BC_chick Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 I cant understand how more than 50% of people here can say it was an inside job.Wow. Thats really sad. Actually, just less than 18% do.... Quote It's kind of the worst thing that any humans could be doing at this time in human history. Other than that, it's fine." Bill Nye on Alberta Oil Sands
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 And if you have a President that just plays dumb, and he is very good at it, then you can pull off the big one..Any group who staged such a hoax would have to be pretty intelligent. Intelligent people would not risk everything on a completely convoluted plot similar to what we saw on 9/11. Intelligent people with any experience planning projects would have minimized the number of variables and the number of people involved. This means they would have limited the attack to one or two planes and they would not have bothered with risking discovery by planting explosives in three buildings. Anyone with the ability to plant explosives in building undetected would not need to blow up buildings to destroy evidence. They would have many other more reliable ways to accomplish the same thing.If you opened your mind you would realize how completely irrational the thruthie theories are. Well that is just it. They could all be playing dumb but being very intelligent and knowing that, they can dupe the most of you without even really trying. And it may not even be the Bush Administration that did it, could have been some secret elements in the government and the military. Who knows. Speculation on my part yes indeed. Also if you compartmentalize the whole scheme then you don't need everyone to know everything. Only a few key people would know. But again, not like it holds any water with any of you out there. And my mind is open. More open than most. I am really surprised some of you are still responding to this thread. After 130 pages plus. Call me a truthie whatever you want. Here is a list of the stuff that is really crazy Stuff that is way out there about 9/11 (and I discard it as bullshit along with most of the 9/11 Commission report. -Aliens did it. -Teh Joos did it. -All the planes were holograms. What I think is plausible (plausible not fact, but whatever right?) is that the planes could have been a distraction from whatever went on at the bottom of the towers. There are some good reports of bombs in the basement of the building. I have for the most part, gone away from the building was wired with explosives, to, the planes were loaded with explosives. That would create enough damage on WTC 1 and 2 for them to fall like they did. Fire I think had only a small part to do with it. Having a plane loaded with explosives can very much plow through the building and take out some of the major support box columns that contained the stairs, elevators, electric, gas, AC lines. Making the building weak and then the collapse happens. I know those of you who love the official version will not even give this a moment of thought, and will toss it out the door along with the other 130 pages of stuff on here. Quote Google : Webster Griffin Tarpley, Gerald Celente, Max Keiser ohm on soundcloud.com
Riverwind Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 Well that is just it. They could all be playing dumb but being very intelligent and knowing that, they can dupe the most of you without even really trying.You missed my point. I said that smart people would not have planned a hoax like 9/11. If you want to argue that the regime is smart enough to have duped everyone then you must agree that those people would have been smart enough to come up with a less complex plan that would have a much lower risk of discovery.IOW - your speculation is completely contradictory. If the bush regime is smart then they would have never come up with the plan in the first place. If they are idiots then they would have never got a way with it. These contradictions can only be resolved if you accept that the events were planned entirely by muslim extrermists. There are some good reports of bombs in the basement of the building. I have for the most part, gone away from the building was wired with explosives, to, the planes were loaded with explosives.Pointless speculation unless you can provide a compelling motive. Random references to some US imperialistic agenda is not a motive. You need to explain why smart people would risk everything to blow up a building when much less risky alternatives were available? Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 What I think is plausible (plausible not fact, but whatever right?) is that the planes could have been a distraction from whatever went on at the bottom of the towers. There are some good reports of bombs in the basement of the building. I have for the most part, gone away from the building was wired with explosives, to, the planes were loaded with explosives. That would create enough damage on WTC 1 and 2 for them to fall like they did. Fire I think had only a small part to do with it. Having a plane loaded with explosives can very much plow through the building and take out some of the major support box columns that contained the stairs, elevators, electric, gas, AC lines. Making the building weak and then the collapse happens. Ummm...yea...we had truck bombs in the basement in 1993. But the truck driver was not a secret US government operative. Reality is far more interesting than Truthie fiction. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 ...Furthermore, these hoaxers would have made sure that they implicated the right countries. It makes no sense for a hoaxer that wants the US to invade iraq to put the blame on Saudi nationals. They woudl have made sure that iraq was blamed. Truthies avoid providing a coherent story line because they know that they cannot produce one that makes any sense. Agreed...they want us to believe that the same administration they label as dysfunctional and incompetent was able to flawlessly execute the biggest conspiracy in US history after only eight months in office, while totally discounting prior attacks on American interests. The "Truthies" want anything but the "truth", because it would spoil the game. They claim that the "official story" is just another conspiracy theory, hoping to elevate their own twisted yarns in the public eye. The US government doesn't have all the answers, but the Truthies sure do....yahoooooo! sorry, I DO NOT believe the Bush administration is dysfunctional or incompetent. There is a big assumption that throws your whole theory to the wind! I disagree, it is actually the followers of the OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY, that do not want the truth, they are quite happy, with there nonsensical myth of the caves in Afghanistan run by OBL, who BTW is not even wanted for 9/11. Hijackers, whom BTW, no CONCRETE EVIDENCE, was ever shown, who they actually were. reams of documents unreleased and an underfunded 'investigation' by a wacked out idealogue, are supposed to suffice. Au contraire the US gov. has the answers, and they aren't saying. Sorry BC, 9/11 served US private and gov int. inc.,but not limited to the justification to attack Afghanistan, governed by the Taliban, whom the Us supported and funded, until the oil pipeline deal fell through, given US , policy WRT oil, this was unaceptable. Are you denying that? That would be completely non-credible. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 And if you have a President that just plays dumb, and he is very good at it, then you can pull off the big one..Any group who staged such a hoax would have to be pretty intelligent. Intelligent people would not risk everything on a completely convoluted plot similar to what we saw on 9/11. Intelligent people with any experience planning projects would have minimized the number of variables and the number of people involved. This means they would have limited the attack to one or two planes and they would not have bothered with risking discovery by planting explosives in three buildings. Anyone with the ability to plant explosives in building undetected would not need to blow up buildings to destroy evidence. They would have many other more reliable ways to accomplish the same thing.If you opened your mind you would realize how completely irrational the thruthie theories are. convoluted plot? limited to one or two planes? this just doesn't make sense.....at all. Looked to me like a good plot. Executed and targets hit, how is that convoluted? apparently that hit on the Pentagon was quite the maneuver? Why limit to one or two planes, why not ten??? it's like you are pulling numbers out of a hat? But then riverwind, who does not understand, lateral load, redundancy, how things are built, history, etc., what else could be expected??? And who makes up his/her own arguements? Like I said. one doesn't need bombs in the buildings to question the official story, which when presented with info, you DID NOT read it, not the links, because, "see no evil" . Well where is the CONCRETE EVIDENCE wrt 9/11/ where the "paper" that Colin Powell was going to give us? The evidence presented to the British wrt OBL involvement, was not good enough to go to ICC, but it was good enough to go to war? The transcript from the one plane, does it PROVE, WHO the hijackers actually were, or just that there were hijackers (I'll explain rw, it only demonstrates that there were, it DOES NOT demonstrate identity) http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm link to fbi site, do you see anywhere OBL being wanted for 9/11???? On June 5, 2006, the Muckraker Report contacted the FBI Headquarters, (202) 324-3000, to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. No evidence. and yet , Afghanistan was attacked!? To get OBL? For a crime he is not even wanted for ??? LOL!!!!!!! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 Then this the other day, documents from Judicial watch http://judicialwatch.org/6322.shtml Judicial Watch Releases New FBI Documents: Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11 (Washington, DC) -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released new documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) related to the “expeditious departure” of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the formerly confidential documents, dated 9/21/2001, terrorist Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights. The document states: “ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND.” The plane was allowed to depart the United States after making four stops to pick up passengers, ultimately landing in Paris where all passengers disembarked on 9/20/01, according to the document. Just 8 days after the attack, private chartered jets, flying out of the US, chartered by possibly OBL!?? Overall, the FBI’s most recent document production includes details of the six flights between 9/14 and 9/24 that evacuated Saudi royals and bin Laden family members. The documents also contain brief interview summaries and occasional notes from intelligence analysts concerning the cursory screening performed prior to the departures. According to the FBI documents, incredibly not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value. Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI’s investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the “Bin Laden Family Flight”). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight. “Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it’s not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?” asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We’ll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI’s lack of diligence.” Apparently the possiblility of OBL chartering private jets out of the US was not a great big concern. U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts ordered the FBI to resubmit “proper disclosures” to the Court and Judicial Watch, having previously criticized the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures. Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden’s name from the records in order “to protect privacy interests.” The latest version of the FBI documents, obtained under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and through ongoing litigation (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)) is available below. bwah, ha ha!!!!! another 'coincidence', no , no , more 'incompetence' as if?! Like I said the official conspiracy theory , is non-credible, completely. It's like cultish faith?. Or brainwashing? or a psy-op? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 bwah, ha ha!!!!!another 'coincidence', no , no , more 'incompetence' as if?! Like I said the official conspiracy theory , is non-credible, completely. It's like cultish faith?. Or brainwashing? or a psy-op? We don't need more regurgitated American sources thank you very much. Frankly, PolyNewbie did a much better job at that sort of "me-too" thing. Where is the proof? Please articulate the elements of any offenses that you can support with evidence, so that indictments and trials may begin at once. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 bwah, ha ha!!!!! another 'coincidence', no , no , more 'incompetence' as if?! Like I said the official conspiracy theory , is non-credible, completely. It's like cultish faith?. Or brainwashing? or a psy-op? We don't need more regurgitated American sources thank you very much. Frankly, PolyNewbie did a much better job at that sort of "me-too" thing. Where is the proof? Please articulate the elements of any offenses that you can support with evidence, so that indictments and trials may begin at once. http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2007/...%20Docs%202.pdf here's a link to the PDF file from judicial watch. "We don't need more regurgitated American sources thank you very much." Why, BC, cause you say so? You the boss? How about government documentation? there in the pdf, you can read it, ok? terrible posting the FBI website, just more 'regurgitated American sorces" lol lol BC at his weakest, offering up condemnation of FBI websites ad Judicial watch, I guess those are "truthie sites" eh?? lol! Your gov. provided NO CONCRETE proof, you invaded Afghanistan to get OBL, for 9/11, but the FBI doesn't even want him for that. Where is the proof, BC? Where is it? I would like to know also!!! The US gov., sure didn't provide any. Where is it BC??? Where is it??? The US gov. let's the Binladen's out, inc., that Binladen himself may have chartered the flights. and what do you have, condemnation of judicial watch and FBI website useage, bogus claims of incompetence, as justification for your own arguement. keep on dancin' Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
stignasty Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 http://tinyurl.com/2x6fh2 Quote "It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians." - Stephen Harper
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 Your gov. provided NO CONCRETE proof, you invaded Afghanistan to get OBL, for 9/11, but the FBI doesn't even want him for that.Where is the proof, BC? Where is it? I would like to know also!!! The US gov., sure didn't provide any. Where is it BC??? Where is it??? See trial transcripts from the 1993 WTC attack wrt financing. Yep, there was a real trial. See the UN and NATO charters. Yep, the 2001 invasion was all legal like, so much so, even Canada is kicking some ass over there. Osama bin Hidin....who cares? Still waiting for on-topic proof of US government complicity in attacks on the WTC...keep dancing! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Riverwind Posted June 22, 2007 Report Posted June 22, 2007 Looked to me like a good plot. Executed and targets hit, how is that convoluted?Way too many variables. Way too many places where things could get out of control.Not getting caught would be the primary objective of these plotters. They could live with a hoax that did not have the intended effect but getting caught would put these guys in jail - if not death row. Therefore it is completely irrational to claim that they would have done anything more than the minimum required to achieve their objective of justifying a war in Iraq. A single plane into the WTC would have been sufficient to advance that objective (especially if they have control over the media as truthies claim). Therefore sending two more planes to washington or planting bombs in the WTC was completely unnecessary. No intelligent plotter would have ever come up with such a plan. 'Redundancy' would be a secondary priority given the risks of getting caught. The transcript from the one plane, does it PROVE, WHO the hijackers actually were, or just that there were hijackersLet's see - men in cockpit praying to Allah before the plane crashed + numerous calls from passengers to friends and family claiming that middle eastern hijackers had taken over the plane. I would say that is proof that muslim extremists took over the planes. Only the most deluded fanatic would claim otherwise. Whether they did it at the behest of Osama Bin Laden is irrelevent. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
segnosaur Posted June 24, 2007 Report Posted June 24, 2007 For the most part I don't really have the time to debunk the conspricy theorist nonsense like I should (although others here have done a very good job.) But something about the following post really stuck out at me... The molten metal, widely reported on (not even noted in the NIST report) Ok, here we have a very specific claim... that Molten Metal wasn't covered by the NIST report. Yet 30 seconds and google found this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (see section 11): NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid...NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius. Now, even if kuzadd didn't believe the NIST and their assesment of the molten material, his claim was that it "wasn't noted" at all is quite false. Furthermore, if this is indicative of his inability to get such basic 'facts' stright, then you have to wonder just what else he's gotten wrong. (Obviously quite a lot, but we'll start with that.) Quote
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 For the most part I don't really have the time to debunk the conspricy theorist nonsense like I should (although others here have done a very good job.) But something about the following post really stuck out at me...The molten metal, widely reported on (not even noted in the NIST report) Ok, here we have a very specific claim... that Molten Metal wasn't covered by the NIST report. Yet 30 seconds and google found this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm (see section 11): NIST reported (NCSTAR 1-5A) that just before 9:52 a.m., a bright spot appeared at the top of a window on the 80th floor of WTC 2, four windows removed from the east edge on the north face, followed by the flow of a glowing liquid...NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius. Now, even if kuzadd didn't believe the NIST and their assesment of the molten material, his claim was that it "wasn't noted" at all is quite false. Furthermore, if this is indicative of his inability to get such basic 'facts' stright, then you have to wonder just what else he's gotten wrong. (Obviously quite a lot, but we'll start with that.) Imagine my surprise to see you, not! TO CLARIFY: The molten metal I was referring to, was cooking away in the basements of the buildings, and was evident, during clean-up. This was not addressed, in the NIST report what feeds a fire? what stokes it? what makes things burn hotter? the one thing that would NOT have been readily available at the BOTTOM of the debris pile, six stories underground, beneath hundreds of thousands of tons of debris? OXYGEN. oh, sorry that's basic science and logic, that should be realized by people with common sense, that the bottom of the debris pile, six stories underground, under hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble, would be smothered, in oxygen deprived conditions. common sense, people, common knowledge. fire consumes oxygen to feed itself. therefore fire sixty feet underground, buried under hundreds of thousand of tons of rubble , would be quickly oxygen deprived and unable to fuel itself. common sense, not nonsense! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 Let's see - men in cockpit praying to Allah before the plane crashed + numerous calls from passengers to friends and family claiming that middle eastern hijackers had taken over the plane. I would say that is proof that muslim extremists took over the planes. Only the most deluded fanatic would claim otherwise. Whether they did it at the behest of Osama Bin Laden is irrelevent. Hate to break it to you riverwind, men in the cockpit, does NOT identify which men, it only identifies the presence of individuals, NOT who the individuals are. OBL is irrelevant?? But he 'claimed' responsibility for 9/11?? But the taliban refused to give him up for 9/11 ??? http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/bush.powell.terrorism/ Bush: bin Laden 'prime suspect' WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Osama bin Laden is the "prime suspect" in last Tuesday's terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and the United States wants to capture him , President Bush said Monday. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../18/wbush18.xml Bin Laden is wanted: dead or alive, says Bush For your amusement and future reference, here's what Bush has said about bin Laden at various points in time, depending on how he was trying to spin things: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - G.W. Bush, 9/13/01 "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" - G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI "...Secondly, he is not escaping us. This is a guy, who, three months ago, was in control of a county [sic]. Now he's maybe in control of a cave. He's on the run. Listen, a while ago I said to the American people, our objective is more than bin Laden. But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all. So we don't know whether he's in cave with the door shut, or a cave with the door open -- we just don't know...." - Bush, in remarks in a Press Availablity with the Press Travel Pool, The Prairie Chapel Ranch, Crawford TX, 12/28/01, as reported on official White House site BUT, it turns out OBL is NOT wanted by the FBI, for 9/11. OBL charters a plane out of the US , eight days after , to fly BinLaden family members out of the US. The man who started the war on terror, "dead or alive" blah, blah, blah.... keep believing, like I said , it's like a freaky cult following, there is NO reason to believe the official conspiracy theory, none , nadda, zip, zero. It's clearly bogus from the start, starting with OBL. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Riverwind Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 Hate to break it to you riverwind, men in the cockpit, does NOT identify which men, it only identifies the presence of individuals, NOT who the individuals are.The individuals were speaking Arabic. The phone calls from the passengers confirmed that middle eastern/arabs hijacked the the planes. The voice recorders also indicate that they men were trying to crash the plane. All of of that leaves only one rational conclusion: the planes were hijacked by Muslim extremists. We don't really care who the indiviudals were.OBL is irrelevant??I hate to break it to you but the involvement of Bin Laden has nothing to do with establishing what happened on 9/11. You are trying to claim that the US government was involved however the presence of Muslim hijackers on the planes effectively eliminates that as a possibility. These extremists were likely assisted by someone and Bin Laden is a reasonable guess. If you want to claim that the US government sponsored Muslim suicide pilots then you will have to come up with something that actually resembles evidence. So far you have nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking. This conjecture might be interesting if it actually presumed that the government plotters were rational. Unfortunately, all of your hypotheses that presume that the government plotters were simultaneously complete idiots and incredible geniuses. Such a combination does not exists in reality. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 Hate to break it to you riverwind, men in the cockpit, does NOT identify which men, it only identifies the presence of individuals, NOT who the individuals are.The individuals were speaking Arabic. The phone calls from the passengers confirmed that middle eastern/arabs hijacked the the planes. The voice recorders also indicate that they men were trying to crash the plane. All of of that leaves only one rational conclusion: the planes were hijacked by Muslim extremists. We don't really care who the indiviudals were.OBL is irrelevant??I hate to break it to you but the involvement of Bin Laden has nothing to do with establishing what happened on 9/11. You are trying to claim that the US government was involved however the presence of Muslim hijackers on the planes effectively eliminates that as a possibility. These extremists were likely assisted by someone and Bin Laden is a reasonable guess. If you want to claim that the US government sponsored Muslim suicide pilots then you will have to come up with something that actually resembles evidence. So far you have nothing more than conjecture and wishful thinking. This conjecture might be interesting if it actually presumed that the government plotters were rational. Unfortunately, all of your hypotheses that presume that the government plotters were simultaneously complete idiots and incredible geniuses. Such a combination does not exists in reality. "We don't really care who the indiviudals were." we don't really care who the individuals were??? Riverwind? seriously? who committed that murder, oh, we don't care, any " caucasion" will do? any "african american" will do? it doesn't matter, let's just blame anyone! That is in effect exactly what you are saying! I don't wish to claim anything except that the official conspiracy theory is so full of holes, that gale force winds are blowing through it, and your helping with your over the top claims. OBL, it doesn't matter? who the hijackers REALLY were it doesn't matter? You are demonstrating a frightful fanatacism, in the face of very big questions. And again, you are creating your own arguements...... Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Riverwind Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 it doesn't matter, let's just blame anyone!That is in effect exactly what you are saying! Try reading what I said. The evidence of Muslim hijackers demonstrates that the widely accepted explanation is basically correct. i.e. Muslim extremists with a grudge against the US hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. Now we could argue about whether these guys acted at the behest of Bin Laden, the Saudis or someone else. However, this evidence alone excludes the majority truthie theories as possible explanations.I noticed you try to use the truthie propagandist technique where you repeat over and over that you don't believe the widely accepted explanation but you never actually explain what you _do_ believe happened. Why don't explain exactly what you think happened? I know you will refuse to do this because as soon as you write down something specific you know it will be immediately ripped apart. It is much easier to throw pot shots from the sidelines at the people who do make an effort to actually explain what happened. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 what feeds a fire? what stokes it? what makes things burn hotter?the one thing that would NOT have been readily available at the BOTTOM of the debris pile, six stories underground, beneath hundreds of thousands of tons of debris? OXYGEN. oh, sorry that's basic science and logic, that should be realized by people with common sense, that the bottom of the debris pile, six stories underground, under hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble, would be smothered, in oxygen deprived conditions. common sense, people, common knowledge. fire consumes oxygen to feed itself. therefore fire sixty feet underground, buried under hundreds of thousand of tons of rubble , would be quickly oxygen deprived and unable to fuel itself. common sense, not nonsense! Wrong again....metal fires can actually create oxidant from water or CO2 because they burn so hot...this is typically seen with magnesium fires. It is incorrect to make such a blanket statement about all fires. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 what feeds a fire? what stokes it? what makes things burn hotter? the one thing that would NOT have been readily available at the BOTTOM of the debris pile, six stories underground, beneath hundreds of thousands of tons of debris? OXYGEN. oh, sorry that's basic science and logic, that should be realized by people with common sense, that the bottom of the debris pile, six stories underground, under hundreds of thousands of tons of rubble, would be smothered, in oxygen deprived conditions. common sense, people, common knowledge. fire consumes oxygen to feed itself. therefore fire sixty feet underground, buried under hundreds of thousand of tons of rubble , would be quickly oxygen deprived and unable to fuel itself. common sense, not nonsense! Wrong again....metal fires can actually create oxidant from water or CO2 because they burn so hot...this is typically seen with magnesium fires. It is incorrect to make such a blanket statement about all fires. COMBUSTIBLE metal fires, right BC? such as sodium, lithium, manganese and aluminium but it is correct, wrt this fire. Which was structural steel, and office equipment. despite your distraction, your arguement is flawed, in this case. Unless you are bolstering the claim of an incendiary devices presence? Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Riverwind Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 such as sodium, lithium, manganese and aluminium but it is correct, wrt this fire. Which was structural steel, and office equipment. Wrong again - the outer facade of the WTC was aluminium and so were the planes that crashed into them. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 Try reading what I said. The evidence of Muslim hijackers demonstrates that the widely accepted explanation is basically correct. i.e. Muslim extremists with a grudge against the US hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. Now we could argue about whether these guys acted at the behest of Bin Laden, the Saudis or someone else. However, this evidence alone excludes the majority truthie theories as possible explanations.I noticed you try to use the truthie propagandist technique where you repeat over and over that you don't believe the widely accepted explanation but you never actually explain what you _do_ believe happened. Why don't explain exactly what you think happened? I know you will refuse to do this because as soon as you write down something specific you know it will be immediately ripped apart. It is much easier to throw pot shots from the sidelines at the people who do make an effort to actually explain what happened. Oh i read exactly what you said, you said the planes were hijacked by Muslim extremists. We don't really care who the indiviudals were. you said we really don't care who they were. That is incredible! You said Whether they did it at the behest of Osama Bin Laden is irrelevent. That is incredible! I belive the official conspiracy theory is full of holes, that is EXACTLY what I believe, don't like it, too bad! You notice I use the "truthie" blah, blah, blah... wanna talk about promoting propaganda, that's all you are doing! Stop using "truthie" (name calling) #1 propaganda device, read up on it! (oops forgot, you don't read) You use it in a quest to discredit me. You discredit yourself and the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 OBL is relevant, but, he is not wanted by the FBI OBL dead or alive, BUT, he is chartering private jets EIGHT DAYS after the attacks. Along with all the other baloney....... You wanna talk propaganda? You promote it, despite the KNOWN FACTS. The US government has NOT provided EVIDENCE. Demand the evidence of them. My opinion is this, the official story is not the truth. Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 such as sodium, lithium, manganese and aluminium but it is correct, wrt this fire. Which was structural steel, and office equipment. Wrong again - the outer facade of the WTC was aluminium and so were the planes that crashed into them. not the stuff I am referring to. nor is it the stuff BC is referring to. AND you should have READ what I had wrote, the line before what you quoted "COMBUSTIBLE metal fires, right BC? such as sodium, lithium, manganese and aluminium " too bad as usual, you don't bother. Thermite is aluminum powder are you suggesting an incendiary device.? http://www.oseh.umich.edu/combmet.html Combustible Metals* Do you have any combustible metals or combustible metal compounds in your laboratory? IThe following is a list of combustible metals that require a type D fire extinguisher: calcium cerium cesium lithium lutetium magnesium and magnesium alloys neodymium phosphorus potassium potassium-sodium alloys rubidium sodium strontium aluminum (powder) beryllium (powder) nickel catalyst (Raney) titanium (powder) zinc (powder) zirconium (powder) aluminum phosphide calcium carbide gallium arsenide gallium phosphide lithium aluminum deuteride lithium aluminum hydride lithium aluminum hydride bis(tetrahydrofuran) lithium amide lithium borohydride lithium-6 deuteride lithium hydride lithium tetraphenylborate tris(1,2-dimethoxyethane) lithium tri-tert-butoxyaluminohydride magnesium hydride phosphorus pentasulfide potassium hydride Red-Al sodium aluminum hydride sodium bis(2-methoxyethoxy)aluminum hydride in toluene sodium borohydride sodium borohydride cobalt-doped sodium borohydride on alumina sodium hydride zinc phosphide Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Riverwind Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 I belive the official conspiracy theory is full of holes, that is EXACTLY what I believe, don't like it, too bad!Not good enough. Something did happen on that day. The widely accepted explanation may not be 100% proven but it is the _only_ explanation that makes sense given the evidence that is available.I see I was right about you refusing to offer an alternate explanation. Your response simply demonstrates how weak your arguments are and why no one should take you seriously. Why don't you go away and do some homework and come back with a plausible alternate explaination. We can compare that to the 'official' explaination and see which makes most sense. Quote To fly a plane, you need both a left wing and a right wing.
kuzadd Posted June 25, 2007 Report Posted June 25, 2007 I belive the official conspiracy theory is full of holes, that is EXACTLY what I believe, don't like it, too bad!Not good enough. Something did happen on that day. The widely accepted explanation may not be 100% proven but it is the _only_ explanation that makes sense given the evidence that is available.I see I was right about you refusing to offer an alternate explanation. Your response simply demonstrates how weak your arguments are and why no one should take you seriously. Why don't you go away and some homework and come back with a plausible alternate explaination. We can compare that to the 'official' explaination and see which makes most sense. lol, I think it is you that needs to go away and do homework! It is not up to me to provide anything. Ever been in court? I have. The prosecuter puts forth a case, the defence pokes giant holes in the case , taking away from the credibility and probability of the prosecutors case, thereby rendering the scenario implausible/questionable. Thereby influencing the outcome of the case. I am explaining in the most basic terms to you so you can understand. The US government put forth a case that is not credible, full of holes, highly questionable. Your example of Arab hijackers, as I stated indicates presence but not identity, you still think this is acceptable, BUT, it's not, here's why..... non-identifying of specific individuals, is the biggest problem! Muslim extremists with a grudge against the US hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. how do you know they had a grudge? Perhaps it was a military mission? who knows? why do you ASSUME what you do? In fact you can't KNOW that, it's not possible, this is what you were told, so you beleive it. How do you know what if any country they were associated with? (to justify the attack on Afhgnistan) How about if they were American Muslims? Second generation, raised in there native tongue speak with an accent. So how exactly how do YOU know who the hijackers were, who or if they had backers? what countries if any were they associated with? YOU CAN'T! and the US government, never provided that proof. Demand that proof of them! Quote Insults are the ammunition of the unintelligent - do not use them. It is okay to criticize a policy, decision, action or comment. Such criticism is part of healthy debate. It is not okay to criticize a person's character or directly insult them, regardless of their position or actions. Derogatory terms such as "loser", "idiot", etc are not permitted unless the context clearly implies that it is not serious. Rule of thumb: Play the ball, not the person (i.e. tackle the argument, not the person making it).
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.