The Greatest Crisis In Modern History

Canadian Blue · December 5, 2006

What did the government have to gain from Oklahoma???

Maybe instead of using a conspiracy theory as an answer to everything, a simply "They f^%$ed up" is more in order.

PolyNewbie · December 5, 2006

"A tyrant... is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."

--- Plato,The Republic (circa 380 B.C.)

They did Oklahoma to make an attempt to bring in all kinds of Police state laws. The effort failed. Bush attempted to bring in the laws similar to the patriot act after the attack.

The 911 attack and the Oklahoma attack both had the same purpose. The Oklahoma attack failed because it wasn't big enough.

They want the police state so that they can increase their own wealth while making the country poorer while preventing any kind of mass uprising.

Bayes theorem shows that the police state will not help them catch more terrorists. This is well known amoung non TV ex establishment commentators.

Canadian Blue · December 5, 2006

They did Oklahoma to make an attempt to bring in all kinds of Police state laws. The effort failed. Bush attempted to bring in the laws similar to the patriot act after the attack.
The 911 attack and the Oklahoma attack both had the same purpose. The Oklahoma attack failed because it wasn't big enough.

So President Bush tried to bring in Police state laws in 1995, when Bush was in the White House......

PolyNewbie · December 5, 2006

CanadianBlue:So President Bush tried to bring in Police state laws in 1995, when Bush was in the White House......

No doubt to protect us from terrorists. I believe it was Clinton that tried this in '95. They all play for the same team. You should be able to figure that out from main stream news reports showing Clinton & Bush Sr togather.

Black Dog · December 5, 2006

People, you shopuld know by now (12 pages and counting!) that conspiracy nuts will not be swayed by facts or evidence or anything that doesn' fit their pre-ordained conclusions. That's why they are conspiracy nuts. The best strategy is to treat them as you would any other crazy person. Back away slowly while avoiding eye contact.

Wilber · December 5, 2006

Done

PolyNewbie · December 5, 2006

Wilbur: Done

You are afraid of what I am saying because you know I can prove it

People, you shopuld know by now (12 pages and counting!) that conspiracy nuts will not be swayed by facts or evidence or anything that doesn' fit their pre-ordained conclusions. That's why they are conspiracy nuts. The best strategy is to treat them as you would any other crazy person. Back away slowly while avoiding eye contact.

I do generally - I mean that stuff about Bin Laden attacking multiple critical targets in the USA from a cave in Afganistan is just too much. Only an idiot would believe that. The FBI isn't even convinced.

Wrt 911 I like to keep my mind open to what really may have happened while eliminating rediculous explanations.

Black Dog · December 5, 2006

I do generally - I mean that stuff about Bin Laden attacking multiple critical targets in the USA from a cave in Afganistan is just too much. Only an idiot would believe that. The FBI isn't even convinced.

Bin Laden didn't do it. Bin Laden, the official version goes, hatched the idea. But the attacks were actually planned in Germany and America by the people who eventually carried them out. OBL wasn't holding the effing joystick from his cave.

Wrt 911 I like to keep my mind open to what really may have happened while eliminating rediculous explanations.

Except your mind doesn't seem to be open to the possibility that the main thust of the official version is essentially correct. Instead, you're arguing for a fiendishly complex, multi-layered government conspiracy involving deception and murder on an unprecedented scale, a conspiracy that was flawlessly executed with the knowledge and willing participation of thousands of individuals, none of whom have spoken of their involvement before or since, even though their actions caused the deaths of more than 3,000 of their countrymen. And your basing it not on solid evidence or testimony, but on speculation, conjecture and relentless nit-picking of the evidence out there.

If you were eliminating ridiculous explanations, I'm afraid your "inside job" would be the first to go.

