Jack Thompson Tells Radio Interviewer He Wants to Kill!

errr, not much, since we HAVE a rating system and have done for a while...and they's still bitchin'

Ok, so, being the rational, reasonable person i "sometimes" am, i went looking for further info about the whole 9/11 thing. Specifically in regards to the video i linked you. A great deal of info is available detailing some fo the BS in said "documentary". I would say i am now not a subscribber to the whole "orchastrated by bush" train of thought.

That said prior to ever seeing loose change i, from my own reading, was ofthe feeling that not enough was done to prevent it.

For example, the proximity of air bases with properly equiped jets to the attacks sites was very close. there was well over an hour from the first impact to the last, yet we where unable to scramble jets in enough time to prevent the crashes even though based on the speed of the plans and the location of our air bases we coudl technicly get planes to any point in the continental US in less than 20 min(roughly) from the time an order is issued.

There was a recording of the conversation between the air traffic control tower and the people in the gub'ment in charge of that, that "supposedly" told them specifically not to send out fighters. Said tape was then taken by the manager of the control tower (airport? i dunno what the chain fo command is), who then cut it into hundreds of tiny pieaces and dispearsed it multiple garbage cans throughout the building.

That is not hearsay, that was news. News that was widely ignored.

I suppose i was a bit to suseptible to the loose change vid because of my preconcieved notions, but i still stand by my belief that some people within that administration didn't do as much as they could to prevent it. Possibly intentionaly.

Mind you i always thought the "Stolen gold" bit in LC was really rediculous.

Anywho, I just thought i woudl come on here and let you know that i'm the bigger man ;)

Booo, insulting ass hole. Hooray openmindedness!

Hindsight being 20/20, I'll agree that obviously not enough was done to prevent it, by the Clinton administration, who were in charge for 8 of the 10 years leading up to the attacks, and by the incoming Bush administration.

As to the Monday morning quarterbacking about the realtime responses to the attacks themselves, once again hindsight being 20/20, I feel it is unfair to judge too harshly. The men and women involved did as they were trained, the nature of the attacks making traditional respones to what could have appeared to be a "skyjacking" exactly the wrong things to do. As to fighter planes "stopping" the crash, I don't see how they could have done. Without knowing for certain what was happening inside the plane or foreknowlege of their intent, I can't see them shooting them down over the densely populated areas, even if they had, the carnage would have been massive.

I also prefer to consider my refusal to watch "LC" as a result of an intuitive knowlege that it is bullshit. That movie would have been an hour and a half of my life I'd never get back, and probably not a particularly enjoyable one either... Does it matter how I came to this conclusion when you have apparently arrived at the same place, albeit fashionably late?

Reminds me of High School algebra, I used to look at an equation and know the answer, but the bitch teaching the class refused to give me credit if I didn't "show my work"...what work? my subconscious just told me x is 5, you silly trull, if you want me to write it all out, ask me something my subconscious can't do in my head... Then, because her grading system, which she gave out at the beginning of the year, would have given me a passing grade, she changed it so she could fail me despite my having aced the final.

Well, at any rate congratualtions on coming to your senses...however you got there. The "9-11 Conspiracy" can take its rightful place alongside Nessie, Roswell, Sasquatch, and crop circles...

WOO, now some more fun discussin'!

The clinton administration did a great deal to prevent such attacks. there are actually multiple recorded events that where prevented. Not the least of which beign the millenium bomb plot (google it if you missed the paper that day). Infact, during his incredibly BS impeachment trials he was still issue bombing raids on terrorist camps/traing grounds. I recal all the spiners at the time saying some s**t like "no war for monica!" as if he was trying to missdirect.



As with all such things (support our troops!) i dont hodl the men and women who where just doign there jobs responsible. I hold the order givers responsible. We have plans in place for dealign with hijackings. Once a plane stops responding or turns of its com equipment a call is placed to the organization in charge of that (whose acronym escapes me at the moment) and someone in charge there (secretary of defense i think maybe?) gives the order to "Scramble fighters". The jets pull up to the ji jacked flight and try to convince it to land.

Once the first tower was struck, they had more than enough evidence to assume that the 3 other planes that had gone silent woudl do similar things. It took like an hour from the time the first tower was hit till the last plane crashed. While this whole thing couldnt have been stoped completley, there is a great deal of evidence that supports a stand down order beign given. Essentially letting the rest of the planes find their targets.




well yes it does. While your "obviously" impecable intuition is a usefull tool for split second decision making, all things of importance require investigation and deliberation. Scientific method and all.



been there. Never unfairly failed, but being forced to explain in details things i grasp more easily was always anoying.



now now... i still believe there are soem very shady things about it. And also, while i doubt roswell happened, you do believe that aliens exist right? Like, not visiting us per say, but that there is other life in the universe?
____________________

Gentlemen, if I could interrupt your suddenly conciliatory discussion that has hijacked this thread and stick my own oar in.

People have always feared the unknown. First it was the creatures outside the camp-fire, then it was the things in the woods, then it was aliens. The scope has spread as we have seen more of the world and its surrounds. Currently the fear has turned inward and is focused on closed institutions such as corporations, the military and governments.

Now I'm not saying that this fear is totally irrational, healthy scepticism is what democracy is all about, but some of this fear is misplaced.

In the case of 9/11, some people find it easier to believe that "the man" is working against them for his own reasons than to believe that their country is despised by foreign organisations. Mostly these people are the same ones who don't have a passport, can't name their neighbouring countries and have never been outside of their home state or county. This phenomenon is not exclusive to the USA.

Couple this fear with a genuine misunderstanding of the way, in this case, physics works and you will see enough inconsistencies to question what happened. There are so many inconsistencies that some huge conspiracy must be behind it, "the man" is doing this for his own ends!

