Rusted Sky

I think 'South Park' nailed it, myself.

Didn't see that - what's the short form?

J.

Cartman claims that the true culprit behind 9/11 attacks was Kyle (who is Jewish). He has no real evidence but manages to convince everyone that Kyle is guilty. Kyle enlists Stan's help, and they leave South Park to find an organization that can prove Kyle's innocence. The group they find, however, believes that the United States government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. A SWAT team attacks and arrests Kyle, Stan, and the leader of the conspiracy organization. They are taken to The White House, where President Bush admits that the government actually is behind 9/11. The head of the conspiracy group is executed by the President, and the boys make a miraculous escape before the Vice President can kill them with a crossbow.

Later, Stan and Kyle run into the leader of the conspiracy group alive and well. After a short chase by Stan and Kyle, he is cornered in a back alley and shot dead by the father of the Hardly boys [a plot thread I’ve ignored for brevity’s sake], who reveals that his detective sons discovered that all the conspiracy websites are false and run by the government. Stan, Kyle, and the Hardly family congregate at the Hardly house as the Bush Administration arrives. The President admits that the government wasn't behind 9/11. He explains they actually run the websites, so that the fourth of the country who are retarded enough to believe conspiracies will believe the government is all-powerful, while the other three-quarters know the truth: That "a bunch of pissed off Muslims" actually executed the 9/11 attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_of_the_Urinal_Deuce

You mean it wasn't UFO's from Atlantis?

AJacksonian -

Well, it COULD have been, though there's no real evidence... which practially guarantees it for some, right?

J.

If the government was not against the United States, why are all of the facts not adding up? Also, why is it when citizens question what exactly happened on September 11th, the government never answers the questions? Not the mention, whenever a government official states anything that could catch Bush and his administration in this huge lie and that they are real terrorists, even if they just put a dint into it, the official gets fired for it?

All these questions are answered in this one statement: No matter how much the government claims that they did not plan the terrorist attacks, they left evidence that proves it and that the Supreme Court would find them guilty and sentenced for life for murder. Bush claims that he is anti-death and he goes around killing his own innocent people most likely for more money because that is all he cares about.

They come up with an idea to write a bogus book to show what great liars they are called the "9/11 Commission Report" and they still get caught by a book called "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions". What do we have to do to get through their heads that citizens realize that the U.S. government is the real terrorists behind the attacks and we are just waiting for them to admit it? We must tell them we know they plan the attacks and let them know what they did was incorrect and now widows, children and families are suffering without their loved ones and have to grieve over the death. The cause of the death by an autopsy you might ask?

It is not a fatal plane crash, but Bush and his administration flying other people’s innocent lives into the Twin Towers, "a field in Pennsylvania" and "The Pentagon" when it should have been his own.

Oh, God. Another conspiracy nut. No facts, just opinion, just hyperbole. Sheer idiotic opinion, disguised as 'fact'.

Thanks for playing, junior. Have a nice day.

J.

I respect your opinion about the government and how it hasn't killed Dylan Avery, but I don't agree that just because they weren't killed, that means that the government is innoccent of all crimes. You are assuming that a man with horrible piolit skills, Honjur, was able to get past the anti-misile system on the most protected building in the United States, the Pentagon. You are also assuming that Al Qaeda would be able to pull off such a scandal leaving evidence that points to the US government. What would their motive be for attacking the largest and most intelligent millitary country in the world? These are questions that need to be asked.

Jessica -

There's no anti-missile system on the Pentagon. There's also no indication that the US government orchestrated the attacks, aside from some fevered dreams of conspiracy theorists. We DO have good, clear evidence that points to Al Quaeda doing the job, and they publicly and loudly took the credit.

By the way, you seem to think it takes a great deal of piloting skill to find a large city like NY, and find a tall building in it, and ram a plane into it. It doesn't, as anyone with a copy of Flight Simulator can tell you. The hardest thing in flying is landing the plane, and they weren't looking to do that.

What would be their motive? Look at what they published - they hate the US, they hate the West, they hate the modern world, they hate everyone who doesn't believe as they do, they hate any possibility that their culture and beliefs might be questioned or even made fun of... and hate is a VERY strong motivator.

I noticed you're posting from the U of F. I'd like to caution you that critical thinking does not mean automatic reflexive disbelief, but a careful evaluation of all relevant information on the subject. Credulous belief of secondhand speculation and theorizing that ignores hard facts and hard science is not critical thinking.

J.

I agree with Jessica on what she said about the government not killing Averly but that does not mean that they are innoccent. I disagree with saying that Al Qaeda could pull off this scandal and leave evidence that points to the US government unless the government had paid him to put such a scandal into action. Just because Al Qaeda does not like people who do not share the same faith or anything as he does; does not mean that he would have attacked one of the most powerful countries in the world without a better reason than not sharing the same things as he does.

What evidence pointing to the US government? Paid him to put such a scandal into action? That's an interesting way to put it...

Sorry - but if you think you're going to convince me, you're going to need a LOT of solid evidence. And I don't think you've got it. What I think is, you've been told by someone you trust that these things are true, and you've had no reason to question or investigate them for yourself.

So. Point it out. Use primary sources, because I will NOT accept second or third-hand interpretive speculation, or creative interpretation of photos. Do the research, make your case so bulletproof that I've got no choice BUT to believe. I've gone over a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy sites, though, and it's pretty evident that you've got to go into that sort of stuff WANTING to believe - there's just too many holes otherwise.

It's your job to convince me you're right. Remember, though, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So you'd better have something extraordinary.

By the way, just to warn you, if you put in a bunch of links your comment will get held for approval. Don't worry, I won't let it languish in the spamtrap long.

Hmm. three folks so far from the U of WF according to the IP address. That's pretty extraordinary in itself...

J.

Then tell me this "Mr. J," have you gone up to the President of the United States and personally interviewed him and asked he what exactly happened on September 11th AND given him a lie detector test of some sort to show proof that it was not planned by him and his administration? I didn't think so.
Have you asked him questions and he has answers them with evidence that is not him? No answer.
It shouldn't matter what my opinion is. What should matter is that the guy that you trust in So much is lying to you and the rest of the country about his wrong doing. I'm surprised that he is not trying to rush out of office by now. Thank God that lying old man is leaving office soon! COUNTDOWN!!!

I normally don't change a user's comments - but I almost made an exception in your case because you're doing a terrible job of convincing me you know anything at all about this.

Look, I'm asking YOU for evidence. Evidence, not arguement. The two are not the same thing, regardless of what you might think. You won't convince me by arguing at me or ranting or changing the subject - you'll convince me with facts. Solid facts, hard facts, information I can verify the authenticity and correctness of.

You're real short on facts and long on emotional ranting - I understand it feels good to you but it's not going to convince me.

You'll have to try harder. As the saying goes, put up or shut up. You've taken on the responsibility of convincing me you're right - I don't have any responsibility to defend MY viewpoints or beliefs.

You, however, are doing a miserable job persuading me that you're in the right on this so far.

J.

By the way, "theusadminturned" - I do not tolerate trolls or trollish behavior here, and my bar is pretty low for deciding what is and what is not appropriate.

If you're looking for a place to rant or throw insults, you're not welcome. If you're looking to discuss this, if you're willing to be polite and respectful of MY opinions, then I'm glad to have you as a commenter. I don't mind disagreement and discussion at all, but I will not tolerate certain types of behavior, and you're edging pretty close to the limits of what I find acceptable.

J.

It is understandable to believe that if the government executed the attacks on 9/11 they would easily be able to shut down production of a film, let alone just kill off those who may be starting a conspiracy theory. However, I disagree that just because this didn't happen it is full proof that the government is innocent and had nothing to do with 9/11. Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event? The questions posed by the public are ignored by the government, and given to a team of writers to make a book that still leaves the questions UNanswered. The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another.

Is it really that improbable that the government can be held responsible for such a catastrophic event?

When the evidence doesn't point to it, I find it hard to believe that it's responsible.

Is it really that improbable that the moon is not made out of cheese? Admittedly, we've had photographic and spectroscopic evidence for years, we've had lunar samples returned which show a decided lack of dairy products, we've had people walk on it who've found nothing resembling cheese... but still the question remains. Could the moon indeed be made of cheese?

The answer to that question is, of course, dependent on how determined you are to maintain your view that the moon is made of cheese. Did the astronauts look under every rock? Did they do deep-core drilling to get samples beyond a possibly stony rind? How do we KNOW the moon is not made of cheese? Have we taken it apart, sifted down through every bit to make sure there's no brie or cheddar hidden amongst the minerals?

There is, to my thinking, no amount of evidence that will persuade a hard-core 'truther'. Look at your own circuitious logic, and you yourself put it solidly - "The government if fully capable of carrying such an attack out, and I’m sure they were involved in one way or another."

Give me your proof. Give me the facts that make you think that. Persuade me. That's what I'm asking you to do, and this doesn't do it.

J.

Everyone is entittled to their own views about everything that happens in the world, but you say that the government could not kill its own people. While then how about when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor; the government did not believe the guy who had cracked Japan's code and figured out when, where, and what time the attack was going to happen. When he told them about it the government had discharged him from the military and told him that he had translated the code wrong. The government had left the soilders without any type of information about the attacks and unperpaired for them. The government had let the attacks happen so that the people would agree to support them in a war. So if the government could do this once then why couldn't they do again. I think that the government plans this kind of thing when it is on the verge of losing the people's support. 9/11 was just an excuse to get the American people to come together and support a war that could led to the end of the terrorist in the world.

Your main assumption is that the government could not have conducted the attacks on 9/11 based upon the fact that Dylan Avery is alive today and the film Loose Change is still available for public view on the internet. I beg to disagree with this assumption. One, just because this college student is still alive does not mean that the government is blameless for the horrific acts from that September. Two, this assums that Al Quaeda was successfully able to accomplish this while placing the blame on the United States government. This cannot make sense, since this is an impossible feat for a single human being. Third, this assumption would claim that a single person, with terrible pioting skills, was able to fly a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon without leaving any significant evidence around the Pentagon and leaving no significant eye witnesses. Based upon these, I think that your assumption needs to be reexamined.

Belliot -

Again, you're missing a point here. I'm asking for the sources of your opinions. I want to know WHY you believe as you do. I know why I believe as I do. Here's some info on the Pentagon.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

You might want to read the whole article, but please pay special attention to the paragraph on the Pentagon that says "At 9:37 am on 9/11, 51 minutes after the first plane hit the World Trade Center, the Pentagon was similarly attacked. Though dozens of witnesses saw a Boeing 757 hit the building, conspiracy advocates insist there is evidence that a missile or a different type of plane smashed into the Pentagon."

I gotta tell you, I'm not impressed yet with the quality of analysis you folks at the U of WF are capable of. I keep asking for facts (an example of which is the Popular Mechanics article above) and you keep trying to hand me garbage. You're running out of time.

J.

Alyne -

9/11 was just an excuse to get the American people to come together and support a war that could led to the end of the terrorist in the world.

You say that like it's a BAD thing.

Okay, I'll make it as plain as I can. I've asked several times for FACTS, and you try to keep palming off OPINION. You are not convincing me of anything except the sheer lack of a base for your opinions. Handwaving about the past doesn't do a blessed thing towards convincing me of anything in the present.

You will not convince me with anything less than hard, solid, factual evidence. Please take a look at the Popular Mechanics article I referenced above for the type of proof that I'm looking for. Those guys did the job, looking into everything the so-called 'truthers' claimed about 9/11 and finding their 'facts' to be a pile of steaming misconceptions and downright misrepresentations.

Read it. Think about what you read. Then try to frame your 'evidence' in the same fashion, with the same factual backing the PM editors did.

Good luck.

J.

Okay, guys, here's some more sites for you to try your theories on.

http://www.911myths.com

http://www.debunking911.com/

Take a look at those. Pay careful attention to the hard science and analysis presented in them. THAT is the level of research, proof and analysis I expect.

Good luck.

J.