NationStates Jolt Archive

yes, yes we are
so if a teacher can say "happy hanukah" or "happy rammadan" why should they be repremanded for shouting out a "merry Christmas"

Ah, the heart of the matter at last, PC is apposed to Christianity, as it is a

threat to its thinking.

PC is communism in the west.

Ah, the heart of the matter at last, PC is apposed to Christianity, as it is a

threat to its thinking.

PC is communism in the west.

you see, I could see an agrument for sensoring religion at public school (I wouldn't like it, but I would understand it) and thats what PC claims to be

but instead it only ever sensors one religions

and even if that religion wasn't mine I'd still be horrifically offended

but if the point is to keep these thing seperate then why is a teacher allowed to say "happy ramadan" or "happy kwanza" but could be fired if he/she says "happy Christmas"?

this isn't about multi-culturalism this is the clear-cut oppression of one segment of our culture and people

Did you even read my post? You know as well as i do i have no absolute idea about what sort of reaction come from a teacher saying "happy rammadan" or whatever. What makes you think theyre allowed? Youre just assuming.

Id hardly call it "oppression". Thats a knee jerk reaction. Christianity isnt going to be "oppressed" anytime soon. Certainly not in America of all places. Its flippant to say otherwise.

Im trying to play Devils advocate here though. I personally think the whole thing is Political Correctness blown a bit out of proportion, making mountains out of molehills type stuff. However, one could also view the exclamation of one religious holiday as the oppression of the others. So, using your argument (in a sense), i can see a reason for the action that was taken.

you see, I could see an agrument for sensoring religion at public school (I wouldn't like it, but I would understand it) and thats what PC claims to be
but instead it only ever sensors one religions



Exactly, Christianity.

So obvious, and people wonder why a backlash is slowly rising in America, the

slower it rises the better too.

Bush won on this, and was smart enough to recognise it.

That's the problem with Sharpton Liberalism- this whole affirmative action thing. However, the Christians are not the most persecuted group in America. Actually, the Christians were persecuted quite a bit- by other Christians. Various European immigrants were persecuted against, and quite a few of those were Christian. The slaves- same situation. But the folks that had it worst were the Native Americans. "Indian:This land was my land. Americans:BUT NOW IT'S OUR LAND! *massive mall falls into background*"

[QUOTE=Gnomish Republics]That's the problem with Sharpton Liberalism- this whole affirmative action thing. However, the Christians are not the most persecuted group in America.
Not yet, they will be for a while soon but, I reckon.

In law, you cannot discriminate against race, religon, sex, but... you can say

anything in public against, a) white people

b) men/males if their white

c) Christianity.

There would be shock and anger of course, if someone white(male) went off

against muslims, blacks, women.

If however the person is Black, female or another religon, and has a stab in

public or over the net at say white males or Christianity, no one seems to

mind.

So to give no touch rights to everyone, and exclude certain members of

society, reeks of hypocracy.

If PC is right, then it should include everyone under this umbrella of

protection, not just minoritys and women.

Terms such as positive discrimination are wrong, as it still discriminates

against certain people, who are not viewed as minoritys.

You should according to PC get the job according to your ability only, so why

does it then exclude whites, males, or even English only speakers sometimes

from this protection?


Various European immigrants were persecuted against, and quite a few of those were Christian. The slaves- same situation. But the folks that had it worst were the Native Americans. "Indian:This land was my land.

Agreed, but the Indians had to make way for America to exist, so as to

influence the world, and even save it, from Japanese Imperilism and German

Nazism.

If you look at history, things seem to happen for a reason, its like the whole

worlds history, has already been pre ordained to happen, in order to set up

future events, such as we have now.

Thats not strictly true, the fact that things have happened and fit together is just a fact of life.

Example: My arm is covered in scar tissue. Hey you know my arm must've been pre-ordained to be covered in scar tissue because I stuck it in the fireplace a few years ago.

Additionally, all the "you can say what you like to a white male christian and get away with it but not say anything to anyone else" is called positive discrimination in the PC tongue.

In my opinion its one of the biggest things wrong with western society, and the greatest hypocrisy ever created.

No Kusarii were harmed in the production of this post. Thank you.

[QUOTE]
Not yet, they will be for a while soon but, I reckon.
In law, you cannot discriminate against race, religon, sex, but... you can say
anything in public against, a) white people
b) men/males if their white
c) Christianity.
There would be shock and anger of course, if someone white(male) went off
against muslims, blacks, women.
If however the person is Black, female or another religon, and has a stab in
public or over the net at say white males or Christianity, no one seems to
mind.
So to give no touch rights to everyone, and exclude certain members of
society, reeks of hypocracy.
If PC is right, then it should include everyone under this umbrella of
protection, not just minoritys and women.
Terms such as positive discrimination are wrong, as it still discriminates
against certain people, who are not viewed as minoritys.
You should according to PC get the job according to your ability only, so why
does it then exclude whites, males, or even English only speakers sometimes
from this protection?




Agreed, but the Indians had to make way for America to exist, so as to
influence the world, and even save it, from Japanese Imperilism and German
Nazism.
If you look at history, things seem to happen for a reason, its like the whole
worlds history, has already been pre ordained to happen, in order to set up
future events, such as we have now.

Your first and second paragraphs go alone interesting together.

So, you're saying that white christians will inevitably be persecuted against, but this isn't a bad thing?

Your first and second paragraphs go alone interesting together.
So, you're saying that white christians will inevitably be persecuted against, but this isn't a bad thing?

Yes, its started, Tribulation, I think within ten years Christians regardless of

their colour, will be treated like the Jews of pre WW2 in the 1930's.

And it will be a bad thing.

I think this is terrible.... why are people picking on antichristians?

Honestly, poor antichristians always get the short end of the stick, and now they're being persecuted in America? That's just sick and wrong and...

Oh, wait....

It's just possible that that's not what the original poster means...

Yes, its started, Tribulation, I think within ten years Christians regardless of

their colour, will be treated like the Jews of pre WW2 in the 1930's.

And it will be a bad thing.

What is it about the christian extreme, that they just CAN'T WAIT for people to start dropping dead?

What is it about the christian extreme, that they just CAN'T WAIT for people to start dropping dead?

It isnt the extreme fool, this has been around for two thousand years, and it

is going to start happenning soon. I think

And no, Im not looking forward to it, and seeing people die, I enjoy living. All

my family, young nieces and nephew are Christian.

It isnt the extreme fool, this has been around for two thousand years, and it

is going to start happenning soon. I think

And no, Im not looking forward to it, and seeing people die, I enjoy living. All

my family, young nieces and nephew are Christian.

What has been around for two thousand years, pray tell?

I would LOVE you to provide some evidence this time...

You do know that Revelation was taken as having been completely fulfilled in 665, don't you? Because the Christian church just KNEW that 666ad was going to be the end of the world?

You know, they trotted Revelation back out again in 1000ad, because that HAD to be the end of all time.

I think they did it again in 1666, didn't they?

Oh - and in 1999 the loonie christian fringe was saying that 2000 was the end-time, right?

They're just CHAMPING AT THE BIT....

What has been around for two thousand years, pray tell?

I would LOVE you to provide some evidence this time...

You do know that Revelation was taken as having been completely fulfilled in 665, don't you? Because the Christian church just KNEW that 666ad was going to be the end of the world?

You know, they trotted Revelation back out again in 1000ad, because that HAD to be the end of all time.

I think they did it again in 1666, didn't they?

Oh - and in 1999 the loonie christian fringe was saying that 2000 was the end-time, right?

They're just CHAMPING AT THE BIT....

"OH NO ITS Y2K!"

"OH NO ITS Y2K!"

Seriously... not just the computer bug thing... there was even a set of books (or something) about it, called ..... "In Nomine"?

Something about the millenium being the start of hell on earth, and all that.

(Like we aren't getting enough of THAT, already?)

You have to read between the lines. ;)

It's the reading betwee nthe lines that makes me give up hope on standardied religions. Reading between the lines is like statistics: You can use them to prove ~anything~ if you work hard enough at it.

where are you from... they are the ones repressing Christians individuals from expressing their opinions.

Funny, then what is this:

Michigan ACLU Wins Fight for Christian Free Speech
http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/1263338.html

but we're not talking about starting or forcing prayer, we're talking about things like teachers saying "the word God appears in the constitution" "our founding fathers were Christians" hell even "merry Christmas" will get you in trouble in the NYC school system

Well "our founding fathers were Christians" would pretty much be lying, so it should get you in trouble. If I remember correctly, "the word God appears in the Constitution (if we are talking US Constititution anyways) would also be a lie." Do we really want our teachers being untruthful to students?

Makes me wonder how many Christians here have actually gone up to other people and said "happy Hanukah" or "Happy Rammadan".

Youre a multi-cultured society, try realising that.

Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me!

Hehe, I actually invited a Muslim friend home with me for the holidays since his family was all going to be overseas. Luckily, my family didn't scare him too much. =)

Yes...so how many muslims and Jews have walked past and wished you a

merry Christmas lately?

I've had both a Muslim and jew wish me a Merry Christmas.

Ooh! Ooh! Me! Me!

Hehe, I actually invited a Muslim friend home with me for the holidays since his family was all going to be overseas. Luckily, my family didn't scare him too much. =)
you seem to be the exception ;) (and same here ... two bushrat and lokesh)

More Christians were killed in the 20th century then all the other centuries of its existence and persecution combined.
just a lil fact that you might all enjoy (specially those who wish for such rampant persecution against Christians.)

More Christians were killed in the 20th century then all the other centuries of its existence and persecution combined.
just a lil fact that you might all enjoy (specially those who wish for such rampant persecution against Christians.)
Though have you looked at percentages ? um with population increase and all (and I would like to see your sources for this claim too)

I'll persecute YOUR MOTHER.

Christian's are responsible for over 50 % of the world's politics. IT's their own fault for branding the other half as Pagans and Communist Devil Worshippers. :sniper:

More Christians were killed in the 20th century then all the other centuries of its existence and persecution combined.
just a lil fact that you might all enjoy (specially those who wish for such rampant persecution against Christians.)


Mostly by other christians no?

You can't call world wars 1 and 2 religious wars, sorry but, no :p

you seem to be the exception ;) (and same here ... two bushrat and lokesh)

Yes - we LIKE Dempublicents.

She is a clarion-call of reason, in a tempest of disorder.

:D

Yes - we LIKE Dempublicents.

She is a clarion-call of reason, in a tempest of disorder.

:D
:D Yup :fluffle: :fluffle:

Well "our founding fathers were Christians" would pretty much be lying, so it should get you in trouble. If I remember correctly, "the word God appears in the Constitution (if we are talking US Constititution anyways) would also be a lie." Do we really want our teachers being untruthful to students?

Yes, but is Creator, with a capital C, not mentioning God? I'm tired of schools around the nation banning Christmas carrols and other songs from schools.

Yes, but is Creator, with a capital C, not mentioning God?

Well, that would be in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

However, it is not *necessarily* mentioning God. To a theist who believes in a God as Creator, it would be God. To someone who believes in polytheism, it might be multiple gods. To an atheist, it might be random generation.

Notice that the words used are "their Creator," not "the Creator" or "God".

I'm tired of schools around the nation banning Christmas carrols and other songs from schools.

This really isn't happening much, you know. But I do think it is going a little far. Teachers should not be able to lead students in Christmas carrols if anyone objects, but they shouldn't be outright banned.

Yes - we LIKE Dempublicents.

She is a clarion-call of reason, in a tempest of disorder.

:D

*blush* hehe =)

*blush* hehe =)

Serious... it's why we are all secretly GLAD you aren't an atheist...

Because, as far as we can tell, you are the 'rational' face in a largely ...erm... irrational crowd.

(Trying to think of a sufficiently delicate way of phrasing that...)

Serious... it's why we are all secretly GLAD you aren't an atheist...

Because, as far as we can tell, you are the 'rational' face in a largely ...erm... irrational crowd.

(Trying to think of a sufficiently delicate way of phrasing that...)
Yup helps us keep relizing they arnt all like the fundies!

More Christians were killed in the 20th century then all the other centuries of its existence and persecution combined.
just a lil fact that you might all enjoy (specially those who wish for such rampant persecution against Christians.)


We don't wish to persecute. We wish to ostracize. ^_^

Well, that would be in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

However, it is not *necessarily* mentioning God. To a theist who believes in a God as Creator, it would be God. To someone who believes in polytheism, it might be multiple gods. To an atheist, it might be random generation.

Notice that the words used are "their Creator," not "the Creator" or "God".


Correct!

And if you add in the use of "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" does make it more generic.

Then again they might have been druids! ;)

As to your earlier question; there is no reference to god or creator in the Constitution.

Despite their claims, the fundamentalists aren't really Christian anyway, and they're the ones who get hot to persecute others.

No, I am saying its true because it is. Most Americans can see it. The Democratic party is one of the worst persecutor of Christians in history. That's why the American people overwhelmingly rejected that party in the election and kept Bush in office. Cause the Dems would have banned Christianity.

I'd ask if you're joking, but judging from your tone... I'm afraid you're being quite serious. The Democrats are just as deeply entrenched in people who claim to be Christian as the Republicans are. Religion had very little to do with the way this last election went -- it was more a function of propaganda, intimidation and good old fashioned ignorance than anything else.

Christianity is not nor has it ever been in any danger whatsoever in the USA -- unless you count the danger its own followers present to it with their hypocracy and refusal to adhere to its primary tenets while beating everyone else down with debatable Bible bits that support their favorite petty prejudices.

I'd ask if you're joking, but judging from your tone... I'm afraid you're being quite serious. The Democrats are just as deeply entrenched in people who claim to be Christian as the Republicans are. Religion had very little to do with the way this last election went -- it was more a function of propaganda, intimidation and good old fashioned ignorance than anything else.

Christianity is not nor has it ever been in any danger whatsoever in the USA -- unless you count the danger its own followers present to it with their hypocracy and refusal to adhere to its primary tenets while beating everyone else down with debatable Bible bits that support their favorite petty prejudices.

Personally - I think Bush won the election chiefly on TWO issues.

One: He directly attacked his opponent... ignored the issues, just kept up the personal attacks. I still meet people today who talk about Kerry the 'flip-flopper'.... like ANY politician EVER, had a career where he didn't have to pass motions he'd rather have opposed...

Two: He played the 9/11 card. Made me sick, to be honest, to see a man standing among the ashes of America's dead, as his election platform.

Religion, I figure, was actually way down on the list...

Personally - I think Bush won the election chiefly on TWO issues.

One: He directly attacked his opponent... ignored the issues, just kept up the personal attacks. I still meet people today who talk about Kerry the 'flip-flopper'.... like ANY politician EVER, had a career where he didn't have to pass motions he'd rather have opposed...

Two: He played the 9/11 card. Made me sick, to be honest, to see a man standing among the ashes of America's dead, as his election platform.

Religion, I figure, was actually way down on the list...

Grave honey I think you nailed that one on the nose. Bush has ever been a man of petty words and actions who seems to prefer to control through terror and intimidation rather than through intelligence and compassion. I still find it amazing that he actually made it to the presidency once, much less twice, considering the fact that his governing style is more reminiscent of the local schoolyard bully than that of an educated legislator fit to be even so much as a figurehead.

His exploitation of the events of 9-11 continuously shocks and disgusts me. The man has no couth and no decency. I find myself thinking that he must have been overjoyed that this tragedy occurred considering how much he has used it to further his own political goals and ambitions. It deeply saddens me to know that he has used this one horrific event to have us "willingly" give up even more of our civil and legal rights than we had already lost, to manipulate our nation into approving his own private war for profit in Iran (funny that his daddy set that government up and he takes it down) and to get himself elected again despite our nation's rightful dislike of him and his agenda of greed, intolerance and corruption.

Do we get to choose the manner of our own death?
I wanna die by old age!

Grave honey I think you nailed that one on the nose. Bush has ever been a man of petty words and actions who seems to prefer to control through terror and intimidation rather than through intelligence and compassion. I still find it amazing that he actually made it to the presidency once, much less twice, considering the fact that his governing style is more reminiscent of the local schoolyard bully than that of an educated legislator fit to be even so much as a figurehead.

His exploitation of the events of 9-11 continuously shocks and disgusts me. The man has no couth and no decency. I find myself thinking that he must have been overjoyed that this tragedy occurred considering how much he has used it to further his own political goals and ambitions. It deeply saddens me to know that he has used this one horrific event to have us "willingly" give up even more of our civil and legal rights than we had already lost, to manipulate our nation into approving his own private war for profit in Iran (funny that his daddy set that government up and he takes it down) and to get himself elected again despite our nation's rightful dislike of him and his agenda of greed, intolerance and corruption.

(Oh please... don't even get me started on 9/11... for a few weeks there, I actually believed it was a Terrorist strike... but, now, I'm utterly convinced it was all planned here, and carried out by 'our own side', just to give Bush and his 'Pax Americana' cohorts an excuse for war...)

But, whatever caused it.... thousands dead, and the guy is making political hay in their corpses. Sickens me. Really.

(Oh please... don't even get me started on 9/11... for a few weeks there, I actually believed it was a Terrorist strike... but, now, I'm utterly convinced it was all planned here, and carried out by 'our own side', just to give Bush and his 'Pax Americana' cohorts an excuse for war...)

But, whatever caused it.... thousands dead, and the guy is making political hay in their corpses. Sickens me. Really.

Where were you when people were ripping me a new asshole for saying we don't know the reason why we're fighting?

Anyway, I obviously agree with you. The whole war is just flat out fucked up, especially the fact that Bush is benefiting from it.

Where were you when people were ripping me a new asshole for saying we don't know the reason why we're fighting?

Anyway, I obviously agree with you. The whole war is just flat out fucked up, especially the fact that Bush is benefiting from it.

LOL.

I don't know - I think I usually catch the 9/11 threads...

Maybe I was at work, that day, or something...?

You know Ms. Rice admitted that Bush told her he was going to have to invade Iraq... before 9/11? BEFORE the war on Terror?

You know that PNAC's 'Pax Americana' came out the year BEFORE Bush even got 'elected' (ahem... ?) the first time... and called for regime change in both Iraq and Iran?

You do, of course, know that Bush owns business interests with the 'ibn Ladin' family of Saudi Arabia? That, during the enforced 'no fly' after 9/11, the ONLY international flight out of the US, was Saudi 'ibn Ladins' being flown back to Saudi Arabia... after a business meeting with GW in New York... while the WTC was still smouldering?

If it waS planned by Bush, that be the biggest conspiracy in US history. I guess I just cant accept that he would do something like that , that would result in so much death and destruction to the people of NY. He's a lot of things, but surely not that. :(

If it waS planned by Bush, that be the biggest conspiracy in US history. I guess I just cant accept that he would do something like that , that would result in so much death and destruction to the people of NY. He's a lot of things, but surely not that. :(

Maybe the biggest conspiracy... I'd say Sumter was a big deal, and Pearl Harbour was a crappy trick for a government to play, just to get 'into' a war.

You do know that the 757 that 'supposedly' flew into the Pentagon, left no wreckage, didn't even mess up the lawn, and was reported by air traffic controllers as being a military plane or missile? You do know that the three non-governmental camera's that photographed it's flightpath, all had their film confiscated by the FBI?

You do know that ALL of the first statements AT the Pentagon said it was a bomb, or something... and reported the smell of cordite... until the spin-control took over, when people started reporting it must have been a plane?

