The conspiracy trap

[Brandybuck]

Politically, I am opposed to the income tax and the Federal Reserve. So upon watching Aaron Russo's "America: Freedom to Fascism" last week, I was hooked! My politics and the film were in sync. I was determined to spread this news to as many people as possible, so I made a bulk order of 100 DVDs to pass out to friends, family, meetups, etc. Yesterday the order arrived. I was so excited!

I wasn't completely stupid, however. I knew the film was sensationalist and engaged in quite a bit of hyperbole. I could see that Mr. Russo had played fast and loose with some facts. I also didn't like the over-the-top clip with Lou Dobbs at the end. But I believed that in the whole it was telling the truth: The IRS and the income tax were unlawful, and the Federal Reserve banks were running the country.

But I'm a natural skeptic. I was smelling something fishy. I was thinking up excuses to tell people, to get them to watch the film. I imagined telling folks, "Yeah, it's sensationalist, but once you get past that it's a good film." I was trying to explain to others why it wasn't a conspiracy film like "Loose Change". Most disturbing of all, the hardcore conspiracists were glomming onto the movie. The smell became strong enough that I had to do a tiny bit of fact checking.

I knew there had to be more rebuttals to this film than just the IRS FAQ. I found them. I should have looked at Wikipedia first, because it has some good information. I don't always trust Wikipedia, but it's a good place to start from, and it helped me find some good rebuttals of the film. More importantly, I discovered the law that Aaron Russo said didn't exist!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America:_Freedom_to_Fascism
http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sup_01_26.html

Please don't bother sending me rebuttals to those links above. My purpose in this post is not to debate. Instead I want you to take a close look at your own beliefs. Honestly scrutinize them. Don't say you've scrutinized them, actually do it! If your beliefs are so weak they cannot stand up under self criticism, get rid of them! Start getting information from somewhere OTHER than your belief group. Avoid the sensationalist.

The message in the film is still a good message, but it is a message that does not need to be bolstered with lies. The income tax may not be illegal, but I still want to abolish it. The Federal Reserve may not be a conspiracy, but it still has too much control over the economy. And of course, our government is far too large for our good.

I now understand a bit better the mind of the conspiracist. It's a trap one falls into. If I had been a bit more credulous, I might be one myself. That's a sobering thought.

[RonPaul4President]

I agree that even though it is sensationalism, it is based on facts.

Conspiracy is not a theory, it is a crime. The American people have been conspired against since 1913. Congress is more to blame than the Executive branch, because the Executive branch was doing what it is supposed to do. Congress wasn't, and still isn't. Impeachment!

Although I am not yet an American citizen, "we" want justice!

[Brandybuck]

Conspiracy is not a theory, it is a crime.
There are conspiracies, and there are crimes. And then there are conpiracy theories, a third kind of thing. Conspiracy theory is the belief that history hinges on secret conspiracies of powerful men. Every pivotal event in history has a conspiracy behind it somewhere. Sometimes the beliefs are really wacky, like the notion that British and US governments have been infiltrated by reptilian aliens from outer space. Sometimes the beliefs are far more tame, like Aaron Russo's idea that the IRS and income tax are illegal. Both of these theories can be readily disproved, but proponents from both will refuse to accept those proofs.

The law that says we must pay our income taxes is a REAL law! It is called Title 26 of the US Code. Russo built his entire film around the premise that it did not exist, and so the entire film collapses.

But I didn't post this to argue about Aaron Russo. I posted this because I see the danger of the conspiracy theory worldview. Last Monday I had a discussion with a Truther. He looked at me incredulous and asked, "don't you know that the government is practicing mind control on you?" But he is the one whose mind has been controlled. He has become unable to examine his own beliefs or engage in logical thought. When I go through the links he gave me with his "proofs", I can't get more than a few dozen words before I stumble across the most elementary of logical fallacies.

Here's a link to the online afterword of the Debunking 9/11 Myths" book by Popular Mechanics. Read it. f your conspiracy theory isn't a religion, then you won't be excommunicated for reading it. So read it. It isn't about 9/11 in specific, it's about the conspiracist's mindset in general. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html

[ARealConservative]

My conspiracies:

General Welfare isn't an enumerated power

Interstate commerce intended to regulate commerce between states. period.

The 14th Amendment screwed up the intent of the 1st amendment.

We lost the cold war in the general electorate.

And that is just the tip of the iceberg - simple facts become conspiracy quicker then you would think!

[Suzu]

I suggest watching Theft By Deception (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023). It might clear things up a bit.

[jon_perez]

Last Monday I had a discussion with a Truther. He looked at me incredulous and asked, "don't you know that the government is practicing mind control on you?" But he is the one whose mind has been controlled.I absolutely agree with this statement that some people are so unwavering and unshakable in their belief in [some] conspiracy theories that it is fair to say that their minds are being 'controlled'.

On the other hand when it comes to 9/11, after watching several documentaries like 9/11: Press for Truth, you really can't help but feel that the official explanation of the events is very very fishy and has a lot of holes in it.

For what it's worth, I do vividly recall when I saw the WTC towers crumbling down the first time on TV it really did look like controlled demolition, and I was very puzzled as to why the buildings fell that way. Mythbusters should do an episode to prove that burning jet fuel can really collapse a building in that manner. (Most people won't believe the government or Popular Mechanics, but they'd trust the Mythbusters :p )

[jon_perez]

I suggest watching Theft By Deception (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7521758492370018023). It might clear things up a bit.It is interesting to note that the defenses against tax protestors involve extremely complicated legalese such as this one:

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

This is probably a good reason why the IRS themselves (including the guy who wrote the tax code, assuming Sheldon Cohen was described accurately in F2F) are unable to provide a satisfactory explanation of the laws providing for the legality of income taxes.

I think most of us can agree on the principle that if we require specialists to translate the laws that apply to us (especially those on very basic issues), then it's time to review those laws and simplify them because, otherwise, this is a very real form of oppression.

It is a complex world and laws will tend to evolve towards the direction of more complexity (lawyers love this because it keeps them in business, but it is a burden on the rest of us). But what that means is that as our understanding of principles and practices progresses, we should also strive to compact and simplify laws so as not generate an onerous burden on the people it governs.

People seem to think that laws can only progress in one direction: more laws and more complexity as time goes by. But just as Libertarians recognize that there comes a time when government has grown so big that it is time to prune it, the same principle should also apply to the body of laws that govern a people.

[AlexAmore]

Conspiracy theory is the belief that history hinges on secret conspiracies of powerful men.

Have you read (you certainly haven't tried to debunk) my post (http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1318) about the Council on Foreign Relations? That group is full of extremely powerful men who are conspiring to cede America's sovereignty for a North American Union, and to bring about a global governance (George H.W Bush calls it the "New World Order").

