MSD

I'll answer, too

1: Yes
2: Yes
3: I believe that important things were overlooked and left out for various reasons, and that the main purpose of any coverup surrounding the attacks is intended to conceal the incompetence and poorly-thought-out policies that allowed members of, or persons somehow affiliated with, al-qaeda, to hijack commercial airliners and use them to carry out attacks. While there is always a possibility that individuals may have been able to aid and abet those who carried out attacks by suppressing information within intelligence services, I see no reason to believe that the attacks were carried out by anyone other than religious extremists.

ASU2003

I'm not saying that it couldn't have been done by religious extremists, but I think what I need to know is, would it have been possible to blame a different group for the attacks right from the beginning? Let's say that a few hours after the attacks, the government/press would have said it was the North Koreans, would we have believed them? What if there were a few Asian-looking guys on the planes? Or the planes with the 'right' Asian guys would have been used. Would the government been able to fake enough evidence to get people to trust them? That is my concern. The government just hasn't proven their case enough yet, and I'm not sure they can. The media didn't do their job of questioning and investigating however.

Crack

wanted for questioning?

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

MSD

We have at least a few known Islamic extremists on camera in the airports that morning, and the MO of suicide attacks is consistent with al Qaeda and affiliated groups. North Korea, for example, has a history of shooting first and shouting like a bratty kid later. I agree that things like finding Atta's passport are very unlikely, but I'm more accepting of a coincidence like that than something that requires me to contradict what logic and my eyes tell me happened.

tisonlyi

Power of Nightmares

^^^Better link

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

opentocomments

people in caves. People in caves. Do you think people in caves organized the most elaborate attack against american in our history. PEOPLE IN CAVES!?!?!

__________________
How do we know that the sky is not green and we are all color-blind?

Ustwo

So you were there for the planning?

Seriously I know its not your intention but all you seem to be here is a racist, stupid arabs can't do anything, they live in caves riding camels!

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

opentocomments

I'm just saying if you lived in a cave would you have access to the technology needed to organize this kind of an attack?

__________________
How do we know that the sky is not green and we are all color-blind?

Ustwo

Do you really think they were living in caves, cut off from the outside world prior to 9/11?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

opentocomments

I don't know what i think about 9/11 except that the official story doesnt add up. Osama bin Laden is probably living comfortably somewhere in the US under an assumed name and the CIA probably knows it.

__________________
How do we know that the sky is not green and we are all color-blind?

Ustwo

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Xerxys

I think I love Ustwo.

p95ccw

I really enjoyed this Film, thanks for the link. It had a lot of parallels with my own view points. I would like to research some of the other Gods listed in the film to cross check the statements they made in the film.

thingstodo

I was planning on the same thing so please share what you find out. It will save me the trouble!!

__________________
If you're wringing your hands you can't roll up your shirt sleeves.

Stangers have the best candy.

MSD

What technology? Box cutters and a big pile of cash to send people to flight school? Sounds like it's well within their means.

Zeraph

Wow, that was actually good, and probably correct. Almost 100% true on the religious part, and seemed fairly accurate on the rest (though it's always hard to say for sure). Though just because jesus/the bible is a fairytale doesn't mean god doesn't exist.

thespian86

BUMP. [Sorry if this becomes repetitive or redundant]

I don't subscribe to inherently restrictive social conclusions and I’ve done so for a while now. There is a consistency of ignorance and backwards thinking in preconceived ideologies that too many people adhere to in society. Things like faith masked as fact.

The greatest issue for me in this movement is where to start because it's a paradox. To defeat establishment we must first destroy preconception and out-dated ideas. But, to defeat this preconceived social movement people need to witness the failure of establishment.
The longer I think about this the more frustrated I get with a (created term) "self-sustaining dependence". We've created a mechanism that runs without our help anymore but also works to restrict and oppose us. One so big that forces indifference in the face of opposing it because it seems unstoppable, and thus we give up.

Beginning with the seemingly endless downward nature of capitalism in a central banking system, to the adherence of social acceptance (ie: every man has a right to build a life on personal belief, not commonly held beliefs), we are held in check by the nature of the beast. By individualizing ourselves, we further ourselves from social evolution; we collectively "agree" in small groups instead of adhering to recognized fact. Those small groups work against progress by competing with each other. There is a common misconception in capitalism, but held socially by most "civilized nations", that competition breeds growth. But that isn't so; it restricts growth. It is a contradiction. It becomes a practice of becoming all-powerful, and then having the power to create mass technological and critical growth within society and thought. But the system which advocates monopolies breeds further competition, meaning there is a constant cycle of ebb and flow. This is true of social and human behavior on a political, philosophical, and ideological plane as well.

As belief is ever changing, since it is completely subjective, we are in a constant state of static social existence. Religion grows and lessens. A new one begins and an old one becomes obsolete. But the principal of religion stays the same: a social institution that revolves around "faith" in the unproven and indefinable and, therefore cannot be debated or defeated with critical or factual thought. But religion itself isn't the problem; it's that society revolves around a religion-like respect for all personal belief, no matter how ridiculous. A man can believe that his cat is God and we are taught to be indifferent to it.

Perhaps we shouldn't begin with the mammoth that is "establishment". Perhaps toppling the centralized banking of Western nations is a little out of grasp now. Maybe blowing up religious relics and assassinating political figures creates a moment of freedom (which is relative) but it's short lived as they are instantly revived, replaced, and strengthened. I say we start with something else: adherence to education. To critical thought. I refuse to accept this idea as elitist because that implies that education and growth aren't necessary and THAT is ridiculous.

Let's start a movement that doesn't instantly consist of falling off the grid, becoming instantly self sufficient, or "defeating the powers that be". Let's start one that consists of an adherence to fact. To thought. Not belief or uneducated opinion. Not a right to "believe whatever you want". Let's solidify by committing to becoming smarter, and recognizing that there is never going to be a time when someone is truly "smart" as knowledge is an evolution as we discover. Therefore we are adhering to consist growth rather then that of constant restriction and, therefore, fruitless debate.

I admit I know very little. But by making that the only thing I adhere to, that means I am completely open to all experiences and fact. Not a static school of thought that refuses outside interference like religion or politics or any institution created by man to define and separate completely through personal belief. One that recognizes the inevitable change and, instead of defending ourselves against it with rhetoric or sophist behavior, allows us to free ourselves from restriction.

We have the capability but no will. We have the technology but do not use it. We have the ideas but no forum. That begins by refusing to acknowledge faulty ideologies as acceptable. It will hurt, but identity is completely relative and is not static. We look at the Egyptian myths as absurd but all religious beliefs adhere to the same principals. Just like the technology of my grand father is now irrelevant for the most part. Let's stop creating answers and start discovering them, or, at the least, allowing those that have already been discovered to create an environment of forward movement and change. Let's let go of belief as a means of sustainability and adhere to fact.

Because will within belief does nothing; it changes nothing. It creates a static and friction based system that moves no where and encourages the status quo. My ability to obsess over God's will, or political will, or whatever, doesn't change anything in the world around me but my own perception. It's internal. It's personal. It can't create an environment for the betterment of humanity. It is a selfish and ignorant system in which have an "answer" - no matter how improbable and false it is - when you need one. It's lazy.

Personal belief is dangerous. Not in its intended form, but in it's current, bastardized form. The one that governs us as a species, that divides and creates individualists; a series sub-species of human beings based on self-created philosophy and self-generated systems of belief. Stuff we, individually, commonly hold true. Stuff we don't challenge because we are allowed to "love ourselves and no one has the right to separate me from my beliefs". Believing something has a place in your personal life but in the public life it DOES NOT. The laws and regulations set forth by man must better mankind, not a man alone. Otherwise the system will constantly be at war with itself because, as I stated before, belief is subjective and therefore static. Ideas can change but the principal behind them remain the same. Let that go.

