrong, therefor my theory has validity" argument. Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

There is a long history of governments carrying out attacks on their own soil, and blaming it on whoever they want to go to war with, to get support from everyone to go to war with a particular country.

---

Now, I realize that many people did believe (at least at first, though there are still plenty around who still do) W et all regarding Iraq's supposed involvement with the 9/11 attacks. But to anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention, it is quite clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Why does everyone seem to imply that 9/11 conspiracy theorists are "kooks"?

---

Not sure that it is limited to the 9/11 people specifically... Most conspiracy theorists are considered to be at least selective in their interpretations of the available facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Conspiracy theorists aren't nuts, they're just people looking for the truth.

---

I would state it another way. Conspiracy theorists tend to ignore basic facts of what is and is not possible in order to display their own insecurities and mistrust of the world they live in. They come up with wild accusations with no foundation in reality.

I guess that makes people think they're nuts ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Then of course, by questioning authority, they are seen as "kooks" and "idiots."

---

I think you are confusing questioning authority with questioning the explanation for a given event. I question authority all the time. Going to war in Iraq is a prime example of this. It is obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, yet here we are at war.

But in order to say that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, you have to discard a whole lot of evidence about what actually happened. That is where people start getting labeled as kooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Let me also say that 9/11 has brought us into a war in two countries already.

---

Well, W brought us into those wars. He used 9/11 as an excuse to do so, but his efforts were willful, at least as far as Iraq goes. Afghanistan is much more legitimate in my estimation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Sorry, but the official story does not make sense! It seems like all evidence points to some kind of conspiracy within our government, friends. Whether it be a controlled demolition or not - our government conspired to create and manufacture this terrorism.

---

Show me something other than badly strung together conjecture, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

You cannot deny that our government has completely taken advantage of 9/11 in their favor, not ours! That cannot be denied, everyone knows that.

---

I cannot deny that, my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

Read the book, or die! And yes, I mean that.

---

No, I don't think I will. But thanks.

Grow

I didnt know building7 was hit by a plane..............and why would USAma warn the pentagon officials not to fly on 911...just soo many questions, but our good GW hindered any real investigation into 9-11, wonder why?

please watch the vid in my signature, watch the WHOLE thing

then do your own, actual research

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LaidZeppelin

You have to be a little crazy to watch 2 planes full of gas ram some buildings and say well. that wasn't the reason they went down. Controlled demolition? should they have just toppled over on there sides of break in half. "Jet fuel burning for two hours, nope dont buy it"......TARDS!!!!!

---

Yeah if youve watched the planes hit the buildings you'll will notice that most of the fuel burnt up on impact outside the building......but you still have building 7 to deal with, oh my bad the fuel tank blew up inside the building:rolleyes:

some people think it is too far fetched to have conspiracies, and societal control

and they think i am paranoid and crazy for saying, isn't that what they want you to think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by growwatcher

ahh yes, the "you cannot prove me wrong, therefor my theory has validity" argument. Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

---

What I said there had nothing to do with saying "you cannot prove me wrong." I said, "that doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy." So I'm not sure how you came up with that response.

Quote:

---

Now, I realize that many people did believe (at least at first, though there are still plenty around who still do) W et all regarding Iraq's supposed involvement with the 9/11 attacks. But to anyone who has paid even the slightest bit of attention, it is quite clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks.

---

Right, it is clear that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks in the sense of us "going there to kill terrorists." You're right. That's what's strange, don't you think? After 9/11 we got into two different wars, with two different countries. Although, the whole thing was marked as the "War on Terror." Operation: Iraqi Freedom is a part of that. In fact, you can prove that to yourself by watching what reasoning George Bush gave to go to Iraq. I can tell you two of them: Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (which have not been found yet), and he was "harboring terrorists." Of course, there was no proof in any of those given. Now if that wasn't a big lie by George Bush. Of course, with the addition of "terrorists," which is for some reason so much different than it has always been, they can manufacture evidence or lie completely and say that some other country is involved in terrorism somehow. Certainly looks like they're doing that with Iran now, with the WMD story again, and the harboring terrorists story. Not that I'm saying that they don't have WMD's, they might. Or, they will in the future. As far as I know, they're only in the process of creating weapons grade uranium. This means they have no nukes yet, at least not made from their own program.

