|
Zonie63 -> RE: Never Forget! Sept 11th, A Day of Infamy (10/22/2014 7:24:19 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
we know that some planes were intentionally crashed into some buildings.
We also know that some planes were not.
The public however is faced with a crucial threat to their security.
How about the threat of weaponized CGI as we have seen used to deceive a government trusting populous who belief they were being attacked by entities determined by the government? What if we are hanging the wrong party?
Personally, I'm not hanging anybody. Trust in the government has nothing to do with it. Even if I was to entertain the notion that the government could have engineered the whole thing, I don't see how that's proven by your arguments about CGI, light poles, or controlled explosions. Why go through all that anyway? If the government wanted to destroy buildings and make the public think that airplanes crashed into them, why couldn't they just put their own agents on the planes and crash them? They could achieve the same result.
quote:
It gets worse. Lets say you were correct. Lets say every claimed case of airplane impact was in fact an airplane impact.
Due to the obvious problems concerning the use of CGI for deception we are now forced to ask, 757's? Flight 175? 11? 77? 93? and so forth. Any proof?
If these planes didn't crash, then where did they go? Where did the passengers go? What about cellphone calls made from those flights before they crashed? If the government is going to destroy planes, buildings, and kill innocent people...then they could still do that and create the exact same deception without the use of CGI. Even if what you're trying to prove is true, the whole CGI angle is a complete red herring.
quote:
I already posted the CGI used to deceive us here that fortunately has a few CGI errors otherwise who would know?
Yeah, I saw those pics, but honestly, I can't make heads nor tails out of that blurry footage.
quote:
People had all sorts of speculations many with the right idea but improperly put forth so they were easily set up to be laughing stocks, the most obvious when they called it holograms instead of CGI.
Its all about what telievision focuses on.
In the case of 911 the first conclusions of 'what happened' was aired by some guy in a baseball cap, we now know was a hired actor. He is the one who said a plane careened into the buildings and then 'massive' fires caused the collapse when there was virtually no fire.
Technically, all news reporters are hired actors. I did see footage of fires and long columns of smoke shown in the more distant shots as well.
quote:
People on the street said no plane it was bombs, the news reporters said no planes it was bombs (in the case of wtc2) and lo and behold the news anchor shut the reporter up by saying
"no its definitely a plane I am watching it on my monitor"
the reporter at the scene argued he was wrong and the 'anchor' pulled the well I see it on my monitor card.
Odd, we have a news anchor that sees it "on tv" which is presented as the truth and the reporters who are on the scene are automatically overuled.
Well, there can be any number of explanations for discrepancies like this. I also remember that the reported death toll was much higher than it later turned out to be. People from different angles might see different things.
quote:
Now we have a "I seen it on tv" so its gotta be twu society and we are off to the races to kill muslims.
This is the point where people should have been more skeptical. But even the 9/11 "truthers" left this one alone and instead concentrated on red herrings and irrelevant minutiae. Even accepting the government's official version of events, this was still an issue of domestic terrorism and internal security, just like the OKC bombing. But after the OKC bombing, we didn't make war on the other side of the planet, did we? So, why would we do so after 9/11? That's what should have been questioned, but the "truthers" wasted so much time on nonsense that they forgot to ask.
Their entire case rested on the supposition that "9/11 was an inside job," but the problem with that is that it carries the implication that if 9/11 wasn't an inside job, then the government's war-mongering adventurism overseas would be justified. That's what I would take issue with, but even the so-called "truthers" left that question alone.
Besides, if the government wanted to convince the public to go to war in the Middle East, it wouldn't have taken such an elaborate deception to convince them to do so. Hell, I recall people openly calling for the nuclear destruction of Iran back in 1979, just for attacking our embassy and burning our flag. We had already been at war with Iraq, and I recall a lot of people being pissed off in 1991 because the government stopped. There was already such widespread support for that war that it wouldn't have taken any great urging for the public to go along with continuing it until Saddam Hussein's government capitulated. The Middle East has been on a lot of Americans' shit lists for a long time, so if the government's objective was to fool the public into supporting a war in the Middle East, 9/11 would have been completely unnecessary.
quote:
This is an incomprehensibly dangerous threat to society. Not to mention outright fraud and criminal negligence and a host of other crimes between the government and media against the people of this and other countries.
As I said, I'm no fan of the government or the media. There may be any number of threats facing society, but that wouldn't make things any different than it's ever been in any country at any time in history. The only reason why so many people make such a big thing about it these days is because since WW2, we've built ourselves up into an affluent "bubble" and insulated ourselves from the problems of the rest of the world. So, now, we're extremely afraid of losing all that power and wealth. FDR was right when he said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. It's our own fears which will be our undoing. That's our greatest threat.
|
|
|
|
