|
Post by bazbear on Jul 7, 2006 22:08:16 GMT -4
Yes, once. Usually I do not have to fold a conspiracy theory to find a logical fallacy. Usually I just have to hold it up to the light. Indeed, they're usually convoluted enough not to require any more folding. However, I have heard it said they should be spindled early and often.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 8, 2006 11:17:13 GMT -4
I am shocked at the coincidence that the smoke on the dollar come from the two "buildings" approximately exactly as it is on the Towers: the left building's smoke is higher than the right building's smoke, . Also, the small building in between is depicted. I don't know if it is a conspiracy, but if it is not, then the person who discovered this is really smart.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 8, 2006 13:19:08 GMT -4
the left building's smoke is higher than the right building's smoke A coincidence which evaporates if you compare the folded bill to a photo of the smoking twin towers taken from the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 8, 2006 14:59:42 GMT -4
what do you mean? From that pic it was two bldgs, one shot in a place higher than the other, and a small bldg btw the towers is depicted, exactly as the dollar sign. It might be coincidence, but who knows? Of course, if someone takes the pic of something from the other side, it would look different. that is why forensic detectives compare same profiles for criminals/victims to be able to recognize the, not the same photo taken from another side. You at this forum became too sensitive for everything that even hints at a conspiracy. You didn't need to be that sarcastic.
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jul 9, 2006 10:04:26 GMT -4
Of course it's a coincident. Even if there was a conspiracy to do this to the WTC, at least as far back as 1998 (the last redesign of this banknote, and if the designer knew about it somehow, and if he wanted to depict it, how would he know what the result would be of the attack. Nobody did.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 9, 2006 10:31:39 GMT -4
Maybe, especially that I heard that the second plane didn't go as planned into the building, but shifted its position a bit. As for the result of the attack, he would know if he had planned it, and put it as he planned it on the bill. However, nothing is certain.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 9, 2006 11:32:28 GMT -4
I mean the fact that smoke emerges from the tower on the left higher than it does from the tower on the right is a result of the photographer's position realative to the towers, and not an intrinsic property of the event itself. Err, are you seriously entertaining the notion that the designer(s) of the 1998 edition US $20 bill, and/or the architect(s) and landscaper(s) of the Whitehouse had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks? Some "theories" we'll try to discuss rationaly, others we just have to point and laugh at. Sarcastic? There was nothing at all sarcastic in my last post. Had I wanted to be sarcastic, I'd have said something like: And of course, if you were to photograph the burning twin towers from any angle, the smoke would always emerge from the tower on the left higher than it does from the tower on the right.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 9, 2006 12:31:50 GMT -4
when that would happen? if the photographer stood where? on a holicopter?
just a possibility that they have been planning for this huge attac since long time ago, especially that i watched a documentary about the issue, showing Philippino intelligence responsible ppl who said that several years prior to the attacks, they interrogated terrorists wanting to blow the two towers and sent this info to the americans.
only the sarcastic face you had drawn.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jul 9, 2006 14:44:24 GMT -4
when that would happen? if the photographer stood where? on a holicopter? The photo in question was taken from the east of the WTC, resulting in the North Tower on the right and the South Tower on the left. This photo was taken from the southwest, resulting in the South Tower, from which the smoke emerges lower, positioned on the right. Who is "they," and why were the designer(s) of the 1998 edition US $20 bill and/or the architecht and landscapers of the White House let in on it?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 9, 2006 14:55:11 GMT -4
so you are comparing two different profiles. yet, still the bombs were one higher than the other. Comparing different profiles will result in different photos as I mentioned earlier, this is why forensic detectives compare same profiles of criminals/victims. The designers might have chosen the direct, face-to face profile as if the photo was taken from just facing the towers. Why do you keep interfering in their policies? why do you keep telling them that different profiles of the towers could have been better it is clear. they are the US gov. who knows?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 9, 2006 17:50:09 GMT -4
just a possibility that they have been planning for this huge attac since long time ago, especially that i watched a documentary about the issue, showing Philippino intelligence responsible ppl who said that several years prior to the attacks, they interrogated terrorists wanting to blow the two towers and sent this info to the americans.
Well while I suspect that the plans are at least that old, information about an attack on the WTC would not have been suprising to the US, after all, Al Quaeda attempted to blow them up back in 1987 using a truck bomb in the carpark. The WTC was a fairly obvious target. However being told that a group is making plans to blow up a building (presumablely in a similar manner as the first time) and having them crash planes into them are two different senarios.
it is clear. they are the US gov.
You're going to have to provide far better evidence of US involvement in 9/11 than a coincidental image on a banknote designed 3 years prior to the attacks. Especially when that design is based on the landscaping og the Whitehouse.
who knows?
Well if it's illogical for such lowly ranked people to know about this previous to the event, and they have never spoken out (heck someone spoke out about Nixon authorizing a few burglaries, this would be mass murder) then how can you consider it more than a rather peculiar coincidence?
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 10, 2006 2:54:51 GMT -4
being told that a gropu is gonna blow up the targets but nothing done to stop poses some questions, or may pose some questions. I 'll have to research this issue more bczif I remember well, the philippinos were saying that america did nothing, while the re was in the documentary an incident where a terrorist was taken to jail and passed through the WTC, and the soldier told him: see, it is here and it will remain here. the man answered: but if it came to me, I would have blown it up. I don't recall if this was another terrorist connected to he group or what, but the fact that you don't put it as a possibility is a surprise to me.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 10, 2006 7:55:05 GMT -4
being told that a gropu is gonna blow up the targets but nothing done to stop poses some questions
What could they have done? A warning that someone is planning some sort of an attack at some undisclosed point of time in the future is rather vauge. They had bomb-sniffing dogs, security patrols, in fact they had doubled the shifts for several weeks prior to the attack, just relaxing them a few days eariler. Even if they hadn't relaxed them back to normal levels, the extra security couldn't have prevented the attacks. They were focused on a car/truck bomb like the previous attack or Oaklahoma, not planes.
in the documentary an incident where a terrorist was taken to jail and passed through the WTC, and the soldier told him: see, it is here and it will remain here. the man answered: but if it came to me, I would have blown it up.
Sounds like the conversation between one of the people convicted of the '87 bombing and an FBI agent when they were flyong out of NY. The Agent pointed out the the buildings still stood, and the Terrorist replied that had he done it right they'd be gone, or something like that.
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Jul 10, 2006 8:21:28 GMT -4
Maybe, but I have read also that a mossad agent had the camera that filmed the other plane, which indicates that they knew about it. But I don't believe that they couldn't have done anything. they would have kept spying on the Kaeda until they know.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Jul 10, 2006 9:01:55 GMT -4
Maybe, but I have read also that a mossad agent had the camera that filmed the other plane, which indicates that they knew about it. . Do you believe this to be true? Do you believe everything you read?
|
|