manshimajin Posted April 28, 2008 Share Posted April 28, 2008 We should take this seriously - Lee Harvey Oswald was flying the plane that crashed (oops sorry - didn't crash) into the Pentagon .... I know someone who believes that every television set has a spy camera in it observing what you are doing - maybe that is how the TVLA Detector Van operates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted July 7, 2008 Share Posted July 7, 2008 What? No post in here since April? Can't have that... BBC (yes, that BBC - the serious, credible thingy you pay for) - The Conspiracy Files: Series 1: The Third Tower http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd Available until 16th July Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 What? No post in here since April? Can't have that...BBC (yes, that BBC - the serious, credible thingy you pay for) - The Conspiracy Files: Series 1: The Third Tower http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00ck4jd Available until 16th July Was a superb docu that. Very balanced, not at all judgemental and clearly showed the 'truthers' to be a screaming bunch of looneys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I watched that prog and expected a flurry of posts on this thread again. I think it's quite sad to still see people in the USA convinced that it's some sort of conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effervesce Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I watched that prog and expected a flurry of posts on this thread again. I think it's quite sad to still see people in the USA convinced that it's some sort of conspiracy. I only caught bits of it, was watching Big Brother ( I know, dont start) I heard a lot of theories and conspiracies n stuff.......but, I didnt hear WHY they thought the US government did it if at all. did they cover that aspect at all? It's bad reporting if not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I only caught bits of it, was watching Big Brother ( I know, dont start) I heard a lot of theories and conspiracies n stuff.......but, I didnt hear WHY they thought the US government did it if at all. did they cover that aspect at all? It's bad reporting if not. Wasn't bad reporting, one of the biggest flaws of the truthers arguments is how it doesn't fit into any kind of wider conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 but, I didnt hear WHY they thought the US government did it if at all. did they cover that aspect at all? I think that one of their theories was that there was some embarrassing papers in tower 7 that the government wanted to destroy. I'd have though a shredded would be a lot easier than crashing two jets into the twin towers and then rigging tower 7 with explosives to destroy the papers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I watched that prog and expected a flurry of posts on this thread again. I think it's quite sad to still see people in the USA convinced that it's some sort of conspiracy. ...but, I didnt hear WHY they thought the US government did it if at all. did they cover that aspect at all? It's bad reporting if not. They did cover it, the main allegations were about a remit to go into the middle east, and a reduction in civil liberties/increase in control through 2 patriot acts. I still do not remain 100% convinced that all of the truth is out yet. The latest programme, which concentrated on WTC7, told that WTC7 has not been investigated yet properly by the commission. Yes, perhaps there were numerous coincidences and events that led to the collapse of WTC7, but until all my questions have been addressed I remain unconvinced. Some of those issues, such as a BBC reporter reporting the collapse of the building, when it was clearly visible behind her and the signal was suddenly mysteriously lost, do little but stir conspiracy theorists that some sort of 'script' was evident, and can only be answered by evidence through an official investigation IMO. Edited to add: and if you think governments couldn't possibly lie about things of such magnitude, just look at events since - including how the Iraq invasion was sold and then resold to everyone. People also seem to forget that most of the 9/11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, not Iraq or Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Some of those issues, such as a BBC reporter reporting the collapse of the building, when it was clearly visible behind her Couldn't it just be a cock up rather than proof of conspiracy? I'd imagine that in the rather hectic and frantic atmosphere that day someone saying that WTC is going to collapse in the next few hours could soon end up as WTC has actually collapsed and be passed on through the news feeds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Some of those issues, such as a BBC reporter reporting the collapse of the building, when it was clearly visible behind her Couldn't it just be a cock up rather than proof of conspiracy? I'd imagine that in the rather hectic and frantic atmosphere that day someone saying that WTC is going to collapse in the next few hours could soon end up as WTC has actually collapsed and be passed on through the news feeds Quite possibly, and knowing the media, quite probable - but until a proper investigation, not certain. This is only one issue, there are others too: the coincidence of a 'perfect collapse', so called evidence of iron pellets that only be produced at high temperatures >fire (i.e. explosives) etc. and other factors that still need 'explaining'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 Couldn't it just be a cock up rather than proof of conspiracy? The two things that so often go together - incompetence by the 'authorities' and cries of 'conspiracy'. The authorities are too conceited to admit they got things wrong so leave the door open to the conspiracy theorists to make a mint writing books. Edit: Not saying that the 'authorities' aren't capable of cover ups...just that when they cock-up in a big way they display typical bully boy behaviour and run for cover leaving the field open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 There are certainly gaps in understanding, but to take those gaps and invent reasons for them being there is where this all goes into the realm of fantasy. There may have been some inside knowledge and there certainly may have been some fuckups, but there's no chance of anything on the scale the truthers are suggesting would be possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Old Git Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 I was really meaning "cock up" by the news media rather than the authorities. As the woman reporter said, she was really just shoved in front of the camera and the BBC studio asked her about the collapse of WTC7. I think she just went along with it. I'd imagine the BBC newsroom was receiving all sorts of news reports that dreadful day and didn't have the means to accurately verify every single one of them. I must admit that I wasn't giving the programme 100% of my attention, but I though someone covered the metal pellets issue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 There are certainly gaps in understanding, but to take those gaps and invent reasons for them being there is where this all goes into the realm of fantasy. There may have been some inside knowledge and there certainly may have been some fuckups, but there's no chance of anything on the scale the truthers are suggesting would be possible. In your opinion, of course. I think it is quite presumptuous for you to say that (about anything), when you yourself don't have all the facts, and can't possibly explain the gaps, either way, without more information. You may probably be right, but without that additional information you yourself cannot be 100% certain - especially when taking into account the possibility of motive - e.g. in terms of an all-out US involvement in the middle east. You seem to have the attitude, also taking into account your views on government data-handling, that the US or UK governments couldn't possibly have any ulterior motives, that they do not practice propaganda, twist reality, nor would ever consider lying to the public - yet seem to forget that governments comprise people with political ideals, some members of which could be hell-bent on achieving them - and that the US and UK electorates have been lied to consistently over the past near decade over several major issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan. On the balance of probabilities it would seem that many of these theories are likely to be proven unfounded, but only after investigation and all the facts are known. And I say again, WTC7 has not been fully investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ai_Droid Posted July 8, 2008 Share Posted July 8, 2008 In your opinion, of course. I think it is quite presumptuous for you to say that (about anything), when you yourself don't have all the facts, and can't possibly explain the gaps, either way, without more information. You may probably be right, but without that additional information you yourself cannot be 100% certain - especially when taking into account the possibility of motive - e.g. in terms of an all-out US involvement in the middle east. Exactly, yes, which is why I clearly said 'may have been'. I didn't invent some daft explanation like a while building rigged in the late 70's with explosives ready for the time, two decades later, that they'd be needed. You seem to have the attitude, also taking into account your views on government data-handling, that the US or UK governments couldn't possibly have any ulterior motives, that they do not practice propaganda, twist reality, nor would ever consider lying to the public - yet seem to forget that governments comprise people with political ideals, some members of which could be hell-bent on achieving them - and that the US and UK electorates have been lied to consistently over the past near decade over several major issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Not at all, there's plenty of self interest and manipulation in government I'm sure. There's even more mistakes, accidents, cluelessness and mis-management though, and that's where I believe you see the cause of most of the things put down to conspiracies. I've never claimed people don't lie either, I just don't see the worst in everything like you seem to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.