Nope- yet again I learn something new from my Big Brained English friend ;)

Nope- yet again I learn something new from my Big Brained English friend ;)
Oh thats not all thats big ;)

Oh thats not all thats big ;)

That's true.. I'm also very tall... *frowns at UT* lol :)

That's true.. I'm also very tall... *frowns at UT* lol :)
Yes you are a "tall" "fellow"

Nope- yet again I learn something new from my Big Brained English friend ;)

If you are not at work, or alone in the office... I have a link to a little 'article' (more a sort of documentary) about the Pentagon 'incident'.

It's kind of scary, really...

http://www.scam.com/images/pentagon.swf

That link SHOULD work... like I say, it's kind of a 'movie', so maybe not ultra-work-friendly.

(It's a bit of a big file, too... took me about 5 minutes to spool it up on my crappy 56k modem connection)

Thanks Gravy! I'm at work but I can pretty much take a look at anything. (And no UT I dont look at porn-lol)

Thanks Gravy! I'm at work but I can pretty much take a look at anything. (And no UT I dont look at porn-lol)
You keep telling yourself that ... maybe one day it will be true :fluffle: :fluffle:

You keep telling yourself that ... maybe one day it will be true :fluffle: :fluffle:

Oooh, you're a bad man... :0

Oooh, you're a bad man... :0
I hear women like bad men ;) lol I dont know never tried it myself thought I would give it a go

If you are not at work, or alone in the office... I have a link to a little 'article' (more a sort of documentary) about the Pentagon 'incident'.

It's kind of scary, really...

http://www.scam.com/images/pentagon.swfWoah, brilliant! "Windows are intact, so it had to be a bomb or a missile!" Great work morons! It's a well known fact that huge fucking explosives (as from a cruise missile or a bomb capable of knocking right through a fortified concrete building) don't break windows 10 meters away!

"The lawn wasn't damaged, so it couldn't've been a plane!" A massive intellect at work! No, it isn't possible it hit the building right or very close to the ground floor, absolutely not, that's impossible for an airplane!

"There were huge amounts of miscellaneous weird pieces of metal there, that were obviously from a missile or a bomb, but no evidence of an airplane!" Oooh, nice logic there.

"This guy couldn't've flown the plane, his flight instructor said he sucked at flying!" Yeah, because as we all know flying an already airborne modern airplane at a huge static object is pretty darn hard.

I'm sure there are a few oddities about the incidents, and they should probably be investigated. But idiots like this just make it harder for those who might have somethin really interesting to say.

"This guy couldn't've flown the plane, his flight instructor said he sucked at flying!" Yeah, because as we all know flying an already airborne modern airplane at a huge static object is pretty darn hard.

Harder then you think ... ever try to land one? it is deffinatly a hard thing to do (and a runway is pretty static)

Harder then you think ... ever try to land one? it is deffinatly a hard thing to do (and a runway is pretty static)Urgh. Ramming a ½km (the Pentagon makes for about a 450m x 100m target from a shallow angle from the side) wide runway with the airplane would be pretty fucking easy. The problem is getting it to land softly on it.

Woah, brilliant! "Windows are intact, so it had to be a bomb or a missile!" Great work morons! It's a well known fact that huge fucking explosives (as from a cruise missile or a bomb capable of knocking right through a fortified concrete building) don't break windows 10 meters away!

"The lawn wasn't damaged, so it couldn't've been a plane!" A massive intellect at work! No, it isn't possible it hit the building right or very close to the ground floor, absolutely not, that's impossible for an airplane!

"There were huge amounts of miscellaneous weird pieces of metal there, that were obviously from a missile or a bomb, but no evidence of an airplane!" Oooh, nice logic there.

"This guy couldn't've flown the plane, his flight instructor said he sucked at flying!" Yeah, because as we all know flying an already airborne modern airplane at a huge static object is pretty darn hard.

I'm sure there are a few oddities about the incidents, and they should probably be investigated. But idiots like this just make it harder for those who might have somethin really interesting to say.

You are welcome to your opinion.

You did manage to miss some important facts though...

Witnesses in the Pentagon 'saw' the plane fly by, just below their windows... this same vessel that wasn't hitting the ground (no marks on the lawn) and that managed to hit a big target (yes), across a very small axis.

Next time you are at an airport... stop and look at a 757... then look at the 'impact' point on the Pentagon, then look at the windows the witnesses looked out of.

Then, do the math... a 757 is a fairly big bit of machinery.

You'll also notice... they didn't say there were huge volumes of weird wreckage. There seems to have been almost none, and what was found, was found in small discrete pieces.

I saw the wreckage at Lockerbie... the Pentagon incident doesn't look like a plane crash.

I'd really like you to cite something that explains why windows weren't broken, by the way. I lived in London, I remember streets damaged by IRA bombs a great distance away... broken windows, 'sympathetic explosions', etc.

Finally... okay - you personally found some stuff to take issue with, in this ONE source. But, it makes people think... so HOW is that detracting from people getting 'SERIOUS' information about the incident?

Did you post any?

Have you tried to put any 'serious data' about any of the 9/11 'theories', in the public domain?

Urgh. Ramming a ½km (the Pentagon makes for about a 450m x 100m target from a shallow angle from the side) wide runway with the airplane would be pretty fucking easy. The problem is getting it to land softly on it.

Hmmm, didn't answer the question, though.

Have you ever tried to land a plane?

Witnesses in the Pentagon 'saw' the plane fly by, just below their windows... this same vessel that wasn't hitting the ground (no marks on the lawn) and that managed to hit a big target (yes), across a very small axis.So the problem is that it is somewhat unlikely that they'd manage to hit exactly the ground floor? Unlikely it may well be. Maybe on the same order of likeliness as a group of Al-Qaeda linked arab terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the WTC and the Pentagon?

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying there's very little or no proof that it didn't happen the way it's generally accepted to have happened.

Next time you are at an airport... stop and look at a 757... then look at the 'impact' point on the Pentagon, then look at the windows the witnesses looked out of.

Then, do the math... a 757 is a fairly big bit of machinery.Seen the impact point of a cruise missile? Ever notice how those tend not to extend the explosion through several layers of a building, only fuck up the face the building and penetrate in a small area?

The actual hole in the reinforced concrete outer wall of the pentagon might be slightly smaller than the actual hull outline of a 757, but that's hardly definite proof. The plane would be expected to crush into a smaller space.

You'll also notice... they didn't say there were huge volumes of weird wreckage. There seems to have been almost none, and what was found, was found in small discrete pieces.A small volume (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/pentagondebris.jpg) of small discrete pieces (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg)? Depends on which pictures you're looking at, apparently.

I'd really like you to cite something that explains why windows weren't broken, by the way. I lived in London, I remember streets damaged by IRA bombs a great distance away... broken windows, 'sympathetic explosions', etc.TOUGHER WINDOWS. Another significant milestone will be installation of approximately 175 new exterior blast-resistant windows, beginning Feb. 5. The same type of windows designed for the renovated Wedge One will be used again, with some improvements. The strength of those windows, which weigh about 1,500 pounds each and cost $10,000 apiece, combined with specially designed reinforced steel frames, are credited with saving numerous lives on Sept. 11.
http://enr.construction.com/projects/buildings/archives/020204.asp

Finally... okay - you personally found some stuff to take issue with, in this ONE source. But, it makes people think... so HOW is that detracting from people getting 'SERIOUS' information about the incident?In a similar way as people who keep saying Darwin Was Absolutely Correct And All Christians Are Morons For Believing In Creationism detracts from people learning about theories concerning the history of the earth.

Have you tried to put any 'serious data' about any of the 9/11 'theories', in the public domain?Nope, but if I ever do put out 'serious data', I'll be sure not to use popular heavy metal music as the background.

Hmmm, didn't answer the question, though.

Have you ever tried to land a plane?Nope, never. Have you? Have the people who made that video clip?

Everybody semi-sensible I've ever talked to admits that flying an already airborne modern aircraft is very, very easy -- by far easier than driving a car, for example. I've flown around in a Finnish Air Force simulator (one of those where you sit in an actual cockpit). I've played my share of ultrarealistic WW2 flight simulators and Falcon 4.0. I've read a few paranoid ramblings about 9/11. I have never seen or heard of anything to suggest that flying an airborne modern aircraft would be hard to manage for anyone who has some basic training for the particular aircraft.

Nope, never. Have you? Have the people who made that video clip?

Everybody semi-sensible I've ever talked to admits that flying an already airborne modern aircraft is very, very easy -- by far easier than driving a car, for example. I've flown around in a Finnish Air Force simulator (one of those where you sit in an actual cockpit). I've played my share of ultrarealistic WW2 flight simulators and Falcon 4.0. I've read a few paranoid ramblings about 9/11. I have never seen or heard of anything to suggest that flying an airborne modern aircraft would be hard to manage for anyone who has some basic training for the particular aircraft.

Oh well, if you've played computer games, I guess I should bow to your superior knowledge.

Of course, I once played Fifa International Soccer, I wonder why Lazio haven't called me up for their team, yet?

Oh - one last thing... COMMERCIAL flight... a commercial flight is a very different proposition to a military vehicle.

I admit - I've never flown an aeroplane, but, my friend was a pilot in Vietnam (and DOESN'T believe 9/11 was a conspiracy...), but STILL agrees that the side of the pentagon wouldn't be a good target for an amateur pilot to be able to hit, at that speed, head-on, without so much as scuffing the lawn.

And - of course... how come it didn't even scuff the lawn by falling onto it? What, do 757's dissolve now?

Oh well, if you've played computer games, I guess I should bow to your superior knowledge.I bet myself $5 that you'd answer along these lines. I guess I win.

That's why I mentioned the military flight simulator and never having heard from any sensible person that flying an airborne modern aircraft at a huge structure would be particularly difficult.

Oh - one last thing... COMMERCIAL flight... a commercial flight is a very different proposition to a military vehicle.Modern commercial aircraft such as the Boeing 757 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757) are just as easy to manage while airborne as the Hawk (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/hawk.htm) fighter for which the simulator was made.

Interesting fact: the body exterior is a whopping 3.7 meters wide. Without the landing gear and the vertical tail fin the body is about 4-4.5 meters high.

I admit - I've never flown an aeroplane, but, my friend was a pilot in Vietnam (and DOESN'T believe 9/11 was a conspiracy...), but STILL agrees that the side of the pentagon wouldn't be a good target for an amateur pilot to be able to hit, at that speed, head-on, without so much as scuffing the lawn.And I agree, it's not a good target. I am highly sceptical about my own abilities to hit the Pentagon's ground floor straight on. But, like I said, the fact that it's not exactly the most likely occurance hardly proves it didn't happen. Also, what is the accepted speed of the 757 before it hit?

And - of course... how come it didn't even scuff the lawn by falling onto it? What, do 757's dissolve now?Who said it fell on the lawn? I know I didn't.

So the problem is that it is somewhat unlikely that they'd manage to hit exactly the ground floor? Unlikely it may well be. Maybe on the same order of likeliness as a group of Al-Qaeda linked arab terrorists hijacking airplanes and flying them into the WTC and the Pentagon?

I'm not saying it's likely. I'm saying there's very little or no proof that it didn't happen the way it's generally accepted to have happened.

Seen the impact point of a cruise missile? Ever notice how those tend not to extend the explosion through several layers of a building, only fuck up the face the building and penetrate in a small area?

The actual hole in the reinforced concrete outer wall of the pentagon might be slightly smaller than the actual hull outline of a 757, but that's hardly definite proof. The plane would be expected to crush into a smaller space.

A small volume (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/pentagondebris.jpg) of small discrete pieces (http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/13.jpg)? Depends on which pictures you're looking at, apparently.



In a similar way as people who keep saying Darwin Was Absolutely Correct And All Christians Are Morons For Believing In Creationism detracts from people learning about theories concerning the history of the earth.

Nope, but if I ever do put out 'serious data', I'll be sure not to use popular heavy metal music as the background.

I see... so you still subscribe to the "Foreign terrorist flew the planes" theory.... personally, that was one of the first things to go, for me.

For me, a cruise missile is possible... possibly in conjunction with pre-installed explosives... since the plane FORTUNATELY hit an unoccupied area...

Regarding the 'size' of the plane... while that MAY affect the size of the impact... I was rather more wondering how it flew by below windows that are only 20-30 feet off the ground, when you consider how 'tall' a 757 is.

I find it strange that you are somehow offended by the choice of music... oh well, I guess you are more impressed by the source, or how it's packaged, than by the content.

Me, personally... I'm glad found that little clip... it made me think about some things I already had thoughts about... and maybe it will encourage others, too.

I am sorry it didn't work for you.

I bet myself $5 that you'd answer along these lines. I guess I win.

That's why I mentioned the military flight simulator and never having heard from any sensible person that flying an airborne modern aircraft at a huge structure would be particularly difficult.

Modern commercial aircraft such as the Boeing 757 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757) are just as easy to manage while airborne as the Hawk (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/hawk.htm) fighter for which the simulator was made.

Interesting fact: the body exterior is a whopping 3.7 meters wide. Without the landing gear and the vertical tail fin the body is about 4-4.5 meters high.

And I agree, it's not a good target. I am highly sceptical about my own abilities to hit the Pentagon's ground floor straight on. But, like I said, the fact that it's not exactly the most likely occurance hardly proves it didn't happen. Also, what is the accepted speed of the 757 before it hit?

Who said it fell on the lawn? I know I didn't.

While I don't necessarily disagree that commercial flights are enormously difficult to manage... I think they are probably fairly difficult at the supposed low level that the impact would have necessitated.

Regarding the 'falling on the lawn'... well... little of the 'wreckage' of the 'impact' seems to have made it in, or through... so, it stands to reason there should be big chunks of plane on the lawn... right?

Unless this new generation of carriers evaporate?

I see... so you still subscribe to the "Foreign terrorist flew the planes" theory.... personally, that was one of the first things to go, for me.I don't really deeply care who flew what into it, and I don't consider myself as "subscribing" to any theory concerning it. My confidence level of the official story is not very high.

For me, a cruise missile is possible... possibly in conjunction with pre-installed explosives... since the plane FORTUNATELY hit an unoccupied area...Seriously, look into some pictures of cruise missile impacts. You can see a bunch of them, along with other missile impacts and before/after shots of guided bomb attacks here (http://globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/iraqi-freedom.htm).

Note how the explosions cause damage in all directions. Note how often the face of the building is smashed and burned but the building interior is not at penetrated far and very rarely does the explosion carry into the building without knocking out the whole building. Note the very large scorch marks around all large bomb and missile impacts.

Plenty more BGM-109 Tomahawk detonations here (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm). Again, notice how the explosions cause damage in all directions.

Regarding the 'size' of the plane... while that MAY affect the size of the impact... I was rather more wondering how it flew by below windows that are only 20-30 feet off the ground, when you consider how 'tall' a 757 is.So the fact that the frame of the aircraft is under 4m x 4.5m only "may" affect the size of the impact? Assuming the vertical tail fin was shorn off (which it absolutely would be on impact against reinforced concrete), it would be no miracle that the wall and heavily reinforced windows 20-30 feet off the ground were intact. Again, it may be somewhat unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

I find it strange that you are somehow offended by the choice of music... oh well, I guess you are more impressed by the source, or how it's packaged, than by the content.Yes, yes, I'm very offended, deeply offended.

Or, you know, I might find it funny that they're trying to pass on serious fact and they feel the need to put some "kick ass" music on the background. If you want to appear serious and factual and you want people to take you seriously and think about it, you probably shouldn't put popular culture music on the background. The music declares a certain attitude, and you don't want to look like you've got a lot of attitude when you're trying to be serious and factual.

Me, personally... I'm glad found that little clip... it made me think about some things I already had thoughts about... and maybe it will encourage others, too.Well, if some of the things mentioned on it are true (such as some video footage not having been released to the public, etc.) are true, then it's a worthwhile clip to look through. I just wish they'd taken those actually interesting bits and portrayed them differently.

The non-release of material is what pisses me off the most about the whole thing. FOIA is there for a reason.

While I don't necessarily disagree that commercial flights are enormously difficult to manage... I think they are probably fairly difficult at the supposed low level that the impact would have necessitated.Take up an easily manageable airspeed (250-300kts IAS or so?) and lock thrust settings (or allow the thrust autopilot to manage the speed, if available). Slowly swerve the plane into the correct heading at a decent altitude (500ft+). Approach at over 500ft and slowly correct the angle of approach.

Unless the conditions were horrible, I quite simply cannot see how keeping such a plane steady and on about the correct course (closer in you have a decent margin of error, since like I said it's a ~450m target) would be "fairly difficult". For an untrained person, yes, but not someone who has actual taken courses for that particular aircraft (or the 767 which has the exact same controls, or even the larger family with almost the same cockpits).

Regarding the 'falling on the lawn'... well... little of the 'wreckage' of the 'impact' seems to have made it in, or through... so, it stands to reason there should be big chunks of plane on the lawn... right?I don't see why. Most of the debris will have been pushed into the building by the rest of the 70+ meter long airframe. The rest, like parts of the wings and the tail fin that were clipped off, might have sent some pieces flying backwards because of the pressure waves involved, but most of those too would have been driven into the building.

I don't really deeply care who flew what into it, and I don't consider myself as "subscribing" to any theory concerning it. My confidence level of the official story is not very high.

Seriously, look into some pictures of cruise missile impacts. You can see a bunch of them, along with other missile impacts and before/after shots of guided bomb attacks here (http://globalsecurity.org/intell/library/imint/iraqi-freedom.htm).

Note how the explosions cause damage in all directions. Note how often the face of the building is smashed and burned but the building interior is not at penetrated far and very rarely does the explosion carry into the building without knocking out the whole building. Note the very large scorch marks around all large bomb and missile impacts.

Plenty more BGM-109 Tomahawk detonations here (http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm). Again, notice how the explosions cause damage in all directions.

So the fact that the frame of the aircraft is under 4m x 4.5m only "may" affect the size of the impact? Assuming the vertical tail fin was shorn off (which it absolutely would be on impact against reinforced concrete), it would be no miracle that the wall and heavily reinforced windows 20-30 feet off the ground were intact. Again, it may be somewhat unlikely, but certainly not impossible.

Yes, yes, I'm very offended, deeply offended.

Or, you know, I might find it funny that they're trying to pass on serious fact and they feel the need to put some "kick ass" music on the background. If you want to appear serious and factual and you want people to take you seriously and think about it, you probably shouldn't put popular culture music on the background. The music declares a certain attitude, and you don't want to look like you've got a lot of attitude when you're trying to be serious and factual.

Well, if some of the things mentioned on it are true (such as some video footage not having been released to the public, etc.) are true, then it's a worthwhile clip to look through. I just wish they'd taken those actually interesting bits and portrayed them differently.

The non-release of material is what pisses me off the most about the whole thing. FOIA is there for a reason.

I have seen missile impacts before, but thank you for the link. :)

For me... any outside interference seems cosmetic. The damage done internally, the fires, etc... make me think the CHIEF issue was static explosives, rather than a projectile... and, that any cosmetic 'crash' was constructed entirely to support a 'plane flew into it, bad terrorists... kill them all' platform.

Regarding the size of the vehicle... the most amazing thing to me is that it purportedly flew BELOW fields of vision... big plane... apparently flying very low indeed....... and yet, apparently, still never even grazing the turf.

I am surprised the music offended you. It was obviously added as the creators of the video assumed they had reached their 'climax' point, and adjusting their soundtrack for emphasis.

I have to assume you never watch ANY documentaries, if you haven't noticed such a thing before... although, admittedly, the average History Channel programme MIGHT not use the EXACT same piece.

Freedom of Information is a joke, made doubly funny by the fact that most people are too apathetic to even care.

For me... any outside interference seems cosmetic. The damage done internally, the fires, etc... make me think the CHIEF issue was static explosives, rather than a projectile... and, that any cosmetic 'crash' was constructed entirely to support a 'plane flew into it, bad terrorists... kill them all' platform.But, again, a cruise missile (specifically a Tomahawk, since that's the only kind of cruise missile commonly used by the US that's capable of that sort of damage) would have caused a very different looking hole, even on just the face of the building.

Also, why do you personally see the internal damage as evidence/proof/hint/something that it was done with explosives instead of an airplane? The firest spread over a huge area and burned extremely hot, but the actual hole in the building was quite small indeed. If it were explosives, it must have been a masterwork for whoever crafted those charges and incendiaries.

Regarding the size of the vehicle... the most amazing thing to me is that it purportedly flew BELOW fields of vision... big plane... apparently flying very low indeed....... and yet, apparently, still never even grazing the turf.I dare not comments since I haven't read a lot of eye witness reports.

I am surprised the music offended you. It was obviously added as the creators of the video assumed they had reached their 'climax' point, and adjusting their soundtrack for emphasis.

I have to assume you never watch ANY documentaries, if you haven't noticed such a thing before... although, admittedly, the average History Channel programme MIGHT not use the EXACT same piece.Oh I watch documentaries, quite a lot of them in fact. The serious ones hardly ever have music over the fact bits. The music that they do have is usually very laid-back, classical tunes that do not interfere at all with what is being shown and discussed.

Any serious fact that needs (rather bad) heavy metal music for emphasis is not a very serious fact.

Freedom of Information is a joke, made doubly funny by the fact that most people are too apathetic to even care.Then concentrate on that, and not paranoia about 9/11. If none of the eye witness reports or US and foreign intelligence reports, not to mention the most respected and least biased news sources available, can influence people's opinions on that, then maybe they could do something to make people care about the freedom of information.

This is not a spoof. There is an evil conspiracy by leftist liberals like Hillary Clinton, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Streisand, R. Kelly, and Al Gore to ban christianity and persecute christians in America.
Its an evil conspiracy we must guard against. They've been defeated for now. But I know they are still plotting. That's why they want to abolish the constitution. That's part of their evil plans.

What a nut. I laugh now. Here I go.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, that was nice...wait...

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Heehee...

Then concentrate on that, and not paranoia about 9/11. If none of the eye witness reports or US and foreign intelligence reports, not to mention the most respected and least biased news sources available, can influence people's opinions on that, then maybe they could do something to make people care about the freedom of information.

But, the apathy is the thing.

It takes something like a little 'flash' movie there, to even attract any attention. People just don't care.

They are quite happy to believe what ever Big Brother tells them... how do you fight that?

If we do, can I be chased off a big cliff by naked ladies wearing cycling helmets?

Oh, I do love that one. If we can't get that, though, can we at least just eat the salmon? I mean, that seems to be quite a nice way to go, and you get to drive to the afterlife.

For me... any outside interference seems cosmetic. The damage done internally, the fires, etc... make me think the CHIEF issue was static explosives, rather than a projectile... and, that any cosmetic 'crash' was constructed entirely to support a 'plane flew into it, bad terrorists... kill them all' platform.


OK, so let's assume for a moment the Pentagon impact was faked. What, then, happened in New York?

OK, so let's assume for a moment the Pentagon impact was faked. What, then, happened in New York?

What exactly?

I don't believe foreign pilots flew commercial aircraft into the WTC, if that's what you mean...

What exactly?

I don't believe foreign pilots flew commercial aircraft into the WTC, if that's what you mean...

OK, just wanted to check.

So, if the WTC attack was faked, too, why bother with the Pentagon? It's hardly likely to cause much more outrage.

There's also the question of what happened in Penn. Here we have the phonecalls that testify to the fact that the plane was hijacked.

Don't take this as an attack, I just want to see exactly how this theory is worked out.

So, if the WTC attack was faked, too, why bother with the Pentagon? It's hardly likely to cause much more outrage.That's what I was thinking, too. I mean, you've already taken over 3 passenger aircraft and crashed them somewhere. Why use a system of cruise missiles, pre-set and extremely complex bombs, hacking air traffic control systems, mindwashing/paying off "eye witnesses", etc.? Seems like it would've been easier to just take over one more airplane. Not to mention having to make AA Flight 77 disappear without anyone noticing.

OK, just wanted to check.

So, if the WTC attack was faked, too, why bother with the Pentagon? It's hardly likely to cause much more outrage.

There's also the question of what happened in Penn. Here we have the phonecalls that testify to the fact that the plane was hijacked.

Don't take this as an attack, I just want to see exactly how this theory is worked out.

Oh, I don't have a full theory planned out, or anything... I just don't think it adds up...

Regarding Penn. though... I have heard some recordings that are supposed to have been phonecalls from that flight... and, to be honest... I thought they sounded staged... like they were being read from cue cards.

Why the Pentagon AND WTC... well, maybe because one is an 'attack' on the people and one is an 'attack' on security... so, if you want a platform for WAR, you have the WTC, and if you want a platform for a 'patriot act' or something, you use the pentagon...

But seriously... having seen the WTC collapse... did you REALLY not think that the towers looked exactly like they were collapsing from base level damage?

But seriously... having seen the WTC collapse... did you REALLY not think that the towers looked exactly like they were collapsing from base level damage?Say what?! Yes, I really did not think they were collapsing from base level damage. And no matter how many times I look at video clips like this (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg) and this (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/woolworth_1.avi), I just can't see how it can you conclude that the collapsed was caused by damage to the base level. I mean, you can clearly see the topmost floors dropping first, and then the whole tower coming down from the top down.

Say what?! Yes, I really did not think they were collapsing from base level damage. And no matter how many times I look at video clips like this (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/close-up_north_tower.mpg) and this (http://plaguepuppy.net/public_html/collapse%20update/woolworth_1.avi), I just can't see how it can you conclude that the collapsed was caused by damage to the base level. I mean, you can clearly see the topmost floors dropping first, and then the whole tower coming down from the top down.

Personally, to me, it looked like rigged demolition charges set structurally, to make a big fuss, but to neatly drop the building pretty much in it's own footprint.

Oh, I don't have a full theory planned out, or anything... I just don't think it adds up...

Regarding Penn. though... I have heard some recordings that are supposed to have been phonecalls from that flight... and, to be honest... I thought they sounded staged... like they were being read from cue cards.

Why the Pentagon AND WTC... well, maybe because one is an 'attack' on the people and one is an 'attack' on security... so, if you want a platform for WAR, you have the WTC, and if you want a platform for a 'patriot act' or something, you use the pentagon...

But seriously... having seen the WTC collapse... did you REALLY not think that the towers looked exactly like they were collapsing from base level damage?

Penn.: staged? Well, these were phonecalls to relatives. One would assume they'd be able to tell who the caller was. Unless it was an actor with a very similar voice. But that involves a level of planning (finding passengers, discerning their voice patterns, finding contact details, finding a suitable actor) that most modern governments spectacularly fail to accomplish on a regular basis.

NY: I don't think had the attack on the Pentagon not gone ahead there would have been much more opposition to the Patriot Act.

As to the way the towers fell, well, from my recollection I say the part above the impact tilt then plough down through the rest of the tower. But that's only recollection.

I guess I just still don't see the staging of this particular attack as being overly plausible. Previous knowledge and inaction I can maybe buy, but this? Even ignoring the fact that it would take a level of organisation that modern governments usually spectacularly fail to accomplish (the coverup, more than the actual attack) it seems an overly risky strategy. A large commercial jet full of passengers equals a lot of variables. This is a risk worth taking for a terrorist organisation, who run at most the risk of a cell being shut down if the attack fails, but could lead to unimaginable consequences for a government if the plot gets out. A staged suitably grandiose conventional bomb attack, or a chemical/biological attack, would serve the purpose just as well. Besides, how many kamikazee pilots does the USAF have on its payroll?

As for it not adding up, well, life rarely does. This seems almost like a "God of the holes" argument ;)

Well, must go to bed now. Feel free to reply, will get back in the morning. I remain open to the possibility, studying history in any depth makes one aware of the kinds of attrocities governments will commit in the name of the greater good, but there's still some things I think make it a less plausible scenario than a straight terrorist attack.

Penn.: staged? Well, these were phonecalls to relatives. One would assume they'd be able to tell who the caller was. Unless it was an actor with a very similar voice. But that involves a level of planning (finding passengers, discerning their voice patterns, finding contact details, finding a suitable actor) that most modern governments spectacularly fail to accomplish on a regular basis.

NY: I don't think had the attack on the Pentagon not gone ahead there would have been much more opposition to the Patriot Act.

As to the way the towers fell, well, from my recollection I say the part above the impact tilt then plough down through the rest of the tower. But that's only recollection.

I guess I just still don't see the staging of this particular attack as being overly plausible. Previous knowledge and inaction I can maybe buy, but this? Even ignoring the fact that it would take a level of organisation that modern governments usually spectacularly fail to accomplish (the coverup, more than the actual attack) it seems an overly risky strategy. A large commercial jet full of passengers equals a lot of variables. This is a risk worth taking for a terrorist organisation, who run at most the risk of a cell being shut down if the attack fails, but could lead to unimaginable consequences for a government if the plot gets out. A staged suitably grandiose conventional bomb attack, or a chemical/biological attack, would serve the purpose just as well. Besides, how many kamikazee pilots does the USAF have on its payroll?

As for it not adding up, well, life rarely does. This seems almost like a "God of the holes" argument ;)

Well, must go to bed now. Feel free to reply, will get back in the morning. I remain open to the possibility, studying history in any depth makes one aware of the kinds of attrocities governments will commit in the name of the greater good, but there's still some things I think make it a less plausible scenario than a straight terrorist attack.

Well, I don't think it would be the first time that the US government had picked a risky route... look at Pearl Harbour.

Regarding Penn. who knows... maybe they picked a few passengers who didn't mind hiding out, relocating... and persuaded them to fake their own deaths... here call up and pretend to ba a hostage...

