Skip to main content

View Diary: Loose Change (50 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If you are on dial up, (4.00)
    I can't blame you for not checkin it out for yourself.  However, you do need to form your own opinion on this.   The biggest question is:  "If Bush has lied to us about EVERYTHING else, why would anyone believe he is telling the truth about 911?  

    Dean speaks for me!

    by dkmich on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:01:39 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Believe Bush? (none)
      What are you talking about?  We all saw the planes hit the buildings.  What does believing Bush have to do with anything?

      "In the beginning the universe was created. This has been widely criticized and generally regarded as a bad move." -- Douglas Adams

      by LithiumCola on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:03:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well did you notice that (none)
        ...at least one of the jets was carrying a secret payload of missiles on its under-belly. Missiles that were fired into the wtc shortly before impact. As evidence the film-makers zoom into the pixels I mentioned above.
      •  Oh! (none)
        and one of the jets wasn't a passenger jet at all. It was some kind of military plane. Did you notice that?
      •  Calm down and take a breath. (none)
        Boy, you haven't seen it, apparently never heard of it, and here you are arguing about it.  No one is saying that "planes never hit".   Some people believe, and think they have evidence that shows, that Bush and Co. either deliberately caused OR allowed 911 to happen.  I personally don't have a freakin clue.  All I know is Bush is a liar.  If he says, sunny - I'm sure its raining.  He and Condi said, "Who would have thought that a plane.........yada, yada".  The opposite of that would be ????   They freaking ordered it from their Saudi friends.  Would also explain why they are looking for bin Laden.  You guys just need to calm down.

        Dean speaks for me!

        by dkmich on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 03:24:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The film does indeed make the claims (none)
          I outline above.
          •  and more importantly, its true (none)
            Even the newscasters from that morning were talking about how it wasn't a passenger plane, the second one that hit (of course after the first one hit they had all the cameras on WTC)

            This wasn't the perfect crime at all.  They didn't even bother to paint the planes that were used to hit the WTC to match up with airlines!  You can hear the FOX newscasters talk bout how it definitely wasn't a passenger airliner.

            If your heart is troubled with the moral and spiritual decline and hijacking of America, check out the page

            by PubPolSanford on Tue Mar 07, 2006 at 04:17:36 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

              •  Yes (none)
                Wouldn't Fox News be the most likely to report the official line?  If a fox news report shows any contradictions I would in fact be much more likely to believe them.

                I find the claims regarding the pentagon the most interesting. Can you give me any explanation as to why there is no damage to the grass?  Why there are no pieces of plane in and around the area?  Why the zone of damage on the building is significantly smaller than a Boeing?  

                Seriously?  Don't talk shit about something just because you don't believe it out of personal incredulence

                •  But it's NOT true (none)
                  There WAS more damage than that to the building - it's most obscured by smoke, but there is plenty of damage to the building.

                  The plane came very close to, but did not crash INTO much of the ground in front of the building - it crashed into the building. People on the highway saw the passenger plane crash into the building. There were MANY eyewitnesses that saw the plane, including people inside the Pentagon. Now, eyewitness testimony is funny, but this moviemakers try to say that SOME witnesses saw a helicopter crash into the building. No witness said that, however. A witness said that they saw a helicopter, THEN they saw a crash. That is NOT the same as that witness saying they saw a helicopter crash. Another witness said it was a smaller plane. MANY witnesses said it was a regular sized passenger plane. There IS a consensus that it was a regular sized passenger plane.

                  And there WERE pieces of the plane around. There is even a big hole in the 3rd ring from the airplane engine that barreled through the building.

                  Conspiracy theories fall apart when one looks at ALL the evidence available.

                  ...but not your own facts.

                  by slouise217 on Wed Mar 08, 2006 at 01:26:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site