[donykerio]

There is this movie. It is called: "Who Killed John O'Neill? ". It is free to watch, here: Who Killed John O'Neill. This movie is about "terrorist attack" on World Trade Center. I want to know what do you think about it, after watching these movie, and please if you disagree with something, prove its wrong. IMPORTANT, I do not want to offend anybody, if youre easily offended, dont watch it. Also warning couse of vulgarisms, which BARELY can be heard, but still.

[Rugg]

....and please if you disagree with something, prove its wrong....

Prove it's right

[donykerio]

Prove it's right

Heh I meant, prove, that the things in this movie are wrong, if you disagree with them

[Archaic]

Yuck.

[donykerio]

Yuck.

What is so yuck about it? Like I wrote, please tell me why you dislike it. I know what you think about this whole case, Archaic, but do me the favour and watch this movie and prove that it is all "conspiracy lie" .

[Necros]

Prove it's right

Heh I meant, prove, that the things in this movie are wrong, if you disagree with them

And I think Rugg meant prove things in the movie are right if you agree with them. I didn't watch the movie, don't honestly feel like it. I don't want to sit there and listen to an hour and a half of artistic film made out from conspiracy theories. I admit, conspiracy theories can sometimes have credit to them (not that any come to mind) but the 9/11 attacks are not a subject I feel like delving into at this time. That, and it's a very touchy subject all on it's own, especially with the whole, "The Taliban attacked us! No, it was all Muslims! Nope, our government just made up a hoax D:"

Is there concrete proof on all sides? Maybe, but I say this tragedy of a day in 2001 has already caused enough trouble as is to have us ponder over conspiracy theories. Just my two cents.

[donykerio]

Oh, well the view of conspiracy is proved in the movie, so I didnt get what Rugg mean. I understand your point, Necros, but this is no only about WTC. It started so many more destructive operations. More than that, if I see a crime, I want the criminal to be punished. Not awarded. There is no need to discuse if you re not comfortable with that.

[Clank]

to watch or not to watch a movie about conspiracy.....not to watch....

[Archaic]

Yuck.

What is so yuck about it? Like I wrote, please tell me why you dislike it. I know what you think about this whole case, Archaic, but do me the favour and watch this movie and prove that it is all "conspiracy lie" .

Proof: I worked for the government. I observed it in action. It is far too corrupt and incompetent of an (dis)organization to be capable of silly conspiracy theories and other such nonsense. The amount of people required to be involved in a cover up of such magnitude would of course, in effect, make it impossible to keep secret.

"Three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead."
- Benjamin Franklin

Conspiracy theories are nothing more than stories to make certain types of people feel important or give them someone or something to blame. Take them as the fairy tales that they are.

[MasterM]

If you want to watch a movie about conspiracy theories, look up this movie called Thrive. It's almost laughable the stuff the guy claims.

[donykerio]

The view, that USA goverment is no smart enough to organise that action is optimist but no true. USA is consider as a "super" country, that couse very good specialists is working for this country. But that is still no proof. Just watch any recording of the "attack". You can see in one moment the material explosies. Till WTC no building was crushed like that. And then suddenly two buildings crush in the same way. They are scientists who claim that it is no possible. That is no all. This was a simple operation known very well by historics. For example Hitler destroyed his own building and blamed...jew, so he could turn society against jews more easily. Also there was a "terrorist attack" on WTC before, and since then society so easily believe about terrorist version after second attack. Remember the words: " Youre with us, or youre with terrorists"? Every country, after saying its terrorists one, may be attacked by USA.
Also MasterM, you may check all facts from WKJO wherever you want. I thought its ridiculous too, till I checked it with wikipedia...

[Necros]

Also MasterM, you may check all facts from WKJO wherever you want. I thought its ridiculous too, till I checked it with wikipedia...

No offense dony, but you do know that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, even those who made this video or someone with no credibility whatsoever, therefore making it a completely unreliable source on matters like this?

[donykerio]

That is true, but if we consider this option, why believe in anything? I mean everything may be edited, everything may be a lie, for me all WTC thing could be a lie, just video edited. Im not sure if that happened, im not sure if II world war happened, maybe its all edited and falsed. You see my point? So what would you consider as possible to be truth? Are terrorists even exists? How should I know, Ive never seen one... This point of view has no sense to me.

[Necros]

The 9/11 attacks can be proven by seeing the wreckage on that day, people's firsthand accounts, etc etc. WWII? I'm sure the veteran's have stories and I'm sure we could still find remnants of struggles from battle locales in those areas.

I understand what you're saying though, why believe anything you see on the internet, or in a book, or anything for that matter when you're not there. History will get scrambled as time goes by. Take the Constitution of the United States. We don't know what the forefathers truly meant when they wrote the Bill of Rights verbatim.

For example, take this Family Guy sketch on the Second Amendment: Link. Sure, this is just a joke from a commonly criticized TV show, but it does have a point. We all see the Second Amendment as the right to bear firearms, but that might not necessarily be the case as through history it could've been lost in translation to further someone else's agenda, or it could be what we think it is. We have now way of knowing unless someone decides to build a time machine.

Back on topic, and minus a few videos, the reason I stand out against Wikipedia as a source for reliable information is that anyone, anywhere can edit it. This is a common known fact. One day, someone could decided that World War II was actually a huge fight between Jesus Christ and Robotic Super Dinosaurs from the future (don't laugh, my friend in high school actually did this one day in class.) However, with most other sources on the internet or in encyclopedia's, the writers have more notoriety. We trust they will tell nothing but the truth through this.