When I discuss living through experience and not commonly held beliefs people raise their eyebrow: "so you don't hate rapists huh? So you think that nothing exists outside of what you know; so Paris doesn't exist since you've never been there! That's stupid!" But we are discussing two different things: fact and belief. Of course I believe rape is wrong. Of course I assume Paris is there. But if someone were to ask me to prove the existence of Paris, it would be bullshit. I can't prove it short of flying there. If someone told me rape was grand I couldn't tell this person they were wrong and punish them because what I believe is purely based on assumptions. Of course I don't hate something I've never experienced. Of course something doesn't exist to me if I've never seen it. And for someone who has ever had a fear, and then faced it, it is ALWAYS different: perhaps not better or worse an experience, but always different. Sex, getting shot, skating, owning a pet. The experience is the always the REALITY, while the assumption is the MYTH of it. Like getting shot with a paint ball hurting, until you get hit and it's painful, but only in a way that can be realized through being shot with one. And the experiences I used are absurdly polar, but the same principals apply to the small things people adhere to everyday, without questioning or thinking about why. And yet, people will defend those thoughtless, unquestioned beliefs as if they are fact. In the face of facts, proven facts, things that have been PROVEN, these people will still refuse to accept.

We must not adhere to personal truth anymore as a viable truth. A society in which everyone stands alone is no society at all, for a society is a collective; an amalgamation of humanity. A social movement cannot consist of a single voice, and yet that is how we live. Each man is his own keeper. But that’s bullshit; we live in a governed society that goes unwatched and we’ve grown tired of simply because we spend our lives battling with our own personal truths. It’s as if people are still battling with the idea of politics which is sad. There needs to be a separation of personal agenda and macro-growth. There needs to be discussions based on things we’ve learned and seen throughout our lives, and not on commonly held beliefs or taught behavior. Hearing my parents tell me something my whole life does not make it true. They simply happen to be their beliefs but that doesn’t mean I have to adhere to them.

I guess what I’m saying is that my life has not been lived before me, even though collectively the human race have experienced EVERY situation I have in my 23 years on earth; at least in a similar fashion. Life, itself, implies living; not an adherence to the IDEAS of living. That is what truly makes us individuals, and at the same time, instantly the same. That we all live, and that life is for living. That experience is personal, but because the world does not CHANGE because we think things about it, all experiences come from the same things. That is where fact is found; in that never ending sameness of the things independent of our personal will. A world of truth outside of personal truth. It exists and it HAS to be the thing that dictates our society. I may believe something about those truths, and I can create a personal life in which I adhere to these as an individual, but I don’t have the right to live publically, within the community I live in, based on those personal truths. They CANNOT take the place of truth because when they do, we live in a world that is unstable. We cannot base our society around things that can be debated because debate means it is undecided. It means it is opinion, and opinion is not a foundation but a flourish; something we put inside the house built out of facts, not things we think should be facts.

Educate yourself. Never stop doing so. Examine and apply while realizing you will never reach a point of complete understanding. There will never be an end point and the minute you allow yourself to believe that is the minute you adhere to Myths and not truths. You have the right to believe but not to enforce. To practice personally but not make public. To have pride but realize that those around you will never share the exact sentiment. To realize that being alone in your beliefs is a privilege and not a loss because a war of principles is a never-ending war. Respect must come in the form of allowing those around us to have a personal life without allowing it to leak into the public area. Debate is healthy but in the form of finding conclusions, not striving to defeat the opposition. We cannot survive it. We are not surviving it.

__________________
EX: Whats new?
ME: I officially love coffee more then you now.
EX: uh...
ME: So, not much.

Vana

This film was fantastic. Not so much for the loony content, but the style defines the conspiracy genre. It is a parody of the tactics of the mainstream media and of how ideas can be spun, fallacies stated in a convincing way to music and at a fast pace. It is the modern version of farce. This genre has inspired me greatly.

NoFlow

As an atheist myself, I could not help but be intrigued by the religion section in this film. After watching, I wanted to look deeper into the information stated, but have yet to find the time. If anyone has done any research into part I of this film (comparisons of Gods/religion/etc) please let me know.

As for the government, economy, etc., I could not help but believe what I heard. The facts given seemed believable and I have no choice but stand by it. I myself believe in the existence of NWO, and individually believe that presidential elections are rigged, to fulfill that wanted by those 'behind the curtain'. At this moment in time, I believe President Obama is simply a puppet, one of many distractions used to occupy the public. Along with distracting the 'people', terrorism has grown in occurrence, and any well-being human can agree that it is everywhere. I believe 9/11 and other 'terrorist attacks' are a way of occupying the public into scaring them, leaving them no where to go but 'into the arms' of the government. Scaring the public is the simplist way to gain 100% control.

I emphasize that this is what I believe, and I am not insulting nor pressuring my beliefs.

__________________
We have fossils, we win