Maybe they really were actors, and it's just been assumed that the calls were genuine... were families traced for all the 'calls'? Or was it leaked straight to the media?

Regarding the WTC... it's hard to deny SOMETHING flew into the WTC, but that doesn't mean that those 'somethings' were passenger planes, flown by foreign terrorists. The US uses remotely piloted air vehicles already, and there is no reason why a drone shouldn't be mocked up to look like a passenger plane, to 'explain' a series of demolition charges...

You do know that the 757 that 'supposedly' flew into the Pentagon, left no wreckage, didn't even mess up the lawn, and was reported by air traffic controllers as being a military plane or missile? You do know that the three non-governmental camera's that photographed it's flightpath, all had their film confiscated by the FBI?

You do know that ALL of the first statements AT the Pentagon said it was a bomb, or something... and reported the smell of cordite... until the spin-control took over, when people started reporting it must have been a plane?

Those are bogus "arguments."

An airliner crashing at high speed usually leaves very little intact wreckage to even suggest that it was an airplane. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania plummeted to the ground nose-first and left nothing but small pieces embedded in the ground, yet eyewitnesses saw it fall from the sky. Note that when the WTC towers fell, there was no pieces of discernible aircraft wreckage found in the pile of rubble either. There also were no parts of desks, filing cabinets, furniture, etc. Therefore, somehow, the planes, and the contents of the buildings were mysteriously removed before the towers collapsed, right? :rolleyes:

ATC thought the hijacked plane might be a military craft because the hijackers had turned off the transponder, which transmits the plane's identifying data to ATC. There is no other "magic" way of identifying a blip on an ATC scope.

But seriously... having seen the WTC collapse... did you REALLY not think that the towers looked exactly like they were collapsing from base level damage?

Yes, it is quite obvious that the collapses started with the buckling of the structural steel at the points where the fires were burning.

Regarding the WTC... it's hard to deny SOMETHING flew into the WTC, but that doesn't mean that those 'somethings' were passenger planes, flown by foreign terrorists. The US uses remotely piloted air vehicles already, and there is no reason why a drone shouldn't be mocked up to look like a passenger plane, to 'explain' a series of demolition charges...Those "something"s are also undeniably the size of actual passenger planes. None of the known UAVs the US has is anywhere near that size. Still, assuming the US did have UAVs that huge, or simply rigged a passenger airplane to fly unmanned, then why bother with the explosives?

Most engineers agree that the impact and the flames from the fuel would be enough to guarantee a collapse. The impact and the fuel are undeniable, so why the explosives?

And, again, for this to work they must have caused 3 more commercial passenger flights with hundreds of passengers just disappear without a trace somewhere between a few minutes after take-off and the crashes.

Well, I don't think it would be the first time that the US government had picked a risky route... look at Pearl Harbour.

Yes but Pearl Harbour was about ignoring received evidence. This is a very easy thing to deny or explain away at a later date if discovered, and also very easy to cover up. If it were the case that the "Japanese" aircraft were in fact USAF bombers in disguise the analogy would be more appropriate, but I don't believe anyone is alleging that yet (well, maybe Skapedroe/MKULTRA).

Regarding Penn. who knows... maybe they picked a few passengers who didn't mind hiding out, relocating... and persuaded them to fake their own deaths... here call up and pretend to ba a hostage...

Maybe. It seems very involved, though, when the same result could just as easily be accomplished by arresting a fake "cell member" and getting a nice confession. I can't state this never did happen, but I guess I'll just have to invoke Occam on this one.

Maybe they really were actors, and it's just been assumed that the calls were genuine... were families traced for all the 'calls'? Or was it leaked straight to the media?

Don't know, it'd be worth checking out, though (too busy to do so right now).

Regarding the WTC... it's hard to deny SOMETHING flew into the WTC, but that doesn't mean that those 'somethings' were passenger planes, flown by foreign terrorists. The US uses remotely piloted air vehicles already, and there is no reason why a drone shouldn't be mocked up to look like a passenger plane, to 'explain' a series of demolition charges...

But then there's the planes that are supposed to have dissapeared and the families of those on the planes. These would have to be faked too. Again, we're getting into Occam territory. Besides, wouldn't a simple bomb do the job just as well and be far easier to cover up? Remember, the earlier basement bomb was only feet away from succeeding (as far as I can recall).

Those are bogus "arguments."

An airliner crashing at high speed usually leaves very little intact wreckage to even suggest that it was an airplane. The plane that crashed in Pennsylvania plummeted to the ground nose-first and left nothing but small pieces embedded in the ground, yet eyewitnesses saw it fall from the sky. Note that when the WTC towers fell, there was no pieces of discernible aircraft wreckage found in the pile of rubble either. There also were no parts of desks, filing cabinets, furniture, etc. Therefore, somehow, the planes, and the contents of the buildings were mysteriously removed before the towers collapsed, right? :rolleyes:

ATC thought the hijacked plane might be a military craft because the hijackers had turned off the transponder, which transmits the plane's identifying data to ATC. There is no other "magic" way of identifying a blip on an ATC scope.

Actually - Airliner crashes usually leave considerable amounts of wreckage, from what I've seen... and, in the scope of this commentary, bringing up WTC or Penn. are only weakening your argument on this matter, in my opinion - since I'm not entirely convinced an airline vehicle took part in ANY of the incidents.

Regarding what people 'saw'.... I'll take filmed evidence over an eye-witness any day. I've been one of the people helping out after a traffic accident, and watched four eye-witnesses give four different colours for the car involved... although, after they milled around chatting for a while, they all decided on one colour. People see what they want to see, or are told to see.

Oh - and there is at least one other way of assessing what you are seeing on an ATC scope, which is old-fashioned, perhaps.... you assess the flight of the body... and see if it matches what you consider usual. If the blip doesn't 'act' like a commercial flight, you might call it as a non-commercial body.

Actually - Airliner crashes usually leave considerable amounts of wreckage, from what I've seen... and, in the scope of this commentary, bringing up WTC or Penn. are only weakening your argument on this matter, in my opinion - since I'm not entirely convinced an airline vehicle took part in ANY of the incidents.

Regarding what people 'saw'.... I'll take filmed evidence over an eye-witness any day. I've been one of the people helping out after a traffic accident, and watched four eye-witnesses give four different colours for the car involved... although, after they milled around chatting for a while, they all decided on one colour. People see what they want to see, or are told to see.

Oh - and there is at least one other way of assessing what you are seeing on an ATC scope, which is old-fashioned, perhaps.... you assess the flight of the body... and see if it matches what you consider usual. If the blip doesn't 'act' like a commercial flight, you might call it as a non-commercial body.



:fluffle: :fluffle: mornin

Yes, it is quite obvious that the collapses started with the buckling of the structural steel at the points where the fires were burning.

No - it is quite obvious that the fire area and above did buckle... which isn't the same as saying that THAT was the cause of the collapse.

And, certainly doesn't rule out base level charges, and structural demolition charges, which caused a huge falling structure in a busy New York area, to fall (conveniently) into it's own shadow.

:fluffle: :fluffle: mornin
:fluffle:

Morning... I miss anything?

:fluffle:

Morning... I miss anything?
Not that I know of though not an arguement I am going to attempt to fight or agree with on so little sleep :D

Those "something"s are also undeniably the size of actual passenger planes. None of the known UAVs the US has is anywhere near that size. Still, assuming the US did have UAVs that huge, or simply rigged a passenger airplane to fly unmanned, then why bother with the explosives?

Most engineers agree that the impact and the flames from the fuel would be enough to guarantee a collapse. The impact and the fuel are undeniable, so why the explosives?

And, again, for this to work they must have caused 3 more commercial passenger flights with hundreds of passengers just disappear without a trace somewhere between a few minutes after take-off and the crashes.

An unmanned vehicle could easily be 'disguised' as a commercial flight... it wouldn't be TOO hard to disguise a small vehicle as a large vehicle... especially when it only has to be 'inspected' in flight, and you are planning to destroy it anyway.

The impact and the fuel are NOT undeinable.... you can estimate what the fuel payload for the alleged flight may be... and even calculate what you would expect might be left. You can approximate the mass and velocity of the vehicle, based off statistical evidence. None of that matters if the object that hits the building ISN'T the object you THINK it is.

Personally - I would say that you MIGHT crash 'planes' into a building that you have already rigged, JUST so that it looks like an outside job... and a scary one at that... I mean... imagine if terrorists can just hijack planes full of civvies, and crash them into buildings...

That would be a pretty good way to start regulation on EVERY individual who passes through US borders, with almost NO complaint from the citizens... and anyone that DID complain, you could paint as a terrorist, non-patriot, or sympathiser.

Yes but Pearl Harbour was about ignoring received evidence. This is a very easy thing to deny or explain away at a later date if discovered, and also very easy to cover up. If it were the case that the "Japanese" aircraft were in fact USAF bombers in disguise the analogy would be more appropriate, but I don't believe anyone is alleging that yet (well, maybe Skapedroe/MKULTRA).

Maybe. It seems very involved, though, when the same result could just as easily be accomplished by arresting a fake "cell member" and getting a nice confession. I can't state this never did happen, but I guess I'll just have to invoke Occam on this one.

Don't know, it'd be worth checking out, though (too busy to do so right now).

But then there's the planes that are supposed to have dissapeared and the families of those on the planes. These would have to be faked too. Again, we're getting into Occam territory. Besides, wouldn't a simple bomb do the job just as well and be far easier to cover up? Remember, the earlier basement bomb was only feet away from succeeding (as far as I can recall).

Re: Pearl Harbour... not actually considered the idea that it could be US planes as well as ships... hmmm. I don't THINK so, because Japan would have denied the action... and COULD have (with SOME conviction), since it would have been an element of their legitimate airforce being misrepresented.

Which doesn't hold true in WTC times... because there is no 'formal' terror army, to stand up and say... "no, they weren't ours".