Quote:

---

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

---

A common argument by people who don't understand the conspiracy theories about it. The idea wasn't to just go into Iraq, my friend. The idea was to go into Afghanistan, and then as you can see, they shifted attention to Iraq with the idea that Iraq harbors terrorists and has nukes. They can use this whole "terrorism" scheme on anything they want. Do you understand this? It's fear-mongering, nothing more. They scare the hell out of us about terrorism, and then they are granted more power. As long as we stay scared of so-called terrorists, they have control. Do you honestly not think that 9/11 lead to the invasion of two countries, and the killing of more innocent people than originally died on 9/11? To me it's pretty obvious, that even if nobody in connection with our country conspired to make 9/11 happen, that it was severely taken advantage of... and not in *our* best interest.

Quote:

---

Not sure that it is limited to the 9/11 people specifically... Most conspiracy theorists are considered to be at least selective in their interpretations of the available facts.

---

And so are many people who don't agree with the conspiracies. I don't believe in all the conspiracies. I'm not sure if there was a controlled demolition, or if there were mini-nukes blasted in the towers, or if it is all shapeshifting lizardmen running the whole scheme, or if there were cloaked black helicopters near WTC on 9/11. The only thing I do believe is that there was some kind of conspiracy. History proves that it is a possibility. And that book I gave you a link to actually proves a lot of things that you would otherwise talk down on.

Quote:

---

I would state it another way. Conspiracy theorists tend to ignore basic facts of what is and is not possible in order to display their own insecurities and mistrust of the world they live in. They come up with wild accusations with no foundation in reality.

I guess that makes people think they're nuts ;)

---

They all do? Please see above. And for the record, I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have not come up with my own theories. But I am 100% sure that there was a conspiracy. You just need to do the research, and I think it then becomes very clear.

What I believe is that the US government actually works with al-Qaeda, especially Osama Bin Laden. We actually fund terrorism. If you read the book I posted, you will see why, and how.

Quote:

---

I think you are confusing questioning authority with questioning the explanation for a given event. I question authority all the time. Going to war in Iraq is a prime example of this. It is obvious that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks, yet here we are at war.

---

In this case, questioning authority and questioning the explanation that doesn't give all the answers, in a very shady way, is questioning authority. If you did not know, our government (who supplied the official story) is authority. And yes, you're right. We are in Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with 9/11 in the sense that Iraq had nothing to do bringing the towers down. Isn't that a bit strange? A bit, right? Just a little bit?

Quote:

---

But in order to say that the government carried out the 9/11 attacks, you have to discard a whole lot of evidence about what actually happened. That is where people start getting labeled as kooks.

---

No you don't. People do this, I know that. But you have to realize that the conspiracy that I see to be the most credible is that the US actually funds terrorism. We sent al-Qaeda to do it. In that fashion you don't have to discard any evidence in how the towers fell, or whatever.

I wouldn't call them kooks, but I would say that some people are really creative in how they come up with ways to show that it might have been an inside job. Of course, a lot of these theories end up getting raped. The controlled demolition one still seems to be going strong, however. There's been a lot of supposed "debunks" of that theory, but they never seem to prove that it wasn't. Of course, I'm not saying that it was a controlled demolition. But let's face it, we're never going to get the full truth of how things went down on that day... so let's leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Well, W brought us into those wars. He used 9/11 as an excuse to do so, but his efforts were willful, at least as far as Iraq goes. Afghanistan is much more legitimate in my estimation.

---

I would have to disagree with you on the Afghanistan part. Invading Afghanistan had no legitimacy, because there was never proof that our so-called "enemy" was actually there. They just said they were, and used that to go there. Neither of the wars have any legitimate reasons. In fact, war itself is very hard to legitimize.

Quote:

---

Show me something other than badly strung together conjecture, please.

---

Perhaps you can read that book.

Quote:

---

I cannot deny that, my friend.

---

Neither can I, my friend.

Quote:

---

No, I don't think I will. But thanks.

---

Talk about being selective. I thought conspiracy theorist nuts were the only ones who didn't look at the other side? I guess you were wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by growwatcher

Having said that, wouldn't it have made sense for the government to "carry out attacks on their own soil" in a way that would implicate another country without it being so obvious that what is being stated is false? In other words, wouldn't they have at least tried to make it look like Iraq was responsible, instead of just saying it is so?

---

Have you ever thought of becoming a lawyer? You argued your point fantastically.

No cause they needed a boogie man for all time..saddams dead he cant hurt anyone, but uncle USAma is still frozen err i mean still out-there with his alCIAduh which as no known country of its own.....so they(US Government) can continued to fear-mogger the US citizens



.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV (arrows)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HighTillIDie

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV (arrows)

---

Seen it long ago. It's a pretty good movie, but honestly, it isn't something you can show to any skeptic and have them believe it after watching it. Though, that book that I recommended will convince anyone.

I watched some of the video (not all), and did actually find the bits about the N.W.O relitavley disturbing because they are quite possible if people keep living threw the words of Governments. The powers that be may trouble you and be, but the babylon law is no match for UNITY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfqr

What I said there had nothing to do with saying "you cannot prove me wrong." I said, "that doesn't mean there wasn't a conspiracy." So I'm not sure how you came up with that response.

---

mfqr, I mean no disrespect, but you have totally missed many of my points. Logically, saying you cannot prove me wrong is tantamount to saying you can't prove there wasn't a [fill-in-the-blank]. They are both arguments based on the same logic. That is how I came up with that response.

Quote:

---

After 9/11 we got into two different wars, with two different countries. Although, the whole thing was marked as the "War on Terror." Operation: Iraqi Freedom is a part of that. In fact, you can prove that to yourself by watching what reasoning George Bush gave to go to Iraq. I can tell you two of them: Saddam had "weapons of mass destruction" (which have not been found yet), and he was "harboring terrorists." Of course, there was no proof in any of those given.
[...]

---

Yes. In fact I've heard many times that W and his crew were looking for a way to invade Iraq before the attacks took place. W was mad at Saddam for the assassination plot against Bush Sr.

So when the 9/11 attacks came they provided something that W/Cheney, etc. used as an excuse to invade. But this is a far cry from saying our government orchestrated the attacks.

Quote:

---

To me it's pretty obvious, that even if nobody in connection with our country conspired to make 9/11 happen, that it was severely taken advantage of... and not in *our* best interest.

---

Yes. But this has nothing to do with conspiracy. This is well known by the entire rest of the world. We were attacked, then our government used the attacks as an excuse to go attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

Quote:

---

[...] or if there were mini-nukes blasted in the towers [...]

---

LOL. Give me a break. Anyone with a geiger counter could answer that one.

Quote:

---

I am not a conspiracy theorist. I have not come up with my own theories. But I am 100% sure that there was a conspiracy.

---

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. The term conspiracy theorist doesn't have to mean that you are the one who came up with the theories.. espousing them is enough.

I admire people who are 100% sure of anything. Always leaves room for seeing things from a different perspective :wtf:

Quote:

---

You just need to do the research, and I think it then becomes very clear.

---

I have suffered through my fair share of conspiracy "documentaries", movies, and articles. From Roswell to the moon landings, from the various JFK plots to the illuminati. I have seen many things about 9/11 and they all reek of the same sensationalist crap that all the other ones do. They lack fundamental credibility. They start from false pretenses. They are made to sell, because the conspiracy theory contingent is a reliable source of "believers" and will buy into anything that is mistrustful of any sort of established authority.

I have seen nothing in any of these "sources" that cannot be explained with some more, um, rational thoughts.

Quote:

---

What I believe is that the US government actually works with al-Qaeda, especially Osama Bin Laden. We actually fund terrorism. If you read the book I posted, you will see why, and how.

---

But your not a conspiracy theorist :thumbsup:

Seriously, there are many things that our government has done over the years that come back to haunt us. Dealing with Bin Laden in the 1980's (or whenever it was) is one of those things. Just like all of the mess that we created in Central America. Our government is good at screwing with the world without any fore site into what the consequences will ultimately be. That doesn't mean that we are still actively engaged with Bin Laden. It simply means we are paying for our past mistakes.

Quote:

---

If you did not know, our government (who supplied the official story) is authority.

---

That has got to be at least the 3rd time you assume that I'm a complete dumb shit. Ooooooh... our government is an authority. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

Quote:

---

I would have to disagree with you on the Afghanistan part. Invading Afghanistan had no legitimacy, because there was never proof that our so-called "enemy" was actually there. They just said they were, and used that to go there. Neither of the wars have any legitimate reasons. In fact, war itself is very hard to legitimize.

---

Yes, war is hard to legitimize. And no, I didn't think we should be going into Iraq at the time that we did. I didn't (and don't) think that going into Afghanistan the way we did was the right thing to do either. I am, for the most part, a pacifist.

The only times I think that our country should be sending troops anywhere is when not sending them would result in even more loss. I agreed with Clinton sending in troops to Somalia. I also think that something needed to be done in Afghanistan, even before the attacks. I know it wasn't big in the news here in the states, but the Taliban had been becoming increasingly (and alarmingly) repressive throughout the second half of the 90s. They were bad shit, and they were turning Afghanistan into an extremist producing country. Bad things were starting to come out of there.

Quote:

---

Talk about being selective. I thought conspiracy theorist nuts were the only ones who didn't look at the other side? I guess you were wrong.

---

Wow. Go back and read what I said based on your original quote. You said, essentially, "read this book or die." To which I say, "no thanks." Because you are being ridiculous. You can't tell people to do something you want them to do or die and expect to have a positive reaction.

Unless you are a terrorist :thumbsup:

Grow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eg420ne

I didnt know building7 was hit by a plane..............and why would USAma warn the pentagon officials not to fly on 911...just soo many questions, but our good GW hindered any real investigation into 9-11, wonder why?

---

I do believe they pulled building 7 and they wont give us a reason because I have no idea how that building collapsed. WTC1 and 2? I think there should have been a better investigation done on 9/11. I also believe the Bush Administration used 9/11 as justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they manipulated it to fit their needs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ganja Dude

I do believe they pulled building 7 and they wont give us a reason because I have no idea how that building collapsed. WTC1 and 2? I think there should have been a better investigation done on 9/11. I also believe the Bush Administration used 9/11 as justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and they manipulated it to fit their needs.

---

the building collapsed in a perfect controlled demolition, the owner said they were going to purposely bring it down, and people heard the countdown...and the building falls in a perfect controlled demolition fashion...

all the freedom hating muslim conspiracy theorists have to do is explain how bin laden pulled that off...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by growwatcher

mfqr, I mean no disrespect, but you have totally missed many of my points. Logically, saying you cannot prove me wrong is tantamount to saying you can't prove there wasn't a [fill-in-the-blank]. They are both arguments based on the same logic. That is how I came up with that response.

---

No, son, I have not missed the point. You misinterpreted what I said. What I said was simply a pre-response to a possible response to what I said. All I meant was, "because you say [this], it doesn't mean that [this] isn't true." Which basically means what I said, nothing more. I was not being arrogant and saying that "you cannot prove this wrong." It was simply saying that the possible response would not prove the theory to be invalid, but not that it cannot be proven wrong, or that I cannot be proven wrong. It's pretty obvious. You over-thought my reply, and came up with that non-sense. It's ok, though, I forgive you... even though you're a terrorist.

Quote:

---

Yes. In fact I've heard many times that W and his crew were looking for a way to invade Iraq before the attacks took place. W was mad at Saddam for the assassination plot against Bush Sr.

---

Something we can both agree on.

Quote:

---

So when the 9/11 attacks came they provided something that W/Cheney, etc. used as an excuse to invade. But this is a far cry from saying our government orchestrated the attacks.

---

That's one idea, yes. But, just like these conspiracy theories, that is not necessarily how it went down.

