That's twice and it's 'etc' an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "et cetera"... so, ETC! E-T-*******-C!!!!!!!!
And no I won't calm down.
9/11 pager messages released on Wikileaks
- Thread starter iNPUt
- Start date
That's twice and it's 'etc' an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "et cetera"... so, ETC! E-T-*******-C!!!!!!!!
And no I won't calm down.
This is backed up by simple physics and numerous camera angles that captured the second plane hitting.
The aircraft crashed through the exterior walls of the buildings, and proceeded into the interior of the towers. Therefore, both planes were INSIDE THE BUILDINGS when they exploded. Therefore, inside job.
The truth is out there.
The questions that should be being answered are "If they knew about it, why didn't they do anything to stop it?"
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
Having read through a fair amount of the messages I would surmise their authenticity by virtue of the fact that forging 573,000 pager messages, with enormous amounts of cross-referenceable information, accurate timings, including excerpts from news networks reporting via other channels, etc. would be a prohibitively difficult task.
It is plausible, of course, that the bulk of the pager messages are authentic but that the individual acting as the source could have inserted forged messages amidst these, perhaps with the intention of fanning the flames of conspiracy theories with references to bombs, explosions, etc.
However, I don't think there are grounds to dismiss the entire set of data as fake.
I hope you're not defending a LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) position here?
I find it much more plausible then any other reason put forward.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 2,981
- Location
- Herts, UK
I can't believe there won't be massive backlash from this, not least because if a spam harvester gets linked to those pages, there are hundreds of email addresses that could be spammed.
It is interesting to see that the world didn't completely stop when this happened
It is interesting to see that the world didn't completely stop when this happened
I hate to be a stickler but I believe that the mavity theory has been backed up by many "professionals".
They use calculations and experience to come to conclusions, also I'm not sure whether you're just being pedantic, but you don't have to exactly re-create an incident to understand it.
Also not sure why they would crash planes into 100 year old buildings anyway, it's not like the WTC were anywhere near 100 years old anyway.
Not a conspiracy theorist but I will not just reject theories off hand.
That's the problem though, I concede that > 500,000 is a lot to forge but as you say they could have altered a smaller number of them meaning that there is no way to actually authenticate any single one as being true without some kind of outside confirmation and only then can you trust the ones that have been authorised by for example the person that sent them verifying it. You cannot trust any of them as fact until verified.
Not sure what LIHOP is.
Edit: Just looked it up, I am not aligned to any viewpoint, I can only act on the information that I have at hand.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
My question regarding LIHOP was directed at Teki187, having quoted him, although the quote didn't come through when you subsequently quoted me!
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 4,534
- Location
- UK
I think the reason you'll find it is more plausible is that it's closer to the accepted sequence of events than alternative theories (i.e. MIHOP, etc.).
At the risk of devolving this thread into the usual drivel, I'll just ask what reason you have for believing that "they" (I assume you're referring to the US government) had foreknowledge of the attacks and let them take place.