One "conspiracy" that I think Occam's Razor leads me to believe is true, is that Flight 93 was shot down by US fighter planes.

The circumstantial evidence is clearly there: eyewitness reports of a missile/explosion from the ground in PA. Fighter planes scrambled towards Flight 93 soon before it crashed, previous planes already striking their targets meaning fighter pilots clearly would have permission to shoot it down.

But probability seems, in my mind at least, to favor the shoot-down scenario. The story that we have been sold, "hero passengers fight back", seems more than a little unlikely given that the hijackers obviously used force to take over the plane in the first place. In the wake of the Pat Tillman, Jessica Lynch, and many other US-created propaganda bull**** storylines, clearly the USA military has a track record of spinning events like this to make them more palatable and increase patriotic fervor.

The hero passenger storyline just does not pass the smell test IMO. Fighters were on the way to shoot down Flight 93. But just before they got there, passengers re-took the cockpit and crashed the plane into a conveniently unpopulated part of PA? Not buying it, and I firmly believe the entire 9/11 attack was the result of Islamic terrorists... but Flight 93 seems like a bill of goods being sold to the public "for our own good".

The only 9/11 conspiracy angle based on pretty much no evidence which doesn't seem ******ed.

Just for the record, eyewitness account gets entered as "direct evidence," not circumstantial.

In case it wasn't posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCLXC...eature=related

Zeitgeist 3 is released tomorrow for anyone thats interested:

www.zeitgeistmovie.com

It's interesting that Pete is quoting and featuring people like Michael Ruppert now in his films, when Mr. Joseph disavowed peak oil at the end of his first movie, suggesting it was a manufactured condition.

Looks like he's yet another who has come around on the realities of global, terminal resource depletion. They all eventually do as the geological and geopolitical evidence continues to mount with each passing month.

Regardless, he's spot on about our global ponzi scheme and economic terrorism, and I look forward to his latest work.

Is zeitgeist 3 out yet. It says it came out the 15th but I cant see it.

its in selected theatres now

To be fair, the way AP homogenizes the news and sets the agenda or what is going to be talked about doesn't imply a cover up in any individual case like this or really be all that suspicious. If AP releases some particular story (for whatever reason) it is going to picked up and put into newspapers arround the world instantly...thats how the system works.

Zeitgeist 3 internet release is on the 25th i hear.

Do people here still follow 9/11?

I read 9/11 blogger on the daily and new stuff comes out all the time. The Truth Movement is currently divided on the Pentagon. Half say no plane etc., half say no there was a plane and besides the crux of the hard evidence falls within the collapse of the WTC7 and 1 & 2.

David Chandler, a physics teacher who made a variety of youtube clips pointing out anomalies of the collapses, released a DVD summing these http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSApOavkHg8 up

The anthrax situation has come back up recently. For those who remember the anthrax was assumed to be from Muslims or terrorists relating to the 911 attacks (and was used a pretext for Iraq invasion), but later was determined to be from a US government lab in Maryland or somewhere. The justice department pursued it, thought they found the guy, prosecuted him, but later ended up paying him $$$ for the false arrest. They moved on to another guy, started prosectuting him, and then he winds up dead before the case gets played out in an apparent suicide--although his coworkers said he didn't have the means to produce the type of anthrax used, nor the motive to do it.

Regardless we know now that the anthrax was in no way connected to Iraq or the terrorists and yet was used as evidence to prop up the war on terror. What a mindfukc. MediaRoots dedicated a show to this topic: http://soundcloud.com/media-roots/episode8anthrax

I'm wondering what the consensus is here. Is 911 still relevant?

Jiggs are you still of the Lihop mind?

http://ccheadliner.com/news/article_...cc4c03286.html

Without a doubt.

They buried surveillance trails, silenced testimony (Massoui) and ignored warnings. They fingered a culprit within hours, and promoted those who helped keep the attackers afloat (Dave Frasca). They blocked any investigation as long as they could, ignored subpoena power, and never followed the money trail. It's fairly transparent to me. And as I said before... the most telling proof is that one even lost their job.

Cool, ok.

Man I wanna rant about how the term 'conspiracy theorist' gets thrown around to demonize 'truthers' when both sides are technically theories about conspiracies but will hold myself back.

For anyone interested in some ammo David Ray Griffin wrote a book titled 'Cognitive Infiltration' which is an answer to Cass Sunstein's paper, 'Conspiracy Theories' in which he called for the cognitive infiltration of groups who believe in conspiracy theories, like all you crazies (not me).

I just read over most of Sunstein's paper.

Internet debunkers are actually gov't employees, who knew.

When people use "conspiracy theorist" they mean "people who come up with supremely dumb conspiracy theories", like yourself.

Yea that'd be an interesting thing to follow up with. How the cognitive infiltration gets carried out. I know there were a series of FBI programs under the acronym COINTELPRO designed to 'neutralize political dissidents' in the ~1950's. Maybe they are using similar tactics now.

From the 9/11 thread I remember how the debunkers would take an argument, turn it into something else, debunk the false argument, then accuse the maker of the original argument of a failure in reading comprehension. The maker of the original argument would say, no you spun MY argument and on the surface, it would look like a stalemate--both sides not understanding eachother's argument.

FBI neutralizing political dissidents?

Debunkers neutralizing arguments?

Hmmm

What if the conspiracy theory was true, what are you supposed to call them then?

Conspiracies that are true:

[ ] - 9/11 was an inside job
[ ] - OMGS chemtrails!
[ ] - N.W.O depopulation
[ ] - (insert terrorist attack here) was another false flag

etc.

Good work, sideline lurker. Next time, get involved and try and flesh out why.

Yeah it's good to be in that 95% that blatantly dismisses "conspiracy theories", a term you probably thought of yourself because you are clever. Historically, the majority always gets it right. There is no asbestos or leaded gasoline of every generation. There are no ultra-intelligent people out there that despise ignorance and stupidity and if they existed, would want you to obtain enlightenment and immortality as you watch television and eat microwave dinners. You are the most intelligent person on the planet.

Who knew? Orwell for one, circa 70+ years ago.

:clap:

This Bud's for you, KB!!!

o/ Reeeeeal mennnn of geeeeenius!!!... Mr. Internet Conspiracy surface Debunker guuuy!!! o/

Two things come to mind because of this post;

First I could put one of two ways. I've never seen evidence of one of these supposed "ultra-intelligent" conspiracy theorists (though I'm sure in their own minds...). Or, if there are ultra-intelligent conspiracy theorists, it's amazing how bad the arguments they put forth are.

Second, I was also reminded of what someone mentioned in the 9/11 thread. The conspiracy theories allow people to think they know something others don't. And it also makes the arguments from incredulity make more sense. After all, if you think you're "ultra-intelligent", then if you can't think of an answer to a question, there must not be one!

I don't think that's what he meant

hmm...seems like this: "There are no ultra-intelligent people out there that despise ignorance and stupidity and if they existed, would want you to obtain enlightenment" is an attempt to (sarcastically) reference the troof movement.

If there's an additional level of sarcasm that he meant, well, I can't double merge sarcasm. That line seems pretty close to how the truthers would like to think of themselves.