PDA

View Full Version : Three Brazilian Soldiers



Pages : [1] 2

Dave_Sinkula
06-03-2007, 12:41 PM
Found in my inbox:

SirCrono6
06-03-2007, 12:51 PM
I saw this on a card once. :)

Queatrix
06-05-2007, 05:57 AM
Here, I'll help you out:

NO MORE BU........

The people that died in the twin towers on 9-11 got bushwacked.

MacGyver
06-05-2007, 06:26 AM
I found the original post funny. I did not find the last post funny.

indigo0086
06-05-2007, 07:18 AM
Didn't you hear, the death of over 2,000 people makes great bumper stickers.

VirtualAce
06-05-2007, 11:55 AM
Not something to joke about Queatrix.

Govtcheez
06-05-2007, 01:22 PM
Not something to joke about Queatrix.
There's always something to joke about

Queatrix's jokes sucked, but lots of people use humor as a coping mechanism. Besides, it was almost 6 years ago, at what point does something come off the "untouchable" list for you?

MacGyver
06-05-2007, 02:24 PM
Of all things you could defend Queatrix on, you choose this one?

whiteflags
06-05-2007, 02:33 PM
There's always something to joke about

Queatrix's jokes sucked [...]

That's not a very good defense. It was mainly just his opinion, I think.

Govtcheez
06-05-2007, 03:59 PM
Of all things you could defend Queatrix on, you choose this one?
I'm not defending Queatrix. Eesh, don't accuse me of that.

I'm defending the right of people to make tasteless jokes.

> That's not a very good defense

Just because they sucked doesn't mean he shouldn't be able to make the joke

@nthony
06-05-2007, 06:55 PM
Say no to politcal correctness! Say no to a nation of soccer moms!

indigo0086
06-05-2007, 07:51 PM
This is real parody
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/al_qaeda_also_fed_up_with_ground

don't even try.

Dave_Sinkula
06-05-2007, 08:02 PM
This is real parody
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/al_qaeda_also_fed_up_with_ground8/10 :)

Queatrix
06-05-2007, 08:19 PM
You know, you are right, that isn't good to joke about, sorry.

But look, if the terrorists attacked just 2 hours later, they would have killed 50,000 rather than 3,000.
Now you tell me, does somthing smell suspicious or what?

Dave_Sinkula
06-05-2007, 08:50 PM
In September 1999, the West Bank was on Daylight Saving Time while Israel had just switched back to standard time. West Bank terrorists prepared time bombs and smuggled them to their Israeli counterparts, who misunderstood the time on the bombs. As the bombs were being planted, they exploded—one hour too early—killing three terrorists instead of the intended victims—two busloads of people.* (http://webexhibits.org/daylightsaving/k.html)


Sorry, I guess this thread is going in a different direction from the simple pun. My bad. :(

Govtcheez
06-06-2007, 06:34 AM
You know, you are right, that isn't good to joke about, sorry.

But look, if the terrorists attacked just 2 hours later, they would have killed 50,000 rather than 3,000.
Now you tell me, does somthing smell suspicious or what?
You amaze me.

edit:
So you're implying that Bush got the people to hijack the planes and fly them into the WTC at 9am to reduce casualties? So what, 3000 dead were ok, but more was unacceptable? Why wouldn't he have flown them into it at 2am or something then? Besides, what makes you think 20x as many people would have died 2 hours later? Most people are to work well before 9.

Never mind, I'm not going to make assumptions at what you believe. Please, tell us what you think happened and why. I can't keep all the stupid conspiracy theories straight.

MacGyver
06-06-2007, 10:38 AM
You know, you are right, that isn't good to joke about, sorry.

Should have stopped here.


But look, if the terrorists attacked just 2 hours later, they would have killed 50,000 rather than 3,000.
Now you tell me, does somthing smell suspicious or what?

I don't like the prospect of joining the bandwagon of people that are against you, but you're not making it easy for me to stay out of it.

@nthony
06-06-2007, 06:32 PM
There's a difference between "I can't say that because somewhere, someone's feelings might get hurt" and "I can't say that because it will make me sound like a cretinous tool". I detest the former line of thinking, but am in full support of the latter. Conspiracy theories are best left for those who invest in tin-foil stocks and a Mel Gibson circa nineteen-ninety-something. As a humble citizen of the internet once put it:
if the Illuminati or George Bush or the Israeli's or the frieking JFK/Elvis/John Lennon Conspiracy Team wanted
people to think the Pentagon was hit by a friggen airplane instead of a missile, they'd just hit it with a friggen airplane.

SlyMaelstrom
06-06-2007, 07:10 PM
Besides, it was almost 6 years ago, at what point does something come off the "untouchable" list for you?When most of the people that remember it first-hand are long past gone.

psychopath
06-06-2007, 07:23 PM
at what point does something come off the "untouchable" list for you?
After 22.3 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Has_Aides).

Queatrix
06-07-2007, 07:31 PM
Most conspiracy theories are seen as crazy and insane, and because of that I am going to end my session on this thread now so it won't get too hot.

Govtcheez
06-07-2007, 07:39 PM
> Most conspiracy theories are seen as crazy and insane, and because of that I am going to end my session on this thread now so it won't get too hot.

Translation: "There's no evidence to back up what I'm saying, because it's crazy and insane, so I'm going to leave before people challenge what I believe and make me actually think, which would likely cause my punyass little brain to pop like an overripe pimple"

Queatrix
06-07-2007, 08:29 PM
On second thought ... I'm not going to let you walk all over me, regardless how hot this is going to get.

Take a look at this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

If you sit through the whole thing and watch it, then you will see why I think what I think, there is simply to much proof. On the other hand, you probably won't, because you are a coward.

So prove me that you'r not a wimpering coward who uses colorful words and phrases to hide his shame, by whatching this whole thing through. I dare you too.

Govtcheez
06-07-2007, 08:31 PM
Oh christ, Loose Change? The crap in that has been debunked so many goddamn times it's not worth going over again. I mean seriously, I at least thought you might have something original.

MacGyver
06-07-2007, 08:34 PM
I'm pretty sure this is Loose Change I'm about to speak about. :)

I enjoyed the one relatively popular conspiracy theory that Flight 93 was invented.... No cell phone calls, no fight to take the plane down, no "Let's roll!"....

So what happened?

Their plane was swapped with another plane somewhere at another airport. Everyone in the flight is OK, and the plane still exists in a hidden location somewhere I think according to the theory. Overall, they concluded something really almost funny if it wasn't so absurd and insulting to the victims of 9/11... it was something as stupid as saying the entire plot of 9/11 was conceived and orchestrated by the government to steal gold from the WTC.

I can think of easier ways of handling a trick plan to achieve either getting hidden gold or getting political support than blowing up the WTC towers with either missiles or explosives, flying a missile into the pentagon, another missile into a field in Pennsylvania, swapping planes, hiding the original Flight 93, trucking off some gold, inventing a bunch of cover stories, launch a war in Afghanistan for a phantom oil project, launch a war on Iraq that has cost money and lives, lose public support over it, watch gas prices soar, have to spend millions (or perhaps billions or even trillions) to rebuild something in place of the WTC towers,.......

Do you guys get it, yet? This conspiracy stuff doesn't work the way you might think it should. I'm amazed at the people that seem to think Bush causes hurricanes... He's supposed to be an idiot, but he's also supposed to be a genius behind a huge conspiracy. Make up your feeble minds already!

Queatrix, you disappoint me. I think I would have enjoyed to have a discussion on the subject of 9/11. I ran out of sparring parners in the last political debate I had here, but I don't think I would mind debating the odd conspiracy theorist. :)

Govtcheez
06-07-2007, 08:37 PM
Queatrix, before you accuse me of being a coward, I'm not watching that garbage because I've already watched it. It's brought up in every single thread like this on the entire effing internet. If you've got specific points you think warrant discussion from it, bring them up, but I'm not watching that crap again.

My favorite theory is the "Pentagon plane was a missle" one. They loaded all the people on this plane, it took off, landed at a secure location and they shot a missle into the pentagon. While that was happening, the plane was chopped up into bits, and scattered across the lawn along with the body parts of the people onboard.

VirtualAce
06-07-2007, 11:01 PM
Let's not let this degrade into a flame war.

SlyMaelstrom
06-07-2007, 11:28 PM
If you sit through the whole thing and watch it, then you will see why I think what I think, there is simply to much proof. On the other hand, you probably won't, because you are a coward.Seriously, Queatrix... I know you're at that age, but you really need to get this whole "It makes sense to me, there for it must be correct" idea out of your head. Like Govt said, every single point made in that video has been thoroughly debunked by significantly more qualified professionals than the ones who were involved in the video. If logic alone doesn't tell you that video is crap, then just simple search the internet and look at the counter-points.

Queatrix
06-08-2007, 05:47 PM
Please show me these counter-points, I'm not ignorant to any possibilities. (I would search Google, but I really don't know what to use as my query.)

EDIT: Also, I'm not saying that everything the video says is true, just the main idea that the inside US government was responsible.

MacGyver
06-08-2007, 06:02 PM
EDIT: Also, I'm not saying that everything the video says is true, just the main idea that the inside US government was responsible.

What was the motive?

SlyMaelstrom
06-08-2007, 06:32 PM
What was the motive?That's irrelevant, the point is that the idea goes against the mainstream belief (and basic human logic, mind you) and when you're Queatrix's age, anything that fights the power is SUPER KOOL TO THE MAX.

indigo0086
06-08-2007, 07:23 PM
Please show me these counter-points, I'm not ignorant to any possibilities. (I would search Google, but I really don't know what to use as my query.)

EDIT: Also, I'm not saying that everything the video says is true, just the main idea that the inside US government was responsible.

using google to find conspiracies doesn't reflect well on your mindset.

MacGyver
06-08-2007, 07:40 PM
That's irrelevant, the point is that the idea goes against the mainstream belief (and basic human logic, mind you) and when you're Queatrix's age, anything that fights the power is SUPER KOOL TO THE MAX.

Speaking of "SUPER KOOL TO THE MAX", I know you've been told this, but that dancing milk carton rocks. :D

But back to the offtopic topic, I thought Loose Change started out pretty good, if I remember it correctly. The giant leaps, though, from Point A to Point B are just staggering, and their attempts to answer the most important questions, like the motive and such, are just horrible.

Queatrix:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(2007_film)#Criticism

Also, this section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loose_Change_(2007_film)#Corrections


The suggestion that $167 billion in gold was stored in vaults beneath the World Trade Center was removed as it exceeded the entire amount of U.S. gold reserves by approximately $67 billion. The "$230 million in precious metals" stored at the WTC complex were in fact recovered.

:)

Queatrix
06-08-2007, 08:00 PM
What was the motive?
I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.
That's irrelevant, the point is that the idea goes against the mainstream belief (and basic human logic, mind you) and when you're Queatrix's age, anything that fights the power is SUPER KOOL TO THE MAX.
You don't know my age.

Govtcheez
06-08-2007, 08:11 PM
> You don't know my age.

You're 15. If you lied in your profile, you sure as hell act like you're 15.

> I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.

So ok, who? Also, please bring up relevant points you'd like to discuss here. You're the one making the statement that the widely accepted chain of events is not true, so it's on you to bring up why.

Queatrix
06-08-2007, 08:12 PM
Let's focus on this point for now:

Loose Change compares the Collapse of the World Trade Center to other notable high rise fires, but does not clarify differences in building design and size, structural damage and compromised fireproofing.[25] (However, not all the critiques agree on this point - 9-11 Research, for example, critiques Loose Change but supports the Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center). There is no exploration on the effect of fire on unprotected structural steel, which "loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F."[26] Kevin Ryan the "expert" source from Underwriters Laboratories for steel certification is actually a non-expert from a subsidiary for water testing,[3] Underwriters Laboratories does not certify structural steel,[25][3] and ASTM E119 certification involves intact fireproofing as conducted by Underwriters Laboratories for the NIST in 2004.[27] The NIST could find no record of any previous certification tests ever being conducted on the novel WTC floor system.[27] The NIST demonstrated the fireproofing was not intact by firing shotguns on fireproofed steel; critics find this unconvincing.[28]
But why would the building fall straight down rather than topple? (Like to the side that the airline/jet slamed into.) The bottom of buildings are stronger than the top, and the top was crushing the bottom all of the way down. Even if it could go naturaly straight down, as it fell, the top should have been disinigrated in the falling proccess. Especialy sence it was apperently so fragile from the "weak steel".

Govtcheez
06-08-2007, 08:16 PM
> But why would the building fall straight down rather than topple?

What makes you think it should topple? Keep in mind that there has never been a building demolition of this magnitude (ever). If you watch the video, they don't fall straight down anyways; there's a pronounced tilt to one of them. What's your explanation for them falling down? Remember that taking down a building of that size would require a HUGE conspiracy and people working for a very long time without being uncovered, wiring it with explosives.

> Even if it could go naturaly straight down, as it fell, the top should have been disinigrated in the falling proccess

Who said it didn't? It hit the floor below it, and then had extra weight to hit the one below that, etc etc. By the time it got to the bottom it had all the momentum in the world.

Also, did you mean to quote that part? It kind of tears at the credibility of the movie

Govtcheez
06-08-2007, 08:20 PM
Queatrix please explain to us exactly what you think happened

whiteflags
06-08-2007, 08:39 PM
> I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.

Actually as Loose Change was going over the supposed holes in the official story; both in the movie and public interviews with their debunkers, the creators have maintained that they simply wanted their audience to ask questions and do their own investigative work.

That may be so, but it should be clear to anyone that the way these people conduct themselves in the media that they've simply confused themselves and jumped to conclusions, and harrass the victims of 9/11 and the gemeral public for no, well-supported, factual reason. Over an interview with Popular Mechanics Editor Meigs, and the editor of "Debunking 9/11 Myths" (misspellings may be afoot) several things were established:


Loose Change is factually inaccurate. The editor made an excellent point about how the Loose Change people didn't speak with any experts on any subject they brought up to support the alternate story. They relied mainly on slick production tactics, the earliest news reports and some heresay. They really hadn't fleshed out any of their reporting work, because they tend to rely on laymen statements on a "good enough for me" basis. (The movie seriously uses the testimony of a janitor who said he heard explosions, which tend to be a loud boom. Just because you hear a bomb doesn't mean that it was one.)

In the same interview with PM, it's mentioned that despite trying to debunk the official story, Loose Change did nothing to provide the answers to the questions they pose. "If you're going to go against what a large body of evidence would suggest, you do need to provide some evidence of the claims you make," was one good statement. What's better is that, in interviews, the producers say they talked to surviving victims or workers on the scene, and none of these people have come forward to support Loose Change themselves, yet.

In a separate (and frankly, more polite) debate between the official and conspiracy side, the arbiter, Mr. Wieck, asked a very good question:


"What will it take? Is there anything [presentable] that can falsify your beliefs?"
Mr. Avery speaks volumes about himself in one simple word, "Nothing." A personal best! As he tends to talk for days.

Mr. Avery and his cronies are so set in their way of thinking they refuse to believe any argument to the contrary. It's almost sad. Loose Change started as a work of fiction; he and his buddies almost want it to be true. They are fools. If you want to align yourself to people in this category, then seriously, that's fine, but you should be aware of how much time you are wasting and what exactly you are getting into.

I highly recommend consulting other sources such as the news, or simply going through parts of the Loose Change guide to see how well debunked these guys are. There's also a fact sheet from NIST somewhere that's briefer than the report, but answers some key questions about it, and common attacks against its validity. You can also search for and find the producers public appearances, which I found to be rather eye-opening about those people's character and really how skewed their whole approach to objective journalism is.


Relevant pieces:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4sHGHiRkPA http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

So please, let's not talk about this subject further. It only flushes this thread in the toilet.

Dave_Sinkula
06-08-2007, 09:37 PM
This thread's current direction reminded me of something I was reading recently.
http://townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=proving_the_911_conspiracists _wrong&ns=JohnHawkins&dt=06/08/2007&page=full&comments=true

MacGyver
06-08-2007, 09:58 PM
I don't know for sure, but there's no reason one can't know who and not why.

If you charge someone for murder, one of the most important aspects of the case is to come up with a motive. If I remember correctly, this was actually an important, although perhaps arguably small, plot point in a Bogart movie entitled The Enforcer (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0043503/). There were murders going on that could not be pinned on the people committing them because the perpetrators and the victims didn't know each other. As such, no motive could be determined in the killings. ;)

So without a motive, what evidence in Loose Change's or any other group's conspiracy theory is there that the government was behind what occurred on 9/11?

@nthony
06-08-2007, 10:53 PM
OOH OOOH! ME NEXT! PICK ME! PICK ME:
ohkay guyz, i r have undieable poorf dat bush is done 9!1 Why is it be dat when teh plane cratched in2 the hexagon, there wuz no outlien of teh plaen in the wall? liek in cardtoons u know??

Seriously, the fact that some random guy with a video camera and access to the internet could convince you otherwise of what is a more than logical explanation by a Harvard PhD Structural and Materials Engineer shows that you're not looking for the facts, you're looking for something to believe in.

MacGyver
06-08-2007, 11:03 PM
OOH OOOH! ME NEXT! PICK ME! PICK ME:
ohkay guyz, i r have undieable poorf dat bush is done 9!1 Why is it be dat when teh plane cratched in2 the hexagon, there wuz no outlien of teh plaen in the wall? liek in cardtoons u know??

ROFL! :D

Queatrix
06-09-2007, 06:34 AM
Sure, I know there won't be an outline, but the wings would AT LEAST cause damage WELL BEYOND the hole. And a thing in the debate video (that citizen posted), the guy points out how the gov hids SO MANY THINGS. Why? Why would you hide video footage (and confinscate it from near-by convenient stores) and "recorded" phone calls? Like those 3 frames they released, there is no way to know WHAT is hitting the 8gon, there.

Queatrix
06-09-2007, 06:38 AM
And back to the towers, as it falls you see an incredibly siquencial poofs coming out. (which are the explosives going off) And what about the bright flash before impact (that was NOT A REFLECTION as it was cought by MANY angles). And there are eye wittness reports saying "That was not an American Airliner! That was not an American Airliner!".

Those are good links though, btw.

Govtcheez
06-09-2007, 06:47 AM
> Sure, I know there won't be an outline, but the wings would AT LEAST cause damage WELL BEYOND the hole

A plane with aluminum (correct me if I'm wrong on the metal) wings going at 400+ mph hits a reinforced concrete wall, they're going to basically just disintegrate. They're really just thin skins of metal. Besides, as with a lot of things in that movie, they assume they know exactly what will happen in a scenario that we've never seen before, when the experts are saying the opposite.

> Why would you hide video footage (and confinscate it from near-by convenient stores) and "recorded" phone calls?

They're in a no-win situation with that. If they don't release it, people like you continue to cry out "why? why?". If they do and it's obviously a plane, people like you are going to accuse them of doctoring it. There are plenty of independent witnesses that saw a plane hit the Pentagon. I don't know why that's a point of contention at all. Besides, what do you think happened. Was it
They loaded all the people on this plane, it took off, landed at a secure location and they shot a missle into the pentagon. While that was happening, the plane was chopped up into bits, and scattered across the lawn along with the body parts of the people onboard.? Again, please tell us what you believe happened, or at least start answering the counterpoints we've been bringing up.

> the 8gon

the what

Govtcheez
06-09-2007, 06:50 AM
> as it falls you see an incredibly siquencial poofs coming out. (which are the explosives going off)

You're sure it's explosions and not the pressure from the floors above falling on it? Please point out where these "poofs" are. Also, please explain how the WTC, a very large, very busy building, was extensively wired with explosives without anyone noticing. Wiring a building for demolition isn't a matter of tossing a stick of dynamite in and running out the door. It's a very intricate process.

> And there are eye wittness reports saying "That was not an American Airliner! That was not an American Airliner!".

Sources please. Besides, how the hell would they know?

Happy_Reaper
06-09-2007, 07:01 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Here, that site pretty munch refuted every single point I've ever heard a 911 conspiracy theorist ever use.

SlyMaelstrom
06-09-2007, 08:51 AM
> the 8gon

Seriously... it appears during your extensive research of the incident, you never actually caught a look at the PENTAgon. ...or perhaps you were just too busy analyzing the crash to count the number of sides. I'd say it's also fair to assume you're so intelligent that you skipped through second grade where they teach you these shapes.

MacGyver
06-09-2007, 10:21 AM
Queatrix......

Yeah, there's no excuse for thinking the Pentagon is an 8-sided shape. That's just stupid. The Pentagon is meant to look like a pentagon, a 5-sided shape..... which just might be why they named the building such. ;)

So somehow you're going to figure out that it was a fake attack by studying the evidence, and yet you can't even tell how many sides the building has when it was named after a shape? LOL! You have no excuse, especially when @nthony wrote a very humorous post making fun of someone that would get the shape of the building wrong! And he only did a hexagon (6-sided shape), as opposed to the octagon (8-sided shape) that you chose, ignoring the point that you know it's called the Pentagon, as opposed to the joke where the "newbie" did not know the building's name. :rolleyes:

Can't you think of a real reason the government would confiscate video surveillance? They want to know everything they can find out about the attack. They don't want to lose the footage for any reason. They want to be in a position to stop another attack this way, but they have to be able to study every minute detail of everything.

That's great if people like you can view the tapes, but all you want to do is point the finger at the government for causing 9/11 when you can't even tell me why they would do it.

All you keep doing is asking questions that you think are really proving a case, but you never never answer any questions. Why do we see flashes as if they building is blowing up with explosives? Someone suggested that the steel supports are giving out as the building is collapsing. Why doesn't the building topple instead of fall almost straight down? Perhaps because it had such strong support near the base. Why did people think it was not an airplane? Dude, you seriously need to learn that witnesses do not necessarily get all their details down right. There can be differences in everyone's story, yet they can all see the same thing. Remember, everything happened really quickly. Would you agree that there are accounts where people have seen weather baloons and thought they saw something that resembled a flying saucer?

You fail to provide any better answer than the accepted theory, and let me tell you something else. The terrorists that really did attack us on 9/11... if you think this was just one attack that they've done, you're way off. Terrorism is nothing new. These types of terrorists (islamofascists) have been attacking people since at least the 1970's. There were plane hijackings all the time during that decade. Have you ever heard of The Raid on Entebbe? Group of terrorists took over an Air France flight that usually held a lot of Jews (common flight for Israelis to get back to Israel, I believe). They flew it to what they considered a "safe" location, and demanded Israel free a bunch of terrorist murderers that were in Israeli prisons. The Israelis managed a very good response. I recommend you see the movie, while it has some things that are possibly factually incorrect, it is a very good generalization of what occurred.

This has been going on for years, and the problem is that so many people have been ignoring terrorism. On September 11th, 2001, people all of a sudden realized that something was wrong, after ignoring it for so long. For those that think Bush is making more enemies in the middle east by fighting back, those people most likely have no understanding of the history of the region and of terrorism in general, namely of the attacks that have been occuring long before Bush was even considered for the candidacy of the Presidency.

But going back to conspiracies...... I love this flash video:

http://www.alzmedia.com/flash/view/anthrax

:D