I have given a reason, in one of the other posts, as to why the (seemingly) redundant aircraft be used in ADDITION to explosives... basically... because it gives you an extra political leverage, especially in controlling border crossing and immigration, etc.

An unmanned vehicle could easily be 'disguised' as a commercial flight... it wouldn't be TOO hard to disguise a small vehicle as a large vehicle... especially when it only has to be 'inspected' in flight, and you are planning to destroy it anyway.A small UAV can not be disguised as a commercial airliner. You can not just tack on dozens of tons of metal on a Global Hawk (http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=175) (largest UAV in use by US armed forces or intelligence) and extend its frame by 35 meters and wingspan by 10 to make it look like a Boeing 767 (http://www.airliners.net/info/stats.main?id=103). That would be like trying to tack on a couple of Main Battle Tanks on a hot air balloon.

You can see the size of the aircraft as clear as can be from the videos as they hit the WTC towers. The wing spans are slightly smaller than the total width of the tower, which means something like 40 to 50 meters. The fuselage of the aircraft is about as long or slightly longer than the wingspan. The Global Hawk has a wingspan of about 35 meters (clearly smaller than what hit the towers) and a fuselage only 15 meters long (maybe 1/3rd of the length of the fuselage of the aircraft that hit WTC).

The aircraft penetrate deep into the building and almost through, which means they were very heavy. The Global Hawk weighs 1,960lbs, less than 900kg. A Boeing 767 has an empty weight of well over 70,000kg. The damage caused corresponds exactly to what you'd expect of an aircraft the size of a Boeing 767, while a Global Hawk (or even this (http://www.gizmag.com/go/3399/), the newest prototype UAV from Boeing which weighs slightly more, at around 5,000kg) could not dream of doing that sort of damage, pre-set explosive charges or no.

The impact and the fuel are NOT undeinable.... you can estimate what the fuel payload for the alleged flight may be... and even calculate what you would expect might be left. You can approximate the mass and velocity of the vehicle, based off statistical evidence. None of that matters if the object that hits the building ISN'T the object you THINK it is.Have you got any suggestions (that aren't completely ridiculous, as with the idea that they were UAVs) as to what the objects are, then?

The Occam's Razor mentioned earlier by someone else works wonders here: Eye witnesses all describe they saw what looked like commercial airliners, specifically Boeing 767s. All video clips show what look exactly like Boeing 767s ramming the buildings. The impact and the damage caused both at the time of impact and afterwards (the collapse) both appear exactly like they would have been caused a commercial airliner with a certain fuel load having rammed them. From the eye witness reports, the video clips, and analysis of data of the collapses, there is nothing that even approaches being proof that two Boeing 767s did not ram the two towers.

Based on that, it seems rather logical to conclude that two Boeing 767s rammed the two towers, don't you think?

And as to the impact and fuel not being undeniable: You've got hundreds and thousands of eye witness reports and all those videos of the impacts. You can clearly see that damage done to the towers by the aircraft alone, as well as the huge fireballs that erupt. There could not have been (tens of) thousands of gallons of jet fuel rigged to go off in the center of a busy office space, so that fuel had to come from the aircraft. I'd really like to know, how would you go about denying that there were aircraft impacts (of the approximate kind you'd expect from a Boeing 767) and a large amount of jet fuel on those aircraft?

Personally - I would say that you MIGHT crash 'planes' into a building that you have already rigged, JUST so that it looks like an outside job... and a scary one at that... I mean... imagine if terrorists can just hijack planes full of civvies, and crash them into buildings...Well, aside from the fact that terrorists often do hijack aircraft and fly them places, and the fact that flying aircraft into objects as a kind of terrorist attack had been contemplated by a number of people (not least of which several terrorist group leaders and strategists)... Yes, some other instance could have done it. There are several other instances that might have some kind of motive and certainly can't prove they didn't do it. It's pretty damn hard to prove who was actually behind the crashes, especially if you go with the assumption that every single intelligence agency in the world is 100% corrupt and has never spoken the truth since Sep 11th 2001.

But, again, there's is loads of clear evidence available for anyone that shows those aircraft that crashed into the WTC towers looked and behaved exactly like Boeing 767s would be expected to, and there is similarly lots of reasonable analyses on the collapses available for anyone to go through to show that those crashes could easily have caused what happened. In the face of that evidence, the most logical conclusion is that two Boeing 767s were crashed into the towers and that's what caused the collapse. If you want to change people's opinions on it, you will have to come up with something better than shouting "Conspiracy!"

And, certainly doesn't rule out base level charges, and structural demolition charges, which caused a huge falling structure in a busy New York area, to fall (conveniently) into it's own shadow.What would the function of base level charges have been in the collapse? The base levels of neither tower gave out until the whole rest of the building had been reduced to a massive cloud of rubble falling down on it. Explosives set on the base level don't cause the building to start coming down 300-350 meters above the base level.

It's true that it's a bit difficult to disprove the existence of structural demolition charges in the buildings. I'm sure the building has been completely vacant at some point for an extended period of time and such charges could have theoretically been set up. But, again, they would have been utterly useless anywhere but the exact point where the planes will hit, to make sure that the collapse begins there. After that, the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete and steel and whatever else will make sure the building is demolished in the exact way it happened.

guys....this thread got WAY off-topic. Why didn't you just create a new one for this?

Actually - Airliner crashes usually leave considerable amounts of wreckage, from what I've seen... and, in the scope of this commentary, bringing up WTC or Penn. are only weakening your argument on this matter, in my opinion - since I'm not entirely convinced an airline vehicle took part in ANY of the incidents.

Regarding what people 'saw'.... I'll take filmed evidence over an eye-witness any day. I've been one of the people helping out after a traffic accident, and watched four eye-witnesses give four different colours for the car involved... although, after they milled around chatting for a while, they all decided on one colour. People see what they want to see, or are told to see.

Oh - and there is at least one other way of assessing what you are seeing on an ATC scope, which is old-fashioned, perhaps.... you assess the flight of the body... and see if it matches what you consider usual. If the blip doesn't 'act' like a commercial flight, you might call it as a non-commercial body.

Well, since you argue from a point of ignorance, anything is possible, I suppose. But feel free to refute what I wrote.

It is quite obvious that the crashes into the WTC, Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside were passenger planes. Most plane crashes occur on landing approaches or after takeoff, when the plane is traveling at a relatively low speed; thus, the large pieces of wreckage left behind, like tail section, pieces of fuselage, et al. When a plane crashes at high speed, like 500 knots and higher, directly into a hard surface like reinforced concrete (the Pentagon), structural steel (WTC), or the ground (Pennsylvania), the plane tends to be totally obliterated into small pieces. These planes were seen, and in some cases, photographed by still and video cameras, crashing.

I'm glad you admit that people see what they want to see. ;)

You should pass on your ATC wisdom to the FAA. :p

No - it is quite obvious that the fire area and above did buckle... which isn't the same as saying that THAT was the cause of the collapse.

And, certainly doesn't rule out base level charges, and structural demolition charges, which caused a huge falling structure in a busy New York area, to fall (conveniently) into it's own shadow.

It is quite obvious that the buckling and collapse of the upper floors is was triggered the chain reaction that brought down each tower. If there were demolition charges at the bases, the buckling would've been at ground level, and the towers would've fallen straight down but intact from the buckling point up. That rules out base charges.

You seem to be surprised that the towers collapsed more or less straight down (except for the debris that blew out to the sides as the collapsing parts pancaked onto each floor below. In Manhattan, as in most major cities, the force of gravity is predominantly straight down.

An unmanned vehicle could easily be 'disguised' as a commercial flight... it wouldn't be TOO hard to disguise a small vehicle as a large vehicle... especially when it only has to be 'inspected' in flight, and you are planning to destroy it anyway.

ROFLMAO!!!

It wouldn't be too hard to disguise a small craft as a large one, no, but getting it to fly would be something else. :eek:

Now, what does your 9/11 mythology have to do with the alleged presecution of Christians in the US?

Thanks Gravy! I'm at work but I can pretty much take a look at anything. (And no UT I dont look at porn-lol)

Hey... what's wrong with looking at porn? <MOPE!>

Well, since you argue from a point of ignorance, anything is possible, I suppose. But feel free to refute what I wrote.

It is quite obvious that the crashes into the WTC, Pentagon, and the Pennsylvania countryside were passenger planes. Most plane crashes occur on landing approaches or after takeoff, when the plane is traveling at a relatively low speed; thus, the large pieces of wreckage left behind, like tail section, pieces of fuselage, et al. When a plane crashes at high speed, like 500 knots and higher, directly into a hard surface like reinforced concrete (the Pentagon), structural steel (WTC), or the ground (Pennsylvania), the plane tends to be totally obliterated into small pieces. These planes were seen, and in some cases, photographed by still and video cameras, crashing.

I'm glad you admit that people see what they want to see. ;)

You should pass on your ATC wisdom to the FAA. :p

Yes... it is QUITE obvious that they were passanger jets.

That doesn't mean they were... like you picked out - people see what they want to see.

I have seen some footage that seems quite close-up (but could have been zoomed from who-knows-how-far), that makes one of the jets at WTC look very artificial... it doesn't even appear to have proper windows.

To be honest, I believe that the WTC 'objects' WERE passenger jets, but that doesn't make it so - I DON'T believe that they were necessarily piloted by evil revolutionaries from another country, though.

ROFLMAO!!!

It wouldn't be too hard to disguise a small craft as a large one, no, but getting it to fly would be something else. :eek:

Now, what does your 9/11 mythology have to do with the alleged presecution of Christians in the US?

Mythology... believe in a conspiracy, or not, your attempt to 'trivialise' it doesn't make it any more or less true.

Can you seriously not work out how a remote piloted drone could be 'disguised' as a much larger vessel, and yet still be a servicable vessel - for the purpose of self-destruction? Just phrasing it like that immediately put at least one perfectly servicable idea into my head...