You are afraid of what I am saying because you know I can prove it

So prove it. You'd be the very first. But it's telling that all you've done is try to poke holes in the official story without putting forward a plausible alternative. Repeating "it was an inside job!!!" ten thousand times doesn't count. So please: tell us how the government was able to plant tons of explosives throughout the WTC complex, crash two passenger-laden jets into the twin towers (at percisely the same point where the explosives were planted), fake the crash of two more (though both were observed by multiple eyewitnesses), fire a missile into the Pentagon, fake dozens of phone calls from the "hijacked" plane's passengers, etc etc. without anyone finding out. And maybe, while you're at it, you could answer why they'd kill thousands of people, "dissapear" others, disrupt the global transport and financial system, cause untold millions in damage to their own economy?

Backing away now. Slowly.

jdobbin · December 5, 2006

You are afraid of what I am saying because you know I can prove it
I do generally - I mean that stuff about Bin Laden attacking multiple critical targets in the USA from a cave in Afganistan is just too much. Only an idiot would believe that. The FBI isn't even convinced.

Wrt 911 I like to keep my mind open to what really may have happened while eliminating rediculous explanations.

What are the ridiculous explanations? I have heard some interesting ones. I usually give up after the aliens theory.

Black Dog · December 5, 2006

What are the ridiculous explanations? I have heard some interesting ones. I usually give up after the aliens theory.

Never mind those: I wanna hear the real story. In detail.

jdobbin · December 5, 2006

Never mind those: I wanna hear the real story. In detail.

Yes, it sounds like a book I'd like to read.

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

BlackDog:So prove it. You'd be the very first. But it's telling that all you've done is try to poke holes in the official story without putting forward a plausible alternative. Repeating "it was an inside job!!!" ten thousand times doesn't count. So please: tell us how the government was able to plant tons of explosives throughout the WTC complex, crash two passenger-laden jets into the twin towers (at percisely the same point where the explosives were planted), fake the crash of two more (though both were observed by multiple eyewitnesses), fire a missile into the Pentagon, fake dozens of phone calls from the "hijacked" plane's passengers, etc etc. without anyone finding out. And maybe, while you're at it, you could answer why they'd kill thousands of people, "dissapear" others, disrupt the global transport and financial system, cause untold millions in damage to their own economy?

The official story itself proves that it is a lie, countless people have been caught lying in congressional investigations around 911. The evidence was covered up and somehow the entire defence system in the USA was unable to respond to the attacks. Two insiders have testified that Cheney did give a stand down order.

Lots of people know about 911, many high ranking officials from the establishment have come out to say it was an inside job and there are countless ways of proving it. I suggest looking at the movie 911 Mysteries: Part 1 Demolition. Its free on Google.

The video 911 Timeline shows the official story to be impossible.

As far as thousands of people knowing about the plan - not necessary. The best way to hide is sometimes in plain site because no one looks. You could certainly load the building with explosives without anyone knowing. Of course in normal buildings people always crowd around workmen doing maintainance and want to know exactly what they are doing... They wouldn't have to be US citizens planting the bombs either.

We all know that the phone calls from the planes were faked because you could not make cell phone calls from an airplane at 30,000 feet in 2001. You couldn't do it from 8000 feet. "Hi Mom its Mark Bingham..." gimme a break..

As far as damage to the economy, well they are doing that purposely and on a much larger scale than the cause of 911.

How many times do you need to be lied to before you stop trusting the liars ? Wasn't the lies around the war in Iraq enough ? How many innocent Americans died for that ?

Why would they cause 911 ? (1) highly profitable wars (2) Implement police state so that North American Union plans can be implemented (3) put hard bases in Iraq and destroy its nationalist government to make way for gloabl government

So why would Osama do it ? Is it because he hates freedom or just likes seeing Afganistan people murdered ? Or did he hate the Taliban and depend on the drug trade they were vanquishing and require Americans & Canadians to save the opium fields?

BTW: There is new evidence, BIG EVIDENCE of 911 being an inside job comming out on infowars.com today. You have not seen this yet.

Canadian Blue · December 6, 2006

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/grwk/ev...se.cfm?uid=1584

The official story itself proves that it is a lie, countless people have been caught lying in congressional investigations around 911. The evidence was covered up and somehow the entire defence system in the USA was unable to respond to the attacks. Two insiders have testified that Cheney did give a stand down order.

Doesn't really prove anything. As for the "defense establishment" being unable to respond to the attacks, you have no clue how chaotic that day would have been. As well it's not like in movies where a Hornet fighter can attack within ten minutes, especially with civilian aircraft. Would any military commander shoot down a civilian jet unless he/she was a 100% sure it was hijacked.

Two insiders, name the "insiders", and when was the stand down order given?

Lots of people know about 911, many high ranking officials from the establishment have come out to say it was an inside job and there are countless ways of proving it. I suggest looking at the movie 911 Mysteries: Part 1 Demolition. Its free on Google.

Once again many people have refuted what these conspiracy theorists have to say, people who know what their talking about. Not some crackpot electrical engineer who thinks they know everything about anything.

As far as thousands of people knowing about the plan - not necessary. The best way to hide is sometimes in plain site because no one looks. You could certainly load the building with explosives without anyone knowing. Of course in normal buildings people always crowd around workmen doing maintainance and want to know exactly what they are doing... They wouldn't have to be US citizens planting the bombs either.

Somehow I think that people would notice if demolition's were being planted at the WTC, especially after the first attack. Once again your theories have been refuted by people like NIST and Popular Mechanics, who are all apparently on the CIA's payroll.

So why would Osama do it ? Is it because he hates freedom or just likes seeing Afganistan people murdered ? Or did he hate the Taliban and depend on the drug trade they were vanquishing and require Americans & Canadians to save the opium fields?

Why did Hitler kill million's of people, same goes with any crazy person. As well I'm sure Osama Bin Laden has alot of power and earns money through hate.

We all know that the phone calls from the planes were faked because you could not make cell phone calls from an airplane at 30,000 feet in 2001. You couldn't do it from 8000 feet. "Hi Mom its Mark Bingham..." gimme a break..

http://www.macleans.ca/culture/books/artic...4_132517_132517

I've heard the claim that the jets were taken down by A-10 Thunderbolts. But once again this theory is complete BS. Now I might not be a five star general, but the A-10 Thunderbolt is made for ground support, primarily attacking tanks, armour, troops, APC's, etc. This plane was never intended to fight other aircraft.

In the end, says Dewdney, Flight 93 was shot down by a "military-looking all-white aircraft." It was an A-10 Thunderbolt cunningly repainted to . . . well, the professor doesn't provide a rationale for why you'd go to the trouble to paint a military aircraft. But the point is, several eyewitnesses reported seeing a white jet in the vicinity of the Flight 93 Pennsylvania crash site, so naturally conspiracy theorists regard that as supporting evidence that the plane was brought down by the U.S. military rather than after a heroic passenger uprising against their jihadist hijackers. "It was taken out by the North Dakota Air Guard," announced retired army Col. Donn de Grand Pre. "I know the pilot who fired those two missiles to take down 93." It was Maj. Rick Gibney, who destroyed the aircraft with a pair of Sidewinders at precisely 9:58 a.m.
Ooooo-kay. We now turn to a brand-new book edited by David Dunbar and Brad Reagan called Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts. Brad Reagan? There's a name for conspiracy theorists to ponder, notwithstanding his cover as a "contributing editor" for Popular Mechanics. First things first: Maj. Rick Gibney is a lieutenant-colonel. At 9:58 a.m. he wasn't in Shanksville, Pa., but in Fargo, N.D. At 10:45, he took off for Bozeman, Mont., where he picked up Edward Jacoby, Jr., director of the New York State Emergency Management Office, and flew him back to Albany, N.Y., in a two-seat F-16B, unarmed -- i.e., no Sidewinders. The white plane was not an attractively painted A-10 Thunderbolt but a Dassault Falcon 20 corporate jet belonging to the company that owns Wrangler, North Face and other clothing lines. It was coming into Johnstown, near Shanksville, when Flight 93 disappeared and the FAA radioed to ask them if they could look around. "The plane circled the crash site twice," write Dunbar and Reagan, "and then flew directly over it to mark the exact latitude and longitude on the plane's navigation system."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/minutes/q_2907.html

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

Apparently Civil Engineer's don't know what their talking about in reference to 9/11...

So let me get this straight, the government hired a bunch of goon's to crash two planes into the World Trade Center devestating the American economy. As well the American's hijacked a jet and killed the passengers and fired a missile into the pentagon which makes absolutely no sense at all since WTC would have easily set off a war. Not to mention flying a jet into some field in Pennsylvania just for the hell of it. All so Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in history, and get into a quagmire in Iraq. :rolleyes:

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

CanadianBlue:Apparently Civil Engineer's don't know what their talking about in reference to 9/11...

That is absolutely true ! I have a bachelors degree in EE and I have argued 911 with many civil engineers. By and large they do not understand basic principles of science or they have just been told to go along with it. I'm inclined to believe the second hypothesis because some of the science I have heard civil engineers (or people that claim to be engs) wrt 911 is flat out rediculous.

As a matter of fact, I have had civil engineers tell me that the building went straight down because "gravity points down" this was hailed as an incredible piece of logic put forth by multiple civil engineers and they laughed about it thinking how smart they were. Really. (they forgot there was a building in the way)

So let me get this straight, the government hired a bunch of goon's to crash two planes into the World Trade Center devestating the American economy. As well the American's hijacked a jet and killed the passengers and fired a missile into the pentagon which makes absolutely no sense at all since WTC would have easily set off a war. Not to mention flying a jet into some field in Pennsylvania just for the hell of it. All so Bush would go down as one of the worst presidents in history, and get into a quagmire in Iraq

Essentially thts true, except Donald Rumsfeld accidentally had a run at the mouth and admitted the jet over Pennslyvania was shot down. Larry Silverstein had a similar problem when he accidentally admitted that wtc7 was demolished.

The whole idea in all of this is to start wars and destroy the US economy so that global government can be implemented. The US and its constitution is the biggest barrier to a banker sponsored world government. David Rockefeller admits to working against the interests of the USA to bring about a world government. The two partys in the states are the Rockefeller Democrats and the Rockefeller Republicans.

Did you know that 80 % of the ordinance used in Vietnam was dropped on the South to bomb them into submission and let the States land in Vietnam to attack the North ? This happened before it was ever on TV.

Did you know about Iran Contra and Oliver Norths pluralism in the war - selling arms to both sides ?

Did you know that when Nicaragua had a peoples revolution and the Sandinistas were in power that the USA financed the Contra s to put a totalitarian government in place ? The Sandinistas were not terrorists the Contras were - trained by CIA

What about the guys that supposedly hijacked the jets on 911, they were on CIA payrolls !

Did you know that the Taliban had practically eradicated poppy farming in Afganistan then shortly after we went in the trade was restored ? Look up UN statistics on heroin production in Afganistan.

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

Evidence that cutter charges were used is plentiful. No doubt that some beams were cut by explosives. See 911 Mysteries: Part1 Demolition for pics of multiple cut beams.

Also there were hot spots still in the wreckage weeks after the collaspe. This cannot be explained by a crash and isn't addressed in the NIST report. The NIST report does not talk about how thye buildings collapsed. FEMA shows evidence of controlled demolition that isn't explained in NIST.

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit

Most of the steel never got past 250 deg, some got up to 500 degrees.

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube

This is dead wrong. You can look up the structure of the wtc's yourself. Lots of thick heavy center columns absobed the gravitational load. The outer walls were to absorb wind loads. I wasn't built "like a tube" at all.

As far as the A-10 goes, I doubt it was shot down by one of those but the evidence of the crash does show it was shot down by something - the plane did not "bury itself completely in the dirt". No bodies were found. The crash scene looks nothing like an airplane crash - it was spread over miles yet somehow buried itself in the dirt ?

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

CanadianBlue:Somehow I think that people would notice if demolition's were being planted at the WTC, especially after the first attack. Once again your theories have been refuted by people like NIST and Popular Mechanics, who are all apparently on the CIA's payroll.

Lots of experts said it was controlled demolition. One controlled demolition expert had said it was obvious then a few days later had a 180 degree change of mind. I wonder how that happens.

Popular mechanics is a joke and Chertoff is Michael Chertoffs (white house) cousin. Popular mechanics misrepresents statements made by the 911 truth movement and then pretends to refute them

The NIST report DOES NOT INVESTIGATE THE COLLAPSE !!!! Forget about it. It is not relevant to how the buildings collapsed. They hypothesise that fire caused it when no fire has ever caused a steel framed building to collapse. They do not support their hypothesis with evidence.

Evidence found by FEMA shows a possibility of controlled demolition in the sulfidization of beams. This is not investigated by NIST. The hot spots left weeks after the collapse is not investigated by NIST.

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

"A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible. … There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. … Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. … Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney. I think the very kindest thing that we can say about George W. Bush and all the people in the U.S. Government that have been involved in this massive cover-up, the very kindest thing we can say is that they were aware of impending attacks and let them happen. Now some people will say that’s much too kind, however even that is high treason and conspiracy to commit murder."

-Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Director of Advanced Space Programs Development "Star Wars Program" under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech).

Black Dog · December 6, 2006

PN: again, poking holes in the official version is not a substitute for an actual theory. undoubtedly, given the confusion and chaos of that day, there's going to be anomalies and mysteries, but saying any are evidence of malfeascence on the part of the government is a "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

As far as thousands of people knowing about the plan - not necessary. The best way to hide is sometimes in plain site because no one looks. You could certainly load the building with explosives without anyone knowing. Of course in normal buildings people always crowd around workmen doing maintainance and want to know exactly what they are doing... They wouldn't have to be US citizens planting the bombs either.

The point is someone would have to know, not just those planting the bombs, but those authorizing the planting, those hijacking the planes, those manning the air traffic control systems, those who seized the American Airlines jet and "disappeared" its passengers... there'd have to be a helluva lot of people in the loop to pull this plan off.

Lots of people know about 911, many high ranking officials from the establishment have come out to say it was an inside job and there are countless ways of proving it. I suggest looking at the movie 911 Mysteries: Part 1 Demolition. Its free on Google.

I'm not interested in looking for that junk, I want your explanation, in detail, of how they pulled it off.

We all know that the phone calls from the planes were faked because you could not make cell phone calls from an airplane at 30,000 feet in 2001. You couldn't do it from 8000 feet. "Hi Mom its Mark Bingham..." gimme a break..

WTF? Yes you could.

As far as damage to the economy, well they are doing that purposely and on a much larger scale than the cause of 911.

Why?

Why would they cause 911 ? (1) highly profitable wars (2) Implement police state so that North American Union plans can be implemented (3) put hard bases in Iraq and destroy its nationalist government to make way for gloabl government

1) Profitable? You just said they are trying to destroy their own economy. How do you make profits, even in wartime, when you economy is a wreck?

2) It's five years on and, while there have been some alarming developments wrt civil liberties, nothing even remotely close to a police state exists in North America. If that was their intention, they would have struck when the iron was hot in the immediate aftermath of their grand scheme, rather than chipping away furtively.

3) And destroying a piss pot country like Iraq paves teh way for global government...uh...how?

So why would Osama do it ? Is it because he hates freedom or just likes seeing Afganistan people murdered ? Or did he hate the Taliban and depend on the drug trade they were vanquishing and require Americans & Canadians to save the opium fields?

None of the above. OBL's motives are well-known: the overthrow of apostate Arab regimes, the destruction of Israel, the re-establishment of the Caliphate etc etc. 9-11 was a tactical move designed to draw America into a war in the Middle East that would radicalize Muslims around the world and turn them to the Al Qaeda cause.

But here I am, doing what I warned others not to do: argue with a crazy person. My bad. :huh:

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

BlackDog:PN: again, poking holes in the official version is not a substitute for an actual theory. undoubtedly, given the confusion and chaos of that day, there's going to be anomalies and mysteries, but saying any are evidence of malfeascence on the part of the government is a "god-in-the-gaps" argument

You are right but pointing out both a subsequent cover up and destruction of evidence and the prior stand down of the defence forces is evidence on its own. Given Silversteins accidental admission of the demolition of wtc7 and Rumsfeld accidentally admitting that the plane over Pennslyvania was shot down is evidence.

Given the fact that a police state now exists and the constitution is gone kind of takes the wind out of the arguement that "they hate our freedom" doesn't it ? Besides Bayes Theorem (see Paul Craig Roberts) shows that the police state is not being implemented to protect us from terrorists.

The point is someone would have to know, not just those planting the bombs, but those authorizing the planting, those hijacking the planes, those manning the air traffic control systems, those who seized the American Airlines jet and "disappeared" its passengers... there'd have to be a helluva lot of people in the loop to pull this plan off.

Not true, you would have to have a certain contingent in the armed forces to make sure defence mechanisms were shut down and you would need a certain amount of people to plant the bombs but we know from Scott Forbes and others that the buildings had a very unusual shut down prior to the attacks.

I'm not interested in looking for that junk, I want your explanation, in detail, of how they pulled it off.

That "junk" is some of the most highly placed establishment members and if you do not give OfficialsQuestion 911 Report any credibility then there is no point in argueing with you becauyse you will believe what you are told to believe by the television and there is no possible way of getting you to consider alternatives.

WTF? Yes you could.

(re cell phone calls from 30,000 ft). Actually months after 911 they were advertising a new system to be put into place in aircraft that would allow cell phone calls to be made.

See CellPhoneCalls

You just said they are trying to destroy their own economy. How do you make profits, even in wartime, when you economy is a wreck?

Currency supplies have doubled in recent years. Dow Jones should realistically be shown as half. Are you suggesting that war isn't profitable ?

OBL's motives are well-known: the overthrow of apostate Arab regimes, the destruction of Israel, the re-establishment of the Caliphate etc etc. 9-11 was a tactical move designed to draw America into a war in the Middle East that would radicalize Muslims around the world and turn them to the Al Qaeda cause.

I keep hearing about this Islamic Fascism but no one has ever given any proof except for hit pieces in corporate media. I find the idea laughably rediculous. Is Osama planning a beach landing in the USA ?

cybercoma · December 6, 2006

PN: again, poking holes in the official version is not a substitute for an actual theory. undoubtedly, given the confusion and chaos of that day, there's going to be anomalies and mysteries, but saying any are evidence of malfeascence on the part of the government is a "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

Sometimes I absolutely love your posts. Those sometimes are when you're not tearing ME to pieces like this... :lol:

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

PN: again, poking holes in the official version is not a substitute for an actual theory. undoubtedly, given the confusion and chaos of that day, there's going to be anomalies and mysteries, but saying any are evidence of malfeascence on the part of the government is a "god-in-the-gaps" argument.

That is an empty statement. I'm not just poking holes in the official version I am posting absolute proof all over the place on 911 and the fact that it had to be an inside job and this movement is growing by leaps and bounds this week.

You can imagine whatever you want but anyone can go to www.wtc7.net and see that collapse for yourself. The collapse of wtc7 isn't even being investigated !!!

The things that you say the NIST and FEMA reports say are not contained in the reports !!! The building collapses were never even investigated. Osama isn't on the FBI most wanted list because they don't have enough evidence to make an indictment. Maybe you should call the FBI and tell them why you are so sure Osama did it.

Black Dog · December 6, 2006

You are right but pointing out both a subsequent cover up and destruction of evidence and the prior stand down of the defence forces is evidence on its own.

You mean "alleged" cover up etc.

Given Silversteins accidental admission of the demolition of wtc7 and Rumsfeld accidentally admitting that the plane over Pennslyvania was shot down is evidence.

Silverstein said no such thing and Rumsfeld, well, if he was lying about 9-11, why do you believe him at all?

Given the fact that a police state now exists and the constitution is gone kind of takes the wind out of the arguement that "they hate our freedom" doesn't it ?

No, because there is no police state. If there were a police state, you wouldn't have internet wackjobs peddling stories about there being a police state because the police state would get them. The preponderance of such wackjobs is a refutation of the theory.

Not true, you would have to have a certain contingent in the armed forces to make sure defence mechanisms were shut down and you would need a certain amount of people to plant the bombs but we know from Scott Forbes and others that the buildings had a very unusual shut down prior to the attacks.

So we're up to, what, a few hundred people?

That "junk" is some of the most highly placed establishment members and if you do not give OfficialsQuestion 911 Report any credibility then there is no point in argueing with you becauyse you will believe what you are told to believe by the television and there is no possible way of getting you to consider alternatives.

There's a huge gap between questioning the official version and saying outright that the government did it. Huge.

re cell phone calls from 30,000 ft). Actually months after 911 they were advertising a new system to be put into place in aircraft that would allow cell phone calls to be made.
See CellPhoneCalls

And at what height were the calls made?

Currency supplies have doubled in recent years. Dow Jones should realistically be shown as half. Are you suggesting that war isn't profitable ?

So their vicious plan to disable the economy is an abject failure, then.

I keep hearing about this Islamic Fascism but no one has ever given any proof except for hit pieces in corporate media. I find the idea laughably rediculous. Is Osama planning a beach landing in the USA ?

Obviously not, but no one serious would say he is. And if you're not familiar with osama bin Laden's ideology, there's plenty of non "corporate" information out there.

That is an empty statement. I'm not just poking holes in the official version I am posting absolute proof all over the place on 911 and the fact that it had to be an inside job and this movement is growing by leaps and bounds this week.

No. You're not. You're looking at various pieces and saying how they, in your view, don't fit the official version. Which is not evidence , in and of itself, of the government's culpability (even if your evidence is factual which, in many cases, it is not). But you're not postulating any realistic alternative theory beyond "it was an inside job!1!!1!" I just want to know how they pulle dit off, and I don't want to have to waste my time on some shitty web site to do it.

For example: how did they manage to crash the planes into the same place where they planted the explosives?

PolyNewbie · December 6, 2006

BlackDog:You mean "alleged" cover up etc.

The evidence was retricted from the FAA and fire authority. The Pentagon tapes still haven't been released. This is a coverup. Evidence was destroyed, the accident wasn't recreated like every other accident. That is a coverup.

Silverstein said no such thing and Rumsfeld, well, if he was lying about 9-11, why do you believe him at all?

Larry Silverstein: "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download] see Silverstein admission

As far as Rumsfeld goes, it was obviously a slip of the tongue, an accidental admission that he has never repeated. The official story according to popular mechanics is that the plane buried itself in the dirt when it crashed.

No, because there is no police state. If there were a police state, you wouldn't have internet wackjobs peddling stories about there being a police state because the police state would get them. The preponderance of such wackjobs is a refutation of the theory.

See HR 6166 & The Military Commissions act.

There's a huge gap between questioning the official version and saying outright that the government did it. Huge.

Absolutely, but the evidence says the goverment did it.

So their vicious plan to disable the economy is an abject failure, then.

No, it shows the economy is in trouble and its being hidden by this.

Obviously not, but no one serious would say he is. And if you're not familiar with osama bin Laden's ideology, there's plenty of non "corporate" information out there

Thats not evidence its hypothesis put forth by corporate media with no evidence to back it up.

No. You're not. You're looking at various pieces and saying how they, in your view, don't fit the official version. Which is not evidence , in and of itself, of the government's culpability (even if your evidence is factual which, in many cases, it is not). But you're not postulating any realistic alternative theory beyond "it was an inside job!1!!1!" I just want to know how they pulle dit off, and I don't want to have to waste my time on some shitty web site to do it.
For example: how did they manage to crash the planes into the same place where they planted the explosives?

They didn't. The explosions that blew apart wtc1 & 2 were all through the building. Although some people like to call what happened "pancaking", watching the videos makes it clear that the buildings were succesively blown apart from top to bottom. Most of the buildings were converted to dust - that doesn't happen in a pancake collapse. No airplane hit wtc7.