Sounds like a "conspiracy theory", right? It's not, CFR talks about this on their website. They have members who are in the Bush Administration, throughout the world and all throughout the government.

Because the conspiracy sounds "out there" to the average joe, I guess it must be wrong right?


Last Monday I had a discussion with a Truther. He looked at me incredulous and asked, "don't you know that the government is practicing mind control on you?" But he is the one whose mind has been controlled. He has become unable to examine his own beliefs or engage in logical thought. When I go through the links he gave me with his "proofs", I can't get more than a few dozen words before I stumble across the most elementary of logical fallacies.

Straw man argument. Instead of simply saying this was a man, you are saying this is a "truther" and implying all truthers are like this.

Did you look into his argument that the government is mind controlling people, or did you write it off as another crazy conspiracy theory? Perhaps government run schools, and media are inlfuencing people through carefully crafted suggestions. You never know and I wouldn't be surprised. Can't you see how government schools condition kids to be subservient to authority? Don't you see how that can carry on into adulthood where now it's the government instead of teachers? If you look into who owns the media you will see the major ones are part of the Council on Foreign Relations too like Rupert Murdoch! That means the media are in bed with the government because CFR is like a club where everyone has the same goal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF9HpuZm6-g) (World Economic Forum..more globalism!)

Rupert Murdoch who owns a crap load of media sources admits to trying to shape public opinion. Of course viewers of Fox might say it's "fair and balanced" and that's the deception. It's not mind control like you see in Hollywood movies but it's deceptive journalism that can make people think Iraq had something to do with 9/11 for example (70% did at one time). Outfoxed did a great documentary into the deceptive journalism, my only complaint is they didn't show CNN, MSNBC..ect. Of course outfoxed was made by a bunch of liberals and so they are one sided.:(
So you being a Ron Paul supporter, I presume, you are aware of the media deception, no? Perhaps that might be a form of mind control? It's the end result that matters after all.

I think a lot of Ron Paul supporters here would agree with me that media certainly has agendas. All i'm pointing out is what agenda ultimately is...and that is the opposite of what Ron Paul is advocating, makes sense? The opposite being globalism, policing of the world, nation building, less liberty...ect. All you have to do is a little research before writing something off because it sounds "out there".

[jimmyjamsslo]

Nice article from Popular Mechanics.
However, I think this picture sums it all up:

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l107/jimmyjamsslo/mad_piratesposter.jpg



Inasmuch 911 conspiracy theories are concerned, I'm still not sold on the official version of 911 for a few reasons: Why was Bush so adamant about not having an investigation into the most heinous terrorist attack in our nation's history? I don't buy the baloney about protecting classified or sensitive information that could threaten our national security. Next, why did WTC7 fall? It was not struck by a plane, and there were fires only on a few of floors of that building.
Then what about the fact that these terrorists didn't even successfully learn to fly a Cessna? Commercial jets are more sophisticated than Cessnas!
I haven't read all the debunking or 911truth info so I cede that I might be off about these subjects. I also felt that in the first televised address after 911, that President Bush seemed especially gleeful, gloating almost, and the rest of the stooges in the Administration and their persistent and, once again, gleeful proclamations of 'perpetual war' seemed very, very suspicious to me.
I'm not so sure that Bush and Co. orchestrated these attacks, since that would be very difficult to conceal, but I feel that somehow that they have some sort of complicity in allowing 911 to happen. Just watch Condoleeza Rice's testimony about the memos, and it is painfully clear that she is lying through her teeth!
In short, regardless of who perpetrated these attacks, 911 was a landfall for the sagging Bush administration and they took full advantage of this tragedy to push through their anti-constitutional police-state measures. This fact is even more disgusting if the Bush administration had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks at all!!

So, as far as this issue is concerned, this is how I feel. Perhaps a future administration will re-examine that fateful day, but now the pressing concern is to end the war and restore our constitutional liberties. In my opinion this supercedes both sides of the issue.

Jimmy

[AlexAmore]

Nice article from Popular Mechanics.
However, I think this picture sums it all up:

Inasmuch 911 conspiracy theories are concerned, I'm still not sold on the official version of 911 for a few reasons: Why was Bush so adamant about not having an investigation into the most heinous terrorist attack in our nation's history? I don't buy the baloney about protecting classified or sensitive information that could threaten our national security. Next, why did WTC7 fall? It was not struck by a plane, and there were fires only on a couple of floors of that building.
Then what about the fact that these terrorists didn't even successfully learn to fly a Cessna? Commercial jets are more sophisticated than Cessnas!
Jimmy

You're also forgetting about why the Pentagon won't release decent footage of it's own attack. Instead they release footage that fueled the Truthers for a number of reasons and rightfully so. I also wonder how in GOD'S NAME did an airplane FLY INTO THE PENTAGON IN THE FIRST PLACE? Is D.C not protected from airplanes and missles? C'mon.....

Imagine if the airplane struck a certain part of the Pentagon and killed someone of "importance" for lack of a better word. Imagine if some royalty from another country was in D.C and the airplane struck and killed them? Imagine how bad America would look? Sorry I just don't think that could happen. I'm pretty sure D.C has missle defense systems. If I know politicians (and I think I do), they happen to care about themselves and their safety A LOT.

[Silverback]

Regarding 9/11, I'm fairly certain there's a whole bunch of stuff a whole bunch of people don't want us to know, including the people at the top. That doesn't translate into demolitions and such though, much more likely just embarrassing incompetencies, some of that actually came out, or at worst a decision to ignore intelligence, or even just a failure to act appropriately to it, because PNAC required an event there wasn't a lot of motivation to prevent one.

That tendency to hide whatever there is that may be embarrassing or worse is what feeds the conspiracy theories, along with the fact that when there is a conspiracy the best way to preserve its secrecy is to spread as many outlandish theories as possible so the truth gets buried in the BS.

Contrary to popular belief for the most part we're not all that secure, and were even less so in '01. It doesn't take a conspiracy to pull off 9/11, in fact it doesn't even take a competent group of terrorists. This is an important point that I think has largely been missed, and it answers the question asked about the pentagon.

The 9/11 attacks were horribly bungled, I mean it was really amateur hour. In spite of all the mistakes they made they were still remarkably successful in achieving their goal of engaging us in a war against the Islamic world, but the attack was not sophisticated and every single plane made critical mistakes.

The tower planes struck too high, the death toll would have been ten times as high if they'd struck lower.

The plane that was supposed to hit the capital building, the primary target, was lost entirely, crashed in a field.

The plane that was supposed to hit the white house got lost, overflew its target, tried to circle around again, saw the USAF, and chose another target in a panic, the pentagon.

Not to mention all the amateur mistakes the people involved made in the planning stages, really the only reason they managed it was a lot of luck and a lot of incompetence on our part.

THAT's the basis of the threat we're supposed to be so afraid of. They didn't even come up with the plan themselves, they stole it from an American novelist.

[mdh]

Getting back on topic of the actual thread, and attempting to ignore the 9/11 posts that have nothing to do with the OP...

Brandybuck, I absolutely agree that people should question everything. I would urge you to check out the case law from the Larken Rose case, they have real lawyers presenting real legal arguments before judges and dealing with the actual technicalities of the law. No sensationalism there, just lawyers arguing and judges handing down decisions. By far the best resource for information regarding the law and the federal income tax I've ever seen.

[Brandybuck]

Brandybuck, I absolutely agree that people should question everything. I would urge you to check out the case law from the Larken Rose case, they have real lawyers presenting real legal arguments before judges and dealing with the actual technicalities of the law. No sensationalism there, just lawyers arguing and judges handing down decisions. By far the best resource for information regarding the law and the federal income tax I've ever seen.
Yet despite the Larken Rose case, 26 USC still exists. The income tax is legal and authorized. Larken was convicted by a jury of his peers, but even if he was not, a jury aquittal does not make the law go away. The income tax may be evil and unjust, but it is legal.

We need to stop fighting bogeymen in closets and start fighting the real world enemies of liberty.

[ARealConservative]

Yet despite the Larken Rose case, 26 USC still exists. The income tax is legal and authorized. Larken was convicted by a jury of his peers, but even if he was not, a jury aquittal does not make the law go away. The income tax may be evil and unjust, but it is legal.

We need to stop fighting bogeymen in closets and start fighting the real world enemies of liberty.

I agree with you.

The majority of Americans support the tax.

Few American's understand that 50% of us pay 96% of income tax however.

If they were to truly understand this, and that you can't control spending or special interest fuelds government with so much unchecked incentive - they would start coming over to our side.

I like to compare the typical American voter with dropping your young cuild off at the grocery store with a blank check and a huge cart. Don't come crying to me when they return with a bunch of pop and candy. 50% of them never pay for what they vote for - they are just as irresponsible as a kid.

[Brandybuck]

I also wonder how in GOD'S NAME did an airplane FLY INTO THE PENTAGON IN THE FIRST PLACE? Is D.C not protected from airplanes and missles? C'mon.....
You guys are reaching into the realms of silliness here. To fly a plane into the a building, you turn the plane and fly into the building. Why wasn't it shot down by a missle? Because it take time to launch a missle. You just don't push a red button, you need authorization, tracking, confirmation, etc. You also want to warn the plane off first. In the meantime, the plane is travelling over 700 miles per hour.

Have you even bothered to find out these answers before, or were you just asking to be sarcastic?

[aravoth]

actually, My father in law is a pilot for american airlines. He says To perform the kind of manuvers you're talking about at less that 1500ft is impossible. Planes can easily cruise at higher elevations at high speed becuase the air is more thin. But to go that fast, performing manuvers like the ones the official story suggests, at that altitude, would literally de-stablize the plane. According to him, in the real world, if you tried to pull what the government says happened, the plane would drop, like just plain fall out of the sky. He went into more detail than that obviously. I trust him though, he's been a pilot for over 20 years. Flying commercial, 747's and the like.

[glts]

None Dare Call it Conspiracy by Gary Allen

Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin

[jon_perez]

Have you read (you certainly haven't tried to debunk) my post (http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=1318) about the Council on Foreign Relations? That group is full of extremely powerful men who are conspiring to cede America's sovereignty for a North American Union, and to bring about a global governance (George H.W Bush calls it the "New World Order").Well if you think about it, when the states formed into a Union and became the United States, the states also ceded part of their sovereignty to the federal government. In Europe, if i'm not mistaken, there are heads of the EU which are voted for by the population in the respective member countries.

So a North American Union is not per se a bad idea thought up of by evil, power-hungry conspirators. People should listen to both sides of the argument and then try to make up their minds. Listening to the conspiracy theorists only is a sure way to get your mind controlled by them.

[AlexAmore]

Well if you think about it, when the states formed into a Union and became the United States, the states also ceded part of their sovereignty to the federal government. In Europe, if i'm not mistaken, there are heads of the EU which are voted for by the population in the respective member countries.

Uhh no....

We The People wrote the Constitution. The Constitution created the government (AKA servants). The federal government is supposed to protect our SOVEREIGNTY...that's why they were created in the first place.


So a North American Union is not per se a bad idea thought up of by evil, power-hungry conspirators. People should listen to both sides of the argument and then try to make up their minds. Listening to the conspiracy theorists only is a sure way to get your mind controlled by them.
Actually it is. I'm not listening to conspiracy theorists. I did the research myself. If you think Dick Cheney (CFR) isn't evil, then that's your problem.

The NAU isn't being created by the people, it's being created by special interest organizations like the CFR. They say it right on their website in the articles they write.

Ron Paul just talked about the NAU today on Alex Jones...Paul is against it too

[glts]

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day;
but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued
unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a
deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson

[Brandybuck]

actually, My father in law is a pilot for american airlines. He says To perform the kind of manuvers you're talking about at less that 1500ft is impossible. Planes can easily cruise at higher elevations at high speed becuase the air is more thin. But to go that fast, performing manuvers like the ones the official story suggests, at that altitude, would literally de-stablize the plane. According to him, in the real world, if you tried to pull what the government says happened, the plane would drop, like just plain fall out of the sky. He went into more detail than that obviously. I trust him though, he's been a pilot for over 20 years. Flying commercial, 747's and the like.

So you're saying those two planes I saw crash into the WTC towers didn't happen? That it was some kind of video hocus pocus? That's absurd! If planes can crash into the WTC, then they can crash into the Pentagon. I am not claiming flight 77 made a 90 degree turn at low altitude and high speed. That's impossible. But flight 77 did crash into the pentagon. It may not have been captured on film, but there were eyewitnesses who saw it.

But it's pointless to direct you to any evidence, because you won't go check it out, but will dismisss the source as part of the conspiracy. Everyone remotely related to the government is part of the conspiracy, so you ignore them. Someone told you Popular Mechanics is a Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda magazine so you ignore them. Can't ask any university professors, because their silence has been purchased with government grants. And you can't talk to the people on the freeway who actually saw the plane crash into the pentagon, because they've been threatened into telling the government version. There's no one else you'll listen to except the other conspiracists in your echo chamber.

Everyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and so you ignore them. How effing convenient.

[AlexAmore]

So you're saying those two planes I saw crash into the WTC towers didn't happen? That it was some kind of video hocus pocus? That's absurd! If planes can crash into the WTC, then they can crash into the Pentagon. I am not claiming flight 77 made a 90 degree turn at low altitude and high speed. That's impossible. But flight 77 did crash into the pentagon. It may not have been captured on film, but there were eyewitnesses who saw it.

But it's pointless to direct you to any evidence, because you won't go check it out, but will dismisss the source as part of the conspiracy. Everyone remotely related to the government is part of the conspiracy, so you ignore them. Someone told you Popular Mechanics is a Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda magazine so you ignore them. Can't ask any university professors, because their silence has been purchased with government grants. And you can't talk to the people on the freeway who actually saw the plane crash into the pentagon, because they've been threatened into telling the government version. There's no one else you'll listen to except the other conspiracists in your echo chamber.

Everyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and so you ignore them. How effing convenient.

Impressive. I haven't seen a Straw Man argument of that magnitude for a long time.

[glts]

"Everyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and so you ignore them. How effing convenient."

I'm confused what did aravoth say that would lead you to this conclusion? He seemed to me just telling an observation that his father had. It seems like you are trying to discredit people by saying what they will and won't do. Let's be fair. We can all agree to disagree without getting so emotional.

[aravoth]

So you're saying those two planes I saw crash into the WTC towers didn't happen? That it was some kind of video hocus pocus? That's absurd! If planes can crash into the WTC, then they can crash into the Pentagon. I am not claiming flight 77 made a 90 degree turn at low altitude and high speed. That's impossible. But flight 77 did crash into the pentagon. It may not have been captured on film, but there were eyewitnesses who saw it.

But it's pointless to direct you to any evidence, because you won't go check it out, but will dismisss the source as part of the conspiracy. Everyone remotely related to the government is part of the conspiracy, so you ignore them. Someone told you Popular Mechanics is a Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda magazine so you ignore them. Can't ask any university professors, because their silence has been purchased with government grants. And you can't talk to the people on the freeway who actually saw the plane crash into the pentagon, because they've been threatened into telling the government version. There's no one else you'll listen to except the other conspiracists in your echo chamber.

Everyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and so you ignore them. How effing convenient.

First off. Don't talk to me like I'm some guy on a street corner holding a "the end is nigh" sign. I never said a thing, my father in law did.

Second. I was talking about the plane that hit the pentagon.

Third. Before you start blasting me as a tunnel visioned 9/11 truther, maybe you should come down from your tower long enough to see that I don't give a damn either way.

I find it interesting that you singled me out because of something someone else told me. I don't care what you saw, or what you heard. I don't give a shit about the official story, or the conspiracy theorey. The fact is that an airline pilot of 20 years told me something that is backed up by experience, and aerodynamics. What exactly is your backround?

You need to lighten up. You're just as bad a 9/11 truther in your post. When did I ever say that anyone that disagrees with me is part of the conspiracy? Ah.. who cares, you're bound to label anyone who doesn't agree with you a conspiracy theorist trapped in an echo chamber anyway. How effing convenient

[jon_perez]

Actually it is. I'm not listening to conspiracy theorists. I did the research myself. If you think Dick Cheney (CFR) isn't evil, then that's your problem.I have not formed a definitive opinion as to whether Cheney is evil or not evil (he could be misguided, stupid or misinformed for all we know...). But in the event that I conclude that he isn't, what makes that a problem?


The NAU isn't being created by the people, it's being created by special interest organizations like the CFR. They say it right on their website in the articles they write.I find the first sentence rather disingenuous. I doubt that something as important as a NAU treaty can be ratified without submitting it to the people's representatives for approval.

In other words, it is not the NAU itself that is being created by organizations like the CFR, it is a possible framework for such that is being created.

Further, I hope you would not be so careless as to infer that I am for [or against] the idea of a NAU through what I have written so far. I just think that people should be more careful with their language and try to avoid hyperbole and overstretched descriptions.

[IVXX]

So you're saying those two planes I saw crash into the WTC towers didn't happen? That it was some kind of video hocus pocus? That's absurd! If planes can crash into the WTC, then they can crash into the Pentagon. I am not claiming flight 77 made a 90 degree turn at low altitude and high speed. That's impossible. But flight 77 did crash into the pentagon. It may not have been captured on film, but there were eyewitnesses who saw it.

But it's pointless to direct you to any evidence, because you won't go check it out, but will dismisss the source as part of the conspiracy. Everyone remotely related to the government is part of the conspiracy, so you ignore them. Someone told you Popular Mechanics is a Bush/Cheney/Rove propaganda magazine so you ignore them. Can't ask any university professors, because their silence has been purchased with government grants. And you can't talk to the people on the freeway who actually saw the plane crash into the pentagon, because they've been threatened into telling the government version. There's no one else you'll listen to except the other conspiracists in your echo chamber.

Everyone who disagrees with you is part of the conspiracy, and so you ignore them. How effing convenient.

Good thing you're not claiming that 77 made a 90 degree turn since it didn't. According to the official story it was a 330 degree turn and descended 7,000 ft in 2 and a 1/2 seconds.

It seems you need to check out evidence. Can you provide a list of statements from witnesses on the freeway who actually say they saw impact?? Out of the statements that do say they saw the impact, research where they were on the freeway and what their view was. You'll find that many of the witnesses who said "I saw it hit" actually didn't see impact and only made an assumption. Did you know there's 4 witnesses, on record who actually put the plane on a totally different flight path than the official story?? 2 of those witnesses are Pentagon Police.

Me, I'm still on the fence a little as far as the Pentagon is concerned.

For those who think the gov't is only covering up it's mistakes sorry but no. There is more then enough evidence that says the gov't had foreknowledge of the attacks and consciously failed to act. Over 8 countries warned of the coming attacks including the Taliban. Some of these warnings stated hijacked airliners being flown into buildings in NYC.

[SeekLiberty]

Here's a link to the online afterword of the Debunking 9/11 Myths" book by Popular Mechanics. Read it. f your conspiracy theory isn't a religion, then you won't be excommunicated for reading it. So read it. It isn't about 9/11 in specific, it's about the conspiracist's mindset in general. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/4199607.html

Hi Brandybuck. Perhaps you really mean well but you are still behind in regards to what you think you know.

To set the record straight regarding that piece of propaganda printed by unpopular mechanics, read this book by a real scholar, and get informed of the truth:

"Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin (Paperback - Mar 30, 2007)

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-8267830-3940011?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1180656654&sr=8-1

Also, you need to understand how Title 26 coyly (fraudulently IMO) uses normal sounding words in special legal definitions. Learn the difference between WORDS in their normal sense and TERMS in their legal sense.

