|
9/11 Documentary - WATCH it in here (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| dcougar99 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Here's something I thought that could be added to that. Let me demonstrate it with an analogy. Person X murders person Y. Now typically in an investigation, you'd do some research on person Y's background, figure out who he/she generally associated with, who might have some motive to kill him/her or may benefit from it etc. Then you make a list of suspect and gather evidence to narrow down the list. The suspects are subject to questioning and, possibly, further investigation to determine their guilt or innocence. It doesn't matter who person X is, anyone could be a potential suspct, even someone with a blood relation to person Y. Normally, you wouldn't expect X to be related to Y, but it's still possible. So you wouldn't discount that possibility, hell, X could even be Y's parent. As long as you have reason to believe that a family member could have a motive, he/she is a suspect.
Now, this logic and line of reasoning is widely accepted and no one really has a problem with it. Or take a court case for example; similar concept. A lawyer is supposed to do the same type of research and use simliar reasons to determine who the culprit(s) are in a criminal case. The lawyer's job is essentialy to formulate a theory (with supporting evidence ofcourse). No one really has a problem with this eigther, correct?
But when the goverment is the suspect, it called a "conspiracy theory." Most people abandon all rationality and say you're "nuts" for using the same line of reasoning and logic that would go into a criminal case. That my friend, is complete hypocrisy. Oh, and on top of that, it's highly unlikely any investigation will take place into goverment complicity in the crime/deliberate inaction, especially by an organization affiliated with/selected by/tied to the goverment * hint hint, 9-11 Commision *. And that why it's hard to prove government complicity, because any investigation will be blocked (kind of like how the Bush adminisrtaion stopped any independent investigation into 9-11, and made their bull 9-11 commision :whip: )
Just my 2 cents. |
well put. some people are hooked to the system and cant see the big picture
 |
|
|
| priveye03 |
I believe there was a PBS special on the Collapse of Towers 1 and 2. In brief, explaining how construction of the different floors provided for the collapse. (I'm paraphrasing now) There weren't any supports along the floors, as to provide the highest amount of working space per floor, so the jet fuel upon impact soaked the outer steel beam support, providing for a destabilization of the support system and allowing such free-fall speeds. (That is very vague I know, but I'm not an engineer. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...779845?n=404272 for reference)
Also the "bombs" in the elevator shafts were no more then jet fuel entering into the elevator shafts and then combusting.
I think loose change can hold some truth, but I think the why the buildings collapsed will give some insight and a firm counter-point to the assumtion that bombs were placed within the Twin Towers.
edit: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/ |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Hey look who got a cease and desist letter?
>>More Here<<
 |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Here's something I thought that could be added to that. Let me demonstrate it with an analogy. Person X murders person Y. Now typically in an investigation, you'd do some research on person Y's background, figure out who he/she generally associated with, who might have some motive to kill him/her or may benefit from it etc. Then you make a list of suspect and gather evidence to narrow down the list. The suspects are subject to questioning and, possibly, further investigation to determine their guilt or innocence. It doesn't matter who person X is, anyone could be a potential suspct, even someone with a blood relation to person Y. Normally, you wouldn't expect X to be related to Y, but it's still possible. So you wouldn't discount that possibility, hell, X could even be Y's parent. As long as you have reason to believe that a family member could have a motive, he/she is a suspect.
Now, this logic and line of reasoning is widely accepted and no one really has a problem with it. Or take a court case for example; similar concept. A lawyer is supposed to do the same type of research and use simliar reasons to determine who the culprit(s) are in a criminal case. The lawyer's job is essentialy to formulate a theory (with supporting evidence ofcourse). No one really has a problem with this eigther, correct?
But when the goverment is the suspect, it called a "conspiracy theory." Most people abandon all rationality and say you're "nuts" for using the same line of reasoning and logic that would go into a criminal case. That my friend, is complete hypocrisy. Oh, and on top of that, it's highly unlikely any investigation will take place into goverment complicity in the crime/deliberate inaction, especially by an organization affiliated with/selected by/tied to the goverment * hint hint, 9-11 Commision *. And that why it's hard to prove government complicity, because any investigation will be blocked (kind of like how the Bush adminisrtaion stopped any independent investigation into 9-11, and made their bull 9-11 commision :whip: )
Just my 2 cents. |
+1
But in court there is discovery (def: Discovery - A process prior to a trial in which each side obtains facts and information about the case from the other side and from other sources.). Other than that you made an excellent analogy.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Hey look who got a cease and desist letter?
>>More Here<< |
The dvd is available from p2p and newsgroups. I believe the popularity of this film is what brought about the letter. Kind of like when Baigent and Leigh went to court recently (and lost) when the Da Vinci Code was put on celluloid even though the novel was out since 2003.
I would look into whether or not a claim was filed in the US Copyright Office since this is a copyright issue. C&D letters are not court documents.
If the courts have any petitions from the original holder then they should have been posted as well. But since I don't see any I look at it as when people fail to file a police report; it's as if the crime never happened.
US Code TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 5 > § 501. Infringement of copyright
(b) The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411, to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it. The court may require such owner to serve written notice of the action with a copy of the complaint upon any person shown, by the records of the Copyright Office or otherwise, to have or claim an interest in the copyright, and shall require that such notice be served upon any person whose interest is likely to be affected by a decision in the case. The court may require the joinder, and shall permit the intervention, of any person having or claiming an interest in the copyright. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by ogvh5150
But in court there is discovery (def: Discovery - A process prior to a trial in which each side obtains facts and information about the case from the other side and from other sources.). |
Small correction/question: If memory serves me correctly, isn't that a pre-trial process? |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
Yes but it was one definition I had found using google. You did say "Or take a court case for example".
Here are better definitions:
discovery ((law) compulsory pretrial disclosure of documents relevant to a case; enables one side in a litigation to elicit information from the other side concerning the facts in the case)
In law, discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party through the law of civil procedure can request documents and other evidence from other parties or can compel the production of evidence by using a subpoena or through other discovery devices, such as requests for production and depositions. In American law, discovery is wide-ranging and can involve any material which is relevant to the case excepting information which is privileged or information which is the work product of the other side.
In practice, most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery. After discovery, both sides usually are in agreement about the strength of each side's case and this produces a settlement which eliminates the expense and risks of a trial. The use of discovery has been criticized as favoring the wealthier side as one tactic is to make requests of information which are expensive and time consuming for the other side to fulfill. Tort reform supporters argue that such tactics are often used by plaintiffs' lawyers to impose costs on defendants to force settlements in unmeritorious cases to avoid the cost of discovery.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
Wouldn't something like this squelch all types of critics? Whether they'd be pro or anti official story. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by shaolin_Z
Here's something I thought that could be added to that. Let me demonstrate it with an analogy. Person X murders person Y. |
Now let assume this person X is Al Queda, and this person Y is the People who died on 9/11.
| quote: | | Now typically in an investigation, you'd do some research on person Y's background, figure out who he/she generally associated with, who might have some motive to kill him/her or may benefit from it etc. Then you make a list of suspect and gather evidence to narrow down the list. |
So the CIA/FBI/Whatnot looked into suspects. The USA have been fighting and supporting wars in the middle east, having outspoken enimies there in millions. Narrowing it down to the few organisations that could carry the attacks out, there were few left, and one of them were Al Queda.
In order to have been an attack carried out by the US goverment, a few other things must have happend. First of all, a lot of proof at the crime scenes would have to have been either removed or faked. Given the vast amount of ppl that have investigated this, there must be literally thusands of such ppl knowing about this. That none of them have leaked so far seem increadibly unlikely to me. If the proof werent removed or faked, someone at FBI/CIA/Whatnot would have noticed and proceeded with an investigation, however there was no such proof so no such investigations were necisarily.
| quote: | | The suspects are subject to questioning and, possibly, further investigation to determine their guilt or innocence. It doesn't matter who person X is, anyone could be a potential suspct, even someone with a blood relation to person Y. Normally, you wouldn't expect X to be related to Y, but it's still possible. So you wouldn't discount that possibility, hell, X could even be Y's parent. As long as you have reason to believe that a family member could have a motive, he/she is a suspect. |
If someone has a clear motive, and there is plenty of proof that the person did it, at the same time as the person actually admitted to doing it, there will NOT be any throughout investigation of Y's parents.
| quote: | | Now, this logic and line of reasoning is widely accepted and no one really has a problem with it. Or take a court case for example; similar concept. A lawyer is supposed to do the same type of research and use simliar reasons to determine who the culprit(s) are in a criminal case. The lawyer's job is essentialy to formulate a theory (with supporting evidence ofcourse). No one really has a problem with this eigther, correct? |
Correct.
| quote: | | But when the goverment is the suspect, it called a "conspiracy theory." Most people abandon all rationality and say you're "nuts" for using the same line of reasoning and logic that would go into a criminal case. That my friend, is complete hypocrisy. |
Your goverment is suspected for plenty of things, such as wiretapping American citizens, torturing terrorists, etc etc. I dont hear anyone calling those conspiracies? You know why? Cause all those are backed up with facts (even though not all are with certainty true), and they are all valid arguments. The 9/11 conspiracies on the other hand are flawed, unsupported and insane.
| quote: | | Oh, and on top of that, it's highly unlikely any investigation will take place into goverment complicity in the crime/deliberate inaction, especially by an organization affiliated with/selected by/tied to the goverment * hint hint, 9-11 Commision *. And that why it's hard to prove government complicity, because any investigation will be blocked (kind of like how the Bush adminisrtaion stopped any independent investigation into 9-11, and made their bull 9-11 commision :whip: ) |
What kind of investigation would be independent according to you? There were several democrats in the 9/11 commision, they could have killed the Bush administration if they didn't withold the information that Bush and CO actually comitted the 9/11 attacks. Really, why wouldn't they, and all the democrats/indepents/rational ppl within the CIA/FBI/Whatnot? |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
In order to have been an attack carried out by the US goverment, a few other things must have happend. First of all, a lot of proof at the crime scenes would have to have been either removed or faked. Given the vast amount of ppl that have investigated this, there must be literally thusands of such ppl knowing about this. That none of them have leaked so far seem increadibly unlikely to me. If the proof werent removed or faked, someone at FBI/CIA/Whatnot would have noticed and proceeded with an investigation, however there was no such proof so no such investigations were necisarily.
|
Yeah, I lived in Soviet Union, so dont tell me about this. We were told that everything was fine, using TV and newspaper propaganda to make us believe nothing was wrong and that there was no crime or cover-ups. Even though some people knew about this. Same in Nazi Germany in 1930s, nobody saw wha tthe rest of the world saw. I'm sure there are other more recent examples. You are looking at it from the government perspective.
| quote: |
Your goverment is suspected for plenty of things, such as wiretapping American citizens, torturing terrorists, etc etc. I dont hear anyone calling those conspiracies?
|
And these are just the tip of an iceberg. A normal person would say: if the government is doing all these things, what else are they doing thats not right???? When the government is doing so many things wrong that go against the constritution of the country itself, there's a reason to believe the government is breaking some fundamental laws of democracy (for which they have yet to be prosecuted!!!) Just because we these outright pieces of evidence - you know what, the scary thing is that even the government STILL says was done for American peoples good!!! They never came forward and apologized or said that they made a mistake. No no no, none of it was a mistake! It was GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
Plus I guess all the evidence with regards to 9/11 is all lies, fabrication, and twist of facts and that you would only believe this 9/11 government involvement suspicions if it came from CNN, government/military or some very promiment member of Hollywood. If its some independent professor making a documentary with concern to 9/11, its not evident enough because he cant be trusted (while in truth his background is not important if his work has nothing to do with him)/ |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Analogy:
Its like a murderer killing 4 people, and denying a fifth one and people are backing him up saying: "Of course he killed 4, but he's way too good to kill five". And they DONT even inverstigate the possibillity of the 5th.
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Yeah, I lived in Soviet Union, so dont tell me about this. We were told that everything was fine, using TV and newspaper propaganda to make us believe nothing was wrong and that there was no crime or cover-ups. Even though some people knew about this. Same in Nazi Germany in 1930s, nobody saw wha tthe rest of the world saw. I'm sure there are other more recent examples. You are looking at it from the government perspective. |
You are missing something though, in the western world we have free speech, free press, and an ingrained belief in democracy.
Most people who knew about this, WOULD leak to the press, and the press WOULD publish it if they had such a breaking story.
Unless of course the government runs the press and everyone in the government (including CIA/FBI/etc) do not believe in democracy. And if that is the case we have the biggest ing conspiracy ever, and do you honestly believe in that?
| quote: | | And these are just the tip of an iceberg. A normal person would say: if the government is doing all these things, what else are they doing thats not right???? When the government is doing so many things wrong that go against the constritution of the country itself, there's a reason to believe the government is breaking some fundamental laws of democracy (for which they have yet to be prosecuted!!!) Just because we these outright pieces of evidence - you know what, the scary thing is that even the government STILL says was done for American peoples good!!! They never came forward and apologized or said that they made a mistake. No no no, none of it was a mistake! It was GOOD FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. |
Well I agree with that this are idiotic policies, however they are a result of a failed war on terror and nothing else. The government sure is doing a lot of bad things, but what you are talking about is such a large thing that it would have been discovered if true.
| quote: | | Plus I guess all the evidence with regards to 9/11 is all lies, fabrication, and twist of facts and that you would only believe this 9/11 government involvement suspicions if it came from CNN, government/military or some very promiment member of Hollywood. If its some independent professor making a documentary with concern to 9/11, its not evident enough because he cant be trusted (while in truth his background is not important if his work has nothing to do with him)/ |
How many independent trustable professors are there supporting the insane 9/11 conspiracies? (not counting all the missquoted ones)
| quote: | Analogy:
Its like a murderer killing 4 people, and denying a fifth one and people are backing him up saying: "Of course he killed 4, but he's way too good to kill five". And they DONT even inverstigate the possibillity of the 5th. |
Your analogy is way off.
It's more like you have a person that is bad in school, and his whole family is murdered, and you know this family has been under death threat for a long time by another person, and this person has also tried to kill them before. Although the anoalogy still sucks because it is irrelevant to the case since this is another thing entirely. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
You are missing something though, in the western world we have free speech, free press, and an ingrained belief in democracy.
Most people who knew about this, WOULD leak to the press, and the press WOULD publish it if they had such a breaking story.
Unless of course the government runs the press and everyone in the government (including CIA/FBI/etc) do not believe in democracy. And if that is the case we have the biggest ing conspiracy ever, and do you honestly believe in that?
Well I agree with that this are idiotic policies, however they are a result of a failed war on terror and nothing else. The government sure is doing a lot of bad things, but what you are talking about is such a large thing that it would have been discovered if true.
How many independent trustable professors are there supporting the insane 9/11 conspiracies? (not counting all the missquoted ones)
Your analogy is way off.
It's more like you have a person that is bad in school, and his whole family is murdered, and you know this family has been under death threat for a long time by another person, and this person has also tried to kill them before. Although the anoalogy still sucks because it is irrelevant to the case since this is another thing entirely. |
In that case, show me the evidence of the Al Qaeda connection. Is it the Osama confession tape that was released in december of 2001? The one where Osama allegedly confesses (wearing a gold ring, which is forbidden by Islamic Law, writing with right hand when he's a lefty and when he loooks little like the real Osama Bin Laden). Thats your entire proof. No to mention that at least 9 of the hi-jackers turned up to be ALIVE after 9/11. LOL, they are really invincible! And none of the hijackers was from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran. In fact, most of them were from Saudi Arabia, USA's alleged ally in the war on terror.
Osama Bin Laden never confessed to the attacks, but at best he only praised whoever did it. There you go.
The entire war on terror started after 9/11 and pread out where it had no jurisdiction. What next, Iran? Not only that, but US government passed several laws that deliberatly took away people's freedoms like the Patriot Act. I am pretty sure you know the details. Any normal person would understand that it was the government, NOT Al Qaeda who benefited at all from 9/11. Just another valid pretext for American global expansion.
As for the media, where's their contributions? Why dont they pressure US government to come clean or apologize for their errors (intentional msitakes to be precise). All they have done is supported the US government, and put a scare on people like that anthrax bull. Where's their say in how the freedoms have been taken away from Americans? |
|
|
|
|