I don't recall how we got to 9/11 from the alleged 'antichristian persecution of christians'.... maybe we jumped from one 'conspiracy theory' to another?

For someone who is spoofing, this fellow is sure acting passionate about it. Christianity is the worst persecutor that has ever existed, selling unused churches to become mosques is NOT persecution, not subsidizing Christianity is not persecuting it (this Faith-Based Initiative would make Thomas Jefferson turn over in his grave), the Christians are trying to shove their religion down our throats through legislation and public endorsements. Let a teacher "witness" on her lunch break, not during class! Let school prayer be student-led and before or after school, not during it and led by teachers! Let either ALL faiths have religious symbols in public places, or NONE! There is such a thing as an ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, people! You can preach at me, but I can make fun of you and scream back at you! How's that for a deal?

At least, I wouldn't actually put you into gulags, unlike the Red government of Tryphalia. :sniper:

For someone who is spoofing, this fellow is sure acting passionate about it. Christianity is the worst persecutor that has ever existed, selling unused churches to become mosques is NOT persecution, not subsidizing Christianity is not persecuting it (this Faith-Based Initiative would make Thomas Jefferson turn over in his grave), the Christians are trying to shove their religion down our throats through legislation and public endorsements. Let a teacher "witness" on her lunch break, not during class! Let school prayer be student-led and before or after school, not during it and led by teachers! Let either ALL faiths have religious symbols in public places, or NONE! There is such a thing as an ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, people! You can preach at me, but I can make fun of you and scream back at you! How's that for a deal?

At least, I wouldn't actually put you into gulags, unlike the Red government of Tryphalia. :sniper:Scary thing is that Whittier isn't spoofing--he actually believes Christianity is under attack--and in danger--in the US.

Christianity is a load of BS. The Bible was written by several dozen authors over centuries, and the Catholic Church in particular didn't decide on a final canon until the Council of Trent in 1545. Face it, the Church decided what was official dogma first, and tried to form a canon that agreed with them. Chrisitanity is based on ancient nonsense like the Flat Earth theory ("the four corners of the Earth" in Revelation, the "ends of the Earth" in several books, "as far as the East is from the West"- the East and West actually meet since the Earth is a sphere), a geocentric universe (which is why Galileo got in trouble with the Inquisition), and the notion that man is alone in the Cosmos. It's all bull. They thought Heaven was in the fucking clouds! "The sides of the North" indeed!

Face it- Nature is divine. Nature manifests itself through the gods, aspects or symbols of forces.

haha, i'd like to see some real proof that christians are persecuted in america. the only places they're persecuted are in areas like sudan or the middle east, where it's possible that they'll be murdered just because they're christians.
merriam-webster's defines the word persecute as to harass in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief. if there's so much evidence that christians are being persecuted in america, someone should be able to show specific examples of christians suffering because of their beliefs.

Can you seriously not work out how a remote piloted drone could be 'disguised' as a much larger vessel, and yet still be a servicable vessel - for the purpose of self-destruction? Just phrasing it like that immediately put at least one perfectly servicable idea into my head...A very small bit larger, especially around the fuselage, maybe for a very short and unstable flight. A "[...] much larger vessel [...]", absolutely not, nuh-uh, no fucking way. If you fuck with the way the design of the wings, you're going to be in serious trouble.

UAVs look like they do for a reason: they are very, very light planes meant to hover around an area at low speeds, thus they have a sleek, short, aerodynamic bodies and very long but rather narrow, non-swept wings. Passenger planes also look like they do for a reason: they are very heavy planes meant to cover great distances at reasonable speed while carrying lots of people, thus they have very long, tubular bodies and swept but slightly wider wings. The differences between just those design features simply can not be made up for by tacking on a bit of plastic/metal/fiberglass/whatever onto the airframe of a UAV.

And if you could, the thing still wouldn't fly. First and foremost, the engines of the aircraft that crashed into the WTC were obviously located in the same position as those on Boeing 767s. No UAV in existence has such double under-wing jet turbines, nearly all have a single jet turbine in the body -- such an engine would be trapped inside the newly largened airframe of the UAV-airliner-mock-up.

And even if you got rid of those problems, you wouldn't have anywhere near enough thrust to propel an aircraft the size of a Boeing 767 at the speeds at which they struck WTC with the engines of a 2000-9000lbs high-altitude glider. And even if you solved that problem as well, the impact of such a vehicle against the WTC would have looked nothing like what the actual impacts looked like -- the fake-airliners would have mostly crumpled up against or near the outer walls, and there would have been a very small flame compared to the huge fireballs that actually occurred.

So, like we've been saying for a while now, UAVs made up to look like airliners are a particularly ridiculous conspiracy theory.

Oh, right: Happy new year! Been 2005 where I live for 5 hours now.

No, I am saying its true because it is. Most Americans can see it. The Democratic party is one of the worst persecutor of Christians in history. That's why the American people overwhelmingly rejected that party in the election and kept Bush in office. Cause the Dems would have banned Christianity.
:headbang: I am a Democrat, and I can ASSURE you we wouldn't ban Christianity. Sure, we have a few wackos, but the majority of us are Christians ourselves. I'm Jewish, but I certainly would never belong to a party that would persecute ANY religion. Please calm down and take a few deep breaths. This Dem, for one, would be the first to decry such an outrage, and I wouldn't be the ONLY one, either. NO political party has any lock on virtue. Don't believe everything you read---no matter WHAT the source---and remember that the Constitution only prohibits an "establishment of religion", meaning a State Church supported by taxation on ALL, regardless of their faith. Christianity is in no danger of being either "established" or banned. You may have fallen victim to a biased website or some other medium, but there is NO persecution of Christianity by Democrats, trust me.

Mythology... believe in a conspiracy, or not, your attempt to 'trivialise' it doesn't make it any more or less true.

Can you seriously not work out how a remote piloted drone could be 'disguised' as a much larger vessel, and yet still be a servicable vessel - for the purpose of self-destruction? Just phrasing it like that immediately put at least one perfectly servicable idea into my head...

I don't recall how we got to 9/11 from the alleged 'antichristian persecution of christians'.... maybe we jumped from one 'conspiracy theory' to another?

It's an interesting connection, though, since the conspiracy theory believers vs non-believers debate seems similar to that between theists and atheists, to my mind. Personally, though I accept both the existence of God and the fact that the 9/11 attacks were all faked to be possible I believe that on the balance of evidence and likelihood that the opposite is more plausible in both cases. Those who disagree with me in both cases can of course suggest certain evidence to the contrary, as well as certain facts that cannot be explained, or are seen as inexplicable, without the existence of God/9/11 conspiracy.

The problem with the views of both sets of believers is that they are non-falsifiable. There is no way to disprove the existence of a God or Gods, equally there is no way to disprove the existence of a 9/11 conspiracy. Both, then, are to an extent reasonable positions to take given initial assumptions. As is the opposite position. In other words there's no real way to resolve the debate.

Basically, I will leave the debate with this final comment: ignoring initial assumptions, which theory regarding 9/11 do you believe requires the more suppositions to be made above and beyond the material evidence?

Yes... it is QUITE obvious that they were passanger jets.

That doesn't mean they were... like you picked out - people see what they want to see.

They could also have been craft built by extra-terrestrials who copied Boeing designs but couldn't figure out how to navigate around buildings. The disappearance of other passenger flights at the same time is just an annoying coincidence.

They may have been just optical illusions, and no crashes actually occured.

Yes, you can develop all sorts of highly improbable explanations if you choose to disregard the evidence.

I have seen some footage that seems quite close-up (but could have been zoomed from who-knows-how-far), that makes one of the jets at WTC look very artificial... it doesn't even appear to have proper windows.

To be honest, I believe that the WTC 'objects' WERE passenger jets, but that doesn't make it so - I DON'T believe that they were necessarily piloted by evil revolutionaries from another country, though.

Again, you should make your aircraft expertise known to someone who can put it to use, not on this forum. Point out the lack of proper windows to someone who can verify your finding. ;)

The hijacked planes were actually piloted by nice, loving people. ;)

For someone who is spoofing, this fellow is sure acting passionate about it. Christianity is the worst persecutor that has ever existed, selling unused churches to become mosques is NOT persecution, not subsidizing Christianity is not persecuting it (this Faith-Based Initiative would make Thomas Jefferson turn over in his grave), the Christians are trying to shove their religion down our throats through legislation and public endorsements. Let a teacher "witness" on her lunch break, not during class! Let school prayer be student-led and before or after school, not during it and led by teachers! Let either ALL faiths have religious symbols in public places, or NONE! There is such a thing as an ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, people! You can preach at me, but I can make fun of you and scream back at you! How's that for a deal?

At least, I wouldn't actually put you into gulags, unlike the Red government of Tryphalia. :sniper:

Turning in his grave? Honey, Jefferson is THRASHING his way right out of it with all of this nonsense we've allowed to be legislated. Nearly every good idea the man has espoused has been discarded in our Brave New skin-Christian America. We're selling our rights to freedom of speech, our rights to the freedom to bear arms (both to defend ourselves from enemies abroad AND domestic -- right up to our own government), our freedom of religion, our rights to due process and fair trial by our peers... I could go on and on about the Constitutionally garaunteed rights we are selling cheap for a bit of illusional safety that these sheisters aren't providing.

WITNESSING does not belong in public schools, unless you line up representatives from every religion followed in the US, which is an impractical thing to say the least. I think some people are forgetting the meaning of equality, or it certainly sounds like it from all the wailing and moaning that this MAJORITY SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP is doing. Christian Churches STILL don't pay taxes on the HUGE amount of money they make and STILL recieve special priveledges that I'd call far from fair and equable despite the fact that Christianity has become big business. *shrugs* Looking at it from this angle, I'm of the opinion that these people have nothing to cry about.

I'm tired of all the Anti Christ persecution going on in America. I say hands off Bush till after January 20th. :D