Just the fact that you say over 50% seems suspect. How much over? If it were really true I would suspect that we would not have heard the end of it from the media, and Bush would have been literally thrown out of office years ago.

Let the suspecting begin. No research means no answer.

Over 50% of Americans got screwed when Bush ambushed election results. Why should this be different?


.

Another opinion stated as fact!

LOL......that IS a fact.....I voted for him the first time, but not the second time around........
And I AM one of the screwed........

Explain how it was an ambush.

Easy......I am a Republican.........and he seems to be not one any longer.....

The politicians of the day are only led by money......NOT the will of the people any longer....the process has been sooooo f'd by the glut of money......

Obama might be a glint of light.........not that I support him.......I'm kinda riding the tide on this one.......
But if he gets elected, I have no doubt the he will not live 'till the end of his term.....
There are too many bigoted white boys in this country that would not stand for it......and a lot of folks that regard his 'muslim roots' as spit on our pillars.......is that a bad thing?

I am not sure they are wrong......

Wot you say?

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

I think lines in the sand like that make our species look worse than they already do. Only the ignorant hate that pure.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Just the fact that you say over 50% seems suspect. How much over? If it were really true I would suspect that we would not have heard the end of it from the media, and Bush would have been literally thrown out of office years ago.

Let the suspecting begin. No research means no answer.

Over 50% of Americans got screwed when Bush ambushed election results. Why should this be different?


.

Another opinion stated as fact!

LOL......that IS a fact.....I voted for him the first time, but not the second time around........
And I AM one of the screwed........

Explain how it was an ambush.

Easy......I am a Republican.........and he seems to be not one any longer.....

The politicians of the day are only led by money......NOT the will of the people any longer....the process has been sooooo f'd by the glut of money......

Obama might be a glint of light.........not that I support him.......I'm kinda riding the tide on this one.......
But if he gets elected, I have no doubt the he will not live 'till the end of his term.....
There are too many bigoted white boys in this country that would not stand for it......and a lot of folks that regard his 'muslim roots' as spit on our pillars.......is that a bad thing?

I am not sure they are wrong......

Wot you say?

Well that's not ambushing the results.

If you look at the evidence there is just too many anomalies to ignore!

You nailed it there, buddy!!!

Too many to detail? Not sure we've found any yet that reasonably confirm anything other than what the "official" story tells us. Though MrGray has tried.

Check out these forums......
The UFO Files- 9/11 Anomalies
The Underground Bunker
UFO Dbase

---

If you look at the evidence there is just too many anomalies to ignore!

You nailed it there, buddy!!!

Too many to detail? Not sure we've found any yet that reasonably confirm anything other than what the "official" story tells us. Though MrGray has tried.

Check out these forums......
The UFO Files- 9/11 Anomalies
The Underground Bunker
UFO Dbase

What, like this? Where the makers of the video appear to have not heard of time lapse video recorders, very commonly used for security cameras where there's not expected to be the need for high frame rate records of activity? In the link you'll see details of the time lapse capacity of a 120 minute tape, up to a maximum of 960 hours. 960 hours / 120 minutes = 480 times the duration of real time recording. As there are less than 480 frames per second on regular TV pictures, this means when using a 120 minute tape at maximum capacity there is less than one frame per second (frame rates on SDTV are about 25 per second, so the frame rate on a 960 Hr tape is about 1 every 20 seconds). The very first link in the very first forum you post, and if the anomaly ("impossibly low frame rate on Pentagon security video") were on Mythbusters the verdict could only be "busted". Need I go on?

Classic misdirection by the anomaly "researcher" when s/he states that cameras with frame rates of 1 fps cannot be purchased. It doesn't have to, it's the recording device.

[edit]Or how about this vid from the Underground Bunker, where Chomsky pretty much nails why the 9/11 Half Truthers are misguided.[/edit]

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If you look at the evidence there is just too many anomalies to ignore!

You nailed it there, buddy!!!

Too many to detail? Not sure we've found any yet that reasonably confirm anything other than what the "official" story tells us. Though MrGray has tried.

Check out these forums......
The UFO Files- 9/11 Anomalies
The Underground BunkerUFO Dbase

And if you don't like Chomsky, you could try some of the 9/11 Debunked vids on Youtube, for example:

Top 7 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Debunked in Under 1 Minute! 1 min
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition Not Possible 3 mins 59 seconds
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained 4 mins
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Plane Missiles" Explained 2 mins 29 seconds
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed 2 mins 57 seconds
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center "Topple-Over" Scenario 2 mins 27 seconds
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained 3 mins 52 seconds
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist 2 mins 9 seconds (a particular favorite of mine, demonstrating how low the half truthers will sink)
9/11 Debunked: Firefighters in the Impact Zone 3 mins 54 seconds
9/11 Debunked: WTC "Base Smoke" Identified 3 mins 59 seconds

On the question of how widely it is believed that 9/11 was an inside job, the answer a couple of years ago was not over 50%:

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

Source

See how easy it is to quote a source? There's really no need to ask people to go hunting purple and green zebras in New York City, is there?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Just the fact that you say over 50% seems suspect. How much over? If it were really true I would suspect that we would not have heard the end of it from the media, and Bush would have been literally thrown out of office years ago.

Let the suspecting begin. No research means no answer.

Over 50% of Americans got screwed when Bush ambushed election results. Why should this be different?

Already dealt with the first 50% mentioned here in my previous post, now to the second. This is true only if you ignore the facts that a sizeable portion of those eligible to vote chose not to in 2000, and further that there's a sizeable portion of Americans that are not eligible to vote (being under age, in jail, or whatever).

Wikipedia (and a host of others) tells us that in 2000 Bush won 50,456,002 (or 47.9%) of votes cast vs Gore's 50,999,897 (48.4%), and goes on to say a total of 105,405,100 were cast. Wikipedia also tells us that in 2000 there were 281,421,906 reported residents in the US Census of 2000. Of these about 10% were foreign born and may not have been eligible to vote, but it that means around 250 million people were not foreign born. So while 55 million voters (total votes cast minus those for Bush) were "screwed", 195 million were not. Looks to me that that's closer to 20% than 50 (though it also means that the President was chosen by a positive vote in favor of about 20% of the native born population).

Though I grant this may be a case of "Lies, damned lies, and statistics" :-)

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You should work for Fox news, Bobby,

You'd make a better side-kick to Rove than Chomsky.

;)

Was it a dream?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbgCttq8L_8




.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

You should work for Fox news, Bobby,

You'd make a better side-kick to Rove than Chomsky.

;)

Was it a dream?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbgCttq8L_8

Heh, "better than Chomsky", I have close relatives that would be very happy to hear that said of me.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

You should work for Fox news, Bobby,

You'd make a better side-kick to Rove than Chomsky.

;)

Was it a dream?

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbgCttq8L_8

Heh, "better than Chomsky", I have close relatives that would be very happy to hear that said of me.

Finally, something I can believe.

You don't know Rove very well. Noam would have a tough time with you, but would try.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Heh, "better than Chomsky", I have close relatives that would be very happy to hear that said of me.

Finally, something I can believe.

You don't know Rove very well. Noam would have a tough time with you, but would try.

I don't know Rove at all. No idea what you mean with Noam having a tough time with me, judging by his words (6 mins 49 seconds) we agree on what happened on 9/11.

But that's not really pertinent is it? Did you watch any of the 9/11 Debunked vids? Anything obviously wrong with them (apart from not supporting a US backed conspiracy)?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I have talked to a guy who worked on a tower crane that saw the plane in that attack ... but he could not say how big it was.

A crane operator who lacks depth perception? Sounds dangerous... ;)

(I think if I saw a plane, I'd know how big it was. But 'we' already know, I LACK COMMON SENSE.)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

I have talked to a guy who worked on a tower crane that saw the plane in that attack ... but he could not say how big it was.

A crane operator who lacks depth perception? Sounds dangerous... ;)

I think if I saw a plane, I'd know how big it was. But 'we' already know, I LACK COMMON SENSE.

I don't know about your lack or otherwise of common sense, just as I don't know how far away said crane operator was from the Pentagon, all Chris said was that the person who saw the plane was a crane operator. Said operator could've been 5 miles (26,400 feet) or more from the crash site at the time, and still be able to make out he saw a plane (the wings are a dead giveaway), but have no clue as to how big it was, just as I have very little clue how big the planes are that fly overhead at more than five miles distance, though I can still make out that they are planes.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

If you see no inconsistencies in the official story, there are only two possible reasons for it.


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

SIMPLE ANSWER HERE: WHERE THEN IS THE MISSING AIRLINER ?? Hidden somewhere I suppose==Where then are the passengers who were on that flight --Held in the Gulag I suppose--Get Real here folks !!

Here's the deal Bobby..... No one can PROVE that the 9/11 attacks WERE a conspiracy, but we can't say FOR SURE that they WEREN'T. All we can prove is that there are some inconsistencies that we can't REALLY explain. For those who see no inconsistencies there are two possible reasons.....

1)There are none
or
2) They just aren't seeing the big picture and want to believe it.

We will probably NEVER be able to prove that they were a conspiracy, even if they were.

P.S..... Bobby would make a good news guy ;)

---

There was a conspiracy---- by those who planned the affair--Fundamentalist-extremists whom have been bombing us for years prior. Did we plan W trade center bombing ten years earlier--Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, our Embassies.

Quite a long conspiracy spanning three presidents or so --wouldn't you say ?

regards,

Bill

There was a conspiracy---- by those who planned the affair--Fundamentalist-extremists whom have been bombing us for years prior. Did we plan W trade center bombing ten years earlier--Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, our Embassies.

Quite a long conspiracy spanning three presidents or so --wouldn't you say ?

regards,

Bill

Certainly much easier that way,


See: http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=48025


.

---

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Here's the deal Bobby..... No one can PROVE that the 9/11 attacks WERE a conspiracy, but we can't say FOR SURE that they WEREN'T. All we can prove is that there are some inconsistencies that we can't REALLY explain. For those who see no inconsistencies there are two possible reasons.....

1)There are none
or
2) They just aren't seeing the big picture and want to believe it.

We will probably NEVER be able to prove that they were a conspiracy, even if they were.

P.S..... Bobby would make a good news guy ;)

Indeed, prove the inconsistencies (not prove that there are unexplained events, prove there are things inconsistent with the "official" story). Despite the best attempts of many I have not seen or heard anything that cannot be reasonably be argued to be a result (i.e. consistent with) of the "official" story. While that remains the case I see no reason to think that the "official" story is, for the most part, correct.

Like Noam, I do not expect there to be 0 inconsistencies within the story over time, for instance the changing theory of why WTC 7 collapsed, initial evidence may have pointed to one thing and later simulations to another. But I find nothing in and of these inconsistencies to make credible the suggestion that explosives and/or thermite were used, there simply isn't the physical evidence to support this leap. Indeed, I find it understandable that it took some time for the reasons for the buildings collapses to be established, as there was an incomplete record of all pertinent data. Highlighting that the initial theory for the collapse of WTC7 was unsatisfactory did not point to a hidden conspiracy, merely an admission that not enough data was available to conclusively state what had happened. Why was there an accident on the FDR tonight? We may never know but the evidence found at the scene may initially point to a car going too fast and smashing into the back of another, and closer examination may show a brake failure. Does the initial finding suggest a conspiracy on the part of the investigators? The vehicle manufacturers?

There are probably many more minor details on 9/11 similar to the base smoke, that we do not have the advantage of video footage to provide a complete explanation for, and without that additional footage many different thoeries could be true. However as all the available evidence that we do have points in one direction, we need more than just an unknown cause of a particular event to completely overturn the "official" story, we need an actual smoking gun (for example, footage of people planting explosives), and that just doesn't exist, at least it hasn't been found yet. If you have it, share it, I'm certainly not averse to being angry for what my adopted government actually does, and I would make it my life's mission to see those conspirators pay for what they did. But I would have to be sure.

And as William said, the official story is a conspiracy theory, one for which the vast majority of the physical evidence discussed at length here and elsewhere supports.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I see no reason to think that the "official" story is, for the most part, correct.

Neither do I... ;)

(Lost in your own many many many words of wisdom, eh?)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .