Loose Change 9-11 Alex Jones Conspiracy

[Guyver]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks.

[Formula1]

yes i will definetely see this. i have it on my computer right now. I saw "Alex Jones - Martial Law" , and it really brings up interesting information, i recommend seeing that also. you can get it at torrentspy.com .

[~Rev Jim Jones]

I find more amazing that Tony Blair would bomb the subways at such a late date, I guess you have to keep the NWO on schedule. :rolleyes:

[cpt_azad]

nice post. will check out later, thank god for google video :)

[j2k4]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

A one hour analysis of 9/11 and how it is more likely than not that the government was actually behind the attacks.

Well, then.

My eyes have been opened, fer shur.

[Formula1]

Just finished seeing, very informative, goes into many details, and many proven facts. Although some suggestions about the attacks are from eyewitness accounts, still makes sense. I'd recommend anyone with an 'open mind' to simply see it, and ask for yourself.

[j2k4]

Although some suggestions about the attacks are from eyewitness accounts, still makes sense.

Precisely what does this mean?

You find eyewitness accounts less believable than armchair speculation?

[Formula1]

Although some suggestions about the attacks are from eyewitness accounts, still makes sense.

Precisely what does this mean?

You find eyewitness accounts less believable than armchair speculation?

I'm simply saying you can't take peoples word without evidence. The creator of this documentry was able to come up with a alot of facts amd evidence, to support his "speculation". I could go into this, but i dont think its necessary. Anyway, consider seeing the documentary for yourself, and then ask questions later. Fer Shur.

[j2k4]

Precisely what does this mean?

You find eyewitness accounts less believable than armchair speculation?

I'm simply saying you can't take peoples word without evidence. The creator of this documentry was able to come up with a alot of facts amd evidence, to support his "speculation". I could go into this, but i dont think its necessary. Anyway, consider seeing the documentary for yourself, and then ask questions later. Fer Shur.


Not to sound condescending, but some day you will develop the ability to reject absurdities simply by their odor, and no longer need to bathe in them before you do.

[Formula1]

I'm simply saying you can't take peoples word without evidence. The creator of this documentry was able to come up with a alot of facts amd evidence, to support his "speculation". I could go into this, but i dont think its necessary. Anyway, consider seeing the documentary for yourself, and then ask questions later. Fer Shur.


Not to sound condescending, but some day you will develop the ability to reject absurdities simply by their odor, and no longer need to bathe in them before you do.

Yeah , and hopefully one day you'll come to realize just how narrow minded and naive you are when it comes to displaying true facts. And by the way how long did it take your condescending remark? Please see the documentaire, and i think i'll have a worthy debate with you. Right now your're only wasting my time, and yours, my friend.

[j2k4]

Not to sound condescending, but some day you will develop the ability to reject absurdities simply by their odor, and no longer need to bathe in them before you do.

Yeah , and hopefully one day you'll come to realize just how narrow minded and naive you are when it comes to displaying true facts. And by the way how long did it take your condescending remark? Please see the documentaire, and i think i'll have a worthy debate with you. Right now your're only wasting my time, and yours, my friend.

Well, I did say, "not to sound condescending", didn't I?

BTW-

I have found that use of the term "narrow-minded" finds favor with those who cannot discern true narrow-mindedness from what we adults refer to as focus.

It seems you are also far too sensitive for debate; if I were to actually stoop to watching your video "evidence", I'd want to do it with you, so that I might point out in real-time the fallacies no doubt contained therein.

If this were actually possible, I'd like to know I could do this without making you cry. ;)

[manker]

Well, I did say, "not to sound condescending", didn't I?No offence but you're the most condescending person on the forum, by an absolute fathom.

I said 'no offence' but it really doesn't mean that you won't take offence, just like your 'not to sound condescending' remark doesn't mean that the comment doesn't sound completely condescending.

Watch the lad's video, evaluate it and then make judgments upon his naivity. To dismiss it, and him, out of hand is bad form, I think.


In all probablility you are correct and this vid is nothing more than you describe. However, denouncing it and an individual without even watching the thing is fairly rude. I've watched a fair few and while the vast majority are worthy of derision, some have merit and are actually very well researched.

Formula 1 is quite right - open your mind, just a tad, most likely it won't hurt a bit :)

[JPaul]

but some day you will develop the ability to reject absurdities simply by their odor,
Like the USA did with the letter "u".:naughty:

[GepperRankins]

I'm simply saying you can't take peoples word without evidence. The creator of this documentry was able to come up with a alot of facts amd evidence, to support his "speculation". I could go into this, but i dont think its necessary. Anyway, consider seeing the documentary for yourself, and then ask questions later. Fer Shur.


Not to sound condescending, but some day you will develop the ability to reject absurdities simply by their odor, and no longer need to bathe in them before you do.
:lol: noobfaglol


i know you'll probably find it hard to swallow this, because subliminal bigotry makes you hate my politics. :snooty:

[j2k4]

Well, I did say, "not to sound condescending", didn't I?No offence but you're the most condescending person on the forum, by an absolute fathom.

I said 'no offence' but it really doesn't mean that you won't take offence, just like your 'not to sound condescending' remark doesn't mean that the comment doesn't sound completely condescending.

Watch the lad's video, evaluate it and then make judgments upon his naivity. To dismiss it, and him, out of hand is bad form, I think.


In all probablility you are correct and this vid is nothing more than you describe. However, denouncing it and an individual without even watching the thing is fairly rude. I've watched a fair few and while the vast majority are worthy of derision, some have merit and are actually very well researched.

Formula 1 is quite right - open your mind, just a tad, most likely it won't hurt a bit :)


So reasonable.

Very well; if I watch, and feel the same, can I still be condescending?

Forthwith, then...

[j2k4]

Well, then.

First of all, great music by DJ Skooly, et. al., it was really....oh, never mind.

One solid hour of questions and no attempt to provide answers, which benefited the conspiratorial aspect immensely.

As we know, answers are tougher to provide than questions are to ask, and this is because answers require knowledge and experience to formulate.

The video's authors take the easy route by failing to even attempt this; as to endeavor to provide one answer compels further answers, which burden proves too great to undertake.

I come away with questions of my own.

Age-old wisdom informs us that great numbers of people can share a common experience and, to hear their recollections, you'd never know they were in the same area code.

I also wonder about the selectivity of the questions, for example regarding the cell phone calls.

If the physical circumstances effectively precluded the completion of a cell phone call fom altitude, why even bother selectively refuting individual calls?

To prove a voice-morphing theory?

I wonder if administration insider Ted Olsen was at all put off by his government's 'assassination' of his wife Barbera?

He must have had incredible difficulty holding his tongue when he was told, "Sorry, Ted, but you'll have to let Barbera take that flight; it's necessary for realism."

Or was she actually astride a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon?

I'm not going to attempt to refute the suppositions of the authors, as I've plain flat worn this subject out in the last 9/11 conspiracy thread; I'm not going to do it again.

You all can go ahead and polish your "theories" all you like, but remember:

IF you actually put wings on them so they fly, Bush will just fly 'em into a building or shoot 'em down with a cruise missile.

If you're into conspiracies as a hobby, why don't you take them in order, and go back and solve JFK's assassination? :dry:

[j2k4]

i know you'll probably find it hard to swallow this, because subliminal bigotry makes you hate my politics. :snooty:

You don't have any politics to hate, Dave.

[GepperRankins]

i know you'll probably find it hard to swallow this, because subliminal bigotry makes you hate my politics. :snooty:

You don't have any politics to hate, Dave.
ja, because they rawk :happy:

[j2k4]

You don't have any politics to hate, Dave.
ja, because they rawk :happy:

Allow me to re-phrase:

You don't have any politics, Dave.

[GepperRankins]

ja, because they rawk :happy:

Allow me to re-phrase:

You don't have any politics, Dave.
foriegn policy: leave em to it :dabs:

domestic policy: don't be a dick


my politics>your politics. at least i came up with mine on my own :snooty:

[j2k4]

my politics>your politics. at least i came up with mine on my own :snooty:

Apparently you don't see the inherent difficulty there.

BTW-if I divine your post correctly, my politics>your politics would mean that I would find you to my political right, yes?

[GepperRankins]

because mine are greater? :dabs: