You took away 2 minutes of my life, and I want them back

Meh, I'll probably only waste them anyway.

It is stupid, but frankly, I'm really sick of these internet experts and their bullshit "science." People need to wake the fuck up and realize that two planes did crash into those buildings and it was the work of the hijackers, not some government conspiracy to send this country into a ten year recession.

I made it 35 seconds in....buh-bye.

Well it was clearly a conspiracy, so you can only argue which governments are involved, And I dont think you can.
Although your "Stupid. Bullshit, Wake the fuck up" argument, almost convinced me that you have special knowledge of the events of 911.
Just being sarcastic.... You dont know shit about what happened that day.

>> ^csnel3:
Well it was clearly a conspiracy, so you can only argue which governments are involved, And I dont think you can.
Although your "Stupid. Bullshit, Wake the fuck up" argument, almost convinced me that you have special knowledge of the events of 911.
Just being sarcastic.... You dont know shit about what happened that day.


Huh?

FAKE! Never trust someone who thinks the plural of aircraft is aircrafts.

From the comments posted, I'm wondering how many folks actually watched the vid.

Agree with Maze. Doesn't have the same meaning without the last 20 seconds.
From Clip - "So what are you going to base your theories on? The so-called 911 footage? Or us, the paranoid teenage potheads with wild imaginations?"

Maybe should have been tagged comedy?

I'm just glad somebody has finally found a way to give the 9/11 Truth movement the coverage and respect it deserves.

*promote

Self promoting this video back to the front page; last published Wednesday, August 19th, 2009 9:06am PDT - promote requested by original submitter griefer_queafer.

Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.

>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.


I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?

Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big *sigh*

>> ^Payback:
FAKE! Never trust someone who thinks the plural of aircraft is aircrafts.

I know!!! Everybody knows it's aircraftii

Hehe, actually, I think everyone who is posting seems to have watched it thoroughly!

I like turtles!

>> ^griefer_queafer:
>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.

I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?
Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big sigh


Apples and oranges - the events around 9/11 warrant serious questioning and public inquiry - the townhall meeting protests are just stupid bullshit. I agree there need be no serious debate about whether or not the airplanes actually hit - there's no question about that, they did - but there's a lot more to what happened that needs to be looked into. Most truthers will tell you that the planes did hit, but that there were explosives in place as well. I don't make any claims about that, but it might help clear things up a bit.

>> ^EndAll:
>> ^griefer_queafer:
>> ^EndAll:
Not the best way to discredit Truthers.. This is just retarded. Does a disservice to skeptics who actually have well-structured rebuttals for the conspiracies.

I respectfully disagree, Endall. Don't you think there is a way in which the absurd simplicity is kind of effective?
Its kind of the way I feel when I watch videos of these town hall meetings. In a way one might want to try and reason with these people, but after a while you have to kind of just sigh and write it off. Despite the condescending ending to Gjersten's vid, i think this work is kind of like a big sigh

Apples and oranges - the events around 9/11 warrant serious questioning and public inquiry - the townhall meeting protests are just stupid bullshit. I agree there need be no serious debate about whether or not the airplanes actually hit - there's no question about that, they did - but there's a lot more to what happened that needs to be looked into. Most truthers will tell you that the planes did hit, but that there were explosives in place as well. I don't make any claims about that, but it might help clear things up a bit.


But the whole truther movement is based around planted explosives in the buildings, is it not? All the videos and information I've gone through hold that in common.
The thing is if the terrorists were able to plant demolition charges in the building, why bother with the airplanes?
If the government was behind it, and they planted the explosives, the question is still why they should bother with the airplanes? It's still easily blamed on the terrorists, it wouldn't even be the first time that terrorists had used explosives against the towers.

The Truther movement's questions do not warrant investigation or follow-up, and I see open ridicule as good a tool as any to keep the gullible from being drawn into their BS. Even if the government WAS behind the attacks, the Truther movement would actually be even worse BS, by dragging a whole class of people questioning the official story off on some goose chase after imaginary demolition charges.

>> ^bcglorf:


But the whole truther movement is based around planted explosives in the buildings, is it not? All the videos and information I've gone through hold that in common.
The thing is if the terrorists were able to plant demolition charges in the building, why bother with the airplanes?
If the government was behind it, and they planted the explosives, the question is still why they should bother with the airplanes? It's still easily blamed on the terrorists, it wouldn't even be the first time that terrorists had used explosives against the towers.
The Truther movement's questions do not warrant investigation or follow-up, and I see open ridicule as good a tool as any to keep the gullible from being drawn into their BS. Even if the government WAS behind the attacks, the Truther movement would actually be even worse BS, by dragging a whole class of people questioning the official story off on some goose chase after imaginary demolition charges.


That is one of the main things they claim, yes - I'm not a truther myself, though..

They don't believe that explosives would have been planted by terrorists - or at least not terrorists operating outside of the control of "those in power."

I think they'd argue that both explosives and planes were used for maximum effect (toppling both towers) and because planes provide that strong, visual, undeniable evidence. Obviously there's a need for an outside attacker - those "terrorists" flying the planes. There's also a lot of muddy, suspicious circumstances surrounding the terrorists themselves, and their ties to the mainly fictional 'Al-Qaeda.'

These ideas relies on the belief that there are people in power in Washington, with far too much power, pulling the strings to suit their own agendas. What lends credence to these theories is moreso what happened after the attacks - how the US went to war, looking for Osama in a cave, never finding him, the whole oil thing... certainly suspicious. Then you look at the Gulf of Tonkin incident, realize it's not unheard of to lie to go to war, etc. etc. And when you do some digging you'll find that the evidence for this secret government is quite strong, though widely ignored and often scoffed at. The Iran-Contra scandal was a sort of shocking insight into what goes on behind the scenes, along with many other events like that which most Americans have no clue ever happened.

I dunno though, I'm arguing from their perspective because I do believe there needs to be more investigation. The official report was certainly not an adequate review of the events that took place.

I'm a "truther" and I thought it was funny.