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

[mfqr]

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.

[WeedyBoyWonder]

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.

[growwatcher]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[Ganja Dude]

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.

[pisshead]

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...

[mfqr]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

But your not a conspiracy theorist :thumbsup:

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

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."

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.

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.

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).

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...

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?

[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:

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

[HighTillIDie]

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

[mfqr]

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.