And hence we get Roswell and UFOs, the Moon landings being faked and the conspiracy of 9/11 being organised by the government.

Everybody has questions about what happened on that day, especially those closest to the people who were killed. If someone presents you with a reasonable explanation for a question you have had yourself, you will be more likely to believe the answers for questions you didn't have. All of a sudden you are caught up in the whole thing and people who don't see your point of view are blinkered.

I'm not having a go at LUPOS here for believing this stuff, PreciousRoi's disinterest in seeing another point of view is just as strange to me. I love to see both sides and pit them against each other and make up my own mind based on as much evidence as I can gather.

The guiding principle I use in all of this is good old Ockham's Razor. The simplest solution is most often the correct one.

1) Government conspiracy with hundreds of people involved who all manage to keep silent and perform their tasks alongside non-conspiracy members without detection?

2) Small group of disaffected men who hijack planes and fly them into buildings?

I know which one seems simplest to me. That's not to say I don't still have questions myself.

Now now, i have no delusions about other peopel hatign my country. As i'm sure you've noticed from some of my posting I'm not always terribly fond of it myself. ;)

That said our governmen has a strong history of being caught doing things rather secretivley and lieing to the public about them, bad things. "it was for their own good, what they dont know wont hurt them".
Nixon, the contras, mysterious prisons in other countries where we detain peopel without charge, etc...

The simplest reason for anything is generaly what the government/media tells us. But I'd be a full on sucker if I believed everything they told me. Tis a bit of "boy who cried wolf" thing, cause now i don't know when to trust them :/
_______________

what about dick cheney taking control of NORAD from the generals just a few months prior and then failing to act, marvin bush being head of security there, all the evidence ie. rubble being discarded by mayor Giuliani despite numerous calls for an inspection of the rubble only for him to claim - falsely and ridiculously - 'he didnt know anyone wanted to keep it', what about larry silverstein's admission on tv that they 'pulled' building 7, what about the fact that no modern reinforced steel supported building has ever collapsed despite burning for upwards of 24 hours, what about all the chemical hallmarks of thermate, a supercharged version of thermite for cutting through steel, were found in a piece of the molten metal found at the bottom of the WTC and actually salvaged, what about the fire fighters reporting hearing bombs and explosions bringing down the building, and also the reports from the fire fighter that the fires were almost out? these same fires that were meant to have weakened the building drastically from head to toe, what about the muzzle orders placed on firefighters and the such, to stop them from talking about what happened?

just a few points, i apologise for being highly skeptical of the official story.

and 'usually the simplest answer is the right one' is a foolish one. the right answer is the right answer, be it complex or not.

NORAD! thank you, was buggign the hell out of me... and i was to lazy to look it up ;)

Yea, not to mention colin powel saying on the news that a missle hit the pentagon, then retracting it.

ALso all the video of the tiny explosiosn just below the collapse, as well as the insurance policy change by the guy who owned the bulding just before, and the put options.

I still think its a mess and probably very shady, but Loose change is also a s**t source due to how shady the story of its making is.

Meh, its terribel that i cant question somethign without beign lumped in with Roswell beliievers. Course i suppose its also terribel that i assume roswell believers ot be nuts :/

Curse you life and all your subtelties!!

__________

I actually found this a couple of days ago and found it quite informative. Answers a lot of questions regarding the collapse of the towers and WTC7 and other aspects of the attacks.

Popular Mechanics - 9/11: Debunking The Myths


That's why the phrase is "most often" or "usually" and not "always" - Ockham's Razor is a reasonably respected thought tool for deciding on an answer that is most likely to be the correct one, not an absolute rule.

As I said LUPOS, I'm not having a go at you for believing these things. It's easy to believe this sort of stuff, until you dig in to it. As you have done and have come out the other side discounting them.

It's part of the scientific process, take a theory, test it, come up with a new theory. Usually, this process tends towards simple explanations, hence Ockham's Razor.

im going out soon tyrion, but ill read that article later or tomorrow, thanks. but i must say, it may debunk some things but i heavily imagine i will still think its an inside job afterwards due to things that have irrefutably happened. thanks again though

i still say theres no place for that 'usually the simple one' in investigations though.

if it is the simple answer, then investigators will arrive at that conclusion through evidence, they dont need to be speculating based on mere level of convolution. that gets nobody nowhere

Fear not, i wasn't taking it personaly, notice my clever use of ";)". ;)

see what i did there?
___________

I actually considered invoking Occam and his trusty blade at one point, I think I did, in a lenghty post that got deleted by an inadvertent "back" button press or somesuch...

As to my refusal to forcibly expose myself to the propaganda film in question, I was already familiar with it by reputation. I have a friend who loves that kind of crap, and is constanly trying to get me to watch similar material. If I ain't gonna do it for a friend, who knows where I live and drops it in my mailbox or on the seat of my truck, why would I do it for a relative stranger from some internet forum? That and my layman's understanding of physics and engineering was satisfied by explanations given on the Learning Channel, or Discovery or whoever it was that I saw 5 different documentiaries about 9-11 on. To wit, the combination of the impact, followed by fire, led to cascading structural failures. Impact destroyed the effectiveness of the fireproofing which would normally have protected the structural members from the subsequesnt fires, which coupled with the visibly extensive damage the the exterior, which, in contrast to a normal, glass-clad skyscraper, is more important structurally, to produce the horrific results I saw that tragic morning. I just did not then and do not now see any point in wasting my time with what amounts to wanking material for Bush-haters. There are undoubtedly truths and half-truths woven in amongst the manure, but sifting though it would be unpleasant work for too little gain.