9/11

[kuzadd]

oh riverwind..................aluminum flub!

"You are accusing Bush of being a mass murderer. The onus is on the accuser to make the case. You have not come close to making your case. Do you honestly believe that your so called 'evidence' against bush would stand up in a court of law?"

actually I am NOT accusing Bush of being a mass murderer, that's your wording.

But let me throw this at you...

Did the Bush adminstration LIE the country into war in iraq and how many american soldiers are now dead?

Did the Bush administration LIE about air quality at WTC, and how many first responders have died and are expected to die, from diseases that could have been presented bt wearing proper attire.

The answer to both questions is yes, the death toll from the Iraq LIE of America soldiers (citizens) stands at more then the Sept 11th death toll.

The death toll of first responders for the air quality LIE, is expected to top the Sept 11th death toll.

What value is REALLY placed on the lives of the citizens, when an administration is willing to LIE to justify war in iraq and LIE, to get New York back in business???

Proof of mass murders is right there, in the pudding riverwind.

Besides mass murder for governments is nothing new, what exactly do you think the US has done in it's numerous covert -ops , are you that naive?

I know, it shakes your beliefs to the core, but your naivete is to the extreme.

You need to have your beliefs to give your life it's security, but, your beliefs are largely delusions, the world is full if backstabbing, double dealing agents, double agents, triple agents covert-ops, democide by governments, these are your realities, this is your history, the history of mankind.

"Do you honestly believe that your so called 'evidence' against bush would stand up in a court of law?"

there you go making your own arguements again, set up a strawman, I said the official conspiracy theory lacks EVIDENCE, so please, if you wish to discuss with me, discuss what I have said.

or perhaps, you could create a riverwind2, then create trumped up discussions and argue them between yourselves.

But I'll rephrase your question, do you believe the official story would stand up to scrutiny, in a court of law , with hearsay being inadmissible.( half-truths and rumours)

I am certain it wouldn't.

"again aluminium wire is continuously melted, vaporised, and burnt in a stream of oxygen,"

in a stream of oxygen

in a stream of oxygen"

[Riverwind]

actually I am NOT accusing Bush of being a mass murderer, that's your wording.

No you are accusing him of such things. You love to make statements which have obvious implications yet deny those implications when confronted. Accusing Bush of staging 9/11 is accusing him of being a mass murderer. Don't waste time with denials.

Proof of mass murders is right there, in the pudding riverwind.

Red herrings that have nothing to with whether the Bush admin planned 9/11.

But I'll rephrase your question, do you believe the official story would stand up to scrutiny, in a court of law , with hearsay being inadmissible.( half-truths and rumours)

You are evading the question. I asked you if you think your theories would stand up in a court of law. Your answer appears to be no.

You don't have one witness or whistle blower. No concrete evidence that conclusively supports your theory and mountains of contradictory evidence which you ignore. Your theory is so full of holes it is laughable.

So why should we take your theories seriously? Because governments have run smaller scale covert operations before? That is not even worth describing as an 'arguement'.

[bush_cheney2004]

Did the Bush adminstration LIE the country into war in iraq and how many american soldiers are now dead?

Did the Bush administration LIE about air quality at WTC, and how many first responders have died and are expected to die, from diseases that could have been presented bt wearing proper attire.

The answer to both questions is yes, the death toll from the Iraq LIE of America soldiers (citizens) stands at more then the Sept 11th death toll.

The death toll of first responders for the air quality LIE, is expected to top the Sept 11th death toll.

No, the answer to both questions is no, and the surrounding strawmen ("death tolls") are irrelevant to the accusation of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The USA went to war following a legal authorization from the Congress.

You have failed yet again to present any evidence.

[Hollus]

Did the Bush adminstration LIE the country into war in iraq and how many american soldiers are now dead?

Did the Bush administration LIE about air quality at WTC, and how many first responders have died and are expected to die, from diseases that could have been presented bt wearing proper attire.

The answer to both questions is yes, the death toll from the Iraq LIE of America soldiers (citizens) stands at more then the Sept 11th death toll.

The death toll of first responders for the air quality LIE, is expected to top the Sept 11th death toll.

No, the answer to both questions is no, and the surrounding strawmen ("death tolls") are irrelevant to the accusation of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The USA went to war following a legal authorization from the Congress.

You have failed yet again to present any evidence.

Falling for propaganda again Bush_Cheney2004. The Bush administration most certainly did lie the American public into war. Where are these alleged WMD's?

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," -Bush

"We found biological laboratories." -Bush

[kuzadd]

actually I am NOT accusing Bush of being a mass murderer, that's your wording.

No you are accusing him of such things. You love to make statements which have obvious implications yet deny those implications when confronted. Accusing Bush of staging 9/11 is accusing him of being a mass murderer. Don't waste time with denials.

Proof of mass murders is right there, in the pudding riverwind.

Red herrings that have nothing to with whether the Bush admin planned 9/11.

But I'll rephrase your question, do you believe the official story would stand up to scrutiny, in a court of law , with hearsay being inadmissible.( half-truths and rumours)

You are evading the question. I asked you if you think your theories would stand up in a court of law. Your answer appears to be no.

You don't have one witness or whistle blower. No concrete evidence that conclusively supports your theory and mountains of contradictory evidence which you ignore. Your theory is so full of holes it is laughable.

So why should we take your theories seriously? Because governments have run smaller scale covert operations before? That is not even worth describing as an 'arguement'.

first of all, riverwind I am not accusing Bush the individual of any one thing, so get off you GWB blame thing.

Second of all, I asked you if the official conspiracy would stand up in a court of law, and it would not.

that continually flies over your head. Why do you put the responsibility for truth on the people, whom that burden DOES NOT belong to?

Then you say, "I have a theory, and it is full of holes."

I don't have a theory. I have questions, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Do you have intellectual difficulties? I just don't know?

You should take questioning seriously becasue actually governments have run larger false flag ops previously, and yes prior behaviour is an excellent indicator of future behaviour.

I know, I know, likely over your head, sorry for that.

I wish to address also, the inconsistent and thorough discreditting of your own arguements.

You have zero concept of lateral load.

You have zero construction knowledge, as your statement wrt redundancy in the towers, as totally false, bogus.

Your arguement on the physic of table collapse was so blatantly wrong.

You flub above on aluminum.

In fact, you have demonstrated, repeatedly and loudly a complete and total lack of knowledge in these issues, along with a total lack of knowledge of history and political intrigues.

You are in no way shape or form in any way of "superior knowledge" wrt any of this discussion.

You are in fact a perfect demonstration of why "the wool get's pulled" over people's eyes.

The ignorance displayed by yourself, the lack of understanding, the lack of historical perspective, and also the near delusional belief in the "official conspiracy" theory.

Hey 19 men with BOX CUTTERS?? hijacked planes,( and no passengers jumped the boxcutter 'armed' hijackers??? LOL) all run by a man in a cave, likely on a dialysis machine, that makes sense??

Oh and BTW that same man, from his cave of course, is chartering private jets to fly his extended family out of the US, right after the attacks, but, OMG, he just can't be caught! "where in the world is osama bin laden"

That's what you believe? Ridiculous isn't it?

You are like the woman who finds out her husband is molesting the kids and suppresses and denies, rather then face up to the "ugly truth" There must be a name for that??

What you repeatedly do is demand, demand, demand, but, from the wrong people.

Make demands for truth from the people who gave you such a bogus conspiracy theory.

They bear the ultimate responsibility.

I know, that will go right over your head.

[kuzadd]

[

No, the answer to both questions is no, and the surrounding strawmen ("death tolls") are irrelevant to the accusation of government complicity in the 9/11 attacks. The USA went to war following a legal authorization from the Congress.

You have failed yet again to present any evidence.

actually BC the answer is YES and YES, the Bush administration LIED, to go to war,

the Bush administration lied via the EPA mouthpiece Christie Whitman, and said the air is safe, no problem, that was an intentional and wilfull lie showing total and complete disregard for the citizens of the US, including those that would die in Iraq, the first responders, who worked tirelessly, even the citizens who lived in the vicinity.

When an adminstration shows such wanton disregard for it's own citizens, as to lie, and lie, so, that so many people will die.

How can one credibly make the claim that the Bush admin would actually care that citizens would die, in false flag attacks???

You can't.

[kuzadd]

Falling for propaganda again Bush_Cheney2004. The Bush administration most certainly did lie the American public into war. Where are these alleged WMD's?

"We have found the weapons of mass destruction," -Bush

"We found biological laboratories." -Bush

Hollus, BC is 'playing you', he knows there were no WMD's, he knows Iraq, was just a further extension of US foreign policy.

[Riverwind]

I don't have a theory. I have questions, why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Pfft. Do you bother to read your own posts? You make this claim and then follow it up with a bunch of truthie clap trap. Every time you post something you are claiming that 9/11 was staged by the government. Yet when confronted you twist and evade and try to pretend that you 'don't have a theory'.

Make demands for truth from the people who gave you such a bogus conspiracy theory.

There you go again evading and evading. You claim that the theory is 'bogus' but you refuse to provide and alternate explaination. You think that thowing around trite phrases about things you clearly know nothing about constitutes an arguement that should be taken seriously. If you don't believe that the planes were taken over by people with box cutters than what do you think DID happen?

Your arrogance and hypocrasy is amazing. I asked you before and I will ask you again: do you believe that your theory that the government planned 9/11 stand up in a court of law?

Each time you refuse to answer you simply demonstrate that you are full of hot air.

[bush_cheney2004]

Falling for propaganda again Bush_Cheney2004. The Bush administration most certainly did lie the American public into war. Where are these alleged WMD's?

You do not understand how the US Congress authorized military action against Iraq, nor do you understand the history of American and British foreign policy for Saddam Hussein. That's OK..you live in Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

actually BC the answer is YES and YES, the Bush administration LIED, to go to war,

the Bush administration lied via the EPA mouthpiece Christie Whitman, and said the air is safe, no problem, that was an intentional and wilfull lie showing total and complete disregard for the citizens of the US, including those that would die in Iraq, the first responders, who worked tirelessly, even the citizens who lived in the vicinity.

When an adminstration shows such wanton disregard for it's own citizens, as to lie, and lie, so, that so many people will die.

How can one credibly make the claim that the Bush admin would actually care that citizens would die, in false flag attacks???

You can't.

You have become irrational. The lives of millitary personnel and domestic first responders are placed in peril by definition. You have failed to produce any evidence of government complicity in the attacks....EPA or OSHA standards for recovery efforts is a meaningless diversion.

[Hollus]

Falling for propaganda again Bush_Cheney2004. The Bush administration most certainly did lie the American public into war. Where are these alleged WMD's?

You do not understand how the US Congress authorized military action against Iraq, nor do you understand the history of American and British foreign policy for Saddam Hussein. That's OK..you live in Canada.

That's a hilarious accusation coming from you! Scroll up to the top of this page and note your accusation of me being a "rookie that doesnt do his homework" while you cite the Iraqi Liberation Act as authorization for regime change in Iraq. Your the rookie who doesnt do his homework and you get all your talking points straight from Fox news. I would not be surprised if you were actually a paid propagandist yourself, spewing all the bullshit you do.

But please do share the history of American and British foreign policy and illustrate to me how in fact the invasion of Iraq was not an illegal war of aggression. You've got nothing. Those UN resolutions you'll cite do not authorize the US to invade Iraq. (but you should reply in a new thread as this one is about 9/11, and we dont need your delusional digressions clouding this topic).

[bush_cheney2004]

But please do share the history of American and British foreign policy and illustrate to me how in fact the invasion of Iraq was not an illegal war of aggression. You've got nothing. Those UN resolutions you'll cite do not authorize the US to invade Iraq.

Good..you are learning the basics...but you have very far to go from your present base of emotional ignorance. The invasion of Iraq was very legal, but you are free to challenge that position in court.

Do you have standing? Can you cite legal precedence for your assertions?

[Hollus]

But please do share the history of American and British foreign policy and illustrate to me how in fact the invasion of Iraq was not an illegal war of aggression. You've got nothing. Those UN resolutions you'll cite do not authorize the US to invade Iraq.

Good..you are learning the basics...but you have very far to go from your present base of emotional ignorance. The invasion of Iraq was very legal, but you are free to challenge that position in court.

Do you have standing? Can you cite legal precedence for your assertions?

No you need to teach me. How was the Iraq war not a war of agression? I will start a new thread so you can share your brilliance and enlighten us all. LoL

[bush_cheney2004]

No you need to teach me. How was the Iraq war not a war of agression? I will start a new thread so you can share your brilliance and enlighten us all. LoL

Just to tidy things up, there is no legal standing or definition for a "war of aggression". The best you could hope for would be "crimes against the peace". The bleeding hearts among us often confuse this with "war crime".

...the Rome Statute stipulates that the ICC may not exercise its jurisdiction over the crime of aggression until such time as the states parties agree on a definition of the crime and set out the conditions under which it may be prosecuted

Do you have standing?

[ScottSA]

Selling the Iraq and Afgan wars to the American public without the advent of 9/11 would have been an entirely different matter that in was. Which is exactly what was implied by the PNAC document.

The US was already at "war" with Saddam's Iraq long before 9/11. Did Canada and the rest of NATO also have "PNAC" motives for invading Afghanistan?

Must have something like this, eh?

"Hey, I have a great idea. Let's write our manifesto for world domination, publish it, and then invade Afghanistan....wait a spell, then invade Iraq." Nobody will notice!

Brilliant!

Devilishly clever plot, I must say.

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread? I think you should re-write your signiture as it is quite out of line with your actual behavior.

Sorry. Were you expecting me to be serious in this ridiculous ever-repeating and apparently never-ending bit of nonsense? Planes fly into buildings in front of 6 billion witnesses while their occupants give live play by play to folks on the ground while it all happens, both the mastermind and the culprits confess on camera, and the entire world media crawls all over the story for 6 years without finding one shred of evidence of anything else, and I'm supposed to keep a straight face while "debating" whether or not it is a figment of mass hypnosis or some such? Yup, ok, I'll get right on it...now, are we still talking about deathrays and footprints, or have we moved on to Martians and missiles yet?

[Hollus]

Sorry. Were you expecting me to be serious in this ridiculous ever-repeating and apparently never-ending bit of nonsense? Planes fly into buildings in front of 6 billion witnesses while their occupants give live play by play to folks on the ground while it all happens, both the mastermind and the culprits confess on camera, and the entire world media crawls all over the story for 6 years without finding one shred of evidence of anything else, and I'm supposed to keep a straight face while "debating" whether or not it is a figment of mass hypnosis or some such? Yup, ok, I'll get right on it...now, are we still talking about deathrays and footprints, or have we moved on to Martians and missiles yet?

Excuse me ScottSA, there has been plenty of evidence regarding malfeasence.

"In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry. Newsweek reports that Bush had virtually no choice. “There was a freight train coming down the tracks,” says one White House official. [Newsweek, 9/22/2002] But as one of the 9/11 victim’s relatives says, “It’s carefully crafted to make it look like a general endorsement but it actually says that the commission would look at everything except the intelligence failures.” [CBS News, 9/20/2002] Rather than look into such failures, Bush wants the commission to focus on areas like border security, visa issues, and the “role of Congress” in overseeing intelligence agencies. The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11. [Newsweek, 9/22/2002]"

And of course the 'independant' 9/11 Comission that Bush supported has since been charged by former FBI Director Louis Freeh as ill-legitimate.

[M.Dancer]

ALCAN For Friday 10:20 am

86.760 Price

+0.930 Change

+1.08 Percent Change

980,359 Volume

---------------------------

[GostHacked]

ALCAN For Friday 10:20 am

86.760 Price

+0.930 Change

+1.08 Percent Change

980,359 Volume

---------------------------

I sat here and lol'd a good 5 minutes. Best reply of this thread.

[M.Dancer]

ALCAN For Friday 10:20 am

86.760 Price

+0.930 Change

+1.08 Percent Change

980,359 Volume

---------------------------

I sat here and lol'd a good 5 minutes. Best reply of this thread.

Now if we can, lets let it die with dignity in silence.......

[ScottSA]

Not quite yet...here's the 24 carat resource for anyone faced with the intransigent stupidity of trutherness:

http://www.debunking911.com/

[GostHacked]

Hey ScottSA

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

So we know the building should have been hit given the debris field above. But what of the damage to the building? Conspiracy sites say there were small fires. And what of Silverstein's comments in the PBS special? He used the term "Pull" to describe a decision made. Conspiracy theorists say "Pull" is a term used by demolition experts. This is one of those many half truths conspiracy theorists use to convince the ignorant. "Pull" is used when they "Pull" a building away from another with cables during demolition

One of those half truths.

We have some options here as to what Larry Silverstein really ment when he said 'pull'.

They pulled the building with demolitions.

OR

They pulled the building away from another with cables (like they did with Building#6)

OR

they pulled the firefighters out of Building 7.

That quote from Silverstein shows up in a PBS documentary on 9/11 and the tower collapse. They should have known at that time that he meant the Firefighters, but that was never mentioned in that documentary, and only cleared up with these debunking 9/11 sites. But there it is near the middle with many paragraphs explaining the 'pull'.

But anyways. It is all meant to confuse us all.

I will poke around the site more and take a look at it, they have stuff worth checking out.

[Riverwind]

I will poke around the site more and take a look at it, they have stuff worth checking out.

I suggest you look at this:

http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2007/02/u...or-of-wtc2.html

It suggests that the glowing matter pouring out of one of the towers was a result of a fire in a room with a large number of batteries designed to keep computer systems running if the power is interrupted.

This theory is interesting because it demonstrates the fallacy of the conspiracy arguments which typically try to claim that they must be right because there are 'no other possible explanations'. In this case someone did come up with a third explanation that is more plausible than both the government and truthie explanations.

IMO, any argument that relies on an assertion that 'there are no other possible explanations' is a false argument. There are always other possible explanations because very little information is known about what happened (videos and pictures tell us very little). That is why every credible scientist dismisses the truthie claims even if they acknowledge that there are inconsistencies in the explanation offered by the government. A good scientist understands that there are always other explanations that may not have been discovered due to lack of information.

The situation would be different if they had some positive proof of their claims (i.e. whistle blower testimony) - but they don't. All that they have is the 'we-have-shown-the-government-is-wrong-therefore-we-must-be-right' non-argument

[kuzadd]

riverwind: I am still waiting for an explanation on how oxygen deprived fires burnt hotter, 60 feet below ground buried under debris??? Tons of debris?? Your aluminum arguement fell flat, shouldn't have took cheney's bait?!

Anyway, checked out your link, interestingly and I'll note the entire argument is speculative, the author does NOT even know if these battery rooms were present, therefore it is interesting you accept it, as credible?

Very interesting, indeed.

[kuzadd]

Oh and I wanted to make note, NIST released June 29th

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html

NIST Status Update on World Trade Center 7 Investigation

"NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements."

It really get's me wondering, since the wtc 7 collapse is so non-credible, are we about to embark on a new round of Bush league propaganda???

Will NIST announce that yes explosives brought down wtc 7 planted by "terrorists" of course, and then all the "true believers", will go along with that, and tell everyone how the "bad boogey men" Muslim/arab planted the bombs, hahahahahahaha, cause , ya know, that would be believable to the "true believers"

[bush_cheney2004]

riverwind: I am still waiting for an explanation on how oxygen deprived fires burnt hotter, 60 feet below ground buried under debris??? Tons of debris?? Your aluminum arguement fell flat, shouldn't have took cheney's bait?!

No, you were proven to be ignorant and mistaken. Anaerobic fires are not always as they appear, as oxidants can be released / generated. Firefighting measures with water can actually aggravate metal fires.

Do you have any formal firefighting training besides your Google search bar?