This is a major part of the con job and how you've been hoodwinked along with nearly all Americans. Governments are extremely sly.

Here's a few links for you to understand this:

Listen to the archives on the subject via audio with David Champion here:

http://americanradioshow.us/archive.html

Then read about it here:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/

You may want to start with this:

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/lies.php

Here's an excerpt:

"The United States government is pretty much in the full-time business of lying. Most of the state governments have jumped on the "lying" bandwagon as well. We wish it were not so. In fact, the purpose of this site is to educate the American public in the hope that such actions will no longer be tolerated by our "public servants", and such egregious conduct will end.

When a small child lies to us, it's usually pretty easy to tell. When we see the empty cookie jar, and our child sitting in a circle of cookie crumbs, we know that he is lying when he tells us that he didn't eat any cookies. Unfortunately, when the government lies, it's a lot harder to pin down the lie. The government pays very good money, to some very skilled lawyers, to formulate very well structured lies, so we need to be very sharp to catch their lies. Fortunately, all their lies (at least about the law) rely on just a few readily discernable methods of misleading you.

The government does not tell you a direct lie to your face. That would be much too easy to catch. Instead the government relies on the deceptive use of "legal terms" that you don't understand the meaning of, nor are you even aware that the "words" you're reading are actually "legal terms" that have been defined by the government to mean something completely different than what you think they mean in plain English. [See The Language of Law within this site for more detail on this issue.]"

It's going to take you some time to really understand but David Champion does a good job communicating for easier understanding than most.

Unfortunately, Auron Russo's movie cannot go into the detail on the law as the movie would be too long. It's just to get you to open your eyes so you look.

No, Auron didn't lie.

Yes, the income tax as written in Title 26 is 100% legal (although scrambled to be purposely confusing).

BUT ... does it apply to YOU as an individual, natural and private person soveriegn? That's what you need to answer for yourself.

With a little study of 9/11, you'll discover that the government's/corporate media story (the official conspiracy theory) doesn't hold up whatsoever to the truth.

Amazing huh, that our government servants would lie to us? ;-)

BTW, it's a strategy by the liars to label people "conspiracy theorists" to make them appear to look like kooks so they won't be payed attention too.

Learn the 25 Rules of disinformation so you know what they use:

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556

Of course, it's well-known that our illegal and unconstitutional invasion into Iraq was based on a pack of lies.

I understand that the truth is hard to confront, and when confronted it takes a lot of study to really understand what's going on. It's shocking and will make you mad.

Here's a good place to start for 9/11 truth:

http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20050204132153814

Here's an excerpt:

"Understanding the full truth of 9/11 seems to require two separate awakenings.

The first, awakening to the fraudulence of the "official 9/11 story," is a pretty simple brain function and only requires a little study, logic or curiosity. We can help a lot with that part here and it's a major purpose of this site.

The second step, however, consciously confronting the implications of that knowledge--and what it says about our media, politics and economic system today--is by far the harder awakening and requires an enormous exercise of nerve and heart. (As the Chinese say, "You cannot wake up a man who is pretending to sleep.") In other words, this part of the journey depends more on character than on maps and evidence so we can't help you much here, except to point out inspiring heroes and heroines who have courageously faced that truth, spoken out, and survived. (Though we might also point out the intriguing fact that our 9/11 heroines now outnumber 9/11 heroes by about six to one.)"

One last truth I'll throw at you ... :-)

"The American Republic is in remnant status." - Ron Paul, May 22, 2007 speech to Congress

These are not empty words by Ron. He means what he says. This could only happen to our Republic based on lies.

We are lied to so much that I realize it's tough to sort through everything. Just hang in there ... keep studying. You'll will soon see you did not waste your purchase of the "America: Freedom to Fascism" DVD's.

I hope you're really sincere in your quest for truth. Many people are concerned about shills posting on this board to confuse people. If you're sincere, and you really study, I hope you will post your retraction of your current beliefs here.

[Brandybuck]

Okay then, I take back the strawman. That was a cheapshot, but it's the same cheapshot I keep getting hit with by the Truthers. If you really will look at the evidence, then do so. Start with the Popular Mechanics article, then their podcast, then their book. If you say that Popular Mechanics is part of the conspiracy, then prove it. But don't just dismiss them because they don't bolster your claims!

PM says that dozens of eyewitnesses saw a large plane crash into the Pentagon. I believe them, because it's obvious that there were witnesses. There's a major freeway running right by the pentagon. PM also says that the nature of the damage demonstrates that the Pentagon was hit by a large plane. The entrance hole, based on severed support colums, was 75' wide. Ample room for fusilage. Not enough for the wings, but the wings didn't enter the building, one got sheared off and the other hit the ground. The exit hole was only 12', made by the landing gear. Thus, most of the airplane ended up in shreds and fragments INSIDE the Pentagon. There was still a lot of debris outside. There are pictures of this debris, which you can see at the PM article. You can clearly see the American Airlines color scheme on one piece.

Here's a quote from the PM article:
Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

But it's not just Popular Mechanics. Scientific American did an article too. Here's a good site with tons of info: <http://www.debunking911.com/index.html>. It's an especially remarkable site, because it manages to unmask the REAL conspiracy! <http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm>. Here's a site with a list of anti-conspiracy articles: <http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm>.

Oh, and don't forget the NIST: <http://wtc.nist.gov/>. Don't let the dot.gov domain fool you, these guys are as objective as you can get.

[aravoth]

Like I said. I've seen both sides, And I've come to the conclusion that I still don't care either way.

[IVXX]

PM says that dozens of eyewitnesses saw a large plane crash into the Pentagon. I believe them, because it's obvious that there were witnesses. There's a major freeway running right by the pentagon.


Like I said, look into these eye witness accounts.



PM also says that the nature of the damage demonstrates that the Pentagon was hit by a large plane. The entrance hole, based on severed support colums, was 75' wide. Ample room for fusilage. Not enough for the wings, but the wings didn't enter the building, one got sheared off and the other hit the ground. The exit hole was only 12', made by the landing gear. Thus, most of the airplane ended up in shreds and fragments INSIDE the Pentagon. There was still a lot of debris outside. There are pictures of this debris, which you can see at the PM article. You can clearly see the American Airlines color scheme on one piece.


Well PM is definitely wrong there. The entrance hole was not 75'. That measurement was after the wall had collapsed.

If one wing sheered off and the other hit the ground where is the damage to the ground caused by that wing??

Like I said I'm on the fence with the Pentagon but there are questions that need answers.



Oh, and don't forget the NIST: <http://wtc.nist.gov/>. Don't let the dot.gov domain fool you, these guys are as objective as you can get.


Did you know NIST never explained the collapse of the Twin Towers and has yet to release a report on WTC7??

[glts]

I have many reasons that I don't believe the official story of 9/11 but my top three are:

1) The media puppets like Hannity, etc. calling people stupid for thinking something they haven't been told to think. When these people go off on someone I become extremely suspicious. I have found they usually resort to name calling when they can't defend things with evidence. When ever I hear a rant by one of them I listen all the more to the people they are railing against. (Hey sounds like what they do to Ron Paul)

2) WTC7 - It takes time to setup explosives not just a few hours.

3) David Rockefeller speaking at the UN said, "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."

I may be wrong. More than likely we will never know the answer until the next life. What is important now is that we focus all our energies on helping to get Ron Paul elected and with his help restoring the Constitution.

[Brandybuck]

Well PM is definitely wrong there. The entrance hole was not 75'. That measurement was after the wall had collapsed.
The measurement was based on the first floor support columns that had been destroyed. It says that clearly in my post. It says that in the PM article. You must have read to fast and skipped it. But regardless, a 757 fusilage is less than 75'. The original Truther claim was that a 125' wide plane should have made a 125' wide hole. 75' after additional wall collapsed is still less than 125'.


Like I said I'm on the fence with the Pentagon but there are questions that need answers.
I understand that. And I do appreciate it. But how many answers do you need? Hundreds of questions have been met with thousands of answers, but that's still not good enough. At least give us the courtesy to examine those answers.

For example, you state above that you want me to look into the eyewitness's answers. But what about you? Eyewitness testimony holds a lot of weight in a court of law, so why do you dismiss it out of hand? The burden of proof is on the party making the extraordinary claim. So you tell me why you do not believe the eyewitnesses are credible.


Did you know NIST never explained the collapse of the Twin Towers and has yet to release a report on WTC7??
But they have! The explanation of the twin towers collapse has not only been made, it's exhaustive. Here's a link to the FAQ for the quick answers: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. And here's the voluminous report they made on the collapse: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm.

You made a very clear and unambiguous assertion that the NIST has never explained the collapse. Yet here is the explanation! It took me all of thirty seconds to find this information! You may not believe the explanation, but it IS an explanation. This was not a question of yours, it was a bold claim.

Before you make similar assertions in the future, please stop and fact check yourself. I am sure you sincerely believed that such a document did not exist. Now you know that it does. But the reason you did not know that it existed is that you never even bothered to check. Your thinking has become damaged by only considering information from a single biased source. (I'm hardly blameless in this regard. I started this thread because I discovered to my shock that I had this same problem).

p.s. As for the WTC7 report, the NIST has an explanation as to why it has not yet been released. See answer 14 of the FAQ (link above).

[RonPaul4President]

The media puppets like Hannity, etc. calling people stupid for thinking something they haven't been told to think.

Trust me, Hannity and Colmes are the ones that are stupid. They really believe what they are saying.

[Brandybuck]

1) The media puppets like Hannity, etc. calling people stupid for thinking something they haven't been told to think. When these people go off on someone I become extremely suspicious. I have found they usually resort to name calling when they can't defend things with evidence. When ever I hear a rant by one of them I listen all the more to the people they are railing against. (Hey sounds like what they do to Ron Paul)
That is an ad hominem argument. It is a basic error of logic. Your like or dislike of certain people is irrelevant to the facts of reality. You must argue to the facts, not to the person.


2) WTC7 - It takes time to setup explosives not just a few hours.
You are making the assumption that explosives were used. I have found no evidence of this. I've seen claims, but no evidence. I have, however, seen photos of the severely damaged facing of WTC7, damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers. I've already posted links fully explaining the collapse.


3) David Rockefeller speaking at the UN said, "This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long - We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
This is proof of that David Rockefeller wants wold government, and is willing to take advantage of tragedy to get it. But it is NOT proof of a conspiracy.

There are lots of people who want a world government. Unfortunately, a lot of them are in positions of influence and power. This distresses me to no end. But a group of like minded people acting according to their ideology is not a conspiracy. These people are not in power because there is a secret cabal running the world, these people are in power because the voters elected them, or they were appointed by people the voters elected. This is no great mystery.

I'm going to try to stop posting in this thread. My doctor tells me it's bad for my blood pressure. I've already posted links to excellent information. Please go read them. That will be my answer to any more questions put to me on this topic: go read through the information in the links I have already provided.

I will try to retire myself from this thread. But my warning at the beginning is sincere. Stop limiting yourself to a single narrow source of biased information.

[mordechai]

Hey. First post here. I hope it's good.

Most of the conspiracies we are told about aren't conspiracies at all, it's just that the truth is so.... incredible, that when people here it, they don't believe it.

The NAU and the NAFTA Superhighway are a 'comin folks. No two ways about it. It's going down. There are powerful people who have forged serious alliances in government who want it to happen. They even have a website about what they want!

Lou Dobbs regularly talks about it, as do Paul and Tancredo. Most folks just think that the truth is so incredible, they don't want to believe it.

As for the "mistruths" of AFTF, well, with the taxes portion, you may have a point. But the original law was written strangely to pass in an enviroment largely hostile to it. As for the Federal Reserve, it was spot on. No one believes it though.

We are regularly told the Federal Reserve controls interest rates, and the volume of money, (via bonds) in business news. People either don't care (because they can but stuff) or they support the system because they are unaware of it's implications.

We know that the Chairman of the FED is chosen by the President, and goes on until retirement or death, but any more than cursory analysis quickly shows it isn't a government entity the way the Post Office, Military, or FBI is. What we would quickly be shown is that it is quasi-governmental.

What is certain is that there is no readily apparent source of funding, and no one knows who actually "owns" the FED. Most people don't dig into this. They don't because their Visa still buys CDs and blouses at Wal Mart.

Conspiracies no. The conspirators live in the open and brag about their dirty deeds.



PS

Quit quibbling over 9/11. It is irrelevant. What is relevant is that we are much less free now, than before 9/11. What is relevant is that we could easily all be disidents in a Guiliani, Clinton, or Obama presidency, subject to waterboarding, which unfortunately has nothing to do with surfing.

We have to break down the system of obvious control, openly talked about in the Patriot Act, and the Military Commissions Act now, or 9/11 and "whodoneit?" doesn't matter one bit.

[mdh]

OK, I guess I'll jump in since what was a really good thread has been totally hi-jacked, and I feel a need to lay down some facts here with all the allegations and arguing from both sides. These are going to be facts - ones with hard backing, not theories.

