It\'s information reflecting the views, ideas and interests of those saying it\'s a conspiracy. It\'s being disseminated by the advocates of the conspiracy theory so technically, by definition, it\'s propaganda.
lol, don\'t you just love dicionary.com? anyway even if you\'re right I wouldn\'t dismiss the entire theory, most of the articles you (RMJL) post in the acitivsm forum could be considered propaganda, does that mean it\'s worthless or untrue?
It\'s true...the info we spread is propaganda, too. I believe that there are many, many facts to back up what we say though...far more than what the government has when it comes to their anti-MJ propaganda. As far as articles that I post, that\'s just what they are...articles. I never claim that any one thing I post when it comes to articles is the absolute, positive truth! I post it as information. You all can make your own conclusions. I state my opinions and views on the possible legalization of marijuana and I base them on fact, not theory...and when it is based on a theory then I state that it\'s my opinion. This is a different situation though and as much as I wanted to stay out of this thread, I couldn\'t. I too, have a right to call bullshit and that\'s what I\'m doing. When there are actual people who saw the plane as it was coming in to crash, it\'s hard to even think that people could buy this crap. Since I know one of these people, I feel that I can call this crap....still my opinion, though. I\'m done.
8:44 a.m. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is talking about terrorism in the Pentagon. \"Let me tell ya,\" he says, \"I\'ve been around the block a few times. There will be another event.\" He then repeats it for emphasis, \"There will be another event.\" [AP, 9/16/01, Rep. Cox Statement, 9/11/01] Note that supposedly he doesn\'t know of the hijackings in progress, and says this two minutes before the first WTC crash. He makes other predictive comments \"moments\" before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon (see (9:38 a.m.)).
(9:01 a.m.) Bush later makes the following statement: \"And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, \'There\'s one terrible pilot.\' And I said, \'It must have been a horrible accident.\' But I was whisked off there - I didn\'t have much time to think about it.\" [CNN, 12/4/01] He has repeated the story on other occasions. [White House, 1/5/02, CBS, 9/11/02] However, it has been noted that Bush doesn\'t have access to a television until 15 or so minutes later. [Washington Times, 10/7/02] A Boston Herald article later says, \"Think about that. Bush\'s remark implies he saw the first plane hit the tower. But we all know that video of the first plane hitting did not surface until the next day. Could Bush have meant he saw the second plane hit - which many Americans witnessed? No, because he said that he was in the classroom when Card whispered in his ear that a second plane hit.\" The article points out that Bush had told the story more than once, and asks, \" How could the commander-in-chief have seen the plane fly into the first building - as it happened?\" [Boston Herald, 10/22/02] By 8:31 or 8:40, NORAD knew that Flight 11 was hijacked, and by 8:43, they knew Flight 175 was hijacked. Bush has just been briefed by his National Security Advisor on the situation. How he can only think, \"There\'s one terrible pilot,\" based on an impossible television viewing?
the aluminium that the plane is made of would be melted into the ground yet there was no trace, if it evaporated, which i highly doubt, then the steel of the plane would not, as it requires a higher temperture to melt, let alone vaporise!! you just don\'t get those kinds of tempertures from a plane crash. Peace out........Sid ps, did anyone acyually see the other crash site, of the plane in PA? maybe it was a truck explosion, and they just didn\'t wanna look red faced that terrorists, just drove right up to the pentagon, and blew it up! maybe when they realised that they had just came up the plane crash excuse, they realised, \"hey we need to make sure a plane dissapears now, or people will start asking questions\" so then they get an f-15\'s to shoot down a plane, and claim that there were terrorists on board it, and that the good citizens put up a fight.......job done! there are millions of possabilities, but one thing i\'m sure of, no plane crashed into pentagon. my sympathy goes to anyone who lost loved ones during the whole fiasco, be it by terrorists, or their own govt, just as bad as each other in my eyes..........Peace out......Sid
I don\'t think anyone is saying that it never happend. However there are many inconsistencies. For example: Mohamed Atta\'s passport was found (in perfect condition, after an explosion) why would you need a passport on a DOMESTIC flight. Also, on the list of passengers aboard the planes that were (supposedly) hijacked, there are NO NAMES OF ANY ONE OF THE \"hijackers\" His(Atta\'s) journals had been found (in a trash dumpster) written in ENGLISH. Here is a man who supposedlu despises America, and from many accounts he BARELY spoke english, so why would he write his journals in English ? Furthermore, the teachers at the flight training schools have said, that they (\"hijackers\") were not accepted at the school because they could barely speak any english, and their flying skills were even worse. It\'s all documented. Commercial pilots ALL agree that even for a expert pilot to nail the WTC, dead on, (even if they SOMEHOW managed to disconnect the onboard computer, to ALLOW them to crash the plane) would be NOTHING SHORT OF A MIRACLE. They (with MINIMAL training) did it TWICE ?? Hmm... More inconsistencies... Engineers that have seen the footage (planes crashing into WTC) UNANIMOUSLY agree that the T Towers would not, COULD NOT collapse the way that they did, just by a jumbo jet. Why on earth should the photograpers be jailed ???http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1059927 This is a great site also http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html Even if you throw out ALL the inconsistencies, why should the BUSH cartel be stonewalling efforts to get to the truth ??? The 9/11 committee has complained repeatedly that their efforts to find out what happened are being hampered and stonewalled by the Bush administration Mere propoganda ?? I don\'t knowwww...
