I Support this Video

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by El Topo, Oct 6, 2008.

  1. Aztek Member

    I can always come to the LOTD website for a great thread.

    BTW I am a member of the Illuminati and we have our eye on LOTD for future considerations TBA later.

  2. Drakkul Banned

    You tube isnt the fucking logic site for gathering information, read popular mechanics much? Read it find out whats up if you think everything is a conspiracy you really may as well end your life now while your at it.
  3. Verm Lord

    Oh, Popular Mechanics, the end all be all to our answers. Funny look who owns them and look what else they control. I am sure their reports wouldn't be biased and ALWAYS based on the true FACTS. Using them as your perfect explanation is like pointing at a bible and saying this proves God is real.


    Here's a radio interview with your Popular Mechanics debunker who wrote the article being asked logical questions. Check out how badass his answers are when they aren't given to him to write. The transcript has been cut up to remove the bullshit and his amazing responses.

    August 23, 2006

    Ever wonder why prominent "official story" apologists always shun 9/11 truth debates? Here perhaps is the nightmare that they dread. Show host Goyette is not an overt 9/11 skeptic, just a fearless interrogator with a very logical mind. One guesses the battered Mr. Coburn will be picking his interview venues with much more care next time. A podcast of this powerful show is available here. - Ed.


    PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn "researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article"
    CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host

    CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?

    PM: Very little... there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.

    CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven't seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.

    PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material…

    CG: I've talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they're not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don't really show much of anything.

    PM: They don't show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it's not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.

    CG: Are you telling me that's the only video?

    PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they're still being used for various investigations.

    CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it's five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?

    PM: I think there's plenty of evidence out there…

    CG: It's not the evidence we've seen that we're concerned about, it's the evidence we haven't seen. Does that make any sense?

    PM: Oh sure it makes sense…. The evidence is abundant…

    CG: It's the dog that didn't bark... We know the evidence we've seen, that doesn't cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don't see. It's not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?

    PM: "Hearst."

    CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, "Oh shut up, you peons don't know what you're talking about, everything's fine, keep on moving, there's nothing to see here." Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn't it?

    PM: (does not answer this question)

    CG: …I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn't bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..

    PM: It's not up to us…

    CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don't know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We're told who did it, we've invaded two countries in response to it, we've spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?

    PM: How can I answer the question?

    CG: Because you don't know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?

    PM: (Cannot answer question)

    CG: …Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics…say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.

    PM: When the North Tower collapsed… there was damage to Building 7…. What we found out was…about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it… Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower…

    CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true… I go, oh that's interesting…if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.

    PM: …We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate….

    CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.

    PM: Correct.

    CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ….What did you see there that I can't see?

    PM: Just what was described.

    CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!

    PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.

    CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.

    PM: ….I can't answer that question.

    CG: I know you can't.

    PM: (is speechless)….

    …Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, "We're alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We're alive and well." How do you explain that one?

    PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.

    Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?

    PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes…

    Caller: What remains?

    PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.

    Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.

    CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh…I mean, where the hell did they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.

    PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.

    CG: Of course you don't.

    PM: I'll get back to you with it.

    CG: Is that a promise?

    PM: I will do my best.

    CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had…hijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?

    PM: No, actually I don't…

    CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers…

    PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that's worth answering….

    CG: …You've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not. I just ask questions.

    PM: …A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over….

    CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?

    PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionally…

    CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.

    PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.

    CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that's it. Hey Davin, thanks…the Charles Goyette Show.
  4. Drakkul Banned

    I believe this and the other facts over any fucking conspiracy movement.
    Goyette lol another bullshit talk show guy lol he has no credentials. I listened to this and you dont have the full transcript post the real information before posting a half ass come back.
    Popular was given lots of evidence took the engineers and scientists together to figure out what and how it happened, This guy likes to dig for information that doesnt exist and makes this shit up.
  5. Drakkul Banned

  6. Dagnasti New Member

    oh no you don't, dude, I AM the illuminati.
  7. Verm Lord

    Doesn't exist? Yea no shit, because the majority of it got cleaned up right after it happened rather than having any form of investigation. Real super police work there. If you want to actually take it into your hands and try to read a little about about it instead of posting a site as proof, which if you even looked at this retarded site ( www.skeptic.com ). It's front page's big news is how a recent Marilyn Monroe hoax fooled Vanity Fair magazine. LOL . I should goto http://pbskids.org/sesame/ for updated news on world affairs.

    Until Popular Mechanics shows visible science that these "conspiracy theories" are bullshit, I'd actually agree with you. But unfortunately their only "evidence" is just bullshit words just as these on the forums. I'm not going to sit here and argue whose right or wrong on this because arguing with you is like arguing about shit tasting better or worse with sugar on it. Until then, I'll take http://911research.wtc7.net/ evidence over any other mainstream bullshit magazine.

  8. Shagbot Member

    In every major poll, people who believe the official fairy tale are the minority, see for yourself:


    Heres a recent worldwide poll:

    Less then half the people beleive the official fairy tale:
    "On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know."

    Another poll:

    Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story......

    Looks like us "conspiracy theorists" are the majority.
  9. Phreajoy Member

    L2Spell ffs it's "al CIAda"
  10. Shagbot Member

    Yeah sorry bout that. Hey remember last year when FOX tried to blame the CA wildfires on Al CIAda? (Hey, who needs evidence right)

    Brought to you by the same folks that gave you these gems:

    "The war in Iraq will cost $60 billion."

    "We will be greeted as liberators, with flowers."

    "We know where the WMDs are."

    "The oil will pay for the war."

    "Mission Accomplished!" (my personal favorite)
  11. thorizdin Administrator

    Most Americans (humans in general) can't explain the concepts (not the actual mechanics) of how a RF carrier can be used to carry analog or digital signals. Even if I credited that poll with being valid (which I don't) I don't care if 99.9999999% of all humanity believes something that I know is wrong.
  12. Cedwyn Banned

    What I think is ironic is that if a professional fails to do his job and someone is hurt or dies from this failure - they can go to jail, be sued, fined, etc. However when a government fails to do its job to its nation, and people are hurt, killed, etc. - you just re-elect.
  13. Gaunsaku Chill Dude

    That's because people are generally stupid as they get into larger groups.

    And I agree with Thor. 99% of the people in the world think ninja are something they're not. Does that make them right? No, just means 99% of the world doesn't know/understand.

    Yes I totally incorporated ninjas into this discussion. Suck it.
  14. Krax Lord

    It's kind of interesting that people that won't believe the government will believe a poll instead. Polls lie far more than the government does. Polls exist to shape opinions, not to accurately sample them.

    I will quickly go over one of the polls. I used the last one at random.

    "Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story"

    If you just look at the title, there is not much argument. 84% believe that 9/11 is a government conspiracy and I must be wrong for believing otherwise. Let's look at the actual numbers though.

    "Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?"

    Telling the truth 16%
    Mostly telling the truth but hiding something 53%
    Mostly lying 28%
    Not sure 3%"

    If you were to ask me that question, I would have to answer, "Mostly telling the truth but hiding something." I don't believe that there is a government conspiracy, but there may be some information that is being held back for some non-sinister reason.

    Anyway, people that think that 9/11 was a conspiracy would have to answer, "mostly lying" which would be 28%. No one that believes these conspiracies could ever answer "mostly telling the truth." The study had "mostly telling the truth" as an answer to split the numbers of people that believe the government so that they can get that headline.

    The headline should read, "72% are not gullible enough to believe crazy 9/11 conspiracy theory." I only looked at the results, I did not look into the study itself to see if they cooked the numbers even further (there are numerous ways to do so.)

    Polls lie.
  15. Kenai Lord

    Scientific Poll = Oxymoron
  16. Shagbot Member

    I agree most polls suck, but while you are reading this somewhere in the world a 10th grade physics student just figured out something you can't seem to grasp: Jetfuel does not demolish skyscrapers. Steel buildings do not fall at the rate of gravity without help from explosives. Science does not lie. I could post a link to the work of Steven Jones, Kevin Ryan, or Richard Gage so you could learn that for yourself, but why bother. Your mind is made up before you even look at the evidence, so there's no point in looking at it. Kinda like talking to people about religion, no matter how much evidence there is for evolution, some folks will never believe, most won't ever bother to look at the fossil records.
  17. Verm Lord

  18. Krax Lord

    Science lies all the time, actually. There was a study done by Harvard a few years back that showed that about half of all first time scientific studies were later proven to be wrong. Of course, this study could be wrong as well. The point is, that science is a process that usually has lots of things wrong as it works towards being right. Scientists are quite often wrong.

    Anyway, the discovery channel did a decent show recently on the physics on the collapse (correcting some things they had wrong in a previous show.) Their conclusion was that the plane blew off the fireproofing, the fire heated the trusses up enough for them to fail and bring the building down. Of course the discovery channel is also part of the conspiracy, along with all the experts they had on the show, including the building's architect (his career was almost destroyed by his buildings falling.)

    If the physics of the collapse is so easy to disprove, then most of the physicists around the world must be in on the conspiracy
  19. Drakkul Banned

    Its cool verm your still an idiot believe the government did it...
  20. Drakkul Banned

    It doesnt prove a fucking thing you moron. It doesnt matter that a newspaper is owned by a certain company makes it all phony.

Share This Page