1> A plane flew into the Pentagon. I know people who observed the incident from good vantage points in the area personally. It happened. I don't know the exact trajectories, but why does it even matter? Hanlon's razor folks; if the official reports on this matter are bogus, which I'm willing to entertain the possibility of, it's almost certainly because government is full of people, and lots of people people are incompetent.

2> There are individuals and corporate entities for whom increased globalization is beneficial, primarily financially. So of course those among them with the most influence and money to throw around are going to lobby for it and push their agenda. Welcome to capitalism. Thing is, with all of the "theories" about "NWO", there're plenty of undisputed facts related to globalization efforts that are right out in the open if you take a few minutes. There are also anti-globalization folks, but by and large they just aren't as effective at lobbying the people who make these sorts of decisions. Campaign finance data's out there, take a look, cross-reference that data against voting records of the candidates and against the individuals in control of the entities doing the contributing, and you'll have all of your answers pretty quickly. It hardly takes a secret society to push such an agenda.

3> Real secret societies do exist. You've never heard of them. If you have, they aren't secret anymore. :p

4> Government should be limited to fulfilling the needs that only it can fulfill, because it's so damned inefficient at doing anything. If I had the resources of FEMA and the state of Louisiana, I would've had New Orleans full of dancing happy people in under 3 months, and residents in suitable homes. Stuff's still not fixed there now. Iraq's another good example. So is the border crisis. The government just isn't good at doing stuff, because they have no motivation to be - they mandate their own bottom line, and enforce it with zeal.

5> Conspiracy is a crime. If you suspect criminal activity, the appropriate action is to file a police report. If you're not willing to do that, blathering on about conspiracies isn't productive, especially in the contexts of back-patting with other people who believe as you do, or arguing with people who have come to other conclusions than you have.


I think we can all agree on these five basic things, regardless of other peripheral beliefs, theories, or whatever else. The in-fighting is not productive.

[RonPaul4President]

There are conspiracies, and there are crimes. And then there are conpiracy theories, a third kind of thing.


Conspiracy is two or more persons plotting to do harm to someone else.
A conspiracy "theory" is fiction based on assumption.
Conspiracy, in and of itself, is a crime.

[maggiebott]

Jimmy and Alex bring up facts that cannot be denied. Let us not forget flight 93 and the bits and pieces buried into a hole. No bodies or luggage at the location. Take notice that the jersey girls seemed to be the only ones pushing for an investigation. I hope one day they get the real facts.

[AlexAmore]

1> A plane flew into the Pentagon. I know people who observed the incident from good vantage points in the area personally. It happened. I don't know the exact trajectories, but why does it even matter? Hanlon's razor folks; if the official reports on this matter are bogus, which I'm willing to entertain the possibility of, it's almost certainly because government is full of people, and lots of people people are incompetent.

Nobody was punished. I still smell a cover-up.


2> There are individuals and corporate entities for whom increased globalization is beneficial, primarily financially. So of course those among them with the most influence and money to throw around are going to lobby for it and push their agenda. Welcome to capitalism. Thing is, with all of the "theories" about "NWO", there're plenty of undisputed facts related to globalization efforts that are right out in the open if you take a few minutes. There are also anti-globalization folks, but by and large they just aren't as effective at lobbying the people who make these sorts of decisions. Campaign finance data's out there, take a look, cross-reference that data against voting records of the candidates and against the individuals in control of the entities doing the contributing, and you'll have all of your answers pretty quickly. It hardly takes a secret society to push such an agenda.

You forgot about all the political/government entities who are pushing for globalization. It's not just corporations. If i'm not mistaken, corporations are doing fine if they want to go global. It's the global organizations like the U.N, IPCC...ect. It's global government that we didn't elect but are governing the world anyways.


3> Real secret societies do exist. You've never heard of them. If you have, they aren't secret anymore. :p

I don't think anyone's disagreeing with you here. I don't think anyone is talking about "secret societies" except for you. I talk about the organizations who aren't trying to keep it a secret, it's just nobody does the simple research.


4> Government should be limited to fulfilling the needs that only it can fulfill, because it's so damned inefficient at doing anything. If I had the resources of FEMA and the state of Louisiana, I would've had New Orleans full of dancing happy people in under 3 months, and residents in suitable homes. Stuff's still not fixed there now. Iraq's another good example. So is the border crisis. The government just isn't good at doing stuff, because they have no motivation to be - they mandate their own bottom line, and enforce it with zeal.

The Bush administration have differing views about what a crisis is. So what a crisis is to you is a work in progress for them.


5> Conspiracy is a crime. If you suspect criminal activity, the appropriate action is to file a police report. If you're not willing to do that, blathering on about conspiracies isn't productive, especially in the contexts of back-patting with other people who believe as you do, or arguing with people who have come to other conclusions than you have.

I think there is actually a lawsuit being filed against many people high up in the government which will address many serious issues of this magnitude. I haven't looked into it much though.


I think we can all agree on these five basic things, regardless of other peripheral beliefs, theories, or whatever else. The in-fighting is not productive.
Well we are in the "general politics & other" section. :p

[Kregener]

To address the thread topic:

Ratification requires 2/3rds of the states, so the ratification required by at least 36 states -- three-fourths of the 48 states then in existence -- has to be identical to the amendment passed by Congress. Federal documents affirming that for state approval to be acceptable, neither words nor punctuation can be changed. And the states may not violate their own state constitutions in ratifying the amendment.

Of the 48 states, here's the story:

* Eight states (Rhode Island, Utah, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Florida, Virginia and Pennsylvania) did not approve or ratify the amendment.
* Texas and Louisiana were forbidden by their own state constitutions to empower the federal government to tax.
* Vermont and Massachusetts rejected the amendment with a recorded vote count, and only later declared it passed without a recorded vote after the amendment was declared ratified by Knox.
* Tennessee, Ohio, Mississippi, California and Washington violated their state constitutions in their ratification procedures.
* Minnesota did not send any copy of its resolution to Knox, let alone a signed and sealed one, as required.
* And Oklahoma, Georgia and Illinois made unacceptable changes in wording. (Some of the above states also made such changes, in addition to their other unacceptable procedures.)

Take 48 states, deduct these 21, and you have proper ratification by only 27 states -- far less than the required 36.

http://political-resources.com/taxes/cc/index.htm
http://www.salestax.org/library/skousen_16history.html
http://www.supremelaw.org/press/kspt.htm
http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=3051

Blind "obedience" to the state, no matter the truth or the law, is what it is...

[mdh]

Excellent post, Kregener! Thanks for the straight-forward info.

