PrisonPlanet.tv - What are they trying to say?

[Stompy]

I was watching this interview by Alex Jones with Charlie Sheen... and Sheen was saying something along the lines of, "People think we're the conspiracy theorists, but we aren't. I'm just stepping out to dispel the lies that mass media has told us."

There's just so much info and stuff on that site that I don't have time (at the moment) to sift through. I also can't find a synopsis.

What exactly are they trying to say?

The interview mentioned that the towers supposedly fell in a controlled demolition manner.

So just a few questions I guess:

1. Main one.. What exactly do they think happened, and why?

2. Assuming they believe the govt is responsible: Why exactly would the govt want to do this? Money? Oil? To take away our rights? If so, why? Terms expire. What do they get out of securing a controlling rotating government? It's not like Bush would remain as some sort of dictator/emperor.

Considering 2004 elections were very close, it's not like a static party in office would remain, so that'd mean some Dems would have to be in on it too.

I mean, while I'm not sure what happened, it seems like they're insinuating there was this elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.. I'm just tryin to make some sense of it all.

Plus, something along the lines of something that massive where everyone involved keeps the secret... I dunno. It would take a lot of people, and would require a lot of people to keep their mouths shut, something I don't think is entirely possible. Someone somewhere woulda stepped forward with sufficient evidence or accusations, because there are a lot of people that would like to see this administration crubmle.

So... any summaries as to what they're trying to say?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by Stompy

I was watching this interview by Alex Jones with Charlie Sheen... and Sheen was saying something along the lines of, "People think we're the conspiracy theorists, but we aren't. I'm just stepping out to dispel the lies that mass media has told us."

There's just so much info and stuff on that site that I don't have time (at the moment) to sift through. I also can't find a synopsis.

What exactly are they trying to say?

The interview mentioned that the towers supposedly fell in a controlled demolition manner.

So just a few questions I guess:

1. Main one.. What exactly do they think happened, and why?

2. Assuming they believe the govt is responsible: Why exactly would the govt want to do this? Money? Oil? To take away our rights? If so, why? Terms expire. What do they get out of securing a controlling rotating government? It's not like Bush would remain as some sort of dictator/emperor.

Considering 2004 elections were very close, it's not like a static party in office would remain, so that'd mean some Dems would have to be in on it too.

I mean, while I'm not sure what happened, it seems like they're insinuating there was this elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.. I'm just tryin to make some sense of it all.

Plus, something along the lines of something that massive where everyone involved keeps the secret... I dunno. It would take a lot of people, and would require a lot of people to keep their mouths shut, something I don't think is entirely possible. Someone somewhere woulda stepped forward with sufficient evidence or accusations, because there are a lot of people that would like to see this administration crubmle.

So... any summaries as to what they're trying to say?

There is just so much contradictory evidence to the 9/11 commission it's very difficult to sum up. It took me over 6 months of reading and watching various films about this subject to come to the conclusion that I actually believe that the government is covering up 9/11. The key to why this movement is growing in strength and credibility is because these guys document everything tirelessly. Almost every thing you hear them say has come out in mainstream news reports but hasn't been heavily focused on. The only speculation or conspiracy theories they get into is in regards to who and why they did it, which they base off all the information they have received.

1. They believe the towers were brought down by a controlled demolition mainly due to the firefighter tapes that say they heard numerous bombs doing off that day, the improbability of fire bringing down buildings that were designed to withstand direct hits from large airliners, and the destruction of the WTC 7 building that day that never even had a plane hit it and was free standing with only a couple small fires in it after WTC 1 and 2 fell. They attempt to stay away from the information that talks about pods under the planes and the theory that a missle hit the pentagon because those issues are difficult to prove one way or another, although they do look very suspicious. Bottom line though, they belive a small crimminal element of the government either planned the attacks directly or allowed them to happen.

They do focus on what they can prove through mainstream media reports of things like:
a. Northwoods document - declassified US government plan to carry out terror attacks on the civilian population and blame it on Cuba.
b. Multiple military war games on the day of 9/11 depicting flying planes into buildings which is the reason they belive NORAD never acted (they thought it was a drill)
c. Pentagon officials and Mayor Willie Brown being called and told not to fly to New York on 9/11.
d. Insider put options on the airline compaines shortly before 9/11.
e. Steel from the WTC towers shipped to China instead of being investigated.
f. Stonewalling of a 9/11 investigation, then attempting to appoint henry kissenger to run it and claiming it was independent.
g. Silverstein's (leaseholder of WTC complex) mysterious 'pull it' command regarding WTC 7 and the massive insurance policy he took out on the complex shortly before 9/11.

The list goes on and on and on. There are so many smoking guns. Some people have other things that they feel are bigger smoking guns, but those are just a few of the points prisonplanet focuses on. Check out http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html for the original news links to the above reports.

2. Basically all that you mentioned there. This is best outlined in the Project for the New American Century. Basically this is an organization that called for a radical reorganization of the foreign policy in the middle east (members include paul wolfowitz, dick cheney, jeb bush, rumsfeld, and the list of neo-cons goes on). In a sept 2000 document they claimed they need a catalyzing event like a "new Pearl Harbor" to get the population behind a war since the US no longer had any enemies due to the the Cold War being over.

Terms do expire, however there was a 4th plane that was supposed to hit the capitol building or whitehouse or who knows where which could of put an end to our form of government as we know it. Thing don't always go as planned and besides speculating about who did it and why isn't what's important. The real goal is to show enough people that the government is covering up key points about 9/11 and there needs to be a new independent investigation to figure out precisely who did it and why.

As for many people needing to be involved in the attacks, well that's true. Yet, there have been numerous former CIA and FBI members who have come forward with their doubts of the official story, and the two most prominent past government employees that I know of are Paul Craig Roberts, former Asst. Sec. Department of Treasury, and Morgan Reynolds former chief economist for the Dept. of Labor under George W. Bush's first term. Also a current member of congress Cynthia McKinney has expressed her doubts about the attacks.

Also, this is just ONE of the thousands of sites that have archived news reports contradicting the official story of 9/11. The amount of information is totally overwhelming actually. If you really want to learn more about it, download movies like 911 in plane site, 911 the road to tyranny, loose change, 911 marial law rise of the police state, or books like 9/11 commission report: ommissions and distortions.

[Ustwo]

Very few crazy people will tell you they are in fact crazy.

They will have many arguments for why they are in fact sane no matter how crazy they are.

No matter how many plausable explanations exsist, they always go for the most dark and convoluted one. Often it seems they will believe multiple theories which would not be compatable with each other. Its almost comical what people will believe but if they say it over and over enough, like a mantra, then it must be true.

I find it amazing that people who believe these sites are able to function in society, and I'm sure some could really benifit with some professional help.

My .02 on it.

[samcol]

Are the top level government employees who are saying 9/11 looks like an inside job also crazy? How do you respond to a CIA agent who prepared Reagan and Bush I's daily security briefs saying 9/11 was an iside job. As well as other Reagan and even W. Bush administration members saying the same thing.

Back to prisonplanet, Alex Jones has been on a ton of show's lately. Here's an audio of him on the Alan Colmes radio show.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...0406colmes.htm

And video of him on an MTV show
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles.../020406MTV.htm

[ASU2003]

Originally Posted by Stompy

2. Assuming they believe the govt is responsible: Why exactly would the govt want to do this? Money? Oil? To take away our rights? If so, why? Terms expire. What do they get out of securing a controlling rotating government? It's not like Bush would remain as some sort of dictator/emperor.

Considering 2004 elections were very close, it's not like a static party in office would remain, so that'd mean some Dems would have to be in on it too.

I mean, while I'm not sure what happened, it seems like they're insinuating there was this elaborate conspiracy and cover-up.. I'm just tryin to make some sense of it all.

Plus, something along the lines of something that massive where everyone involved keeps the secret... I dunno. It would take a lot of people, and would require a lot of people to keep their mouths shut, something I don't think is entirely possible. Someone somewhere woulda stepped forward with sufficient evidence or accusations, because there are a lot of people that would like to see this administration crubmle.

There are some things I find troubling with the events and aftermath of the attack. Where's the video footage from the security cameras around the pentagon? Video and audio can be forged now however. Are seven of the hijackers victims of identity theft and are still alive like the BBC reported? Who are the people who get on the planes from the security cameras at the airport? Why wasn't there a real open investigation and analysis done. Why did WTC 7 come down? Was flight 93 shot down?

Do you really think it matters who is in power, the Democrats or Republicans? To quote Jim Cramer "We are a nation of, for, & by the corporations" or something like that. Money in their bank account doesn't go away after the term is over. And there are plenty of companies in the business of war that are doing very good right now.

But there have been plenty of attacks and bombings by radical muslims before. So, a few of them still could have done this. I don't see what they would gain from the attack, but then again, I don't think Japan got much from the Pearl Harbor attack either. If the Dec 7 attack happened in modern times, there would be people saying that China did it posing as japanese and wanted us to take out it's enemy. Or that the big companies wanted to make more money for military supplies.

There is no way someone working for the government would come forward. Who would they go to, the 'free' press? The worker would give up his comfortable lifestyle to go rot away in a jail. They could make a website, but they would get labeled as a crazy person. Unless they had the evidence to convince the majority of Americans that it was planned by someone else (and didn't get killed first).

What would happen if it was discovered that al qaeda didn't do it?

[Jack Ruby]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I find it amazing that people who believe these sites are able to function in society, and I'm sure some could really benifit with some professional help.

Don't be so patronizing.

Some "crazy conspiracy theorists" may be a bit... unbalanced, but very few of them display knee-jerk derogatory reactions like the one you just portrayed. Calling someone crazy because their views don't match yours is intellectual laziness, and not very nice.

[Jack Ruby]

By the way, people are staring themselves blind on the physical evidence. The whole JFK assassination thing proved that that's not enough to put something in the spotlight. For someone looking for more non-concrete information regarding a (possible) 911 conspiracy, this is a good starting point: The coincidence theorist's guide to 9/11.

I can also recommend Mike Ruppert's book, Crossing the Rubicon, if you're not put off by reading 500 pages about air force drills, shady monetary transactions and the inner workings of intelligence agencies.

[Willravel]

Um there are several threads on 9/11 right here in paranoia, I suspect that they can answer most of your questions.

[Ustwo]

Originally Posted by Jack Ruby

Don't be so patronizing.

Some "crazy conspiracy theorists" may be a bit... unbalanced, but very few of them display knee-jerk derogatory reactions like the one you just portrayed. Calling someone crazy because their views don't match yours is intellectual laziness, and not very nice.

Hardly intellecual laziness. I looked at the 'evidence' and I find it very lacking. I could have the truth about everything from 9/11 to Area 51 written on Golden Tablets and signed by God and there would be people who would come up with different answers based on bad science or outright fabrication. Its not about views, its about logic. I'll respect any opinion where we can share the same facts but differ in outlook, but when you start to twist the facts my respect for that opinion is gone.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hardly intellecual laziness. I looked at the 'evidence' and I find it very lacking. I could have the truth about everything from 9/11 to Area 51 written on Golden Tablets and signed by God and there would be people who would come up with different answers based on bad science or outright fabrication. Its not about views, its about logic. I'll respect any opinion where we can share the same facts but differ in outlook, but when you start to twist the facts my respect for that opinion is gone.

You may have looked at the evidence (anything is possible, I suppose), but your posts in the 9/11 thread(s) show the same knee jerk response without asking any real questions. This tells me that you either have dismissed the evidence without any real consideration, or you have not read it at all. I'll tell you what, respond to this post, and then you will be justified, in my eyes, saying that you looked at the evidence. If not, then I see no reason to take your word.

[Jack Ruby]

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Hardly intellecual laziness.

Well okay, maybe that was a bit of an overstatement on my part. Still, to me your comments about 'believers' being insane to the point where you doubt their ability to function in society is a bit harsh. Reminds me of people who flat-out say "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" without realizing the absurdity of that statement.

Okay, I'm done.

[MSD]

Originally Posted by willravel

You may have looked at the evidence (anything is possible, I suppose), but your posts in the 9/11 thread(s) show the same knee jerk response without asking any real questions. This tells me that you either have dismissed the evidence without any real consideration, or you have not read it at all. I'll tell you what, respond to this post, and then you will be justified, in my eyes, saying that you looked at the evidence. If not, then I see no reason to take your word.

Here's a critical excerpt from your post. The extensive calculations (removed for space) appear to be accurate.

Originally Posted by willravel

So, the jet fuel could (at the very most) have only added T - 25 = 282 - 25 = 257° C (495° F) to the temperature of the typical office fire that developed.

Remember, this figure is a huge over-estimate, as (among other things) it assumes that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb the heat, whereas in reality, the jet fuel fire was all over in one or two minutes, and the energy not absorbed by the concrete and steel within this brief period (that is, almost all of it) would have been vented to the outside world.

The following are excerpts from two of my sources in a paper addressing the 9/11 conspiracy theories. Thomas Eagar, who is MIT's Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems

“The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.”

“The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner. That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for -- a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side. On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.”

citation:
Tyson, Peter.”The Collapse: an Engineer's Perspective.”Why the Towers Fell. 2002. NOVA Online. May 2002 <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html>

I've attached a copy of the paper, which revieved an "A" from the professor who, after spending the semester encouraging discussion and consideration of every possible series of events regarding 9/11 (and doubted the official version,) agreed with me based on the evidence I presented that the official version is the most plausible, and that much of the information on which people base their doubts is either misleading or outright false.

I welcome criticism, contrary evidence, spectulation, hypothesizing, or anything you can say in a civil manner about my writing that could help me to improve it. While the assignment is long gone, and those who I needed to convince having been convinced, I want to expand my work to the point that I have proven the opposing arguments wrong, or I back myself into a corner and cannot substantiate my own claims and have to start from the beginning with a different hypothesis.