Allying yourself with the tinfoilers provides nothing but fuel for the MSM fire. Liberals are already being stereotyped as conspiracy nuts. This is like being stereotyped as a racist, then allying yourself with the Christian Identity movement. You are proving their point.
Someone who believes there were no planes attacking the WTC has absolutely no business whatsoever lecturing others about truth, facts, rationality or logic.
You seem to be aware of my basic position.
OK, this may seem like a silly question to you, but [if you wish] , exactly what “evidence” leads you to believe that planes struck those 2 buildings?
The fact thousands of people saw them?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJOwttgBpzE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Ty7Hc74o8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KW1QSclSXbA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfJoEcAPLcE
I too wouldn’t swear that actual planes hit the tower. As for the Pentagon being hit by a plane, I’ll never buy it. There are a number of technical reasons for this belief, mainly among which the knowledge that 1) the towers where designed to withstand the impact of a plane , 2) no aluminum plane could have punched through the steel column of the buildings and 3) even an experienced military pilot would have had a very hard time hitting the WTC with a commercial liner. A cruise missile is much more probable. At least, that’s what I would do, if I where a general asigned to plan 9/11.
As for associating ourselves with conspiracy theorists, I too must say that this would be unwise, for the reasons stated by others above. Yet this is a question of tactics, NOT personal belief. To echo others in this thread, I might very easily believe 9/11 “inside job” theories (like I do), but I would decline to make such views public. I believe that is the most sensible way to act.
As for “personal beliefs”, I see some CT’s as quite qualitative. After all we must see that CT’s do not interlap with Austrian Economic, thus they can be true at the same time. For example, many CT’s just seek to explain the structure of power nowadays, while AE just explain why such power came to be there, and what consequences does it have when used. I doesn’t matter one iota whether every nation is sovereign today, and its leaders are democratically elected, or there a web of “prime movers”, to be found in Masonic Lodges, Royal Families, or the like. So, we shouldn’t ban such theories FOR PERSONLA USE outright, but seek those that seem well-researched and see if we can get anything from them. As I mentioned a few times here, I myself find the Rig of Power insightful. Linguistic evidence are the only that can’t be falsified.
[:O]Who? Never heard of any.
Is that shading on the plane physically possible? It should be lighted, not in the shade. Look at the tower for reference of the sun’s position.
RE: Plane Shadows.
Even the truthers think the no-planers are off their rocker, and this point is no exception.
RE: Homosexual Libertarians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_and_LGBT_rights#Libertarian_socialism_and_LGBT_rights
On the right libertarian side of things, there’s Justin Raimondo.
I’m afraid that proves nothing. By the “truthers” own standard, only because most believe something, that doesn’t make it right. I’d still bet that no planes ever hit anything on 9/11. Logic seems to point that way.
And you’re ignoring mine.
I agree.
It’s called COINTELPRO.
Unless that’s also a conspiracy.
There must be something obstructing the sun… What can that be? Oh wait… There’s smoke. Nice try.
So it would be fair to say that, in your case , you believe that a search for 911 truth as to why the towers collapsed, using rationality and logic [ie primary elements of scientific investigation] involves the unconditional acceptance of unverified, non cross-examined “witnesses” and their media records as being beyond question - and that it is therefor safe to assume all of those witnesses actually exist and actually told the truth about what they saw - correct?
In other words, you believe that , in your estimation, unverified heresay “witness” quotes on file with various media outlets count as solid/ indisputable evidence in a rational, logical [dare I say it “scientific”] investigation into the events of 911- yes?
P.S Is that all you have as evidence? so-called “witness” “testimony” ?
Surely you have more substantial evidence for your case than unverifiable here-say at this time?
That same question can and should be asked of all media video that shows towers /planes.
As well as for the plane itself, often the light and shade are on the wrong side of the building(s) for the time of day- yet another clue as to the falsity of those network videos.
True.
The internal “logic” of the typical Alex Jones/ “Loose Change” “truther” crowd is that the government lied about what the brought the towers down , but its telling us the truth about everything else regarding 911- therefor planes hit towers, etc etc.
As Harry Browne used to say: “yeah, right”.[:D]
“Loose Change”- “Truthers” Versus “False in One False in All”
Leaving aside the fact that is entirely physically impossible for airliners to penetrate 500,000 steel and concrete buildings in one piece [and therefor videos that show that event are fakes], not one of these “truthers” is even remotely familiar with the simple to understand , logical consistency of the legal doctrine of “false in one, false in all”
[:)]
Hm, a good argument if it weren’t for one detail. The attacks at the WTC took place at 8 and 9 am, local time. The sun is pretty low that early in the day. While if you look carefully at the smoke and the plane, in order for the smoke’s shade to be projected on the plane, the sun would need to be pretty high. I submit that the shade of the smoke can’t be projected at that plane, at that hour, wouldn’t’ you agree?
First of all the above image still , and others like it is from a digitally created movie, not from an accurate rendition of a real time/real world event.
The plane is fake, the building images are fake, the shadows are fake etc. etc.
I understand your reaction- because I used to say the same thing.
However close investigation of the smoke patterns/shadows for all 911 videos over 1.5 years leads me to conclude that they all show the exact same endlessly repeated patterns and shadows in all the wrong places for the time of day - another clue that the videos are fake and that even the smoke in those videos was digitally created.
This[fake smoke] is not hard to do in fact. Digitally created smoke is a staple of the movie industry and has been for many years.
What we saw on 911 was mostly a made in the studio computer generated movie, not real -time events.
See**“September Clues” for a frame by frame analysis of media archives that demonstrate this theory[ including analysis of digitally created smoke patterns.**
He does tend to make libertarianism seem like a nutty conspiracy theory instead of a legitimate political philosophy.I’m glad he’s critical of obama though.
If it is not the smoke, it is clearly the building itself generating a shadow. Look at the angle that the plane is going in. Also, if you want to claim it is a grand forgery, you’d think that the digital artists would know about lighting.
I assume everyone who saw the planes weren’t real either… Or maybe the state possesses Joseph Smith’s mass hypnosis technique.
What a surprise, this thread has been hijacked by COINTELRPO.
“Also, if you want to claim it is a grand forgery, you’d think that the digital artists would know about lighting.”
You would think, certainly , but the video records show otherwise.
Besides, obviously , it was not necessary. In the heat of the moment the plan worked perfectly. Sadly, only “hindsight is 20:20”
It’s also possible that whistleblower video forgers on the inside deliberately left these clues for us [sunlight/shadow contradictions] and others [eg the famous one of the devil face in the smoke].
Shadows on buildings, planes, smoke, even in supposed “live” crowd scenes[people running away etc.], consistently show impossible and completely contradictory directions for prevailing sunlight. And that issue [sunlight/shadows] is just one element . Perspective is completely “wacko”, and camera shots originate from impossible locations etc. etc.
The list of inexplicable video anomolies [unless the videos were faked], is almost endless, I’m afraid.
See “September Clues” pts 1& 2 for a good “heads up” overview of these issues - assuming you are even interested, that is [:)]
As to the “thousands of witnesses” issue, first of all unverifiable witness testimony should play no part in a serious investigation of 911, in my opinion. Assuming you have an interest in scientific methodology, it is extremely unscientific [methodologically speaking] , for anyone to merely assume the truth of unknown, un cross-examined supposed “witnesses”, it seems to me.
Regardless, here’s what Austrian economist Morgan Reynolds wrote on the witness issue: " Most Witnesses at the WTC Heard And Saw No Planes"
Regards, onebornfree
P.S. And yes, I’m 100% “COINTELPRO,” whatever the hell thats supposed to mean[:D]
As for thousands of eyewitnesses, the very interviews had people clearly saying “something hit the tower, a plane or a missile, I’m not sure”. Only after the official version of planes came out everyone magically switched to “sure those where planes”. It is self-suggestion pure and simple. i can’t blame them, being bombarded by “the truth” from every channel alive, one come to humbly see how “wrong” his first impression was.
As for counter intelligence guys in this thread and stuff, well does it really matter? What difference does it make whether planes or missiles hit the tower? Does it even really mater whether it was an inside job or a true terrorist action? Nothing changes for us.
This thread, as I see it, is just us sharing our opinion, and, unlike other threads, will add nothing at all to our knowledge of the State. So, take it easier guys, we’re just having fun here, AE won’t change.
And than again, look at the bright side, if a counter-intelligence guy is really a Mises member, I bet that he’ll convert to an Austrian in a few months. One more victory for us.
I disagree.
If what you, I, and others elsewhere propose is accepted by an individual as being true : i.e. no planes hit the towers [you seem to believe that much] and the network broadcasts were entirely faked [I 'm not sure, but I’ll assume you agree with that for the time being], it can have a drastic , life -changing effect on that persons perception of what the state is actually capable of and what it will do, and no doubt has been doing since the inception of radio and TV systems, and exactly what the phrase “licensed by the FCC” means, in reality[:)]
Even for some here already somewhat cynical of the state- but still a little “wet behind the ears”.
I can only speak for myself, but in my own case, psychologically speaking, the effect of this new knowledge was very, very profound, far reaching and behavior-changing [not that I care one way or another if the information I presently believe has a similar effect for others].
But thats just little old me[:S]
Regards, onebornfree
P.S. And yes, I’m 100% “COINTELPRO,” whatever the hell thats supposed to mean[H]