Alexamore, as for the government/etc entities pushing for globalization, my point was that these are most certainly bought and sold by those private entities I was referring to, making them no less than agents of those entities. Ron Paul is in a tiny minority of federal elected officials who are not paid for by a given group of special interests. Like I said, compare voting records against where their funding comes from, and it all becomes real clear, real fast.
With regards to a pending lawsuit, that's cool - putting case law on the books is not bad, nor is civil discovery. But if what's being alleged is a crime, shouldn't criminal penalties be imposed and not just civil judgments sought?

[SeekLiberty]

You are making the assumption that explosives were used. I have found no evidence of this. I've seen claims, but no evidence.

I'm going to try to stop posting in this thread. My doctor tells me it's bad for my blood pressure. I've already posted links to excellent information. Please go read them. That will be my answer to any more questions put to me on this topic: go read through the information in the links I have already provided.

I will try to retire myself from this thread. But my warning at the beginning is sincere. Stop limiting yourself to a single narrow source of biased information.

"There you go again." ;-) I really wish you would take your own advice. What amazes me is that you trust, and quote as one of your sources for "truth" the crap produced by Popular Mechanics.

Have you ordered the book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" yet? ... which I mentioned earlier? If not, you really should. It will open your eyes if you really are seeking truth and are as unbiased and such a skeptic that you imply you are.

"You are making the assumption that explosives were used. I have found no evidence of this. I've seen claims, but no evidence."

Where have you been? The evidence is in the world trade center dust. Have you carefully looked into Professor Jones work? If you have, then you would know that the criminals left a fingerprint to the crime of 9/11. It's conclusive rock- solid evidence that explosives were used.

Besides the hard evidence, it doesn't take much brainwork to actually SEE how the towers fell to know that explosives HAD to have been used. You don't even believe your own eyes! lol.

You've been sloppy in your homework. Please do your reading assignment from my earlier post. ;-)

Now let's define conspiracy as they happen all the time.

Def: Conspiracy - Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

Def: Fraud - a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity and with the intent to deceive another and that is reasonably relied on by the other who is injured thereby

Clearly, there was a conspiracy to commit fraud upon Americans that led us into a pre-emptive invasion and occupation of Iraq. I know who they are too. Do you? I can name names. They were in our face.

Clearly, 9/11 was a conspiracy. Now we need to find out ... WHO DID IT?

I can tell you are careless of your facts just by the fact that you're apparently not a proponent of wanting to be clear on the meanings of words/terms.

When you do that, because of YOUR confusion (if it's not ill intent), you confuse others. That's my main objection about your post. It hurts me to see people like you do that and confuse others.

You wrote, "But my warning at the beginning is sincere."

Sorry, but I don't buy that anymore. It seems like you have some agenda. If you really wanted others to think for themselves and were objective yourself, you would have ALSO referred the reader to the book ...

"Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory" by David Ray Griffin.

Knowing Griffin's argument is a very important part of knowing the full picture.

You wrote, "Stop limiting yourself to a single narrow source of biased information"

Why don't you? Why don't you follow your own advice?

People like you are not serving the cause of truth and justice. To me you sound more like a shill ACTING as if you're unbiased and seeking truth ... but with the actual purpose of throwing in confusion.

Now you're wanting to run from this thread? Typical. lol.

I know that truth will constantly be shot at by shills sabotaging this message board, by fogging up the truth to confuse people, who do NOT want Ron Paul to get elected for our president.

I'm not saying you're a shill. But, IMO, you're sure acting and looking like one.

[IVXX]

The measurement was based on the first floor support columns that had been destroyed. It says that clearly in my post. It says that in the PM article. You must have read to fast and skipped it. But regardless, a 757 fusilage is less than 75'. The original Truther claim was that a 125' wide plane should have made a 125' wide hole. 75' after additional wall collapsed is still less than 125'.


Initial reports before the wall collapsed said the whole was no more than 25' wide. I'll look at it more though. Like I said I sit on the fence with the Pentagon so I focus on other issues about 9/11. Also I lean towards a 757 hit more than I lean towards it didn't but I still have questions about the plane.



I understand that. And I do appreciate it. But how many answers do you need? Hundreds of questions have been met with thousands of answers, but that's still not good enough. At least give us the courtesy to examine those answers.


I understand what you're saying. However there are still are questions. The government could squash this by releasing a video that shows Flight 77 but they have failed to do that so far. Another thing is there was a security camera at the point of impact. The government saysit was destroyed on impact and I'm sure it was. However the footage of what that camera was picking up was not with the camera. Infact that footage should have been recorded at the same place as the footage they did release.



For example, you state above that you want me to look into the eyewitness's answers. But what about you? Eyewitness testimony holds a lot of weight in a court of law, so why do you dismiss it out of hand? The burden of proof is on the party making the extraordinary claim. So you tell me why you do not believe the eyewitnesses are credible.


Actually eye witness testimony isn't rock solid. They could not remember details or embellish the account. One witness who's name I can remember said they saw the plane hit the Pentagon followed by a huge fire ball and expolsion that made the wall collapse. The wall didn't collapse until 20-30 mins after imapct.



But they have! The explanation of the twin towers collapse has not only been made, it's exhaustive. Here's a link to the FAQ for the quick answers: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. And here's the voluminous report they made on the collapse: http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm.

You made a very clear and unambiguous assertion that the NIST has never explained the collapse. Yet here is the explanation! It took me all of thirty seconds to find this information! You may not believe the explanation, but it IS an explanation. This was not a question of yours, it was a bold claim.

Before you make similar assertions in the future, please stop and fact check yourself. I am sure you sincerely believed that such a document did not exist. Now you know that it does. But the reason you did not know that it existed is that you never even bothered to check. Your thinking has become damaged by only considering information from a single biased source. (I'm hardly blameless in this regard. I started this thread because I discovered to my shock that I had this same problem).


This is where I have to ask you to fact check. I've read the NIST report. I own a hard copy of it. NIST explanation stops at collapse initiation and then states that global collapse was inevitable. They do not explain why there was an entire collapse or how it collapsed so fasted. That's not an assertion, that's fact.

[Gimme Some Truth]

Iv looked hard at both sides and I find that ,atm, its a mixture of both the official theory and the 911 truth theory.

I find Prof Jone's work very interesting and also Griffin and Tarpley's. The rest , like Loose Change , very amateurish and not very fact-based ... tho I don't think they intentionally put false points in their films. It will be interesting to see whats left in the final addition of Loose Change however.

Anyhow, I really don't think 911 theory debates are really whats needed on a Ron Paul forum. Of course Ive only just joined the site , however I think the media will be out looking for ways to bring down Ron Paul's appeal in any way they can ...they have already tried to put him in bed with Students for 911Truth. Whether or not 911 turns out to be an inside job in any way,shape or form It really is irrelevant at this point. Im sure Ron Paul ,once elected , would listen to the cries for a new investigation of some sort.