If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
You haven't even seen me post any info on here.
at
straws
grasping
My view is about what is more likely - a vast conspiracy involving remote control 767's or some religous nutters. We know the latter exists and the former is very unlikely. You work it out.
The mark of a truly critical and informed mind, indeed. :rolleyes:
There you have it folks, straight from the horse's a.. err mouth.
I'd prefer to listen to someone like Chomsky (duh, who he? thinks mr) than some random nutter like Joe Viallis on this.
bye ...
Seems like delusions of grandeur to me – you think everybody else is some kind of brainwashed zombie sleepwalking through life, whereas if only they had the daring vision of brave truth-seekers like yourself their little worlds would come crashing down around their ears.
Believing everything you read on the internet is as bad as believing everything you read in the mainstream media.
And its fairly widely recognised that the general public by and large is demonstrably mentally complacent, believing whatever they are told by authority figures. Such is the dynamic of "manufactured consent".
For the record I do not believe everything I read on the internet, only that which is both evidentially and logically consistent.
I don't know, like you, I'm not a structural engineer. However 2 big jet airliners laden with fuel crashed into 2 of the biggest skyscapers in the world which then collapsed into the ground which had a network of subway and other tunnels underneath. It wouldn't surprise me if that had something to do with destabilising other buildings. Its a lot more likely than remote controlled planes thats for sure.
I spent years working in an airport and a lot of my working day there was spent waiting in transports on the tarmac for the plane I was meant to meet to come in and land. Because of doing that I can differentiate 767s and 757s from other types of aircraft at a glance from miles away and the planes that hit the WTC definitely weren’t military aircraft or drones, they were Boeing aircraft.
Moving down the size scale from the imaginary drone aircraft that you believe hit the WTC, what’s the next biggest drone aircraft in operation?
I’m not surprised there were all kinds of conflicting reports from eyewitnesses on the ground – what do you expect in that kind of situation? Do you think the videotape and photographs that exist of the event were faked?
This man seems to think it wouldn’t have been that difficult for someone trained on a Cessna and a simulator - http://www.airsafe.com/journal/v1num16.htm
He is, of course, just another random person on the Internet but he seems to have a vague idea what he is talking about, and airsafe.com doesn’t immediately appear to be a front for the military/industrial complex.
As for the visual record of the planes striking the towers, I'm sorry, but however much you or I may be capable of confirming the class of an aircraft in close proximity ground conditions, the video footage on 911 of the highspeed collision have not to date been sufficiently clarified to confirm or deny them as the alleged commercial flights in question. Again, eyewitness testimony on the ground prior to the hit even had one field reporter exclaiming that it was a cargo plane of smaller scale than a 757 (i.e. potentially a 737) that was coming in over the immediately outlying burough.
As for your linked pilot's opinion, he even makes the disclaimer that he has limited experience and at no time acknowledges that the flight maneuvres made by the alleged strike pilots at high speed were not "routine" or "normal" flying conditions, but quite complex and difficult manuevres indicative of military flying skill (this has been acknowledged by post 911 military witness testimonies which you will find readily enough in the 911 research.
You want to dismiss the roster of well researched and evidentiary supported inconsistencies in the official conspiracy theory and believe in the the inflated myth of the shadowy boogeymen out to get us all, fine. But you havent debunked the logical plausibility of anything provided in this thread, so dont pretend you have.
more a growing community of intelectuals and specialists searching for the truth.
how anyone who can watch three buildings come down in precise demolition fashion ...three ...and not accept that these were controlled explosions is beyond me. it is also beyond an ever growing number of people who have read the endless lies from the official commision ...lie after lie being exposed.
take building seven ...in the official report the government response was ...well we just don't know what happened there ...
then the landlord lets slip in a tv interview ...the order to pull it was given.
to pull it means bring it down.
have you any idea how long it would take to wire a fifty storey building to bring it down like that?
get the architects blueprints ...order the explosives ...deliver them ...organise a company who know what they are doing ...
thats what defies belief.
BTW morrocan roll, did you know they've taken the word "gullible" out of the dictionary?
did they use explosives.
long but gets better as it rolls.
http://st911.org/
Since most are conditioned to defer to official pronouncements, most notably where fear of threat is involved, most have also refused to undertake the time consuming legwork to read through the documented research to see just how absurd the official tale really is.
That said, it is a far cry from presenting demonstrable indication of official collusion/orchestration of 911 by select individuals within the power structure to securing the unhindered full public judicial enquiry necessary for 1: securing the remaining data locked away and incriminatingly classified by the administration and 2: (more importantly) toppling not only the administration but the entire paradigm around which the subsequent global security/defence industry has flourished.
If that evidence confirmed the official assertions they would have rolled it out in spades to end all need for independent research into the matter.
Very interesting thing, is Mr. Blagsta.
It's quite uncommon for an "anarchist" to put the official versions of things forward as gospel and advocate only official solutions to things such as union membership, isn't it?
Even more so that he never takes a position of his own and only seeks to discredit others, especially those with alternative views. Another odd thing for an "anarchist" to be doing.
In short, he doesn't half defend the status quo for someone who claims to despise it. Perhaps you find this as amusing and curious as I do......
some anarchist aye ...
i think hes a lib dem.
:banghead:
i've looked and found nothing.