Audio Asylum Thread Printer

Get a view of an entire thread on one page

FAQ / News / Events

Films/DVD Asylum

Re: Seems you expect more realism from Casino Royale than this "documentary." ;-)

221.165.250.250

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Films/DVD Asylum ]

RGA

In Reply to: Seems you expect more realism from Casino Royale than this "documentary." ;-) posted by sjb on December 24, 2006 at 20:05:19:

First of all if you are saying they did a piss poor job with their evidence then where and what have you checked that illustrates where they have gone wrong? Simply writing on a forum that their facts are wrong does not make it so so you are just as guilty as saying that people watching the film are simpletons for "trusting" the evidence that they present.
They interviewed the people who make the engine on that plane and the one at the crash site. It would be easy to check the information but since the government does not release anything of vital importance to get the facts you are left to go by the evidence you have left over.
I must say you are awfully willing to believe what the government doles out despite all of the incredible scientfic coincidences that they are asking us all to accept to buy what they dish out. Flight 93 could not scientifically vaporize. I mean the passport survives the jet fuel but the plane or skyscrapers do not. Wow it's not a magic bullit - it's a magic passport made from mystical alien paper of some sort.
Remember the point is to get people to ask questions not that they have all the answers. I would like to have had a list of sources on their film to back check. You can however clearly see explosivve charges on the towers -- all the eyewitnesses -- I guess they're all lying.
I know it's very tough to believe that a government - espeically the one you believe in - could ever do a single nefarious thing. After all nobody in government could ever do something corrupt in the name of money or power. - they truly believe in freedom for all and power to the people and freedom of choice and tolerance for all -- well unless your gay.

Follow Ups:

If you can't see that they are simply telling you things without coming anyhwere close to being close to - sjb 10:34:49 12/27/06 (1)
providing actual evidence then I don't know what to say. To argue back that my disappointment with how poorly they support their argument means that I believe the government's version of the events of that day is just silly and shows that you can't really support anything they're saying. I also can't help but notice that you didn't address any of the several points I made in two posts about the sloppiness of their presentation.
To say that questions should be asked is obvious. I said so myself in my first response.
Also, I truly believe that pursuing these kinds of silly theories

Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
- actually helps shield the administration from proper scrutiny. (Open in New Window)
- Re: If you can't see that they are simply telling you things without coming anyhwere close to being close to - RGA 04:03:15 12/29/06 (0)
  The problem is that when people are called whackos for suggesting a plane did not hit the Pentagon is doing the real disservice. Why won't the government simply show the video footage? Unless in fact they are trying to cover up the fact that no plane hit it.
  Why does flight 93 have a confirmed landing at another airport - Why is the wreckage so appalingly light, why did WTC number 7 fall down? I mean that is probably the biggest head scratcher of all -- man those New York builders must be the worst in the world - I know Aerican cars are bad but geez must be the worst carpenters, builders and engineers on the planet.
  It boils down to ludicrous explanations -- no way did those planes vaporize and no way do those towers fall down from Jet fuel and paper after an hour when a freaking B52 Bomber hits the Empire State Building and not only did that burn longer and hotter it is a weaker structure and it's still up.
  The makers of the film are not saying they have the answer -- they just don't buy the canned government response -- they hypothesize that gee maybe it was a cruise missile because it is the same general size. The news reports had totally different eyewitness accounts -- some paid lackies? Who knows but it's a pretty big difference going from jet liner to small craft depending on who said what that day. Not to mention all the second third etc explosions everyone was hearing.
  We're to believe that a bunch of apes with box cutters managed to take down 4 planes? If I was one of those planes I would have taken a pen and jabbed it into the guy's throat or eyeball and taken them down (and I'm not even American). Sorry I don't but the BS the gov't is doling out. That does not make the filmaker's 100% correct but there is a lot of smoke there that the government could clear up but isn't -- and why not? Please don't say National Security -- if there was any National Security 9/11 would not have happened!

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

You can not post to an archived thread.