PolyNewbie

Government Experts Supporting 911 / Global Research "..... Those of us fighting for the truth about 9/11 owe it to the victims of the expanding 9/11 Wars, and to ourselves, to reveal these ongoing lies from corporate criminals and their credentialed “experts”. It is becoming increasingly obvious that those giving us one false story after another, while simultaneously ignoring much of the evidence of 9/11, might have more than just a cozy relationship with this government, and more than a benign past. It seems quite possible that some among those providing these explanations are knowingly complicit in the greater crime of a 9/11 cover-up. It is also true that, like Matthew Rothschild, many of us simply want quick and easy answers, in order to relieve ourselves of any need to think about the facts of 9/11 and the changes in worldview that might be demanded of such an examination. The problem is, the easy answers have all been wrong, while at the same time the experts have ignored one fairly simple hypothesis that is now becoming obvious to many. It should be clear that this is because the credentialed experts we’ve been dealing with are all quite well invested in maintaining the official version of events. " On a related matter. Expert: Romero & His Motivations & Statements Your experts sit on a card house that is easily collapsed.

Paul Craig Roberts ..another fairy tale.

You guys have had me in defensive mode and you are getting your a$$ kicked. You cannot answer one simple question: Show me one reason why we should think Bin Laden did 911. You have no motive, you have no means and you have no opportunity. You have no evidence, but you will defend your idea no matter what evidence is presented. Keep me on the defensive (I don't mind) and will keep showing how weak and foolish your arguement is.

You may speculate on what the corporations are thinking as much as you want. The fact is that they are lobbying to prevent sex trade crimes involving little kids from being prosecuted in the USA when committed abroad. Its all quite clear. You, as a government apologist will make excuses for them because you have to. Perhaps you will be given the golden hockey puck award and flown to meet the queen by David Rockefeller. When you meet her, after you bow down and if you ask nicely, perhaps she will bend over and let you kiss her a$$. You certainly deserve something for being a volunteer government apologist like this.

You gave me a link to a site that basically says "anything and everything" can be found in the rubble of 911 and your arguement is that if that is true then sulfidization could be found on the beams. I say your site engages in pure speculation and that Jones points to specific phsysical evidence on the steel beams that shows sulfidization and therefore the use of explosives. FEMA found this evidence and could not explain it in the context of the official conspiracy theory. I won't make a full rebuttal of a site that is based on speculation alone. Its a waste of time and doesn't prove anything. I will make a suitable rebuttal to any point that 911Myths makes or that Popular Mechanics makes. If you choose this as your single point I will deal with it but I think I have already. I could elaborate but its a weak point. I'm suggesting you pick a stronger one - perhaps one that doesn't require any speculation on their part. Right. Your nutritionist can tell you how to eat right and stay healthy, but if you get a serious gut ache after a meal are you going to call your nutritionist ? The fact is civil engineers build building that will not collapse so they don't study the mechanics of actual collapses because thats not supposed to happen. If you get a broken neck after your head goes through a windshield in a car accident would you like someone to call an engineer for you ? Show me stuff from the mainstream scientific community that shows that buildings can collapse straight down into their own footprint at near freefall speed as a result of asymetrical damage and fires. Show me one example when its happened before as a result of war, fires or any other calamity. It hasn't because its impossible and anyone that sees those collapses on video instinctively knows something is very wrong. The American Society Of Civil Engineers supports the official version of 911 but I doubt they took a poll. Engineers avoid discussion of 911 and avoid looking at the evidence. Its not to be discussed in engineering classes. Engineers say they support the official version but I haven't seen one yet that can credibly expolain it. The FEMA and NIST reports don't even seriously try and every time they put a theory forward a scientist comes along and shows that the theory is impossible or extremely implausible. Even the FEMA reort states that their explanations have only a "low probability of occurance". What does that mean to you ? These engineers that wrote the official report are not saying what you think they are saying and the report was directed by a self proclaimed government propogandist not a qualified investigator. Engineers depend on government contracts. To say 911 was an inside job is to lose yours. This has already been demonstrated with Jones & Ryan. There are lots of scientists, engineers, ex defense ministers, ex FBI heads, ex CIA heads, ex generals & ex colonels, and even the head of the SDI program (with two engineering Phd's) under Reagan thinks 911 was an inside job- Colonel Robert Bowman (Ret). They must all be nuts and should probably go read the site 911Myths or read Popular Mechanics..right ? See Senior officials Read what these officials say on their own web sites. I don't care what you ask your pastor. No, I said falsifiable. Look it up.

Which point specifically do you want me to rip apart using simple science and/or logic that can be found on the 911 Myths site ?

That web site you post sounds pretty technical - but Jones points to some specific evidence on actual beams and so does FEMA. All that gobbledygook doesn't impress me - all they did was analyze dust samples. Jones points to a specific chemical process that he has physical evidence of. That site seems to use the old "Baffle Them With Bullshcitt" type of arguement.

Why did FEMA say that they could not explain the sulfidization if there is such a simple and likely explanation for it such as this ? I think that FEMA probably considered this and then considered the possibility of losing credibility based on what would be judged as a weak arguement. I'm not a chemist and I know the folks that wrote 911Myths are fools. Why would I want to engage in an arguement based on speculation with fools in an area that I know little or nothing about ? Maybe Jones is right, maybe he is wrong - I don't really care because I know that explosives were used and that the fact that explosives were used proves beyond any reasonable doubt that 911 was an inside job unless you are willing to venture that Al Quaeda somehow sneaked into the building and planted them - which of course would be silly.

I have listened to what Cynthia McKinney has to say and I have never heard her say anything that did not make absolute sense to me. She seems very intelligent to me. I don't know where the bashing comes from I just assume its from the same kind of sources that bash me.

I am not completely convinced that it was thermate. I only know for an absolute fact that high explosives were used. I give Jones more credibility than anything 911 myths has to say but there are a few competeing theories about exactly how the buildings were brought down. No one will ever know with 100 % certainty how the buildings came down. There are likely many ways of generating the high temperature explosions that we know occured on 911. It could be that another type of explosive creates sulfidization. All I know is that FEMA couldn't explain the sulfidization and they would have considered any theory that the coincidence theorists and government apologists would have come up with. I do not speculate on any aspect of 911, any of my arguements are firmly based on fact and science.

I assumed that you summarized what 911Myths said. I've read through 911Myths and can rip everything they have to say apart with simple science or logic. They are very sneaky and misleading. If you would like me to pick this topic and show how they are lying or misleading people that is fine. I guess I will read it, but you can pick any other thing that they say if you like. I thought this one was addressed by your summary.

It seems to me that FEMA would have explained that instead of saying that the source of the sulfidization cannot be explained. Coincidence theorists like to say it came from drywall (or any other number of equally rediculous sources) but I think the FEMA engineers would have considered that. Yes. The pouring molten metal comming from the building is proof of a high explosive. You may choose to believe that the thermate evidence found by Jones must be the result of environmental contamination if you choose. I don't think Jones would make an error like that. You must explain the hot spots still hot days after the collapses and burning fuel cannot do that. Certainly there is an abundance of evidence that shows there were high explosives. The buildings (wtc1 & wtc2) exploding as they collapsed and big hunks of building being blown upward and outward is one indicator. The building collapsing with the physical damage and heat involved in the collision is another. That just wasn't possible from looking at the NIST temperature / area diagrams and from the amount of heat involved. You are not creating useful arguemnt you are taking the role of an apologist and using very weak arguements that require you to enter the domain of unlikelyhood all the time to justify your side.

I am not interested in your opinions or your efforts to justify their actions- or their efforts to explain away their actions. I am only interested in fact. Is it not a fact that government lobbyists are trying to restrict the US government from prosecuting cases of child sex trade involving multinationals abroad or not ? I do not believe that the courts would somehow confuse forced labour with the child sex trade. You do - you must in order to justify their actions.

I've gotten in enough arguements with "engineers" I've heard all the arguements that violate the laws of physics and common sense. This isn't my first big thread on 911.

I've never seen that happen. I am just looking for a single reason why anyone should think Bin Laden attacked the USA on 911. None of you can do it- I can falsify anything you can come up with. All you do is come up with insults and stupidity. Its all you can do because you have decided what you are going to believe about 911. Its silly to believe the official version of 911. It has no means, motive or opportunity. My version of events has all three of these things in verifiable & falsifiable form.

I'm still laughing

Thats a keeper. Its proof that you are an idiot. I'm saving quotes from you and Riverwind to alter use them against you.

Yes.

I listed a set of undisputable facts. Some of those facts are given in terrorstorm, but it doesn't matter who states them - it only matters that these facts are both verifiable and falsifiable. (except for point eight & point nine)

Read this thread over again. Read the first post. Again ...no substance, just insults, innuendos and in this case lies.

None of this is true. I saw the movie - he never once said they were killing anyone. He made it clear that they were doing mock sacrafices. The rest of your post is your opinion and you have somehow confused exploited labourers with sex slaves. If it works for you then do it but your opinion isn't going to win any arguements.

Thats as heck of a statement to make as an annonymous poster on the internet. Anything to back it up ? She was one of a few to not vote for the Patriot Act and Iraq war.

All the planets are heating up. Its a cycle in the sun. I'd like to hear someone discredit that. I din't say that I had no scientific basis - if Mars is heating up too I would have a hard time believing SUV's are responsible for that. Some say global warming is caused by CO2 others say CO2 is causing global warming. I think CO2 is being causes from global warming. I don't know enough to argue this. There are other advantages to spinning up the global warming hoax - if indeed it is a hoax. I'm interested in hearing real arguements for global warming and for this the sun heating up would have to be discredited. Looking down on civilization from an airplane at 30,000 feet even over NY city makes me think we are not as important as we think we are.

"Military men are dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy."- Henry Kissinger Woodward and Bernstein The Final Days in chapter 14 I don't think military men are dumb but this reflects the attitude in the White House.

If this North American Union is a good thing then why is it that politicians are not bragging about it on TV ? Why isn't there specials telling us about how much better off we will be ? Do you think globalization is resposible for the income gap between rich & poor ? Will the NAU lead to even bigger gaps ? Do you know that the Black Plague started because of poor sections in England - it spread and even killed lawyers.