The Shrine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

I think I saw part of this video before, but put it out of my mind for being way too unexplainable. Time to take another look.

What is so magical about this video? It was 5:20PM, well after the planes hit, and yes, other buildings caved in, due to the damage.

But how did they get the report early?

They were talking about another building, not the WTC. Isn't that obvious?

Do you even know what WTC7 is, Sine? There were seven buildings that were considered part of the WTC complex.

The two main ones fell early. "WTC7" (the seventh building considered part of the complex) fell in the afternoon - that's what this video refers to - but the BBC was apparently tipped off as to the fact that it would fall somehow, and reported on it having fallen while it was still standing.

This is how I know you and everybody else - Kupek, I'm looking at you too - are paying NO real attention to what happened that day. At all. Ever.

And that's really not a good idea.

Cartman: "Did you know over 1/4th of people in American think that 9/11 was a conspiracy?! Are you saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?"

Kyle: "Yes, I am saying 1/4th of Americans are retards."

Stan: "Ya, at least 1/4th."

kali, you're not even from this country. I know better than to pick a verbal fight with you - you still resent me and have nothing better to do - but you aren't paying any attention either.

Or, to put it another way, leave mockery of "conspiracy theories" to someone who gives a fuck about my flag, asshole.

Guess I was wrong (about knowing better). I still don't want to fight, but you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, my Canadian brother. I feel sorry for people like you who really think consensus knowledge (i.e., "everybody knows that" x) is a valid form of proof.

Just for reference, by the way - I have nothing against Canada or Canadians at all. But more is riding on figuring out what happened that day for me than for you, kali.

You're here on this thread because you're bored, and need to mock. I'm here because I pay attention and care about my country. One of us is doing something worthwhile, and one is not, but I'll leave it to you to make any statements you like as far as interpretation goes.

I will say that I don't think you're the sharpest tool in the shed on these things. Your personality does not admit to error; nor do you spend any real time on any subject that doesn't involve a high degree of personal interest or the chance to engage in "the war of words", as you put it to me once after I begged you to lay off me with that sandpaper mouth you and I both have and you just wouldn't do it.

Remember all that?

My grandfather worked with three Presidents. I have access to more people in government than you ever will, and know more about Iraq, Afghanistan, our CIA Middle Eastern policy, and other things that relate to that day.

You, on the other hand, are a realtor from Vancouver with too much time on your hands. Which is not to say that what you do is invalid - but criticizing me out of hand when you don't know shit about shit, when it comes to American government, is definitely invalid.

And, just as a postscript, Matt and Trey are miserably fucking uneducated on the Middle East. I walked out of Team America because it was such a pile of racist trash on the subject. I spent a year studying Arabic at Stanford, studying the Israeli-Arab conflict among other things - you study your navel, kali. I wouldn't listen to Matt Stone and Trey Parker for your Middle Eastern analysis if you want to be a bright man.

But, really, do whatever you like. You do anyway.

Can I just suggest something to you guys?

Can anyone who is currently looking down on the notion that the events of 9/11 involved concealing massive national security deceptions, please look inside their personalities and REALLY, HONESTLY look me in the eye and tell me that this attitude results of your OWN ANALYSIS OF THAT DAY - and not something that comes out of the word "everybody knows" or "nobody believes" or involves the word "crazy" in some way?

Those aren't logical analysis techniques, and for the love of God, as emotional as we all are around here, most of us still seem to dig into a good bit of factual analysis.

I really think that most of the opposition to discussing 9/11 is due to a massive worldwide mental block than anything else - i.e., "oh, it just couldn't be." I can't tell you how much I despise hearing the word "just" there...I heard it just the other day, in fact. Because it indicates the presence of an extreme unwillingness to consider the horrible emotional and physical realities involved.

I learned one day while passing out on the side of a freeway while having a panic attack that most people DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO ANYONE ELSE'S PROBLEMS. Having serious physical symptoms, feeling like I dying, I tried to flag down cars on the 405 in L.A. at rush hour, clutching the trunk of my car and eventually passing out for several minutes on top of it - nobody stopped, or even honked. I eventually recovered enough to drive to my mother's and rest, but it was probably the most frightening experience of my life.

