World Trade Center

[myk]

AndrewB said:
Maybe I'm sticking my neck out here, but I feel it has to be pointed out.

Your neck'll be fine, you being a well-established user and bringing this up with a decent dose of politeness. I replied some stuff by PM though since mod-activity discussion here is rather counterproductive.

[XDelusion]

This thread has no point because no one is willing to take some "time" and do some serious objective research of there own.
Without serious research how can anyone honestly assume they know anything?

Research what you think, research what you don't believe, look at everything from all possible sides (if you have the resources available that is).

Study government, the past, religion, it's past, advertisement, capitalism, etc.
Study everything, all is one and everything eventually leads to the same ultimate reality of which there is truely only one.

[alexz721]

In this case (and in most other cases), no matter how objectively you research something, you're still always going to form a subjective opinion unless you can prove your viewpoint without a doubt.

[XDelusion]

Well you can prove a great amount of history and in great detail, but no one seems to believe that.

[pilottobombadier]

Snarboo said:

Not trying to dismiss your beliefs, but in ballistic tests, the Carcano found in the book depository was more than satisfactory to make the wounds. It was a pretty powerful round, as I understand it.

It has more to do with the fact that both of those are semi-automatic rifles than the calibre of the round; Oswald's was bolt-action. 3 rounds were fired inside a second, as far as I can remember - a semi-automatic rifle would have been more suitable for that, don't ya think? ;)

[Snarboo]

pilottobombadier said:

3 rounds were fired inside a second, as far as I can remember - a semi-automatic rifle would have been more suitable for that, don't ya think? ;)

Yeah, that's basically impossible. I've heard there was confusion about the actual timing of the shots, however, and Oswald/the shooter would have had 3 more seconds than originally thought, bringing it up to about 8 seconds. That's still quite a feat, but perhaps more possible for a trained sharpshooter.

[Gokuma]

"Oswald was a fag."

[Zoost]

It is quit interesting to bring the murder on John F. Kennedy and the Attack on the WTC together. A Dutch journalist has made his theories on the JFK murder public on this website As he states: "Knowing the truth about the Kennedy Assassination is understanding America today." His main point is that the CIA and Mafia had and still have strong ties and had their reasons to do what they possible did. Also he states that Until now, no one has been able to prove anything other than the fact that the FBI and the CIA did little to help the Warren Commission.

Also I conclude that the official statements on the WTC attacks are at the least "weak". (for example the found passport of a terrorist...but no flight recorders? yeah right.)

It seems that both cases have helped the political aganda of the "elite" (former CIA and Mafia) And some people got rich on both acts (Oil, stock trading, etc).

I, like everybody else does not know what happended. The more reason to investigate this properly, if conspiracy theories help to get some proper investigation done, then so be it.

[baronofhell]

I know what happened!! Terrorists who were trained to fly hijacked the planes with boxcutters and slammed them into the wtc. The one that crashed in Pennsylvania or somewhere was heading for the white house. Or the one that hit the Pentagon was heading for the white house(I do find it strange that the Pentagon surveillance camera only showed an explosion and no plane at all)

Now, I think the movie's gonna suck and it's gonna be overly emotional.

PS excuse my typing, i'm hungover

[XDelusion]

Oswald was innocent.

If I recall all my facts correctly (I'm not high atm he he).

The CIA was pissed at him for deserting them in Russia, and choosing rather to stay behind and get a wife.

He later moved back to the US. Was sitting in a movie theatre at the time of JFK's muder.

Now granted no one saw who shot JFK, but within hours the police had Oswald under arrest.

Not long after his arrest, he was also gunned down.

You can find a lot more info and footage from the times in the History channel video: The Men Who Killed Kennedy, which you can aquire from a simple library loan.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00005UW74/sr=8-1/qid=1154294393/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-3503290-4552837?ie=UTF8

Also you may want to interlibrary loan the imfamouse Zapruder Film.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/630507190X/ref=pd_bxgy_text_b/002-3503290-4552837?ie=UTF8

For those interested in conspiracy theory, check out this film also aboot JFK:

http://www.archive.org/details/Bush_JFK_Zapruder

[GGG]

I wish Uwe Boll directed it. Then it'd be worth seeing.

[SulfurOccult]

yeah i think this movie is fucking stupid. i watched 9/11 happen on the news like everybody else, i don't want to go see some sensationalized, hollywood bullshit version of it.

[alexz721]

No no guys, it's a tasteful tribute!

[dher5500]

MasterOfPuppets said:

yeah i think this movie is fucking stupid. i watched 9/11 happen on the news like everybody else, i don't want to go see some sensationalized, hollywood bullshit version of it.

Agreed. I can't stand hollywood making a profit off of the death and suffering of hundreds of people. If the people making this film and the actors were donating their cuts to charity i'd might change my mind and see it. But i want to be no part of any profiteering from this tragic event.

[Xenaero]

baronofhell said:

(I do find it strange that the Pentagon surveillance camera only showed an explosion and no plane at all)

That plane was going pretty damned fast. But I thought they had captured an image of the plane, unless my memory is failing me.

[Zoost]

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Oh No!

[Darkfyre]

GGG said:

I wish Uwe Boll directed it. Then it'd be worth seeing.

Holy shit I hope you're kidding :p Actually, I suppose it couldn't get any worse, what's the worst he could do? Throw in some rap tracks, do some slow motion spiral shots, but I don't think his love of gore would bode too well with the viewers for this one.

[caco_killer]

DD_133 said:

That plane was going pretty damned fast. But I thought they had captured an image of the plane, unless my memory is failing me.

There's is a plane in that video. I remember seeing a slowed down version of it, you could clearly see the plane.

[Zoost]

caco_killer said:

There's is a plane in that video. I remember seeing a slowed down version of it, you could clearly see the plane.

clearly?

[Xanthier]

XDelusion said:

I don't recall saying it never happened, or that fire fighters and police officers did not go in and try to save lives...

...how you read that into what I typed is beyond me.

One thing you can bet on though, is that none of the people acting as fire fighters or police men will have a line in the movie that refers to sounds of explosions while on the bottom floor of the buildings.

On the other hand, in real life, a lot of peole did mention hearing explosions.

ANyhow, anyone ever watch National Treasure.

If you want to see how well Hollywood can butcher up the truth, then watch that one.

Of course you'd have to know your American History pretty in depth to see what I'm complaining about in the first place...

I believe that's called creative license, I didn't even bother to research anything in that movie to know most of it seemed pretty untrue. It wasn't a documentary afterall. More like Indiana Jones.

As for WTC, I found this interesting, especially for facts and not a lot of speculation and bias. I haven't made up my mind, but there are some serious questions that remain to be answered.

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

[XDelusion]

Looks like I was wrong:


http://prisonplanet.com/articles/august2006/010806worldtradecenter.htm


I still think it's going to suck though, will see.

[Xanthier]

Only when Oliver Stone's movie is rolled out nationwide on August 9th will we be able to comb through it for more proof that Stone is clued in to the 9/11 truth movement and the complete fraud of the government fairy tale.

This line ruined it for me. I prefer to hear things from a more objective source, regardless of what I believe about it.

[SYS]

Darkfyre said:

Agreed. I fucking hate Hollywood for this reason.

They made a movie about the prostitute serial killer that fed 'em afterwards to his pigs, this guy did this shit right down the road from me, and they made a fucking movie about it. This was only a couple years ago?

LOL, you lived near Willy Pickton? Farmer Willy's your buddy!

exp(x) said:

I have a hard time taking Nicolas Cage seriously. I hope to never see that movie.

Watch Lord of War. You will probably still have a hard time taking him seriously, but it's still a good movie.

fraggle said:

The only thing more retarded than a WTC film is WTC conspiracy theories.

What about WTC conspiracy movies?

[fodders]

Iraq takes longer than WW II


We're counting from the day Germany declared war on the US (December 11, 1941) to VE day (May 8, 1945). This is 1244 days. The Invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 at 21:34 EST when the US began their first air strike on Baghdad.

On August 15, 2006 21:30 EST the United States will have been at war in Iraq longer than it was at war with Germany in World War II

[TrlblzrTS40]

um.. so anyway about this movie, i went with some buds and we thought it was pretty bad. no character development, boring, mediocre acting and it didn't move us at all.. united 93 is a lot better take on it, more urgent, more powerful, more memorable, not to mention theres only so many times you can see nick cage in a movie before your just watching nick cage act instead of seein a real character.

[Kirby]

I honestly think that anyone who makes entertainment off of these events and then profit deserves a well-placed kick in the crotch

[Job]

fodders said:

Iraq takes longer than WW II


We're counting from the day Germany declared war on the US (December 11, 1941) to VE day (May 8, 1945). This is 1244 days. The Invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003 at 21:34 EST when the US began their first air strike on Baghdad.

On August 15, 2006 21:30 EST the United States will have been at war in Iraq longer than it was at war with Germany in World War II

The Iraq War, in the formal sense, was considered over when Saddam was ousted from power. Either that, or you could consider the war over when we defeated the Iraqi army. Even though many people consider the war still in progress, it techinically isn't. The Iraq War and the (potentially) impending civil war in Iraq are two very different things, though it could be argued that one was caused by the other. However, that's irrelevant to the timeline of the Iraq War.

Though I can't cite anything to uphold this, IIRC, the US government had repealed a declared state of War in Iraq due to one of the two previous conditions mentioned earlier.

[Hobbs]

Good god this thread is still alive just a few hours away from a month later? The things we find important here.

[Quast]

fodders said:

Iraq takes longer than WW II

What would you consider, say, a formal end to the war? The end of occupation? A sovereign government? Germany didn't have this until 1990.

[Bloodshedder]

Quast said:

What would you consider, say, a formal end to the war?

Cessation of combat activities by the invading force? If coalition forces left and civil war erupts, I think it's safe to say that isn't the same war.