New Theories Urgently Needed

[yabasta 0]

#1) In the Osama bin laden "Hoax" video, they point out that the fake Osama is wearing a ring and a watch which is forbidden by Islamic law, however other widely accepted authentic photos of Osama- including at least one used in "Loose Change" itself (but conveniently trimmed) show him wearing a Ring and watch.

A GOLD ring is stated in Loose Change not just a ring. I don`t actually see any pictures but i doubt Bin Laden is a strict muslim if he worked for the CIA.

#2) That none of the phone calls from flight 93 could not have been made from the airplane because an independant researcher did tests proving that cell phones couldn't be made at 40,000 feet. The text in the film clearly states that the calls they are highlighting are made from AIRPHONES, not cell phones.

Very good apart from the fact that the 9/11 commission report states quite clearly that the passengers and crew made calls from the airphone and cellphones. These calls are in part a basis for the report.

They will show you there what buildings set off in a controlled demolition look like. Be honest- does this look the same as the Twin Towers?

Yes.

Another point of "proof" that CTs like to bring up about the towers is that the second tower fell first, even though it was "barely hit in the corner" second. I love that term barely, hit by the way. So barely that the whole of the plane remained in the tower, but that's not the point. If in fact someone intentionally bombed each of the towers to complete this very elaborate hoax "pulled of with military precision" as the narrator states, do you think they would have forgotten such a detail as which tower they should probably detonate first to make things look more consistent? These are some pretty stupid geniouses. Isn't it more likely that the reason is because there was more weight on top of the impact site of the second tower?

Weight brought down the tower? Interesting theory. Seriously though i think the point about it "barely" hitting is simply that it didn`t hit the main support in the centre. In other words it could not have been the impact that brought down the whole tower. I believe this is not the official explanation anyway but that is the point of that point. It was apparently the fuel. Again once you decide it was the fuel of the plane then you look at why the whole building came down from so little fire. There was fire but the fire was not as bad as it is made out to be. As for the bringing down of the towers in the wrong order that could conceivably be that the people who set off the detonators were not sure when or even sure what they were doing? It is called following orders. In military operations you know what you are told or you need to know. If this was a military operation then this is possibly why the towers didn`t come down in the expected way.

Finally the part about Newton's law and the proof of the "free-fall". You only need to look at footage from "Loose Change" itself to see that the tower was not in free fall, because debree flying off the upper floors that is actually in free fall overtakes the falling floors. At 52 minutes into the film you can see it, but pictures not included in the documenary show it much more clearly. Now how can something in a free fall be overtaken by another object in free fall?

Loose Change says NEARLY freefall. Ignoring the actual documentary makes it easy to debunk the documentary doesn`t it?

Edited May 26, 2006 by yabasta

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You say no matter what proof is put forward but you did not make it clear which "proof" you refer to. So speaking generally i will say that my opinions are based on the information i find and i do attempt to look for all available information too. Sometimes "proof" is on both sides aswell. 9/11 JFK and Diana are all very big subjects and i would rather not debate all at once in one place thank you. I never mentioned crop circles. I will debate each issue you speak of. The fact that you believe the official story of all of the first 3 events makes you look rather gulable to me. You again though are trying to discredit me which is something you should do on the topics at hand and not on semantics like the phrase "a lot". There is compelling evidence which brought me to believe that there was a cover up in all the above cases. You can argue the compelling evidence but you can not just assume your evidence is correct and attempt to debunk me based on that.

Simply pointing out that part of the reason conspiracy theories are so prolific and long-lived is because people don't want to disprove them. If you look at any of them you'll inavariably find compelling evidence on all sides. The problem is that the more proof that emerges to support the non-conspiracy angle the more firmly people seem to believe that a conspiracy took place.

Well see this is where you are being really annoying. It is a skill you have obviously developed over time. A lot to you might mean most but how can you possibly say "most" people would say it meant most?

There's such a thing as 'common-sense interpretation'. Lets put it out there then - see what others think...

I don`t expect to not be ridiculed by soldier boys as a lot of them are not smart enough to debate on the points of real value and importance. See i can wink just like. Again i don`t need to offer evidence for an opinion. I don`t need to answer to you as i am not in the army. If you look at the institution logically you will see it`s role and you will see how that role would appeal to certain people and how that institutions practices would affect those people.

Sure - but the 'real points of value and importance' for many is the suggestion that 'a lot' of people in the military are intellectually sub-par. You offered and continue to offer no direct evidence whatsoever to justify this claim.

Once again, my question for you is what specifically is it that leads you to this conclusion?

Well actually i don`t own a tv right now and haven`t had one in this country for some time now. You are way off with your armchair analysis of me. Sorry. I gave a few sources of information for you. If you don`t really want to go indepth then you can just see the soldiers on t.v. Again i didn`t make a sweepign statement as i said a lot and not all. The evidence to debate me was figures regarding their "education".

OK - but suppose you do want to go in depth. What specific sources are you using to reach the conclusion that you have previously stated?

[Fuzzness 2]

aren't you people done yet or are you going into overtime now?

the game doesnt seem tied to me

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

aren't you people done yet or are you going into overtime now?

the game doesnt seem tied to me

i broke my 15 place scientific calculator figuring the score........

[Mirorgate 0]

aren't you people done yet or are you going into overtime now?

the game doesnt seem tied to me

i broke my 15 place scientific calculator figuring the score........

Abacus

[almaty 19]

damn...let it go..time to whip another horse

[yabasta 0]

A few pages back you said that you personally don't believe that man landed on the moon... What 'proof' then would it take for you to believe otherwise?

Today, three abandoned lunar rovers still sit on the Moon. With the exception of their plastic parts, they will probably be sitting there thousands of years from now -- a silent testament to 20th century engineering.

"It's been very meaningful to me over the years to see the rover in pictures and photographs and on the television -- it's still sitting up there on the moon," Simpson said. "I had a little bitty part in putting it on the moon for who knows how long."

Source

Them's pretty good proof, I reckon. Someone will go back there some day, no doubt. And if these modules are not there, then...?

btw your link shows no evidence of the rovers being visible.

The flag should not be waving if there is no air on the moon right? So again i think the moon landings seen on t.v. were faked.

[almaty 19]

no mas..... you both right...please ...no mas...people at vj

[yabasta 0]

no mas..... you both right...please ...no mas...people at vj

It might seem a bit obvious but you don`t NEED to read any thread that you see as a dead horse. You do not NEED to reply as much as you do either. If you do feel the NEED to reply why not at least cover a topic within the off topic topics? If it is really too much then why not start a new thread that deals with something you feel needs flogging?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Congratulations on successfully and continuously completing one of the most useless tasks:

[yabasta 0]

How about if i point out that you and many others are all responding still but with less and less to say.

I think your initial post has long been forgotten but it seemed to me you thought the Pentagon video would somehow be like this

But it looked like this

So back on to your original topic what do you make of the video now it is released?

[almaty 19]

no mas..... you both right...please ...no mas...people at vj

It might seem a bit obvious but you don`t NEED to read any thread that you see as a dead horse. You do not NEED to reply as much as you do either. If you do feel the NEED to reply why not at least cover a topic within the off topic topics? If it is really too much then why not start a new thread that deals with something you feel needs flogging?

you, my friend, would have been great in the late 60s and 70s..now, what your write is obviously of a person who needs to feel like he is in the know...conspiracy therories...you need a ###### hobby..

[dalegg 143]

I think your initial post has long been forgotten but it seemed to me you thought the Pentagon video would somehow be like this

Maybe it's just my own perception here, but this video makes it appear that a 757 (13.6 meters tall at the tail), is as tall as the Pentagon (24 meters tall). ET, did you think the 757 that hit the Pentagon was almost twice as tall as all the other 757s when you posted the original video?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

no mas..... you both right...please ...no mas...people at vj

It might seem a bit obvious but you don`t NEED to read any thread that you see as a dead horse. You do not NEED to reply as much as you do either. If you do feel the NEED to reply why not at least cover a topic within the off topic topics? If it is really too much then why not start a new thread that deals with something you feel needs flogging?

you, my friend, would have been great in the late 60s and 70s..now, what your write is obviously of a person who needs to feel like he is in the know...conspiracy therories...you need a ###### hobby..

I say he seriously needs to get laid.

I think your initial post has long been forgotten but it seemed to me you thought the Pentagon video would somehow be like this

Maybe it's just my own perception here, but this video makes it appear that a 757 (13.6 meters tall at the tail), is as tall as the Pentagon (24 meters tall). ET, did you think the 757 that hit the Pentagon was almost twice as tall as all the other 757s when you posted the original video?

Man, you blow apart this whole piece that the conspiracy nuts have put together with much effort and in hard labor with just one common sense observation. Shame on you, bro. Shame on you.

Start playing fair, will ya'?

[yabasta 0]

The point of the animation i that it is a crude(and admittedly so) representation of what the Pentagon video should look more like. It is not meant to be exactly to scale as it was done by an amateur i believe. The official video on the other hand shows a Boeing 757 as being more like a foot tall and somehow that is reason to mock the amateur fake video and not the official one.

As for personal attacks get a new debating skill folks. Your chops are lacking.

I think your initial post has long been forgotten but it seemed to me you thought the Pentagon video would somehow be like this

Maybe it's just my own perception here, but this video makes it appear that a 757 (13.6 meters tall at the tail), is as tall as the Pentagon (24 meters tall). ET, did you think the 757 that hit the Pentagon was almost twice as tall as all the other 757s when you posted the original video?

I also notice you didn`t have a response for my debunking of your debunk. It is funny how you are so selective. Like you are holding on firmly to this belief that the earth is flat and that Lee Harvey Oswald was some sort of superhuman marksman and that somehow Boeing 757 get bigger and smalelr depending on which point you are trying to prove.

you, my friend, would have been great in the late 60s and 70s..now, what your write is obviously of a person who needs to feel like he is in the know...conspiracy therories...you need a ###### hobby..

I guess your hobby would be posting but saying nothing of note then.

Edited May 28, 2006 by yabasta