Quote:

---

Yes. But this has nothing to do with conspiracy. This is well known by the entire rest of the world. We were attacked, then our government used the attacks as an excuse to go attack Iraq and Afghanistan.

---

It's possible, yes. Like I said, that's one idea of how it could have happened. But as I said before, what you say is just a bit more believable. Once again, that might not be how it actually went down.

Quote:

---

LOL. Give me a break. Anyone with a geiger counter could answer that one.

---

I'm guessing you didn't read and comprehend what I was saying. I said that I didn't necessarily believe in those theories. Or maybe you're just talking about those who do believe in that.

Quote:

---

Yes, you are a conspiracy theorist. The term conspiracy theorist doesn't have to mean that you are the one who came up with the theories.. espousing them is enough.

---

I guess that is the way you see it. But the way I see it, conspiracy theorists actually try to come up with the theories. I guess in the actual language, you would be correct. But I don't follow English when it comes to this, because I don't consider myself a theorist. I don't theorize, I find the theories made by theorists, or found by theorists, and figure out which one had evidence behind it. Whichever seems the most credible wins, and I adopt that conspiracy into belief. Of course, these theories need to seem more real than what the non-believers say for me to believe it. Such is the case with 9/11.

Quote:

---

I admire people who are 100% sure of anything. Always leaves room for seeing things from a different perspective :wtf:

---

Nice bit of sarcasm there. The reason I am 100% sure is because I have gone through the different perspectives, and have come up with the most viable option. I guess 100% is an exaggeration, actually. I'll say 90% instead, to leave room for the slight possibility of the official story being 100% proven to me... or some other conspiracy theory involving 9/11 (not that I just came up with this now. I do keep open to other possibilities at all times. But there's always a dominating one)

Quote:

---

I have suffered through my fair share of conspiracy "documentaries", movies, and articles. From Roswell to the moon landings, from the various JFK plots to the illuminati. I have seen many things about 9/11 and they all reek of the same sensationalist crap that all the other ones do. They lack fundamental credibility. They start from false pretenses. They are made to sell, because the conspiracy theory contingent is a reliable source of "believers" and will buy into anything that is mistrustful of any sort of established authority.

---

Well, you are correct on the concept that they are, for the most part, made to sell. I will agree with you on that. But not all of them are... I don't think you've seen every single one. Read that book I recommended, or die, you terrorist. By the way, the Illuminati is documented fact. The thing that is a mystery is whether they are involved in conspiracies. That is why a lot of people tend to not believe that the Illuminati even exists at all. But like I said, it is a fact that in the 18th century (and possibly even now) there was an Illuminati which had political agendas. Look it up, if you didn't know this.

Quote:

---

I have seen nothing in any of these "sources" that cannot be explained with some more, um, rational thoughts.

---

Which ones? Just read the book, it explains things well, and had a lot of research put into it.

Quote:

---

But your not a conspiracy theorist :thumbsup:

---

So then we have come to an agreement. Great! :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Seriously, there are many things that our government has done over the years that come back to haunt us. Dealing with Bin Laden in the 1980's (or whenever it was) is one of those things. Just like all of the mess that we created in Central America. Our government is good at screwing with the world without any fore site into what the consequences will ultimately be. That doesn't mean that we are still actively engaged with Bin Laden. It simply means we are paying for our past mistakes.

---

Or maybe, just maybe, that is your theory. However, it is documented fact that Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA during the 1970s, to combat the Soviets in Afghanistan. So yes, we also have a history with him as a "protagonist," rather than the mainstream idea of him now being the "antagonist."

Quote:

---

That has got to be at least the 3rd time you assume that I'm a complete dumb shit. Ooooooh... our government is an authority. Thanks for setting me straight on that one.

---

You were saying that there was a difference between questioning authority, and something else (I forgot). I was simply saying that my response did not apply to what you said there. I don't assume you're a complete dumb shit. In fact, I think you're very intelligent. But sometimes I feel like I need to elaborate on things that you seem to overlook. It happens to the best of us.