9/11, and what resulted from it, are still huge problems for us all, but none of you are paying attention, because it's somebody else's problem.

Most of you here, I think, saw the news reports, "grieved" for the dead, vaguely supported or opposed the wars (until it became clear that Iraq was a clusterfuck and then it became fashionable to oppose it) and never really spent a minute of your own time or energy thinking about the weirder shit that day. 9/11 - the DAY ITSELF - barely impacted anyone in America, financially or physically, but it was played over and over on TV and magnified beyond imagination until everybody remembered patriotic emotion, and not fact.

We're not in any "real wars" - i.e., most people aren't grieving with loss over dead families and friends and soldiers, though a few are - not big enough ones for anyone to actually really pay attention. You all aren't either. And I will say it as many times as I get a chance to, because the people who died that day deserve better than the collective apathy I see on this board, on the news, and worldwide. Most people snarling "never forget" don't remember a goddamn thing about the actual day.

Mental wrote:Or, to put it another way, leave mockery of "conspiracy theories" to someone who gives a fuck about my flag, asshole.

Guess I was wrong (about knowing better). I still don't want to fight, but you're not nearly as smart as you think you are, my Canadian brother. I feel sorry for people like you who really think consensus knowledge (i.e., "everybody knows that" x) is a valid form of proof.

I'm not interested in having anything resembling a logical debate when the base topic is utterly retarded.

That said, each of the voices in your head don't merit their own individual posts -- feel free to explore the edit button instead. At least until we see a board script update and can multi-quote.

Mental wrote: And, just as a postscript, Matt and Trey are miserably fucking uneducated on the Middle East. I walked out of Team America because it was such a pile of racist trash on the subject. I spent a year studying Arabic at Stanford, studying the Israeli-Arab conflict among other things - you study your navel, kali. I wouldn't listen to Matt Stone and Trey Parker for your Middle Eastern analysis if you want to be a bright man.

Not that Team America is particularly all that clever -- but you get special props for completely missing the few artistic merits behind that film and walking out on it for it being a "pile of racist trash".

Also, I'm not sure reading fringe blogs in your halfway house exactly equals "a year studying all things 'Arab'[lol!] at Stanford"...but hey, why not? The better question is what that would have to do with the topic at hand (besides just being another opportunity to tell us about your personal life and providing ammo for your future legal action against The Shrine et al. ).

Do you really think that if something dirty happened and a global entity as public as the BBC got wind of it that it would STILL be a god damned secret?

Mental has a crush on Oily Taints.

Mental, you don't know what we do or do not feel. We are not your emotional punching bag for when you need to vent.

kali o. wrote: Also, I'm not sure reading fringe blogs in your halfway house exactly equals "a year studying all things 'Arab'[lol!] at Stanford"...but hey, why not? The better question is what that would have to do with the topic at hand (besides just being another opportunity to tell us about your personal life and providing ammo for your future legal action against The Shrine et al. ).

I have a transcript. Would you like me to photograph it?

Kupek wrote:Mental, you don't know what we do or do not feel. We are not your emotional punching bag for when you need to vent.

Kupek...if you don't like these threads, why look?

And doesn't ANYONE ever realize that kali is just as nasty on these things? He's accusing me of making up my educational history. That's shitty.

Shrinweck wrote:Do you really think that if something dirty happened and a global entity as public as the BBC got wind of it that it would STILL be a god damned secret?

Yes. Nobody knew ACORN condoned corruption until two kids in a hooker outfit and chinchilla coat posed as a pimp and streetwalker and caught them on tape condoning underage sex slavery.

As Jon Stewart said about that, "You know who I'm mad at? The mainstream news. I'm a fake journalist and *I'm* mad those guys scooped me."

Sometimes things take a WHILE to emerge, and some don't ever emerge unless investigations continue. I assume you all know about Watergate and Bob Woodward, right?

It's funny, I've had the fact that I went to Stanford questioned before, but only at the halfway house I was in, kali.

When I pulled out my ID card, it shut them up good.

I can find all my documentation for you if you really like - even if you end up accusing me of forging it all in Photoshop or some other absurd mocking slander, at least other people will know I'm not a liar.

Mental wrote: I can find all my documentation for you if you really like

Sure, go ahead. To be fair though, providing such evidence wouldn't really do anything [in my eyes]. Saying that was simply an excuse to use the blog/halfway house line (which I didn't know was really accurate, lol).

Mental wrote:And doesn't ANYONE ever realize that kali is just as nasty on these things? He's accusing me of making up my educational history. That's shitty.

Nasty? Mmmm...when you throw out nuggets like being connected to the CIA and presidents, in the context of selling outlandish 9/11 theories, I'd call "doubt" pretty much a good call.

Besides, when you put it down as "I study arabic and dem dar A-rabs" as relevant towards your credentials to speak on current middle eastern topics and 9/11, it's commonsense to question such idiocy imaginary transcripts or otherwise.

What are your bona fides, kali?

Mental wrote:What are your bona fides, kali?

For what? Calling you retarded? 30+ years of life experience.

Talking rationally about conspiracy theories is fine. I'd even be willing to participate.

You are not talking rationally.

Kupek wrote:Talking rationally about conspiracy theories is fine. I'd even be willing to participate.

You are not talking rationally.

In what way? You don't even read enough to know if I am or not - as I know from the post where you one day said something akin to "I saw a wall of conspiracy theory text and my mind skipped over it".

That doesn't give me any confidence that you even know what rationality is, in these debates, Kup. You haven't talked on points - you referred to some 30-page report once that somebody else wrote, I believe, which is, as I think I've said before, called "proof by eminent authority." It's an abdication of responsibility. Pardon me if, for now, I dispute your own bona fides to make that claim.

I'm glad this hasn't blown up into something ugly, but I stand by my position.

If you are not suspicious of 9/11 and Bush's explanations of the same, you are probably not really paying attention, and that goes for everybody I know. I'm not going to be a dick about it all, insofar as it is possible in this situation, but it's sad to see.

kali o. wrote:

Mental wrote:What are your bona fides, kali?

For what? Calling you retarded? 30+ years of life experience.

Gee, great.

So because it's my birthday tomorrow, can I start unleashing the torrent of hate-filled verbal abuse on you that you regularly unleash on me without having to worry about getting taunted or banned for it?

That's really the only thing I've never understood about our relationship - if I talk trash at you, I get fucked. If you do it, the entire Shrine looks the other way.

I maintain what I said earlier, kali - leave talking about issues this important to people who give a rat's ass about my nation and its problems.

kali, I don't hate you - certainly not the same way you've hated, loathed on, and in all other ways attempted to make my life here hell since the first few times you started even talking to me here - I remember vividly the first time I tried to take a discussion with you private, and then got mocked and laughed at for sending you an e-mail, which you then laughingly said was fake and then mocked me for having feelings that were too strong about this place, or something.

But if you provide fake e-mail addresses and lie about them, the way you did years ago - the way I'm sure you still lie to anyone you dislike today, with abandon, because you were never taught any kind of honor as a kid - then you have nothing to say on the subject of anyone elses's "retardation" or lies, period. And if you want to laugh at me on the subject without doing any research...

I don't know what to tell you, kali. I generally think of you as a fairly intelligent person, but not an honorable or a worthwhile one. I don't think you're trustworthy in the least, so I certainly am not going to listen to your mockery when it comes to this issue, at least not unless you actually feel like watching the fucking video first or having a real debate, not just another session of mockery because you "enjoy the war of words" and also in general don't care about other people.

After some of the shit you've said to me before on here (back on my Nev account), I will absolutely vouch for both things as true.

I just hope we ALL get better from the various piles of bullshit that put us in conflict on these boards...every last person here.

Mental wrote:

Kupek wrote:Talking rationally about conspiracy theories is fine. I'd even be willing to participate.

You are not talking rationally.

In what way?

Mental wrote:This is how I know you and everybody else - Kupek, I'm looking at you too - are paying NO real attention to what happened that day. At all. Ever.

Mental wrote:My grandfather worked with three Presidents. I have access to more people in government than you ever will, and know more about Iraq, Afghanistan, our CIA Middle Eastern policy, and other things that relate to that day.

Mental wrote:Can I just suggest something to you guys?

Can anyone who is currently looking down on the notion that the events of 9/11 involved concealing massive national security deceptions, please look inside their personalities and REALLY, HONESTLY look me in the eye and tell me that this attitude results of your OWN ANALYSIS OF THAT DAY - and not something that comes out of the word "everybody knows" or "nobody believes" or involves the word "crazy" in some way?

Those aren't logical analysis techniques, and for the love of God, as emotional as we all are around here, most of us still seem to dig into a good bit of factual analysis.

I really think that most of the opposition to discussing 9/11 is due to a massive worldwide mental block than anything else - i.e., "oh, it just couldn't be." I can't tell you how much I despise hearing the word "just" there...I heard it just the other day, in fact. Because it indicates the presence of an extreme unwillingness to consider the horrible emotional and physical realities involved.

I learned one day while passing out on the side of a freeway while having a panic attack that most people DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO ANYONE ELSE'S PROBLEMS. Having serious physical symptoms, feeling like I dying, I tried to flag down cars on the 405 in L.A. at rush hour, clutching the trunk of my car and eventually passing out for several minutes on top of it - nobody stopped, or even honked. I eventually recovered enough to drive to my mother's and rest, but it was probably the most frightening experience of my life.

9/11, and what resulted from it, are still huge problems for us all, but none of you are paying attention, because it's somebody else's problem.

Most of you here, I think, saw the news reports, "grieved" for the dead, vaguely supported or opposed the wars (until it became clear that Iraq was a clusterfuck and then it became fashionable to oppose it) and never really spent a minute of your own time or energy thinking about the weirder shit that day. 9/11 - the DAY ITSELF - barely impacted anyone in America, financially or physically, but it was played over and over on TV and magnified beyond imagination until everybody remembered patriotic emotion, and not fact.

We're not in any "real wars" - i.e., most people aren't grieving with loss over dead families and friends and soldiers, though a few are - not big enough ones for anyone to actually really pay attention. You all aren't either. And I will say it as many times as I get a chance to, because the people who died that day deserve better than the collective apathy I see on this board, on the news, and worldwide. Most people snarling "never forget" don't remember a goddamn thing about the actual day.

All of the above are emotional appeals. They also took place before I showed up. What incentive to I have to participate? You've already called me out for paying not real attention to September 11 - which I find offensive. You have no idea what any of us thought or went through after that day. None.

You appeal to your superior knowledge, but it's an argument from authority, not an actual argument. Then you go off on an emotional rant that is tangentially related to the subject.

So, you've already insulted me, called me willfully ignorant, claimed you are somehow the authority on a subject because of who you're related to, and tied in our disinterest to your emotional problems. What possible incentive do I have to participate? This is not a rhetorical. I am actually asking you why you think I would want to discuss this with you after what you have said.

Then don't!

I don't care if you stay ignorant, Kup, but as I said before, don't post to the threads then. You can call me as "emotional" as you like, but I think your logic is gone if you really believe the dominant explanation on the issue.

I will ask again: after what you said, what incentive do you think I have to participate?

Your participation in this matter is entirely voluntary.

By the way, have a video of Bush claiming he saw the attacks on TV instead of heard about them while reading "The Pet Goat" to that classroom:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

I seem to sense you're gunning for an apology. Would you like one? I'll apologize for any and all rudeness you perceive, but not my position.

I'm not gunning for an apology. I'm asking a specific question.

Mental wrote: kali, I don't hate you - certainly not the same way you've hated, loathed on, and in all other ways attempted to make my life here hell since the first few times you started even talking to me here - I remember vividly the first time I tried to take a discussion with you private, and then got mocked and laughed at for sending you an e-mail, which you then laughingly said was fake and then mocked me for having feelings that were too strong about this place, or something.

But if you provide fake e-mail addresses and lie about them, the way you did years ago - the way I'm sure you still lie to anyone you dislike today, with abandon, because you were never taught any kind of honor as a kid - then you have nothing to say on the subject of anyone elses's "retardation" or lies, period. And if you want to laugh at me on the subject without doing any research...

Every other confusing thing you said aside, I noticed that you have now constructed some vague scenario where I "provided fake email addresses in order to receive email (???) to publically mock you"....or something.

While part of me looks forward to hearing you flesh out some delusionary fantasy of my wickedness against the sensitive Mental that pre-dates the Shrine archives (or my personal PMs), I'll recommend for your sake that you save the effort. It won't garner you sympathy, you'll appear crazy and people will laugh at you.

Just to put things back in perspective for you, my contributions to this thread have been:

- a Southpark quote (retard)
- you need to learn the edit button
- everything you say is wacky and probably untrue

If you are going to continue to take that in strange directions in order to justify sending me PMs wishing me death, financial ruin & more, go nuts

PS - Happy Birthday

PPS - Still waiting on those transcripts

There's an awful lot of crazy in this thread...

Mental-- Please refill the prescription of whatever drugs you've stopped taking.

Kupek wrote:I will ask again: after what you said, what incentive do you think I have to participate?

You're still here?

Indeed. Stop making broad statements of assumptions and expecting us to, what, not get pissed off? You keep trying to get us to watch these videos, which I have, and they aren't proving a damn thing to me. Bush lying? Oh come on. Seriously? Politicians being weasels, oh my. You also keep making patriotic statements about how much you love your country but how loathsome you find its people. You can't have it both ways. It's fake.

Even if it was an inside job, the BBC having prior knowledge is next to impossible. You made that comparison to ACORN but there's a big god damned difference between the shenanigans ACORN was up to and 9/11. And could you imagine the amount of people who would have this knowledge that are involved with the BBC? It just doesn't make any sense that they would have this knowledge. Why give it out to them? I just don't understand the motivation of the conspirators to let news organizations know early. For better coverage? That doesn't make any sense either.

Isn't this normally the kind of thing you keep confined to your Newsweek forum trolling?

*sigh*

Wonderful.

I'll need a few days to process the hate, folks.

In the meantime - kali, you did what I said you did, sometime around 2000-2001 when I was at Stanford. I remember it clearly, though I believe you have honestly forgotten about it. As you have access to the archives at this point and I do not, I encourage you to run a search.

Tessian - I take my meds every day, and I could get in trouble if people think otherwise, so you stop lying as well. Are you STILL angry at me after all these years? You haven't said one positive word to me since I opened up on you a few years ago, despite my best intentions to apologize for whatever the fuck it is I said to you that has you so mad.

Kupek - I don't think you have any incentive to watch these things. I don't think your personality is capable of successfully processing any of it. I'm sorry to say it. If you don't want to watch, don't watch. But stop insulting my intelligence if you don't have any interest in this. As I have said before, if you don't want to research, don't post.

And Shrinweck, what the hell did I say to you recently to deserve that bout of spite? I've been polite with you! I'm not mad at you and have no ill will towards you! What was that for? What the fuck, man?

And regarding the BBC - THEY REPORTED ON THE BUILDING COLLAPSING BEFORE IT EVEN COLLAPSED, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE VIDEO.

As far as I understand reality, that means that not only did they "know" - you seem to be confusing my position with that of someone who thinks they had malicious intent - but that somebody probably tipped them off, since the BBC had no intent, motive, or opportunity to commit any criminal malfeasance here, as so many of you have clarified against a position I DIDN'T TAKE.

Don't get pissed at me, folks, I didn't make the video. I didn't say "I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened in this Oval Office."

Hands up, now - how many of you have watched that video in its entirety before posting to this thread?

I don't care what you think about me on this one, folks. This isn't about emotion, it's about the truth.

Regarding Shrin, you confuse criticism with spite.

I asked a specific question, which you never answered. I suspected that you never considered the question, because I see no indication that you've considered what your words look like from our perspective. That is, you are not performing any self-analysis or trying to empathize with us. My hope was that by getting you to answer the question, you would be forced to consider what you said from, say, my perspective. That did not work.

Also, you don't know my personality. Don't pretend that you do.

Likewise.

Here's an amateur video from the street - a group of NYC firefighters trying to call their wives when WTC7 fell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

Two possibilities:

1) The firepeople and engineers herding people away from the site knew from their own analysis that the building was about to blow up from the effects of internal machinery in the building that were on fire and told the reporters.

2) The firepeople and engineers and certain news agencies currently covering that aspect of the day were given advance information from one or another agency involved in the cleanup from the first two attacks that the building was about to blow up.

I don't believe the video I just linked to be a fabrication. I don't know if there is any machinery in a building like WTC7 that would blow up loudly enough to cause a concussive blast like that. Collapses from fire produce a slower and more consistent rumbling sound consistent with the gradual collapse of the building, which takes several seconds or more to complete...

Urgh, this isn't about videogames at all.

At least I got the right forum.

I'm not trying to be spiteful. What I am trying to be is completely unappreciative of being accused of:

1) Paying no real attention to what really happened that day

2) That most or all of my knowledge has anything to do with your notion of "consensus knowledge"

You appear to consider yourself a lone wolf on the subject (at least on these forums) and I've actually spent some time looking at all this craziness. I've seen Zeitgeist! FUCK! I've seen Zeitgeist 2 (which I only curse about because it fucking sucked compared to the first one and its conclusions were off the wall undoable). I know about these theories. I've seen the weirdness. It's sad but looking into these things brings no one anything.

It's why I stopped. Also bringing this shit up gets you punched in bars. And it stops there if you're lucky. I've seen it almost happen. And while intellectually I'd say I'd be on the side of the guy bringing up the inaccuracies and whatnot, ethically I'm on the side of the guy who lost friends and wants theorists to shut the fuck up and be respectful to the dead. Until there's undeniable proof that's how I see it, at least.

I'm all for the truth coming out at any cost and realize there's a process to said truth being brought out. I don't think this is the way to it in any way whatsoever. At this point I'm not even convinced anything really happened. Tessian and I were talking about this and he brought up a way to put it well - those in power WANT you to thing that they're capable of acts of secrecy of this magnitude. I really doubt they are. These are the same people who have trouble putting stop signs in correct places.

I saw the first half hour of Zeitgeist on a scratched DVD my friend lent me before it barfed. I almost did too. I was highly unimpressed.

Zeitgeist made me NOT want to believe this shit or follow my suspicions further for at least a week or so after I saw the fraction I did, but other things keep changing my mind.

Look up "Loose Change" on YouTube. That one, by contrast, is EXTREMELY credible.

Actually, here, I'll go get it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE

I've seen (edit: most of) it and feel the same way that I did about Zeitgeist, which is to say it's interesting but not proof. I just felt like Zeitgeist had some good ideas in it about stuff other than the 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

Have you checked the video frames they released? The "video" is available on Wikipedia. Now it seems to say five frames were released - last time I checked I could have sworn it said three - then I click on it and it says "1 of 19" - nobody knows what the fuck is going on.

This seems to be the best Wikipedia article on it so far:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_A ... _Flight_77

I mean, come on. Even Kennedy's assassination video (the famous Zapruder film) had, what, three digits worth of frames? What video camera takes three frames, or five frames, or nineteen frames? Did that camera just magically happen to turn on for 0.5 seconds and then magically become unavailable, or at least its footage magically become unavailable to the public?

This is an animated GIF showing what they claim is the plane, then one of the frames of the explosion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:757_pentagon.gif