Actually I have seen (unfortunately) the effects of a 747 crash into an appartement building. One big mess obviously but even a caveman could recognize certain airplane parts! From where I stood I could see clearly large parts of the fusilage and parts of the landing gear. Peace.
I am still trying to find the pic from Penn.. It also exploded but there were parts of the plane every where... It was easy to see that it was truely a plane.. The news said that the passengers over took the hijackers and no one could fly the plane. (reason for crash). I am not saying that there wasn\'t a plane that crashed into the pentagon.. I wasn\'t there.. I am stating the facts of events.. I watched this real close.. they never mentioned the Black Box, or some of the other things that they looked for in the other wrecks..
well.... the purpose of this thread has, to some extent, been fullfilled. whether or not a Plane crashed into the pentagon or not isnt really the issue. the point is to get you all to REALLY question everything you are told. never take anything for granted. krazi... your lack of understanding for their motive completely baffles me. i just dont know how to explain it to you. it seems so glaringly obvious to me. you did look at the links right? you do know about the PNAC and the Neo Conservative think-tank that spawned it in the early 90s right? rumjil... the brother of yours and the \"two suits\" with him who you say saw it... they ACTUALLY saw the plane make contact with the building, ie, crash? or did they mearly see the plane on a decent? or the aftermath from the bomb & truck? woops.. i mean \"plane\" hehe. to anyone doubting the motives or the grander things at work in a bigger picture.... These things are happening. They are real and will have a definate impact on everyone\'s lives, and for almost everyone, already has, mostly without people knowing it. the motive?..... to quote from their website: \"The Project for the New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership.\" meaning, that since no one else is trying to take over the world, they\'re gonna make a stab at it, largely to ensure that their principles are put apon all the peoples of the world. This is no easy task and is completely impossable to do in any real democracy, because the people will simply not support it.... that is, unless of course you can convince them that their safety is in danger without action, and then its easy to dismiss anyone who speaks out agains such action by simply labeling them as \"unpatriotic\" and such like. I would love to talk more on this right now, but this post has been considerably rushed... i have to leave in about 4 minutes ago.
I\'m quite aware of the Project, but that\'s hardly a motive, yes it\'s a motive for some to start an unecesarry war, yes it\'s proof that the people in power today are fond of imperialism even if that\'s not what they call it, but what in gods name does faking a single plane crash (at the pentagon) do for them? I\'m sorry my man but that\'s like saying the ocean is blue so people can\'t see all the way down to the bottom; it is true that you can\'t see the bottom of the ocean, and it\'s true that it\'s blue. But you can\'t prove that we can\'t see the bottom because it\'s blue and you can\'t prove that we\'re not supposed to see the bottom at all. I\'m not saying you\'re wrong, I\'m just not impressed with your reasoning in this case. Why not humor me and tell me specifically why faking a plane crash such as this would help them? Just like i\'d want you to explain exactly why the blue ocean obscures our view if that was your argument.
Everyone has the right to come to their own conclusion (they haven\'t taken that away, YET) However, I too am baffled by your comment. You say you\'re aware of the PNAC. . Aren\'t you concerned that 10s of thousands of innocent men women and children were killed, as a direct result of the policies set by the neo-cons in the PNAC ? You also say That is a very scary notion. I\'m not sure you understand the implications of this. ...??? I really don\'t see the how what you say here has anything to do with what you quoted. Excuse me if I sound offensive, but TO ME it seems like you are just not willing to accept any other explanation than the one we were given by the Whitw House. Again, if you haven\'t found ONE THING in ALL the info/links provided here to question what happend, then the way I see it, you\'ve already made up your mind and regardless of what anyone says you\'re \"not impressed.\" \"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.\" Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
lol, chiba thinks I\'m pro war you got it wrong dum dum, I\'m the a huge anti war activist, i\'ve been going to protests since the war started, i\'m just saying that i won\'t consider this particular theory above others without more proof or better reasoning
i thought i was right on this one, but i\'m glad i wasn\'t the only one who noticed it........this is from overgrow, from a post in pandoras box by critter, but i think digit also posted it somewhere as well.......... There weren\'t any explosives. It wasn\'t an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load! Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene,and which burns at a maximum temperature of around 800 C has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vapourizing 65 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 15 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about double that of the maximum combustion temperature of kerosene - let alone the boiling point - which is what would be required to vapourize a plane. And then there\'s about 50 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene. there\'s no way it was a plane that hit the pentagon............Peace out...............Sid
That\'s cool, man. Like I said earlier, everyone has the right to come to whatever conclusion. I personally believe that there is enough evidence already to at least put some doubt in my mind. You don\'t, which is way cool.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A28025-2004Jan18?language=printer It just doesn\'t make sense.
frankly, i\'m suprised at krazi\'s obtuse thinkin on this area of this subject. (but then i did just have a conversation with him when he was quite drunk, so that\'ll cloud things considerably)
That\'s where we\'re having a problem, there\'s nothing but doubt in my mind, I won\'t accept the government\'s version any more than this one, plus I still can\'t fathom what actually happened to the people on that plane, or what happened to the plane itself if the crash was indeed faked (but i haven\'t looked through all those links yet so that may change). I never said nothing was going on, i just don\'t see any reason to believe it\'s a faked plane crash, like one of Digit\'s poll choices sed: \"this is proposterous typical conspiracy theorist rubbish. there could be any number of ways to explain these discrepancies.\" Now i wouldn\'t go so far as to call it conspiracy theory rubbish but there really could be any number of ways to explain this, so I gotta call shinanigans on ya\'ll and say nuh-uh