Quote:

---

Yes, war is hard to legitimize. And no, I didn't think we should be going into Iraq at the time that we did. I didn't (and don't) think that going into Afghanistan the way we did was the right thing to do either. I am, for the most part, a pacifist.

---

Then we both have something in common.

Quote:

---

The only times I think that our country should be sending troops anywhere is when not sending them would result in even more loss. I agreed with Clinton sending in troops to Somalia. I also think that something needed to be done in Afghanistan, even before the attacks. I know it wasn't big in the news here in the states, but the Taliban had been becoming increasingly (and alarmingly) repressive throughout the second half of the 90s. They were bad shit, and they were turning Afghanistan into an extremist producing country. Bad things were starting to come out of there.

---

I won't disagree with that philosophy. Yes, troops should only be sent in when the current situation shows that not sending them in would result in more. However, I don't agree that we should be playing the world's big pig (cop).

Quote:

---

Wow. Go back and read what I said based on your original quote. You said, essentially, "read this book or die." To which I say, "no thanks." Because you are being ridiculous. You can't tell people to do something you want them to do or die and expect to have a positive reaction.

---

Once again, you have made a misinterpretation. It was a joke, nothing more. But I do recommend you to read that book. Unless you're a terrorist...

Quote:

---

Unless you are a terrorist :thumbsup:

---

Yes, I am, and so are you. Every citizen of the United States is. Or wait, are you in the US?

OK. I give. I violated a cardinal rule of picking one's arguments. I cannot possibly spend the time to rebut everything that you just said. I do have one question for you though: If you're gonna call me "son," then I want to know how old you are and how old you think I am?

Cause logic like this:

Quote:

---

I guess that is the way you see it. But the way I see it, conspiracy theorists actually try to come up with the theories. I guess in the actual language, you would be correct. But I don't follow English when it comes to this, because I don't consider myself a theorist.

---

is the exact same argument my kids have used when they want a word or phrase to mean something other than what it actually means. Which is fine, as long as they are aiming to not be understood by those around them.

As for the illuminati's existence being a documented fact: oh, please.

It is no wonder that books & movies like the Da Vinci Code do so well -- people just love a grand conspiracy plot.

I will now bow out of this thread. Peace.

Grow

while i like to try and interpret facts, which may result in a "conspiracy theory"

i do not use theory to help me... i am trying to change this world... somehow...

and i want to do it the right way... show the facts, and when you argue with the facts, i will research even more.

i am not a theorist, but an activist, a freedom fighter.

AND IF YOU TELL ME I AM WRONG, THAT WE ARE FREE, THAT THERE IS NO TERRONY IN OUR OWN RANKS, i can only get more sad.

how can you not see around you, with all of the facts...

just like we want to believe, more people, don't want to believe... they want to think they have more control, and that they don't live amongst evil...

which is right? i don't know... but i sure know alot of the naysayers, will discount facts shown to their face... you show me something i cannot argue with reasonable doubt, then i will definately concede... i am not skewed

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by growwatcher

OK. I give. I violated a cardinal rule of picking one's arguments. I cannot possibly spend the time to rebut everything that you just said. I do have one question for you though: If you're gonna call me "son," then I want to know how old you are and how old you think I am?

Cause logic like this:


is the exact same argument my kids have used when they want a word or phrase to mean something other than what it actually means. Which is fine, as long as they are aiming to not be understood by those around them.

As for the illuminati's existence being a documented fact: oh, please

It is no wonder that books & movies like the Da Vinci Code do so well -- people just love a grand conspiracy plot.

I will now bow out of this thread. Peace.

Grow

---

I was joking about the "son" part, sorry. I never assumed your age at any point, I just felt like saying it. Anyway, I am 24 years old. And yes, the Illuminati did exist, and may still exist. Like I said, it's not that the idea that they were involved in any grand scheme to overthrow the world that has been proven. The Illuminati is/was a secret society, which was started in 1776. However, that is documented history. There have been traces of the Illuminati all the way back to the Egyptian times, but it has not been proven. The Illuminati did/does exist. Look it up. It's a secret society, like I said. You can find tons of history on it... and there are many different Illuminatis. The most famous would probably be the Bavarian Illuminati.