So, while the video might have valid points and you corroborating that information through Wikipedia doesn't immediately mean it's fact. Those same people who made the video might've edited Wiki to make it seem that they were true all along, so I apologize if I don't take you at your word for finding a backup for their information on Wikipedia. This isn't to say it's not true, and I still don't wish to watch this video because I hate conspiracy theories, but it does seem like you're building your argument on sinking sand.

[donykerio]

Well If you want to check some date, or find out who someone was, or even did he exist, where do you go? I meant like just checking these kind of facts. Anyway, there will never be a time machine lol, becouse if people in future build one, they would come back to us or the middle age or whenever we would know that lol. So I mean, this movie is no based on Wikipedia... I just checked it there. And again, what do you need to consider something as truth? Everything may be a lie, no only in internet. If for example president say something, do you believe it? He may lie as well.

[MasterM]

Till WTC no building was crushed like that.

Yeah, well I'm pretty sure that's cause no one ever flew a 747 into a skyscraper before.

As for checking facts, there's plenty of legitimate sources out there, but wikipedia is not one of them

[Necros]

dony, as I said, or might have missed saying, you have a valid point. How do you trust them? You are right that you shouldn't trust anything at face value persay, but you can't live your whole life not trusting anything as true. One must always strive in the pursuit of truth and putting logic behind the facts to ascertain the truth. That's how I live at least. So you're right, don't take anything at face value, and you can't always for sure know when you're being lied to.

However, I again state, there are those with credibility and notoriety that given their past, they are more trustworthy than others when they lend their weight to certain situations and ideas. Wikipedia does not have that credibility.

Also, I did not say that the video came from Wiki, I said that the makers of the video could have edited the Wiki page you found to try and lend credibility to their video, thus producing false truths to be implanted in your head to make you believe that you had found proof that what they said was right and therefore believe everything they said (not saying this is what happened, just a possibility.)

As I said, feel free to believe what you want, but do not stop at Wikipedia in your pursuit for the truth behind this. Search further if you truly wish delve deeper into the rabbit hole, but do not stop at Wikipedia to prove this, and do not expect to find all the truths, there might actually be hidden truths still. Even still, don't expect everything you find to be the truth. This is what I'm saying. Wikipedia isn't reliable, it's very common that it's not. Other sources, while possible that not as reliable, can be proven more reliable simply because they are not able to be edited by all.

[donykerio]

Yeah, well I'm pretty sure that's cause no one ever flew a 747 into a skyscraper before.

Well sure no 747, but there was a lot more crushes planes with buildings before and after 9/11 and none looks like that.

Other sources, while possible that not as reliable, can be proven more reliable simply because they are not able to be edited by all.

"We are no sure of anything, but when you look at the whole case, it is the most possibly what could happened."
Heh, if you look from the conspiracy point of view, I mean when something must be confirmed by some organisation, and noone can edit it, isnt it censure? I mean nothing, what is unconvenient for goverment or other organisation will be banned and unable to publish.
And youre right, everyone has to have something what he considers as truth. Doubting in everything is no sense and also a waste of time. Although is is hard to believe is sth these days.

[jawfin]

[citation needed]

Having said that though I do find Wikipedia extremely useful for finding already known facts, like science, mathematical proofs or even coding algorithms. Ditto it is extremely useful for history and biographies, but, I would not be using it to collaborate any conspiracy philosophy (a theory requires observation then hypothesis - therefore it is inherently impossible for any conspiracy to be a theory!).

[donykerio]

Theory needs just an idea to exist. If theory is proved, then it becames a fact. I may say, that there is a rancor living on mars, and thats my theory, and its stays theory till it is proved right or proved wrong. They are cases, which cannot be proved or refuted, like God case, or 9/11 case. Its about believing now, couse whatever was said, or will be, there always be people who believe in conspiracy side, and the other one.

[MasterM]

Theory just an idea to exist. If theory is proved, then it becames a fact.

It may be worth mentioning here that in the science world, a theory is never able to be proved, it just has a large amount of testing done on it and holds up under those circumstances. A scientific theory is only one possible explanation of why things work the way they do.

[Jato]

I just dont see how this thread leads to anything but conflinct, so I'll just say that there is probably more to this than anyone will ever know but we should leave it to that. <3 Jato

[Archaic]

I believe that there is nothing inherently evil about conflict. It is natural and should not be avoided, but embraced and resolved through reason and discussion (or in some cases, force of will, but that is another matter and does not apply here). While I agree with MasterM and Jawfin about the "scientific theory", I also agree with dony about use of the general term "theory". Therefore I do not believe that the strict rules and linear guidelines of the scientific theory necessarily apply to the general form of the term. I disagree with Jato that there is probably more to this than anyone will ever know, unless you are suggesting a divine influence.

[Jato]

I disagree with Jato that there is probably more to this than anyone will ever know, unless you are suggesting a divine influence.

Well if you above top secret clearance to documented files that would suggest U.S. involvement and/or other party involvements to the 9/11 terrorist attacks or plan to obtain such clearance then I suppose yes you would know the absolute truth. To the other 99.99% of the world we will never know. I do not and did not suggest divine intereference. However, conflict is not something that should be embraced. This is a touchy subject for a lot of people and you don't know how this has influenced anyone within the clan or visitors to our forum. i.e. actually having family and/or friends who were involved with the tragedy or having family members/friends who were soon thereafter deployed in response and lost in service to their country, unlikely but even still we need to be mindful of such things. I do not mean this in a combative or arguementative way, this is merely my opinion, but I think subjects that can lead to arguements (which this topic clearly could) should not be brought into lengthy descussions lest we cause arguements and peoples feelings get hurt in the end. I personally think that is something that should be avoided. However this whole paragraph is just my 2 cents and probably too long for most to read

[Necros]

I personally think that is something that should be avoided.