9/11 Fact and Coverup Megathread

Talk about anything South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

MarkusFarkus
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 4:12 am

Postby MarkusFarkus » Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:36 am

blickity wrote:This Article seems to have been written with people like us in mind.

"Covering this up would be like covering up the Manhattan Project... AFTER Hiroshima."

Article.


Great article. Thanks. I like him bringing up the fact that these 9/11 conspiracy guys are attention-whores.
Jello_Biafra
Posts: 138
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:16 am

Postby Jello_Biafra » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:17 am

I'm sure this might have been posted, but I'm too f*cking lazy to sit here and check all sixteen pages to see if this has been posted or not. So I'll post it anyhow.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net ... 911_morons

But to all of you people who don't believe what happened on 9/11 I think this picture speaks for itself.

Image

But in all seriousness I'll post this video link for Penn & Teller's Show: bullsh*t! on the 9/11 consperacy theory.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVTKoPK7gaQ
"Six words Lisa, 'I'm not gay, but I'll learn.'" Homer Simpson

"How do you speak my language?" Adam West

"This job would be great if it weren't for the f*cking customers." Randall; Clerks
homerjjesse
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:55 am

Postby homerjjesse » Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:59 am

I agree with what zhang 85 said.

The US were behind the attacks, not because this administration is evil, but because we simply need the oil to keep Americans happy.

I won't argue any specifics, believe what you want. Everyone, including me and the writers, are too arrogant to have an open mind about this. There's really no point in going over the details, no one is going to completely switch opinions 5 years after the incident happened.

I thought Matt and Trey were smart enough to figure out that there's really no reason for any Muslim group to attack the US when all that does is invoke the wrath of the entire world against their cause. I sort of feel like they were lying about what they really think in this episode.

I feel like proposing another conspiracy... about south park, about how Trey and Matt write controversial things they don't believe in to get ratings, and therefore more money. You know, they need money if they want to keep snorting coke out of hookers asses. I wouldn't put this theory past them.

Besides, how much more difficult would the show have been if they wrote it from the completely opposite perspective; that Bush did plan out 9/11? It'd be a terrible mess to watch, and they'd get hung by their balls for it, if it would even be allowed to air.
homerjjesse
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 2:55 am

Postby homerjjesse » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:04 am

oh, and if you think posting information that another clueless idiot types on the internet solidifies your reasoning, you're the retard. (Talking to you jello)

I don't care if you think differently then me, just think for yourself before you let someone else stuff their opinion down your throat. (I tried to come up with a good innuendo for that sentence, maybe someone could help me out)
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:15 am

"The US were behind the attacks, not because this administration is evil, but because we simply need the oil to keep Americans happy."


What's the evidence, though? Us stealing oil--where's the evidence oil was stolen and who took it? If it's the Republicans, I'm close enough to them that I should get a cut, so somebody's welching on me.

If you just mean securing oil, it went up to $3.00 a gallon. It's just now starting to go back to somewhere near where it was before the war.

If you wanted to toss around a conspiracy, I actually think you guys would have a much easier time arguing the opposite: that the Bush administration wanted to restrict oil production. You could at least argue he had oil buddies that profited from higher oil prices by them messing with the Middle East and that that was all planned out beforehand (Yes, I apologize in advance for advancing this theory). You'd have a much easier time arguing this than that Bush wanted more oil.

EDIT: say he wanted more oil, couldn't we have just saved a lot of time and trouble and lifted the sanctions on Iraq?

"I thought Matt and Trey were smart enough to figure out that there's really no reason for any Muslim group to attack the US when all that does is invoke the wrath of the entire world against their cause. I sort of feel like they were lying about what they really think in this episode."


Look, if you don't believe these guys would attack us, do you believe that the 93 WTC bombing, the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, and the Embassy bombings were hoaxes also?
jonbonwolf
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 12:25 am

Postby jonbonwolf » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:39 am

homerjjesse wrote:
I sort of feel like they were lying about what they really think in this episode.


Besides, how much more difficult would the show have been if they wrote it from the completely opposite perspective; that Bush did plan out 9/11? It'd be a terrible mess to watch, and they'd get hung by their balls for it, if it would even be allowed to air.


Was talking to a friend about the same thing.
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 4:55 am

homerjjesse wrote:I agree with what zhang 85 said.

The US were behind the attacks, not because this administration is evil, but because we simply need the oil to keep Americans happy.

I won't argue any specifics, believe what you want. Everyone, including me and the writers, are too arrogant to have an open mind about this. There's really no point in going over the details, no one is going to completely switch opinions 5 years after the incident happened.


Yeah, that's the reason I've stopped debating the specifics in-depth. It's also funny how people always assume you hate the US if you believe in conspiracy because you think Bush and Co. are "evil", when real evil is best left for the comic books since all people tend to think that what they are doing is right and just. The Bush Administration allowed and aided 9/11 for oil and defense money for the most part, and I'll make this as short as I can since my other posts have been long-winded. In Cheney's NEPDG report, the ultimate goal is to locate 7.5 million barrels of oil per day that will come as a result of an increase in demand projected for 2020. US oil is already factored into the calculations, so that 7.5 million is foreign oil. We've had interest in the Caspian pipeline for well over a decade because we thought (before the war) that the region had $6 Trillion worth of oil. Iraqi oil is on the surface (remember Saddam buring the oil fields?) and costs only $1 per barrel to extract. Defense money is needed to maintain military preeminance in the next 100 years as outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses", "Defense Planning Guidance", and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard".

I said before that I can prove using FEMA's own numbers and kinetic energy equations with Boeing's own data that the impact of the planes was weak when compared to the data the designer Leslie Robertson used when designing the buildings to take an impact. I can also show using thermodynamics that the fires most likely reached a max of 460 degrees Celsius due to the jet fuel which is hardly anything. But the physical evidence isn't even important. The warnings, obstructions, operation of NORAD, history of the flights, background politics, motives..etc really are. All that I want is for people to recognize that US involvement in 9/11 is very possible.

If your leaders are aggressive neo-conservatives, told that the country needs to control the Middle East region and drastically increase the defense budget to maintain military dominance in the coming century, stave off peak oil, and remain the only superpower in the world, would it be at all strange for them to sacrifice a mere 3,000 lives to achieve these goals when the public, congress, and the international community are firmly against aggressive and unwarranted action? I'm writing a book on the 9/11 attacks to come out early next year, and although the evidence convinces me of a conspiracy, my goal is just for people to recognize that it makes sense and the information adds up.
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:04 am

I'll make this as short as I can since my other posts have been long-winded. In Cheney's NEPDG report, the ultimate goal is to locate 7.5 million barrels of oil per day that will come as a result of an increase in demand projected for 2020. US oil is already factored into the calculations, so that 7.5 million is foreign oil. We've had interest in the Caspian pipeline for well over a decade because we thought (before the war) that the region had $6 Trillion worth of oil. Iraqi oil is on the surface (remember Saddam buring the oil fields?) and costs only $1 per barrel to extract. Defense money is needed to maintain military preeminance in the next 100 years as outlined in "Rebuilding America's Defenses", "Defense Planning Guidance", and former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard".


And we couldn't have just ended the Iraq embargo to get this because...?
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:06 am

Or even better, attack Venezuela--there are bunch of countries that have oil and much weaker armed forces in the area.
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:10 am

AREK wrote:Or even better, attack Venezuela--there are bunch of countries that have oil and much weaker armed forces in the area.


Oh, we'll be there soon, don't worry about that. The invasion will come as a result of an action on the part of Iran with some "connection" to Venezuela. But...first things first....
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:12 am

Cool, but nobody better welch on me this time--otherwise I'm blabbing about the whole thing.
911insidejob
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:07 am

Postby 911insidejob » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:18 am

I don't see why 9/11 needs to be debated anymore. Larry Silverstein admitted he blew up Tower 7, that's all you need to know! Silverstein was the lease holder of WTC, btw, and received 7 billion in insurance. So he said "We made the decision to PULL IT." He blew it up. Inside job. I'm sorry if you're too retarded to see that it wasn't an inside job. I guess you'lll all be saying "REEEaly!" if not now, give it a year or so, when it's 3 out of 4 Americans that believe it. And it's 1 out 3 Americans, not 1 out 4 Trey, but I know 1 out of 4 worked out better for your show.
zhang85
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:18 am

Postby zhang85 » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:19 am

AREK wrote:

And we couldn't have just ended the Iraq embargo to get this because...?


Afghanistan and the Taliban were the main obstacles and the main reasons for going in there, Iraq being secondary. With activity in Afghanistan, it's likely that there would have been conflict in Iraq following our actions if we had decided to just go in there and take the oil. It's also always a plus to completely control a country, especially one that happens to be in the Middle East. It does wonders for business when the leaders are pro-US (like alleged former Unocal employee Karzai, and Unocal risk analyst and special ambassador Khalilzhad in Afghanistan). No bid contracts to your former companies and free reign to rape the country (Executive order 13303 gave oil companies in Iraq complete immunity from prosecution for any action) are also pluses made possible only through invasion.
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:34 am

Afghanistan and the Taliban were the main obstacles and the main reasons for going in there, Iraq being secondary. With activity in Afghanistan, it's likely that there would have been conflict in Iraq following our actions if we had decided to just go in there and take the oil.


Which goes back to my point, we want oil, so instead of any conflict--why not just lift the embargo?

It's also always a plus to completely control a country, especially one that happens to be in the Middle East. It does wonders for business when the leaders are pro-US


Zhang, is that what you call Iraq right now?

You think

1. We completely control Iraq

2. It has done wonders for us in the Middle East

Because I think even most of the 9/11 guys on this site would argue with that (by all means, though, guys-correct me if I'm wrong)

No bid contracts to your former companies and free reign to rape the country (Executive order 13303 gave oil companies in Iraq complete immunity from prosecution for any action) are also pluses made possible only through invasion.


So if they wanted to go around pillaging and stealing oil, they could.

Cool, where's the evidence they've done it?
AREK
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:35 am

Postby AREK » Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:39 am

I don't see why 9/11 needs to be debated anymore. Larry Silverstein admitted he blew up Tower 7, that's all you need to know!


http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_pulled.html

EDIT:

Here, I particularly liked this one:

Problem #4, why would the Fire Department willingly agree to engage in a multi-million dollar insurance fraud?

Problem #5, and since when do Fire Departments blow up buildings anyway?
Last edited by AREK on Fri Oct 13, 2006 5:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Return to “General South Park Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests