# Off-Topic Discussion > Extended Discussion >  >  9/11 Conspiracy

## MSG

Since September 11th 2001, the very day the event happened, I've been seeing conspiracy theories pop up left and right - some of them laughable, like the theory that the planes were not planes at all but missiles with wings; but a few of them actually make you stop and think, and appear to make a bit of sense - Like the one about the... uhh.. um, well I can't think of any off of the top of my head right now but I'm sure they're out there. Yeah. They've got to be.

Alright, so there are no conspiracy theories that make even a lick of sense to me. Why? I don't know. Maybe I've just never heard of any. But here's your chance - You have the opportunity to present your case to listening ears. I want you to give me the best you've got, because I know you've _got_ to have something better than "The buildings fell down too perfect"

----------


## Harrycombs

I don't know if there was a conspiracy but, I saw one video that was pretty convincing.

It is short, and presents some good facts that really make it look like it is a conspiracy.

----------


## Mes Tarrant

I don't know much about this but the general agreement is that these theories are rubbish. However, I went to a talk by a 911 survivor who was supposed to debunk a lot of these theories that were presented by one of the professors at my university, but all he did was tell a sappy tale about his experience. It was touching of course, but he lost some credibility because whenever someone tried to ask him to talk about a conspiracy theory, he would get angry and turn the audience against the person. It was crazy. I'll get the name of the guy if you're interested.

----------


## tyrantt23

There is somewhat of an ongoing debate on this thread.

I presented some of the best theories, some great videos, and my opinion about the stupid theories: they only take the public's attention away from the theories that are valid.

----------


## Universal Mind

I love conspiracy theories.  My favorite books are about them, and my favorite radio show is Art Bell Coast to Coast.  However, I am very skeptical of them and usually just look at them as good fiction.  I have yet to come across a convincing one about 9/11.  I keep hearing stuff about, "But this board should have gone that way and the wall should have fallen over there..."  I am not even close to being an engineer or a demolition expert, so that stuff sounds like the adults on Charlie Brown to me.  I would love to find a 9/11 conspiracy theory that makes some kind of sense to me.

----------


## resonate

i've seen a bunch of theories that make me laugh, but basically its coincidental facts that get to me the most with this one. all the other conspiracies are based too much on speculation. like the coincidence of there being training operations on the morning of september 11th that simulated attacks on the world trade center, pentagon, and white house, which confused command centers. just the fact that no jets were scrambled in time for the pentagon attack made me wonder the day of the attacks. and then theres building 7, no steel structured building had ever collapsed due to fire before 9/11. now yes, buildings one and two did have airplanes crash into them and blow huge holes in the sides of them, but building 7 had little to no structural damage and somehow collapsed. while a near-by building was gashed by an enormus chunk of falling debris and never collapsed, i'm not sure what happened to that building eventually but they put a huge cover over it after the attacks. you don't have to look hard at any pictures or videos, it's pretty much right out in plain view. if you want to see a possibly convincing theory look into building 7, the history, the owners, the offices, and the collapse. i'm convinced the bush administration at least had prior knowledge.

----------


## Replicon

I think for the most part, those conspiracy theories are dead wrong. They take a bunch of slightly-skewed facts and out of context speeches, and present them with scary music. It's all the same.

That being said, I wouldn't put it past the current government.

----------


## Patrick

I strongly believe that 9/11 was not what the government would like us to believe.

Here's a discursive essay I wrote on the subject for my English class. I spent hours compiling the most convincing evidence that was out there, so it's quite condensed.

Sorry it's in txt format, file size limitations. Copy it into word so it's easier to read.

----------


## tiddlywink101

It's possible the american government (or something even higher than that) orchestrated the whole attack as an exscuse for a war in Iraq and thus get free oil

----------


## Sybot

I'll just repeat my post in the other thread: This movie (2.5 hours long) presents the conspiracy theory (taken from a different movie) and then presents the rebuttals to the arguement: Here

----------


## Alric

Why did building 7 fall and how come the government has never given a reasonable explanation of it? There was only very small fires and a modern steel building has never fallen from fires alone. Why did all 3 buildings fall straight down like they did? Everyone who has ever seen an controled demolition will say it looked exactly like that. Is that even possible for all 3 to randomly fall in the same pattern that takes weeks of planning to pull off?

And if you think about it, what are the chances that the government was running simulated attacks on the same targets, on the same day? Not only that but they were also using planes in the simulated attacks as well. Another very odd coincidence was that Britain was practicing simulated attacks, on the same day and at the same time as their trains and busses were attacked by terrorists.

I mean I could keep going but really whats the point? Some common things real quick. A lot of the hijackers were reported seen being alive after the attack. People reported hearing explosions in the towers. The guy that owns the building admitting on film that he told them to destroy building 7. Oddly enough, yes there is a video of him saying that.

Really the most convincing things are not the theories on what happened but the facts of what happened. When you look at all the facts, you can't help but see they don't all add up. Now where you take that, is up to you.

----------


## Harrycombs

> I mean I could keep going but really whats the point? Some common things real quick. A lot of the hijackers were reported seen being alive after the attack. People reported hearing explosions in the towers. The guy that owns the building admitting on film that he told them to destroy building 7. Oddly enough, yes there is a video of him saying that.




The video I posted had the video of the guy saying they destroyed building 7.

----------


## Neruo

blabla building 7 blabla is the only reasonable intresting government-related theory I heard about. 

What, however, if far more important, and better proven, is that some weird transactions just 'happened' to be made from the WTC at the last minute. And some something-billion insurance or wtc-rent or something like that. If anything around 9/11 is rotten, it has to do with money. Like always.

Besides that, the _real_ 'government conspiracy' is way out there. How they shamelessly tied 9/11, al-quadia, taliban and osama bin laden to Iraq and Saddam.

----------


## tiddlywink101

A friend sent this to me a while ago

1) New York City has 11 letters
2) Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3) Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4) George W Bush has 11 letters.
5) The two twin towers make an "11"


This could be a mere coincidence, but this gets more interesting:

1) New York is the 11th state.
2) The first plane crashing against the Twin Towers was flight number 11.
3) Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
4) Flight 77 which also hit Twin Towers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
5) The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
6) The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.


Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
1) The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. >2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
2) September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
3) The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.
4) The tragedy of Madrid happened 911 days after the Twin Towers
incident.

Sheer coincidence..?! Read on and make up your own mind:
Now this is where things get odd:


The most recognised symbol for the US, after the Stars & Stripes, is the Eagle. The following verse is taken from the Quran, the Islamic


holy book:

"For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair still more rejoiced: for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of Allah and there was peace."


That verse is number 9.11 of the Quran.


Still uncovinced about all of this..?! Try this and see how you feel afterwards,:


Open Microsoft Word (or WordPad if you don't have Micro Word) and do the following(TRY THIS FOR REAL)

SERIOUSLY GUYS..DO THIS!! 


1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first

plane to hit one of the Twin Towers. The 3 letters MUST be in CAPITAL LETTERS TO WORK


2. Highlight the Q33 NY


3. Change the font size to 48.


4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS




Okay q33 ny isn't the actual flight number, but as far as i'm aware all the other facts are genuine

----------


## Wildman

I understand you don't necessarily agree with the point they're trying to make in whatever your friend sent you tiddlywink, but I still wanna say how completely ridiculous those things are. 
eg "You can spell Osama if you fold a dollar bill correctly! No way!" So the freaking founding fathers picked out the name so Osama could bomb the world trade center a few centuries later and people could spell his name by folding the dollar bill? 
Afghanistan and New York also picked their names in prevision of the 9/11 bombings.
The guy who came up with wingdings was also in on it. 
Heh.  A good laugh on the subject

----------


## dodobird

> Open Microsoft Word (or WordPad if you don't have Micro Word) and do the following(TRY THIS FOR REAL)
> 
> SERIOUSLY GUYS..DO THIS!! 
> 
> 
> 1. Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
> 
> plane to hit one of the Twin Towers. The 3 letters MUST be in CAPITAL LETTERS TO WORK
> 
> ...



haha, thats brilliant

----------


## wasup

retarded, as well.  Wait... tiddlywink, dont' tell me you actually take that as 'evidence.'

----------


## tiddlywink101

I never said it was evidence as I wasn't trying to prove anything. So don't be so hostile

----------


## Alric

No, you weren't trying to prove anything, you were just being a moron. We are seriously trying to talk about a subject and you come in and make the stupidest post possible.

----------


## tiddlywink101

As far as i'm aware I was making a fairly interesting point, but I'm not going to bother arguing with you morons

----------


## wasup

err "point" is pretty much synonymous with "evidence."  And I don't understand how suddenly *we* are morons...  :smiley:

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

...Am I _seriously_ the only person [Edit: besides dodobird] that sees tiddlywinks post as completely sarcastic?

I thought it was pretty funny, actually.

----------


## wasup

It was funny to me in the pathetic sense, but I just thought that he wasn't sarcastic because he seemed to actually believe that there are conspiracies.  Most people don't mock their own viewpoint, or so I've seen...

----------


## dodobird

It was funny to me, and made me laugh
Anyway attacking ( and as a result defending ) a single post is an effective way to kill a thread.

----------


## tiddlywink101

It think it was fairly obvious that it was a light hearted post, and may I remind you that I am merely quoting my freind's E-mail NOT my own words. So in future please make sure you understand what somebody is saying before trying to debunk them, it's basic forum etiquette. 

You may find this video quite helpful 

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/posting.php

----------


## MSG

Wow, 11 posts used up simply arguing over another post.

Anyway, I checked most of your links, yes indeed WTC 7 raises some questions - still not convinced, though. That one video with the guy saying they decided to "pull the plug" or whatnot, that was a bit weird.

----------


## Bonsay

The only "conspiracy theory" that convinced me is the pentagon one. I mean there were no wings or any other plane parts, there was too little damage, the pentagon only has one crappy camera which took 2 pictures of a plane which isn't as big as it should be...
I don't know, I'm here so you can convince me othervise.  :Confused:

----------


## tiddlywink101

So tell me, what would the USA have to gain from such a conspiracy?

----------


## Patrick

> So tell me, what would the USA have to gain from such a conspiracy?



The war in Iraq. An excuse for the 'War on Terror'. Think of all the political power and oil they've gained from 9/11.

----------


## Alric

A reason to expand the powers of the government, in the name of protection.

----------


## tyrantt23

> The only "conspiracy theory" that convinced me is the pentagon one. I mean there were no wings or any other plane parts, there was too little damage, the pentagon only has one crappy camera which took 2 pictures of a plane which isn't as big as it should be...
> I don't know, I'm here so you can convince me othervise.



I have looked through that theory before. Although I'm still a little skeptical about the impact location being exactly where the reinforced section of the Pentagon was built, and also that everyone was closed up for everyone before the attacks had even happened, I still did some research.
The theories that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon aren't very factual, and because of that, I stick to the fact that yes, a plane did hit the pentagon. Here is a picture that shows how the damage was big enough for a plane to have hit it:


On this link, there are also many more pictures that show the carnage that was left inside the Pentagon building from the impact of the airplane.


EDIT: As far as what the government would gain from such attacks... well, the benefits that *Alric* and *Pensive Patrick* posted are pretty accurate. Think of all the political changes that have happened and the power that the government has gained since 9/11. Think of how our rights have been taken time and time again through the propaganda of the War on Terror. Patriot Act.... seriously... what a catchy name for something that takes away so many of our rights.
The government has been able to record our phone conversations without court order... even allowed to open our mail. All they need to do is say that a person "might be suspicious" or something along those lines. I may not be accurate to fine details because it's late and I'm about to go to bed, but you get my point.

----------


## Bonsay

Ok I'm no architect and I certanly don't what would a boeing do to a wall. I't still seems "out of place". With that I mean the damage, that that part was closed, the only video of it is crappy... I eaven heard that there were many more cameras that filmed the plane flying and the impact (no doubt abou that), but the FBI or something took the films as soon as the plane hit. What would they have to lose by showing the tapes of the plane, if they have nothing to hide? If someone hadn't told me, I wouldn't have known an aeroplane hit the pentagon.
As I said, I'm no expert. It all seems suspicious, but quite obvious. There is one more thing, why was the Osama family able to fly out of the US when all flights were canceled? Or is this info made up?

----------


## tiddlywink101

Err, hasn't the price of oil actually gone up since the war on Iraq?

----------


## Alric

> Err, hasn't the price of oil actually gone up since the war on Iraq?



Thats because stealing iraqs oil would be illegal and fairly obvious. If your trying to make money selling oil its better to disrupt the supply of oil from other counties, so the oil you have is worth more money.

If you want to think about it like that, Iraq isn't a new supplier of oil its a competitor. A competitor that has pretty much been knocked out of the game since they were invaded. Except the price of oil to keep raising as long as we are in the area threating war.

Not that I believe oil is that big of a factor in anything.

----------


## Universal Mind

The war in Iraq is about sand.  I keep screaming that, but the world won't listen.  The world's biggest shipped in sand beach is Biloxi beach in Mississippi.  That is a fact.  Do you know who the governor of Mississippi is?  Haley Barbour, a Republican.  And he is not just any Republican.  He used to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and he is very good friends with George W. Bush.  That's not all.  The state with the most shipped in sand is Florida.  The governor of Florida at the beginnings of those wars and on 9/11 was Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother.  Think about that.  

Open your eyes.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about sand... and towels... for beach resort states.  The government is trying to make it look just enough like those wars have been about terrorism so a huge chunk of the world population will think the wars are really about oil, but that is just a plan to cover up the sand and towel operation that is really happening.

----------


## wasup

> The war in Iraq is about sand.  I keep screaming that, but the world won't listen.  The world's biggest shipped in sand beach is Biloxi beach in Mississippi.  That is a fact.  Do you know who the governor of Mississippi is?  Haley Barbour, a Republican.  And he is not just any Republican.  He used to be the chairman of the Republican National Committee, and he is very good friends with George W. Bush.  That's not all.  The state with the most shipped in sand is Florida.  The governor of Florida at the beginnings of those wars and on 9/11 was Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother.  Think about that.  
> 
> Open your eyes.  The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about sand... and towels... for beach resort states.  The government is trying to make it look just enough like those wars have been about terrorism so a huge chunk of the world population will think the wars are really about oil, but that is just a plan to cover up the sand and towel operation that is really happening.



 ::shock::   ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Universal Mind

> The only "conspiracy theory" that convinced me is the pentagon one. I mean there were no wings or any other plane parts, there was too little damage, the pentagon only has one crappy camera which took 2 pictures of a plane which isn't as big as it should be...
> I don't know, I'm here so you can convince me othervise.



Is that supposed to be for real?  It looks like a toy setting for a G.I. Joe commercial or something.  I'm almost expecting Gumby and Pokey to walk up to the plane.

----------


## Bonsay

The picture was taken 0.00001 seconds before impact. The lines were used to guide the plane into the pentagon, so it wouldn't miss. But for real, I'd like to see a picture like that.

----------


## tyrantt23

> The picture was taken 0.00001 seconds before impact. The lines were used to guide the plane into the pentagon, so it wouldn't miss.



 ::rolllaugh:: 
I gotta say, that's funny.  ::laughhard::

----------


## tiddlywink101

I'm one for a good laugh, but we are talking about people's lives here

----------


## tyrantt23

> I'm one for a good laugh, but we are talking about people's lives here



Black Comedy

----------


## tiddlywink101

I myself often have a very morbid sense of humour but this just seems wrong to be making jokes about, especially in thsi serious thread

----------


## Replicon

> in thsi serious thread




While 9/11 is serious, this thread is about conspiracies, which are less serious.

----------


## Bonsay

Sorry if I sound immoral, but people die all the time and I really think that my post isn't that big of a deal. It had less to do with the real world events than with fictional ones. Besides, I made that joke because I though Universal Mind was joking, I meant nothing personal. I've heard much worse jokes based on other peoples misfortune.
I apologise to anyone who might have been offended.

----------


## tiddlywink101

Don't worry about it

----------


## Patrick

> While 9/11 is serious, this thread is about conspiracies, which are less serious.



I would say that the conspiracy is pretty damn serious. Any accusation involving a government performing mass murder to achieve its aims should not be brushed away as unreasonable.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I would say that the conspiracy is pretty damn serious. Any accusation involving a government performing mass murder to achieve its aims should not be brushed away as unreasonable.



The actual reality of death itself is not funny, but fictitious claims about how deaths happened can be hysterically funny.  That does not mean the deaths themselves are funny.  If somebody seriously claims that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck blew up the Oklahoma federal building, I am going to laugh.  If a woman tells me her husband died in the Oklahoma City bombing, I am not going to laugh.  There is nothing wrong with making fun of or laughing at conspiracy theories.

----------


## Neruo

I think the problem really is that a lot of people laugh before they heard who blew up that building, Donald Duck or Osama Bin Laden. 

Meaning: People make up their mind about these kind of things a bit to fast. They often just don't _Want_ to believe anything like that.

or something

----------


## Patrick

> The actual reality of death itself is not funny, but fictitious claims about how deaths happened can be hysterically funny. That does not mean the deaths themselves are funny. If somebody seriously claims that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck blew up the Oklahoma federal building, I am going to laugh. If a woman tells me her husband died in the Oklahoma City bombing, I am not going to laugh. There is nothing wrong with making fun of or laughing at conspiracy theories.



Dismissing conspiracy theories, and laughing at them, is one of the most stupid things anyone can do. Keeping an open mind is vital for the survival of a democratic and free society, which unfortunately has already disappeared.

Plus, no conspiracy theories are completely, 100%, totally impossible.

----------


## Alric

That reminds me of a joke. There once was a government that set fire to their own congressional building and then blamed it on someone else. They used this 'terrorest' attack to scare people and take away their freedoms in the name of protection. And then later used it as a reason for war. Oh yea did I mention that it really happened? Thats how Hitler raised to power and created nazi germany. Hahaha, really funny right? Lets all share a laugh at their expense, because its so damn funny when governments murder people to gain power.

Now if you don't think 9/11 is a conspiracy, that is fine. If you looked at the facts, seriously thought it over and said, "I believe them it makes sense." Thats ok. If you right it off as impossible just because you think governments don't lie however, your not only a moron but your jackass as well.

----------


## FinnMacCool

I have yet to be convinced by an 9/11 conspiracy theory. The evidence just doesn't hold enough weight for me.

That doesn't however mean we should automatically dismiss them. 

I do believe, however, that the Bush administration, and many of their associates, had A LOT to gain from 9/11. I am not against the theory that they may have let 9/11 happen but for the government to attack itself would be a rather bizarre hypothesis.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That reminds me of a joke. There once was a government that set fire to their own congressional building and then blamed it on someone else. They used this 'terrorest' attack to scare people and take away their freedoms in the name of protection. And then later used it as a reason for war. Oh yea did I mention that it really happened? Thats how Hitler raised to power and created nazi germany. Hahaha, really funny right? Lets all share a laugh at their expense, because its so damn funny when governments murder people to gain power.
> 
> Now if you don't think 9/11 is a conspiracy, that is fine. If you looked at the facts, seriously thought it over and said, "I believe them it makes sense." Thats ok. If you right it off as impossible just because you think governments don't lie however, your not only a moron but your jackass as well.



I didn't say all conspiracy theories are funny.  Conspiracies do happen.  That is why there are laws concerning them.  But some conspiracy theories are hilarous.  Did you hear the one about how the U.S. government used remote control torpedoes that looked like airplanes to hit the twin towers and hired the family members of dead people to talk about supposed conversations they had with their family members while they were supposedly on the supposed airplanes?  The theory even involves thousands of regular people who huddled up to be in on the conspiracy without a single one of them coming forward after all of these years.  Now, THAT is funny!   ::rolllaugh::

----------


## tiddlywink101

Although real deaths can be very funny, ever heard of The Darwin Awards?

http://www.darwinawards.com/

----------


## NatureBoy93

"the 911 conspiracy story, is a government conspiracy"

----------


## memeticverb

No one has even come close to refuting any of the claims of the mainstream 911 Truth movement, composed of hundreds, if not thousands of PhD educated academics.  

Heres a list of professors that have made their quite educated opinions known.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Morrone

They range from CIA analysts to physics and engineering professors.  The government apologists have no such lineup and no academics are willing to risk their reputations on something so obviously false as the government's official version.

The physical evidence alone is astounding, ranging from the impossibility of the twin towers, as well as WTC 7, falling at near the speed of gravity (when supposedly thousands of joints and steel beams are providing resitance to a straight-down collapse), to hundreds of severed beams getting thrown hundreds of feet and implanted horizontally into nearby buildings.  

In addition to the physical facts that prove demolitions were used to take down the towers, we have the incredibly underhanded way the government dealt with attempts by 911 Families to see exactly what those closest to the attacks, namely the emergency responders, had to say about what they experienced.  The govt forced the 911 Families to court several times to release these tapes, and low and behold, dozens of responders had given detailed accounts of controlled demolitions, and dozens more detailed unexplainable multiple, successive explosions.

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006...ers26jan06.htm

Just a few facts for now, theres literally thousands more if people are open minded enough to accept the truth.

----------


## Original Poster

Honestly these 9/11 conspiracy theories hurt the progressive movement in this country to hold Bush accountable for what he's really done.  Not just him, but every president before him.  There's a really good reason Osama bin Laden attacked us, because he and his followers (and millions of people all over the middle-east) were feeling victimized, not just by their corrupt leaders, but ours.  We fought wars over there and saw nothing, its their civillians that had to pay for our transgressions, and we reaped the benefits. Well for one day, 9/11/2001, the shoe was on the other foot.  I'm not condoning what happened or saying the victims deserved it, I'm just saying their terrorism was a result of ours, and if we don't stop terrorizing the world these attacks will continue.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm just saying their terrorism was a result of ours, and if we don't stop terrorizing the world these attacks will continue.



Upholding democracy in Israel is not terrorism.  Blowing up buses and trying to destroy Israel's democracy is terrorism.  Taking over Kuwait for purely selfish gain is terrorism.  Refusing to comply with a ceasefire on several terrorism grounds for 12 years is terrorism.  We were not out of line with our Middle East policies.  And the 9/11 attacks were decided on by the terrorists.  They are responsible for their senseless decision that only gave us reason to expand our fighting in the Middle East.  The 9/11 attacks were pointless, counterproductive, and atrocious.  I don't accept the argument that the psychopaths had no choice.  If they want us to see their point of view better, they are going about it the opposite way from what would actually work.  You don't win people over by making them your enemies.

----------


## LucidMike14

I think it could be a conspiracy with all the evidence, but we need more people to know. I bet 95% of the U.S. people have no idea or even acknowledge the fact that it COULD have been a setup

----------


## Bonsay

> I think it could be a conspiracy with all the evidence, but we need more people to know. I bet 95&#37; of the U.S. people have no idea or even acknowledge the fact that it COULD have been a setup




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnP0snh_1cU

Yes, yes, I know not all americans are like that, but I just had to link this video in response to his 95% statement. Looks like a few don't know where or when it happened  :smiley:  . But I don't get it, everything on the news and stuff was about terrorists and arabs since those attacks, howcome they still didn't memorise it?

We should all keep an open mind about these theories. I don't realy know how far people would go for money, but it all makes sense if we look at it from that perspective. Explain how was the Bin Laden family able to get out of the country, when all the flights were grounded. With all these little things that don't add up, it seems quite obvious to me that it was a setup.

PS: Lol at this video.

----------


## LucidMike14

Spend 18 minutes to watch this video and tell me you have no doubt it wasnt a conspiracy! you can't! this video is cold blooded proof. i'm not saying i am 100&#37; sure but this video makes you wonder.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9%2F11+justice

----------


## memeticverb

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnP0snh_1cU
> 
> Yes, yes, I know not all americans are like that, but I just had to link this video in response to his 95% statement. Looks like a few don't know where or when it happened  . But I don't get it, everything on the news and stuff was about terrorists and arabs since those attacks, howcome they still didn't memorise it?
> 
> We should all keep an open mind about these theories. I don't realy know how far people would go for money, but it all makes sense if we look at it from that perspective. Explain how was the Bin Laden family able to get out of the country, when all the flights were grounded. With all these little things that don't add up, it seems quite obvious to me that it was a setup.
> 
> PS: Lol at this video.



Haha, nice.  Good words there, we really do need an open mind.  Some people only respond, or only choose to respond to certain types of information.  I myself would not go near anything that was not based on scientifically verifiable fact, but once I realized that without a doubt the Twin Towers and WTC7http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-c-6qkbxd0 were demolished with explosives, everything else like the coincidences involving Bin Laden's family became much more interesting.  

Heres a staggering list coincidences

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.co...de-to-911.html

----------


## The Cusp

Check out this youtube video, the mother of all conspiracy films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cy01...elated&search=

Dont let the title fool you, it was a very good series.  That Bohemian Grove place is very interesting.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Check out this youtube video, the mother of all conspiracy films.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cy01...elated&search=
> 
> Dont let the title fool you, it was a very good series.  That Bohemian Grove place is very interesting.



that was comedic at best. it almost seems like Europe has an inferiority complex, and will bash the US in any way possible.

It is propaganda too. The makers of the video portray US soldiers as evil, and 100% torturers, when really it is just a small group. Plus, the raw EXISTENCE of American troops keeps the world in order. I sometimes wonder how many full scale wars would have broken out 1945-present if it werent for our blanket of protection. 

To me, that is what Iraq is about. We are flexing our muscle. We are showing future enemies that you are dead even if you associate with people that fuck with the free world. The world is much more likely to be in order if it has somebody to be afraid of. Thats why i dont care if the US gets bashed for its foreign policy. Nothing makes me happier than the fact that my country has everybody scared. Scared people are much less likely to invade a country. And, in that way, we save lives.

----------


## Bonsay

Yes, America has helped alot, but for example Iraq was a terrible mistake. It's only purpose is oil. It's not about flexing muscles, it's doing the opposite. Killing half a million people won't make "them" afraid, but angry. You made a bunch of angry "terrorists". Also, the free world you speak of is just an illusion and propaganda. There is no such thing as a free world, just a shitty one. People who are afraid won't make the world safer, just more fucked up. Eaven if somehow, by some strange coincidence, the war stopped "future enemies", the whole thing looks to me like an empire spreading for its own gain. And people actually think they are saving the world. If being afraid means order and peace, then howcome America isn't the safest place on Earth. Personaly, I'd like it to change now, or just blow up and be forgotten. Humans aren't realy worthy of living on this planet, I mean lol killing saves lifes. Makes perfect sense. As long as people actually believe that and other stupid things there will be lots of "freedom" I'm sure.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Yes, America has helped alot, but for example Iraq was a terrible mistake. It's only purpose is oil. It's not about flexing muscles, it's doing the opposite. Killing half a million people won't make "them" afraid, but angry. You made a bunch of angry "terrorists". Also, the free world you speak of is just an illusion and propaganda. There is no such thing as a free world, just a shitty one. People who are afraid won't make the world safer, just more fucked up. Eaven if somehow, by some strange coincidence, the war stopped "future enemies", the whole thing looks to me like an empire spreading for its own gain. And people actually think they are saving the world. If being afraid means order and peace, then howcome America isn't the safest place on Earth. Personaly, I'd like it to change now, or just blow up and be forgotten. Humans aren't realy worthy of living on this planet, I mean lol killing saves lifes. Makes perfect sense. As long as people actually believe that and other stupid things there will be lots of "freedom" I'm sure.



Half a million people?! You're way off. The current estimate is about 65,000 Iraqi dead, a little over 1/10th of your number. That is propaganda. You have been lied to. Brainwashed like i am, right? Even your dillusion about oil shows it. The ONLY reason we invaded Iraq? Speculation at best. 

Yes, i know the "free world" thing is just an illusion. Much of the world is not ready for freedom, because they have never seen it. I hate to say it, but trying to bring freedom to these places will cause nothing but problems. I have said it before, invading Iraq was not a necessity. 

Killing for freedom makes perfect sense. Remember the Nazis? There are times when it is necessary.

Why isnt America the safest place on earth? Because we have so much freedom. Europe is safer than America because of semi-fascist policies. Saying a racial slur gets you in jail? Nobody is allowed to own a gun (in certain countries)? Europe is safe because saftey is FORCED onto the people. That is not freedom. I also heard much of Europe doesnt have jury based trials. 

Just because i shouldnt say the N word to a black person doesnt mean it should be illegal. Just because some people shoot other people doesnt mean guns should be outlawed. America is less safe because we are not forced. The right to not be offended doesnt exist here...yet. 

What is up with these "peaceful solutions" diplomacy. They never work. They didnt work with Hitler, North Korea, North Vietman, Saddam once, Somalia, Afghanistan, or Saddam twice. Evil people dont listen to those baby threats from the UN. The "lets wait and see" mentality of the UN is stupid. That same mentality exited when Hitler invaded Poland.

----------


## Bonsay

I don't know who is correct, in the end any life is valuble. I also don't know about the reasons, money was definately a priority. I guess "you" didn't go to war for oil, but I bet certain individuals did. Yes it is speculation, but what else can I do, only take in info and process it. If it's correct, that's another issue.

I don't have much to say back, because everything you say is or could be correct for the real world. That's why I don't like it. Ok you are free, but it's the people who aren't fit for freedom. Yes Nazis "had to be killed", but that's the same way they felt for everyone else, like the jew or the gipsies, slavs, whatever. So you could say that in the end everybody felt the same way. In the end I'm not even commenting the american ways, but just releasing my feelings about the world. No place is better than the other. So yeah, I guess some fundamentalist terrorist won't change his mind if America suddenly transforms. We might aswell just continue, I just hope that we'll all just get along.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I don't know who is correct, in the end any life is valuble. I also don't know about the reasons, money was definately a priority. I guess "you" didn't go to war for oil, but I bet certain individuals did. Yes it is speculation, but what else can I do, only take in info and process it. If it's correct, that's another issue.
> 
> I don't have much to say back, because everything you say is or could be correct for the real world. That's why I don't like it. Ok you are free, but it's the people who aren't fit for freedom. Yes Nazis "had to be killed", but that's the same way they felt for everyone else, like the jew or the gipsies, slavs, whatever. So you could say that in the end everybody felt the same way. In the end I'm not even commenting the american ways, but just releasing my feelings about the world. No place is better than the other. So yeah, I guess some fundamentalist terrorist won't change his mind if America suddenly transforms. We might aswell just continue, I just hope that we'll all just get along.



i know your intentions are good, and i hope everybody can get along. I just dont believe this will ever happen. Power corrupts, and those in power really dont give a crap about making the average citizens life better. They care even less about making another countries citizens better off. 

The best thing that could happen is a different breed of American presidents. People that would use our might to seriously make everything better. That alone could not do it. Every major country would have to cooperate with eachother. America would have to calm down, and Europe would have to grow some cahones. 

The only people who value peace are those who have experienced it. For a lot of the world this has never happened, and they dont put forth the effort to make peace. We still have a LONG road ahead of us to reach this goal. I think now that globalization is really starting to kick it, we will see some changes.

----------


## Alric

Its 65,000 Civilian deaths. If your talking about people in general(including 'terrorists') the number is way higher. And half a million is probably correct.

Something to also take into account when looking up the numbers, is looking at casualties vs deaths. US military has had some 3,000 deaths in iraq. The number of US military casualties(people who are injured to the point they can no longer fight) is up around 25,000. Obviously a much larger number.

As for US being more free than any other country. The US tops the world with the largest prison population. Over 2 million people. We have more people in jail than china and almost double as many as russia. Infact 25&#37; of all people in prison are in the US. Half of which are for non-violent crimes.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Its 65,000 Civilian deaths. If your talking about people in general(including 'terrorists') the number is way higher. And half a million is probably correct.



If we have killed that many terrorists, then that is awesome.  





> As for US being more free than any other country. The US tops the world with the largest prison population. Over 2 million people. We have more people in jail than china and almost double as many as russia. Infact 25% of all people in prison are in the US. Half of which are for non-violent crimes.



Yes, that's embarassing.  It's because of the stupid ass war on drugs, which is what has a lot to do with the fact that the United States has much higher violence statistics than other countries.  I have no idea why our government didn't learn a big lesson from alcohol prohibition.  We passed a constitutional amendment repealing alcohol prohibition because the policy was so out of hand.  The war on drugs is much more of a disaster than the war on just alcohol was.

----------


## Bad Wolf

The US government did it so that they'd have a reason to go to war, that idiot of a president honestly believes it was Osama's doing, and before long the government is going to become a militarian one just like the one in _V for Vendetta_. And while we're going over conspiracy theories, the British Royal Family are all werewolves.

----------


## memeticverb

> i know your intentions are good, and i hope everybody can get along. I just dont believe this will ever happen. Power corrupts, and those in power really dont give a crap about making the average citizens life better. They care even less about making another countries citizens better off. 
> 
> The best thing that could happen is a different breed of American presidents. People that would use our might to seriously make everything better. That alone could not do it. Every major country would have to cooperate with eachother. America would have to calm down, and Europe would have to grow some cahones. 
> 
> The only people who value peace are those who have experienced it. For a lot of the world this has never happened, and they dont put forth the effort to make peace. We still have a LONG road ahead of us to reach this goal. I think now that globalization is really starting to kick it, we will see some changes.



You speak a lot of truth here, but that the U.S. invaded Iraq without being attacked seems to violate the policy of non-intervention, which has been a key element of American foreign policy for over 200 years.

If the goal of American foreign policy has been changed and is now to make every country safe, kill brutal dictators, etc, then there were many other countries in worse shape than Iraq.  Why did America choose Iraq?   Oh yeah, the Bush administration lied  constantly to get the American people to associate it with Afghanistan and 911... 

From those few links I posted previously one can easily put two and two together to see that 911 was a staged event done for no other reason than to flex the military industrial complex, and steal American wealth.

----------


## Alric

Well we killed like 100,000 just from iraqi troops when we first invaded.

----------


## ninja9578

Watch Fahrenheit 9-11, Michael Moore knows more about this stuff than even some members of the administration.  The web of lies is so complicated I don't think we'll ever know what is really going on in the administration, they've covered up their illegal deeds pretty well.  It's slowly unraveling itself, but they cast doubt.

EDIT:  This post was accidental and was written by a terrorist, please ignore.

EDIT EDIT:  Don't believe them, they've kidnapped me and have me in Guantanamo Bay, I was able to steal quick internet access to type this.  Get rid of the PATRIOT act before they

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Watch Fahrenheit 9-11, Michael Moore knows more about this stuff than even some members of the administration.  The web of lies is so complicated I don't think we'll ever know what is really going on in the administration, they've covered up their illegal deeds pretty well.  It's slowly unraveling itself, but they cast doubt.
> 
> EDIT:  This post was accidental and was written by a terrorist, please ignore.
> 
> EDIT EDIT:  Don't believe them, they've kidnapped me and have me in Guantanamo Bay, I was able to steal quick internet access to type this.  Get rid of the PATRIOT act before they



Michael Moore is a fat ass socialist weasel. Nobody, NOBODY puts more spin on a topic than him. He has no business making movies with so much BS. The only thing Mr. Moore knows is the size of his wallet, which still fails in comparison to the size of his ass. 

9/11 was staged, huh? It was all so simple. All they had to do was have explosives planted at the base of the towers. Then on 9/11 they acted like planes were being hijacked, when really they just re-routed them to Pennsylvania, then flew two military jets into the towers filled with more explosives before shooting down the witnesses on flight 93 with an F-15 after blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile. Then through future prediction phenomena they knew that Osama would confess to the attacks, and that Saddam would not allow UN inspectors into bunkers. It all makes perfect sense.

As to America being a free state compared to our jail population. Well, what do you want? Complete freedom where you are free to kill somebody and not go to jail? The truth is, our higher jail poplulation is an example of our freedom. Our people are not as afraid to commit crimes as Europeans. To me, not being afraid is 10X the freedom of being able to do anything you want.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

ok first of all 9/11 was not an inside job..anybody who thinks that needs to learn the facts ..First off, our president is not smart enough to pull something off, second of all, the CONSPIRACY stories always change.. First it was "Oh omg! They put Bombs inside the WTC buildings and detonated them!" (right where the planes hit i might add)  Then it was Some kind of chemical that was placed inside the WTC buildings that cut through metal quickly (right where the planes hit again I might add)  Then it was missles with wings, then a military plane that hit the WTC...

And besides your going to sit there and tell the world that it was an inside job when you have no proof... Ok think of it this way, if it was really set up as an inside job, dont you think that SOMEONE would come forward and say something..or not even that, besides that, someone down the line and with time would say something to someone about it... 

Also if you ever encounter a Conspiracy Theorist, please ask them to do this one thing if they think 9/11 was an inside job..

be like "Hey, I challenge you to give a detail plan and layout of how everything was set up and planned out.. What was used, how and why...."

I promise you they wont beable to give you a detail plan and layout of how it was all layed out..

and not only that if you do your research you will find out that Al-Qaeda (spelling) has already admitted to planning out 9/11

here is a link that took me 2 seconds to find

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258817,00.html

there you go,

PS: im sick of people saying 9/11 was an inside job or conspiracy, my brother who is an Army Ranger, Special Forces Green Beret is over in Iraq fighting for our country, and trust me, he's not fighting for nothing...

thanks

spiritofthewolf

----------


## LucidMike14

Did anyone see what I posted previously??? Please, check out this link, it is LOADED with conspiracy theories. I am not sure if it was an inside job, but I want to know what you guys think of this video. And if it seems bad at first just wait, it has some VERY good points.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9&#37;2F11+justice

----------


## spiritofthewolf

i forgot to mention something

you cant really convince a conspiracy theorist that its not a conspiracy because they will just tell you that its all part of the conspiracy

thanks

spiritofthewolf

----------


## Bonsay

Saying "It wasn't a conspiracy, because I just know it wasn't!" doesn't realy hold any value. Facts are facts. As I said before, all the little things that make no sense make it look like a conspiracy, because if they had nothing to hide you couldn't really acuse them of anything. In this case you can. Certain theories are stupid, but some are not so stupid and they have proof to back them up.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

maybe the terrorist that did 9/11 want us to think our own GOV planned it out and did it themselves, maybe instead of our GOV brainwashing us, maybe the Terrorist are trying to brain wash us instead----OOOOOOO another Conspiracy-----thats how stupid the 9/11 conspiracy BS is, get the hell over it...all you conspiracy theorist are wasting your time, because honestly Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, you actually think we will know the honest to god truth...

Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal... Like i said before, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, we would know by now because someone would have talked...plain and simple, bottom line..its just human nature..like when you tell your friends you had sex with the hottest chick at your school and she told you not to tell anybody about it..well, eventually you cant hold it in any longer and you open your mouth...Thats involving a living breathing single person---9/11 involves thousands of innocent dead people, i dont see how any person could deal with the guilt of killing that many people and keeping it from the nation.....if they can, then they have changed the way human nature works

----------


## memeticverb

> maybe the terrorist that did 9/11 want us to think our own GOV planned it out and did it themselves, maybe instead of our GOV brainwashing us, maybe the Terrorist are trying to brain wash us instead----OOOOOOO another Conspiracy-----thats how stupid the 9/11 conspiracy BS is, get the hell over it...all you conspiracy theorist are wasting your time, because honestly Conspiracy or no Conspiracy, you actually think we will know the honest to god truth...
> 
> Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal... Like i said before, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, we would know by now because someone would have talked...plain and simple, bottom line..its just human nature..like when you tell your friends you had sex with the hottest chick at your school and she told you not to tell anybody about it..well, eventually you cant hold it in any longer and you open your mouth...Thats involving a living breathing single person---9/11 involves thousands of innocent dead people, i dont see how any person could deal with the guilt of killing that many people and keeping it from the nation.....if they can, then they have changed the way human nature works



Is it me or did you not address a single fact in that rant pertaining to any of the events of 911? 

So you think someone would have talked only 7 years later?  So you think the type of person involved solely for money would have a sudden change of heart and give it all away and go to prison for life?

----------


## memeticverb

> Did anyone see what I posted previously??? Please, check out this link, it is LOADED with conspiracy theories. I am not sure if it was an inside job, but I want to know what you guys think of this video. And if it seems bad at first just wait, it has some VERY good points.
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...9%2F11+justice



Wow, thanks for posting this, ive never seen it.  It does a very good job covering  the most telling facts and in a very short amount of time

----------


## spiritofthewolf

Memeticverb lets see how good you are with math..follow along.. replying to your LITTLE comment about a dude with shit loads of money and all this conspiracy shit..

Ok Memeticverb lets take your example of PAYING PEOPLE OFF to keep their mouths shut about 9/11

White House Workers: 6,366
Supreme Court Workers: Unknown
Pentagon: 28,000
Misc: God knows how many

Ok you take 34,366 plus how many other thousands ,maybe even hundreds of thousands of people/employee's of the GOV or associated with them and you say, ok we are gonna give you each 1 million dollars per year to keep your mouth shut about 9/11 

alright lets just do 34,366 times 1 million

34,366 x 1,000,000 = 34,366,000,000,000

your talking 34 billion dollars a year for just those 34,366 people, NOT INCLUDING the people in the supreme court or whoever falls under the MISC category

Now last bit right here.. SINCE 9/11 with the assumption of PAYING PEOPLE OFF 

september 11th 2001, now its 2007, so 6 years

34,366,000,000,000 X 6 years= 206,196,000,000,000

That number right above this is the money involved in paying just the 34,366 people SINCE THE EVENTS OF 9/11 (not including everyone that would have to be involved in the Cover up)

So with your Assumption:





> So you think the type of person involved solely for money would have a sudden change of heart and give it all away and go to prison for life?



Were not talking about just paying one person off, were talking about paying thousands and thousands of people off, and as you can see with that simple math up there, its not even freaking possible to do so...so money and paying people off, is out of the equation....and if you dont think the mathematics is FACT go ahead and try me...


spiritofthewolf

----------


## Universal Mind

> alright lets just do 34,366 times 1 million
> 
> 34,366 x 1,000,000,000 = 34,366,000,000,000
> 
> your talking 34 billion dollars a year for just those 34,366 people



That's a good point and really funny, but I wanted to get the record straight by saying that one million is a one with six zeros, not nine.  But the number in your point does come out to something in the 34 billions.   34,366,000,000.  I used to be a math teacher, so I get myself sucked into numbers every time I see them.  

Proceed.   :smiley:

----------


## Alric

People like to bring up that arguement a lot. "How come no one has said anything?" The obvious reply would be, they have, you just dismissed what they said as untrue and went on your way.

----------


## Bonsay

> Thats what happens with every major HAPPENING, like the JFK assasinations..its a conspiracy, no its not, 9/11 same deal...



Well now that you've mentioned it... 
JFK assasination video 
Yeah, you're right. No conspiracies. It's all just terrorists and crazy people with weapons. I mean what would people have to gain from 9/11... Lets all just shut up, like someone said in the comments of the vid, at least you're not kissing some kings ass (like the rest of the non free world).

----------


## spiritofthewolf

all im saying is that if 9/11 was truly an inside job, the damn conspiracy videos/articles/movies whatever else you wanna place in the category wouldnt change so many freaking times...but instead the so called Conspiracy Theorist come to the conclusion that none of their so called THEORY'S is even possible, so they try to figure out the next best thing...like a missle with wings lol or, a military plane actually flying into the WTC buildings, or best yet, bombs placed inside the WTC buildings to bring them down, but we all know that the buildings colapsed from where the planes hit.....

Everyone debates the fact that the planes fuel couldnt of done anything to the beams in the WTC..The fact is, is that the beams got weakened with all the weight it was supporting then each floor fell ontop of eacother..

If you dont think this is possible about the weakened beams.. Try holding out a bucket of water straight infront of you and see how your arms get weaker and eventually you would have to put them down---or collapse...


anywho, 9/11 wasnt an inside job, bottom line

----------


## Alric

The problem is that the building has massive steel columns going through the entire building, and the building was designed to be able to take plane crashing into them and still stand. Also building 7 wasn't hit, and hard only very minor fires, yet it collapsed as well. I have yet to see anyone explain how building 7 fell.

As for the theories changing, they don't. Yes some people put out goofball ideas but thats only to distract you from the people that actually do know what they are talking about. If you listen to them, the people who are serious about wanting to find out what happen, always give the same story. Which is that bombs where placed inside the buildings. Which is backed up by people having reported explosions in the buildings before they fell. The fact that there was a lot of work being done on the building ahead of time. And then the huge amount of things which hint at people knowing an attack was going to happen, such as all the high up political people canceling planes trips days before the event.

Of course if your so sure, maybe you can explain to me how building 7 imploded in on itself? It was never hit by anything, theres a ton of videos on it. One side of the building looks totally untouched, and the other side of the building has a few fires going on and then boom, the entire building falls to the ground in a pile of rubble. Nothing left standing.

Forget about everything else for a minute. Explain that, there is a video of the guy owning the building even saying he told them to pull it down! There are steel buildings that burned for entire days and didn't fall. Yet this building, has some fuel splash onto it and 2 floors get caught on fire and the entire building collapses into nothing. I mean just using common sense thats impossible. And building 7 is a wide building too, I mean if half of it collapsed then maybe but the entire thing did, all at once!

----------


## Bonsay

> all im saying is that if 9/11 was truly an inside job, the damn conspiracy videos/articles/movies whatever else you wanna place in the category wouldnt change so many freaking times...but instead the so called Conspiracy Theorist come to the conclusion that none of their so called THEORY'S is even possible, so they try to figure out the next best thing...like a missle with wings lol or, a military plane actually flying into the WTC buildings, or best yet, bombs placed inside the WTC buildings to bring them down, but we all know that the buildings colapsed from where the planes hit.....
> 
> Everyone debates the fact that the planes fuel couldnt of done anything to the beams in the WTC..The fact is, is that the beams got weakened with all the weight it was supporting then each floor fell ontop of eacother..
> 
> If you dont think this is possible about the weakened beams.. Try holding out a bucket of water straight infront of you and see how your arms get weaker and eventually you would have to put them down---or collapse...
> 
> 
> anywho, 9/11 wasnt an inside job, bottom line



Theories aren't changing. It seems so because there are so many of them and because they don't work together to make one.
We don't know where the building collapsed. Actually we know that people felt and heard explosions 10 seconds before they collapsed. They even found certain molten metals there which are produced by some X explosive.

9/11 was definately an inside job.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The problem is that the building has massive steel columns going through the entire building, and the building was designed to be able to take plane crashing into them and still stand. Also building 7 wasn't hit, and hard only very minor fires, yet it collapsed as well. I have yet to see anyone explain how building 7 fell.
> 
> As for the theories changing, they don't. Yes some people put out goofball ideas but thats only to distract you from the people that actually do know what they are talking about. If you listen to them, the people who are serious about wanting to find out what happen, always give the same story. Which is that bombs where placed inside the buildings. Which is backed up by people having reported explosions in the buildings before they fell. The fact that there was a lot of work being done on the building ahead of time. And then the huge amount of things which hint at people knowing an attack was going to happen, such as all the high up political people canceling planes trips days before the event.
> 
> Of course if your so sure, maybe you can explain to me how building 7 imploded in on itself? It was never hit by anything, theres a ton of videos on it. One side of the building looks totally untouched, and the other side of the building has a few fires going on and then boom, the entire building falls to the ground in a pile of rubble. Nothing left standing.
> 
> Forget about everything else for a minute. Explain that, there is a video of the guy owning the building even saying he told them to pull it down! There are steel buildings that burned for entire days and didn't fall. Yet this building, has some fuel splash onto it and 2 floors get caught on fire and the entire building collapses into nothing. I mean just using common sense thats impossible. And building 7 is a wide building too, I mean if half of it collapsed then maybe but the entire thing did, all at once!



Dude, NO F'N WAY!!! People INSIDE the buildings reported explosions right before they fell? They must have been some crazy-fast text messagers.

 I've seen the videos a thousand times. The buildings collapse from the floors where the planes hit, and down from there. The top portions fell and crushed every floor underneath them. The whole "jet fuel doesnt burn hot enough" argument is circumstancial. I think the combination of the plane smashing the steel had an effect. Still, it wouldnt have to "melt" the steel. Enough heat _weakens_ metals, and that was probably all it took. 

Why would anybody need the towers to fall? It seems like terrorists flying planes into our buildings would be enough to invade a country. Plus, the the country lost a lot of money by loosing the money capital of the world.

----------


## memeticverb

WTC 7: News Clips and Video Comparison with Controlled Demolition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n_rR_TBVmg

WTC 7: Video with Opinion from an Demolition Expert, A very nice side-by-side comparison

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0

WTC7: Rare fotage taken before WTC7 fell, showing telling signs of the damage it sustained.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evdGMRYn3Iw

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Theories aren't changing. It seems so because there are so many of them and because they don't work together to make one.
> We don't know where the building collapsed. Actually we know that people felt and heard explosions 10 seconds before they collapsed. They even found certain molten metals there which are produced by some X explosive.
> 
> 9/11 was definately an inside job.



All the evidence I need is Osama confessing to the attacks. What would Bush do, hit up Osama on his Nextel? _Chirp Chirp_ "Osama!! Its 'yo boy Bush!! Hey could you confess to these attacks so we can come fu*k up your organization and jack your oil and make ourselves rich? Thanks, buddy, and HEY!! See ya soon  :wink2: "

Felt and heard explosions, did they? Why didnt the thousand other people that were there hear and feel these explosions? These select, rogue people could just have their own agenda. Could these shock waves have been falling concrete from 1500 feet high? Unless you can PROVE otherwise, i suggest not using absolute words like "definately" an inside job.

----------


## Alric

Wrong, there are tons of people who all said they heard explosions. It wasn't a few rogue people. There was a lot of them, and many of them where fire fighters and police officers who were at the scene, none of which have any reason to lie about it.

And even if you think the building falling is totally possible, then there is still the question. Why did they collapse the way they did? Everyone says it looks like a controled demolitions. It takes weeks of planning to get buildings to fall like that. There are ton of factors that need to be considered. Yet all 3 buildings(one which wasn't even hit) imploded.

Common sense would tell you, that all three couldn't fall like that. Even one is unlikely. The plane crashed into the side, how come it didn't fall sideways? Your telling me it weakened the metal but only in the center and not the sides? If you ever looked at the plans for the bulding, it has huge steel columns like I said. A far more likely collapse would been having the outside of the building fall off first.

----------


## Bonsay

> All the evidence I need is Osama confessing to the attacks. What would Bush do, hit up Osama on his Nextel? _Chirp Chirp_ "Osama!! Its 'yo boy Bush!! Hey could you confess to these attacks so we can come fu*k up your organization and jack your oil and make ourselves rich? Thanks, buddy, and HEY!! See ya soon "
> 
> Felt and heard explosions, did they? Why didnt the thousand other people that were there hear and feel these explosions? These select, rogue people could just have their own agenda. Could these shock waves have been falling concrete from 1500 feet high? Unless you can PROVE otherwise, i suggest not using absolute words like "definately" an inside job.



I bet there are a lot of people out there who would do anythinig for money. It would make sense that they made a deal. There is also the "flying Osama family thing", not yet explained. If I was a police officer, I would keep the Osama family and use them against Osama Bin Laden, instead of letting them fly away (when all the other flights were cancelled).
Explosion stuff. You can search yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n593Hth8h9M

I will use definately untill they show me enough proof to debunk the theories. I will also use definately because they seem to lie about everything, this isn't realy an Iraq debate, but it's somehow connected.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

about the WTC 7 building and how it fell without being hit or damaged.. The owner of the WTC 7 building was going to demolish that building anywayz on september 11th despite the terrorist attack on the same day, that is why the WTC 7 building fell and that is why if you watch the video of the WTC 7 building falling you can clearly see the DEMOLITIONS going off...The owner I remember seeing him on the news and talking about it...so yah, the whole "OMG whats up with WTC 7" and why did it fall..that is why, because it got demolished.....

Besides all the videos you all see on the internet about how the WTC was an inside job and all the websites you all look at are all one sided, of course they want you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but do you think that any of the people that have made those video's or statements, along with the professors who have done the same thing and movie actors (charlie sheen or Rosie odonell) Have they yet to go to any of the fire houses that were involved in 9/11 and say "Well im sorry to say, but even though you lost some great men, perhaps your best friend, but 9/11 was an inside job" ???

FUCK NO they havent, because they dont have the fucking balls to do it, they just make up some stupid ass story about how people heard explosions 10 seconds before the buildings started to fall...  Now if thats the case, i can disprove that theory right now

1.) If there were so called EXPLOSIONS 10 seconds before the buildings fell, then ALOT, and i mean ALOT of people would have heard it, just not a select few that decide to go on camera in some ONE SIDED video to make a statement they got paid for to say...  

2.) if there were so called EXPLOSIONS 10 seconds before the buildings fell, why would it take so long (10 seconds) after the explosions for the buildings to start falling (FROM WHERE THE PLANES HIT) I might add.. Now we have all seen controlled explosions before, mostly taken place in Las Vegas to build another casino after they knock one down... Now when they blow up the buildings, the buildings begin to fall right after the explosion, but in the WTC incident, 10 seconds after the explosions the buildings start to fall??? not only that, but someone would have had to plant the EXPLOSIVES right where the planes hit, cause thats where the building begins to colapse... So the whole "SOMONE PLANTED EXPLOSIVES THEORY" is a bunch of BS... I cant believe you all believe made up one sided videos on a 9/11 conspiracy theory, specially on the internet.. Get some of these pricks on national Television and have them explain straight up an exact plan on how the whole 9/11 conspiracy theory went down from point A to point Z --how did they get explosives into the buildings without anybody noticing it--im sure if someone had noticed, they would have notified authorities---enless the cops are in on the conspiracy too--which then again--thats alot of money to be handing out to thousands and thousands of people asking them to keep their mouths shut.....

so yah, explosives werent planted, im sorry, those video's you see of 9/11 being an inside job have no credibal evidence...they can say what they wanna say but do we have 110 &#37; proof it was an inside job.....nope....

----------


## spiritofthewolf

and for those who believe 9/11 was an inside job.....go educate yourself

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-M.../dp/158816635X


i copied this from the link above:


It is absolutely amazing the kind of reviews people will dare to give. As one prior reviewer astutely noticed, many "reviews" were done by people with an agenda to sell who obviously did not read the book. In fact, even before the book was published you had 911 conspiracy folks writing negative assertions about the book before it was even published. This tells you the mindset of such people and the prejudice they have. There is simply no way you can be objective by trying to trash something before you've even read it. But such is the folly of some. And let me say that I am particularly disappointed with Ed Haas, who appears to be just using this forum to promote his conspiracy agenda instead of reviewing the book honestly. 

As someone who came to this issue trying to objectively ascertain what the truth is regarding 911, and as a former native New Yorker for over 30 years, I will now try to render an honest review of this book as one who has actually read it and also has verified many of its points from my own research. I will also point out some of the facts which prove that most of the negative reviewers did NOT read the book. 

First, let's dispense with the most obvious nonsense arguments. It is a fallacy of logic to argue that because the book was done by folks at Popular Mechanics (PM), which is owned by Hearst Communications, that this automatically dismisses the evidence from the many independent scientists, engineers, physicists, and other experts. This is known as the genetic "consider the source" fallacy. Such reasoning is flawed and is just a way of avoiding the facts presented by PM. 

Second, it has not been conclusively proven that the Ben Chertoff who used to be the head of the magazine's research department at PM is in any way related to Michael Chertoff, the head of Homeland Security. Now, according to Ben's mom, Michael MIGHT be a distant cousin (p. 102). Yet conspiracy theorists unwisely take a MIGHT and turn it into a conclusive fact. Nonsense. If that is the case, then I can argue that the Bush administration is using Bush's baked beans to poison us all in a worldwide conspiracy to dominate the world...LOL. And do I even need to point out that people having the same last name does not necessarily mean they must be related. That fallacy is called the non sequitur. But let's move on. 

One argument has been made that the people at PM are not scientists and engineers. Fair enough. But that's a red herring designed to divert our attention from the facts. They CONSULTED many scientists and engineers and reported what THEY said. That is the point. But since we are on the topic of "scientists and engineers," perhaps we are to believe that David Ray Griffin, who doesn't have the first degree in relevant scientific or engineering fields, is a credible source of information about what happened on 911? Mr. Griffin has been shown to be an author with an agenda who cannot see that he has been duped by the likes of French author Thierry Meyssan, who "...never visited the United States for his research" (p.59). So the work of Griffin is highly suspect and lacks real credibility. 

It is easy for some reviewers to talk big talk about PM committing "straw man fallacies" while committing their own fallacies, but the facts are otherwise. This book is excellent in its presentation of the facts and documentation. The only problem I had is that it didn't use the standard numerical reference techniques most scholarly books use. I would have also liked it if they made it easier to contact the many experts consulted by providing contact information such as email addresses. That way, it would be easier to verify that these experts really said what it is claimed they said. 

However, I have found in my research that if you really want to contact someone, all you need is some basic information and you can usually follow-up and make contact. Other than that, the book does a great job of answering (with credible sources from those expert in the relevant fields) most of the major wild 911 "inside job" conspiracy theories. 

The book is divided up into 4 major sections: The Planes, The World Trade Center, The Pentagon, and Flight 93, with an afterward by James Meiggs, editor-in-chief of PM, 3 appendices (Appendix A: Experts Consulted, Appendix B: World Trade Center Report, Appendix C: Pentagon Building Report), notes and an index. I will now highlight points from each major section: 

The Planes: 

The book nicely puts the issue in a conspiracy "claim" vs. "fact" format, which makes things easier to follow. Some claim that the 19 "amateur" hijackers with box cutters taking over planes and flying them and hitting "75 percent" of their targets raises a lot of questions. Perhaps. But you don't need to be an expert flyer to crash a big plane into a big building. That's common sense. But "Debunking 911 myths" points out that "The hijacker pilots...may not have been have been highly skilled, but they were not complete amateurs" (p. 4). 

Some have tried to argue that there was a "missile" or "pod" underneath the planes that hit the Towers. However, this assumption was based on an inaccurate interpretation of bad photography. "Debunking" consulted Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. His findings? "After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a `pod'...In fact, Greeley confirms the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear" (pp. 9, 10). So, conspiracy theorists have mistaken lighting angles and pixel distortion on digital images for some kind of "pod" or missile. 

Another false claim debunked by "Debunking" is the idea that there was a "stand down" order given to the military so that the hijacked planes could reach their targets. "Debunking" catalogs all the confusion on 911 and shows that even though the hijackers had turned off the transponders, fighter planes were ordered to battle stations. But with over 4,000 planes in the air, and an inadequate ATC system, it is not hard to see why intercepts were delayed (pp.14-19). It was also pointed out the NORAD's more sophisticated radar focused outside the continental US for threats, not inward. No need for wild conspiracy theories. 

The World Trade Center: 

One claim is that the Towers were not brought down by the combination of large planes full of jet fuel slamming into them and the subsequent damage, but they collapsed due to intentially placed bombs or controlled demolition charges. 

However, "Debunking" provides evidence from credible independent sources that this was not the case (pp. 28-58). I have personally watched video of authentic controlled demolitions and the Towers and building 7 do NOT precisely match them. In real demo, the puffs of smoke from the charges going off, sometimes called "squibs," always come first and then the building comes down. With WTCs 1,2, 7 the "squibs" show up only AFTER the building begins to collapse. But conspiracy theorists ignore that little fact to their detriment. 

Conspiracy theorists are fond of making mention of the work of professor Steven Jones of BYU. It is claimed that he found something in a sample of the WTC rubble which indicates to him that explosives were used. However, the credibility of Mr. Jones is in question on many counts. 

First, his own colleagues at BYU, who are civil engineers while he is NOT, do not find his work credible. Second, "Debunking" consulted metallurgy professors (specialists in metals analysis) who "...found flaws with the evidence Jones uses to support his arguments...Alan Pense, professor emeritus of metallurgical engineering at Lehigh University, said: `The photographs shown to support melting steel are, to me, either unconvincing ...or show materials that appear to be other than steel'" (p. 41). 

Third, what really caught my eye was this info regarding the "thermite" allegedly found by Mr. Jones. "Richard Furehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University, says that Jones does not provide adequate evidence to show that thermite reactions did take place...even if they did, that would not necessarily indicate the presence of explosives. THE THERMITE REACTION COULD HAVE OCCURRED WITH ALUMINUM METAL AND ANY OXIDE THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEAR IT (p. 42, emphasis added.). So, a thermite reaction can take place in other ways. Interesting that we don't hear that from the conspiracy folks. 

And finally, "Debunking" provides more information from various experts showing that Mr. Jones' work is "na&#239;ve and unscientific" (as Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT personally told me in a private email), but space won't permit me to go into further detail. 

When it comes to building 7, most conspiracy theorists always mention the words of Larry Silverstein on a nationally televised show using the words "pull it." These words are interpreted to mean that Silverstein was admitting he told a "fire commander" (note not a demolition specialist) to "pull it" (misread to mean demolish building 7). However, "Debunking" points out from 4 different demolition experts that "pull it" is "not slang for controlled demolition" (p. 57). Even after Silverstein clarified his words, saying that his concern was to "pull" the squadron of firefighters from the building, conspiracy theorists still cling to their misinterpretation and misapplication of Silverstein's words. What's more, with all the fuss over the collapse of Towers 1, 2 and building 7, people forget that other buildings and structures either fully or partially collapsed that day (such as the St. Nicholas Church, the North Bridge - wonder if Silverstein owns those too, or if demolition charges were placed in those too). 

And yes, despite false claims to the contrary, "Debunking" did address in detail the Empire State Building and the B-25 that crashed into it and listed the vital differences between that incident and the collapse of the Towers (pp. 29-32). 

The Pentagon: 

One conspiracy theory about the Pentagon, circulated mainly by a French writer who never visited the United States, is that flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Some say it was a missile (although no credible witnesses say they saw one) and other say it was a "Global Hawk" (a smaller, unmanned plane, although no one saw that either and no GH parts were found). 

Pentagon Video - Some people argue that if flight 77 hit the Pentagon, then the security camera should clearly show it. Yet "Debunking" points out that the Philips LTC 1261 camera filmed at one frame per second, while the plane was traveling at about 780 feet per second. Now, anyone who knows anything about photography can understand what that means; you will not get a clear image of a plane (p. 61). 

Small Debris - Although most conspiracy theorists claim that the debris of the Pentagon was too little to be from flight 77, they also do not investigate the fact that most airplane crashes do NOT leave great remains. "Debunking" gives several examples of this fact. So this does not prove flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. 

Intact Windows - Now the idea that regular windows could remain intact after a commercial jet hits a building would seem rather incredible, but not when you know all the facts. "Debunking" explains that the Pentagon windows were blast resistant and weighed "1,600" pounds each (p. 71). Wow! My first reaction was `What the heck kind of window weighs that much?' It seems they wanted them to withstand a powerful missile or bomb. But these were not household windows, and therefore any conspiracy argument from intact windows after the plane crash appear to be based on ignorance. 

Flight 93: 

"Debunking" deals a death blow to the main conspiracy theories surrounding this flight. Instead of the flight crashing due to the heroics of the brave passengers, the flight is said to have either been shot down by an F16 or a mysterious white jet. But the facts show that the Army Colonel Donn de Grand-Pre lied on the Alex Jones show about knowing the pilot who allegedly shot down flight 93. Mr. Grand-Pre also lied about contacting General Hugh Shelton, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time (pp. 77-80). 

"Debunking" also proves, from a credible source, that the white jet that was seen around the wreckage of flight 93 was not a military plane but "a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corporation" (p. 82). 

Cell phones - Conspiracy theorists are fond of saying that all those calls were somehow faked because cell phones can't work above 8,000 feet. However, "Debunking" proves from cell phone company sources that this is not true: "While not exactly reliable, cell-phone calls from airplanes were possible in 2001...because cell sites have a range of several miles, even at 35,000 feet...says Rick Kemper, director of technology and security at the CTIA - The Wireless Association" (pp. 83,84). 

When it comes to the small amount of wreckage found at the flight 93 crash site, "Debunking" also documents, from experts in air crash analysis, the fact that most plane crashes routinely leave little wreckage (pp. 86-90). The problem, then, is that while conspiracy believers ask many questions, they seem to rarely find credible answers from proper authorities. 

So despite what you hear from some fake reviewers of the book, the book does address most of the wild conspiracy claims they tried to say the book did not address (which shows they didn't read the book). 

In conclusion, it seems to me that the fake reviews by people with an agenda to push shows the dishonesty and disingenuousness of those in the 911 conspiracy movement. The facts show from this book, and other sources available online, that if the "official story" has holes in it the size of a "hundred pound block of Swiss cheese" (as one reviewer opined), then that goes hundreds of times more for these wild "inside job" theories which have no credible, factual support. 

I applaud the people at PM for doing a fine job of putting together a masterful work disproving these nonsensical theories that ultimately dishonor the memory of the lives we lost on 911 and their surviving families. Remember, Remember, the FACTS about the 11th of September...because the Master Himself said it best: "and you shall know the truth, and the truth will make you free" (John 8:32).

----------


## Bonsay

If I remember correctly, the explosions weren't at the plane, but at the base of the WTC.
I don't understand how many people you want interviewed about the explosions... 
All the stuff you posted from the book are the same as the videos on the internet. I don't know why I bother to argue here anyway. It's just like one of those religion discussions. I don't know if the facts I read are true or not, but I don't really want to make a living as a conspiracy theorist. I'll read something and treat it as truthfull. If it's not, then I'm really sorry. Unless you got all your information yourself, by researching all the stuff instead of just reading it, then you're no closer to the truth than I am. I don't really need to prove any explosions or whatever. For me the small facts and all the lies are enough to convince me, that you don't really need to wait for terrorists to give you a reason for starting a war. Who said you need to plant explosives, you just pay someone to drive a plane into a building and there you have it. Can't you eaven admit a small possibility that it was all planned out?

----------


## memeticverb

Nice try, Spiritofthewolf.

At least you admit that WTC7 was a controlled demolition.  But this means the official government story is a lie since they have vehemently denied this fact.

The twin towers, as already pointed out, collapsed symmetrically, straight down, into the path of greatest resistance, at a rate of about 6-10 floors per second.  If this is what you expect from a failure in a support column, or even several somehow failing simultaneously, then you should recheck your logic.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

As soon as the affected steel gave way, all the weight shifted to the other beams, causing _them_ to give way. You claim "simple physics" prove a conspiracy. Do you really believe the highest levels of government would let  construction-illiterate people like ouselves have that kind of proof. Since the WTC towers had never been hit by a plane before, there is no ground to say what "should" have happened

Why would Osama confess to such an act? He got SCREWED. Al Quaeda got SCREWED. How could he benefit from that? Osama bin Laden was also an educated constructionist. He knew about construction, and about how to bring down construction.

----------


## MSG

> Nice try, Spiritofthewolf.
> The twin towers, as already pointed out, collapsed symmetrically, straight down, into the path of greatest resistance, at a rate of about 6-10 floors per second.  If this is what you expect from a failure in a support column, or even several somehow failing simultaneously, then you should recheck your logic.



Wrong wrong wrong

I try not to get involved as much as possible but this one just bugs the crap out of me

If you see in any close-up video, the top section actually fell at an angle. Of course the rest fell in a straight line after being pummeled by the top section, but it was hardly perfect. Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NejV8cE3wc

Comparing WTC7 to a controlled demolition is also a bit annoying - Sure they post videos showing how _similar_ they are, but where are the videos of buildings taken down in a non-controlled manner to show how _different_ they are? They've got really nothing to compare it to. I'm not completely dismissing WTC7 as an inside job however using logic like that is simply useless.

----------


## Alric

Actually if you ever seen a building getting blown up like that, there is always a delay. Its not 10 seconds, but there is a delay. Thats because of inertia, and that the fact that the supports are not blown away but cut by the explosions. Also the fact that not all the supports are blown at once, because they are trying to control the way it falls.

The fire fighters themself were among the most quoted as having heard explosions in the buildings. And yes I have seen them being interviewed about this topic before.

----------


## Alric

You say its clearly controlled demolition. So the question you should be asking is, why do the offical reports say thats untrue?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Nobody has explained what Osama bin Laden had to gain from all this. He even said he was surprised when the buildings fell, as this was not part of his plan. 

There is another factor to assess. Why did the second tower to be hit fall first? I would say, it was hit lower so it had more weight on the weakened parts.

----------


## Sybot

For those who think there was a controlled demolition:

The demolition of the J.L. Hudson Department Store, which was 33 stories high, took 12 men 24 days to fully rig for demolition. How long do you think it would take to rig the WTC towers which were 100 stories high and WTC7 which was 47, and how would no one notice this at all?

----------


## memeticverb

> ok first of all 9/11 was not an inside job..anybody who thinks that needs to learn the facts ..First off, our president is not smart enough to pull something off, second of all, the CONSPIRACY stories always change.. First it was "Oh omg! They put Bombs inside the WTC buildings and detonated them!" (right where the planes hit i might add)  Then it was Some kind of chemical that was placed inside the WTC buildings that cut through metal quickly (right where the planes hit again I might add)  Then it was missles with wings, then a military plane that hit the WTC...
> 
> And besides your going to sit there and tell the world that it was an inside job when you have no proof... Ok think of it this way, if it was really set up as an inside job, dont you think that SOMEONE would come forward and say something..or not even that, besides that, someone down the line and with time would say something to someone about it... 
> 
> Also if you ever encounter a Conspiracy Theorist, please ask them to do this one thing if they think 9/11 was an inside job..
> 
> be like "Hey, I challenge you to give a detail plan and layout of how everything was set up and planned out.. What was used, how and why...."
> 
> I promise you they wont beable to give you a detail plan and layout of how it was all layed out..
> ...



Too bad they have already found proof...tons of it.

Molten metal flowing out of the towers.  Absolutely consistent with a thermate (incendiary) reaction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wVLeKwSkXA

Now recently by a micro-analysis of the dust they have found previously molten iron which could not have been produced by jet fuel fire, and such distribution of all of these spheres is only possible through explosives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=732JtVBoyAU

And again, there are vast groups of experts forming that support the 911 Truth movement with empirical evidence. 

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice

The Journal of 911 Studies

Professors and Government Experts
http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Morrone

and many others...

We might actually see a debate on this forum if people could stick to the empirically verifiable data, and not silly arguments like "Bush isnt smart enough to pull it off." Or "Someone should have come forward with an admission of guilt".  Come on. People are not stupid enough to buy into any of these arguments.

----------


## tyrantt23

> We might actually see a debate on this forum if people could stick to the empirically verifiable data, and not silly arguments like "Bush isnt smart enough to pull it off." Or "Someone should have come forward with an admission of guilt". Come on. People are not stupid enough to buy into any of these arguments.




Exactly.

I stopped posting here after I got tired of seeing those replies over and over. Oh, and also the ones that mention the dumb conspiracy theories as an argument that all theories are dumb.

No, just because someone  decided to make up some theory about missile with wings and posted it on the internet doesn't make the other theories invalid. It only makes that theory invalid, dumb, and pointless to even mention in an argument.

Keep an open mind. Research, research, research... then make your own opinions about things. There were a few very good posts that helped explain some questions I had... that's because I read/saw the post/video, then researched some more, found out the credibility of the source, and thought it over based on what I already knew.

Empirically verifiable data is a nice way to put it memeticverb...

----------


## furryrabbit

On the matter of 9/11 - I had a dream based on the command and conquer game last night. The goal was to destroy loads of towers to win the war. The spooky part is, at the end of the dream, President Bush personally won the war by destroying the last two towers in a *plane*. I didn't think anything of it until I wrote it in my dream journal, when I realised how conspiracy theory like it is. 

Other than that - as a European, I try not to get involved in 9/11 debates out of respect for those who died.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I will ask it again. What would OSAMA BIN LADEN gain from claiming responsibility? He is a smart man, and i dont think he would get on America's bad side for no reason.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

the funny thing is, is all the 9/11 videos about it being an inside job, have yet to be proven 110% true..they cant stand up to the REAL facts about what happened..If any of the video's were actually 110% PROVEN TO BE FACT, then it would be all over the news and there would be more about "9/11 was an inside job" in the news.....All i can say is this, wait until 2009, once we get a new president, the 9/11 conspiracy stuff will fade away..why...because people will be so focused on rebuilding our country after bush...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

bush hasnt done anything to America. I'f im correct, our economy pretty much stayed the same.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

tax dollars and education....what happened to that program he started "No child left behind"??? oh yah, it went to shit....

and if the WTC buildings were brought down by demolitions, then why did the buildings begin to fall from the top?? in controlled demolitions, the buildings begin falling from the bottom...

----------


## MSG

> what happened to that program he started "No child left behind"??? oh yah, it went to shit....



Because it was shit to begin with. Directing tax dollars away from the children who care about learning and toward the kids who could care less about school, please explain how that's a good idea _at all_?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Because it was shit to begin with. Directing tax dollars away from the children who care about learning and toward the kids who could care less about school, please explain how that's a good idea _at all_?



The problem with "no child left behind" was punishing schools with bad attendence records and bad grades by taking away funding. So in that way, bad schools were getting worse. What you said happens. too. Overall a stupid fucking idea.

----------


## MSG

> The problem with "no child left behind" was punishing schools with bad attendance records and bad grades by taking away funding. So in that way, bad schools were getting worse. What you said happens. too. Overall a stupid fucking idea.



Yeah, exactly - they never made any plans to help these children, but left it up to the schools to decide what to do with the delinquents.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

I don't think I've ever seen this link posted before so:

http://ae911truth.org/

Just some food for thought.

----------


## iLight

Why dont you guys check the past of what happened to pearl harbor and how it was planned by bush administration?  after pearl Harbor they had an open road to the war. 
Gouvernments create a problem and they blame it on someone.. than people with anger offer a solution for them to go to WAR!! And this is WHAT they planned from the beginning ! problem-->reaction.-->>solution

Just check your freaking PAST and you will see that all answers are there! geez... USA needed a new Pearl Harbor and looks like they succeded in that.

----------


## MSG

> Why dont you guys check the past of what happened to pearl harbor and how it was planned by bush administration?



* THIS JUST IN*: Pearl harbor was planned by the Bush Administration.

What's next, is somebody gonna say that the moon landings were faked?

----------


## tyrantt23

> I don't think I've ever seen this link posted before so:
> 
> http://ae911truth.org/
> 
> Just some food for thought.



Very nice website Oneironaut... just checked it.






> What's next, is somebody gonna say that the moon landings were faked?



Wha? You really believe they landed on the moon? pshhh......

j/k. :p

----------


## tyrantt23

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to share this with you guys. Quoted from 911-research.com. I put in bold the sentence that really caught my attention. I can only say, brain-washing at its finest.

And no, I'm not jumping to conclusions that the media was involved. I'm just saying that it was brainwashing nonetheless, whether or not it was done on purpose. In other words, the American media is horribly biased, uninformative, and useless.





> * The Aftermath* 
> 
> * The Official Response to the Attack* 
> 
>   The aftershocks of the attack began immediately and continue to reverberate. So did its exploitation, primarily as a pretext for wholesale violations of civil liberties, the  disappearance of government accountability, and a series of invasions of Central and West Asian countries. 
> _   On the day of the attack the television networks suspended normal programming and began wall-to-wall 24-hour "coverage" that would last a week, filling out the script of Osama bin Laden as mastermind of the attack with lots of background stories about Islamic terror. The networks' coverage of Ground Zero was framed almost exclusively as a human interest story of the tragedy of lost life and the rescue operation that soldiered on with "hope against hope." Questions about the plausibility of the official explanation of the collapses and about what officials were doing with the evidence of this vast crime went unasked._ 
>   On September 13th the White House announced that there was "overwhelming evidence" that bin Laden was behind the attacks.  1  
> *Shutdowns and Evacuations*
> 
> ...

----------


## spiritofthewolf

honestly we will never know the TRUTH about how 9/11 went down, if it was terrorist of if it was the USA GOV or Elvis Presley... I dont know much about the JFK Asassination, but everyone thought it was a conspiracy--was that proven to be false or what?  I mean with 9/11 40 years from now this debate will fade away, but still pop up here in there like JFK...And I may have said this before (but not sure) so i will say it again.. If either one of these Conspiracy Theories/videos/ whatever goes along with the Conspiracy Theories, were 110&#37; true and to be proven FACT, then they wouldnt be called THEORIES because all THEORIES are, are just Guesses

1.	a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.	a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3.	Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4.	the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5.	a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6.	contemplation or speculation.
7.	guess or conjecture.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Spirit:

As long as people decide not to believe conspiracy theories, they can/will be called "conspiracy theories." If those that have the power to present facts to the world, with the authority that many people decide to believe, decline to deliver that information (especially if they are covering their own asses) they can/will be called "conspiracy theories."

The words "conspiracy theory" is just a label. Something that is completely true, if refused to be believed by any number of people, will be referred to as a conspiracy theory. Science text books, classrooms, seminars, etc. are littered with "FACTS" that are, at their core level, nothing but THEORIES. This makes them no less true, simply unproven beyond the shadow of doubt.

If a theory is good enough to be taught, in school, as the reason for the universe being formed, a conspiracy theory, in turn, is good enough to be taken seriously, long enough to be investigated into, discarded or confirmed.

Your argument(s) is (are) flawed.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

damn it! lol  :smiley:

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Haha. It happens.  :wink2:

----------


## Harrycombs

Hyphothisis is an educated guess, theory is what is accepted as fact, although might not be true. So, conspiracy theories are really conspiracy hyphothises.

----------


## spiritofthewolf

lol harry that is a good one  :smiley:

----------


## Universal Mind

A theory is what a hypothesis becomes after a substantial amount of experimental support.  The stuff about Bush going to war only for oil revenues is a hypothesis.  The idea that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks is a theory.  The point that the United States is under a major amount of threat right now is a fact.

----------


## Alric

> The point that the United States is under a major amount of threat right now is a fact.



No, thats an opinion.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

> Hyphothisis is an educated guess, theory is what is accepted as fact, although might not be true. So, conspiracy theories are really conspiracy hyphothises.



The definition of "theory" is very broad. A "theory," the way you used it (or _meant_ to use it), is accepted, not necessarily as fact, but as the most likely truth. The level of research and confirmation that separates a hypothesis from a theory (if there truly _is_ any difference) is subjective, and you can't just impose the idea that all conspiracy theories are unfounded. 

Think about the words "Conspiracy Theory." (so many people that spit those words out, denouncing them all as if they are bunk, or unfounded, don't even seem to understand them.)

All that label is implying is that there is subjective reasoning to believe that a group is operating in a secretive, deceptive manner. This happens _all_ the time. 

The charge that a congressman held thousands of dollars of bribe money in his freezer? That is a conspiracy theory..and he's being held accountable for it, because it is being vigorously investigated into, and quite probably true. The problem with conspiracy theories such as 9/11 and whatnot is that they are so personal - so closed to home, so _heinous_, that it is usually a stark minority that will actually take any investigation into them seriously.

It's no different from anyone outside your family telling you that your  parents are the biggest child-porn ring operators in the US. Assuming you love your parents and have seen them do no wrong: until you see 100&#37;, irrefutable, undeniable proof...would you believe it? Even if you feared it might be true, would that be something you would easily, willingly, admit?

A "conspiracy theory" (in general) is nothing more, or less, than any other theory, and they differ in credibility with just as much range.

----------


## Universal Mind

> No, thats an opinion.



That's your opinion.

----------


## Original Poster

One thing that really puzzles me is all you people jumping up to defend the legitimacy of 9/11 attacks...when the very government your defending won't even defend itself.  It's like all the people outraged at voter fraud when Kerry had already resigned.  They have not answered any questions, they simply ignore the questions and pretend they don't exist.  They ignored the evidence that they were censoring things instead of simply stating the facts so the people can be put at ease.

----------


## Alric

Oh you convinced me, everything you say must be a fact because you say so. No, I don't think so. Your free to have a opinion but don't call it a fact unless you have something to atleast try and back it up. "It just is." Isn't a real arguement.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Oh you convinced me, everything you say must be a fact because you say so. No, I don't think so. Your free to have a opinion but don't call it a fact unless you have something to atleast try and back it up. "It just is." Isn't a real arguement.



That's your opinion.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Saying the United States isnt under threat of another terrorist attack isn't an opinion, its a fallacy.

----------


## Replicon

> Saying the United States isnt under threat of another terrorist attack isn't an opinion, its a fallacy.



The thing is, while I'm sure the "threat level" has increased a little bit, the REAL difference that people are feeling is not so much that, as it is the fact that this  asshat of an administration has broken every rule in the book, as it were, on handling terrorist situations. In particular, they publicize everything. It scares the public (and fills them with fake-ass patriotism), while they announce loudly and proudly, "We're coming for you!" If they would have followed in Clinton's footsteps in dealing with Osama, he would be in custody today.

----------


## Alric

> Saying the United States isnt under threat of another terrorist attack isn't an opinion, its a fallacy.



I never said there wasn't "a threat" I said there wasn't a major threat. Like I said you can say we are in a huge amount of danger but thats just a opinion and theres nothing to really back that up.

----------


## memeticverb

Thought I would post this 1min clip I uploaded to Youtube, since its pretty hard to find unless you watch the entire documentary "911 Mysteries".  Its one of the few that actually shows pictures and video of what the basements looked like before the WTC towers "collpased." 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM

In controlled demolitions they blow out the foundational columns in the basement.  How do people who support the official conspiracy theory explain this stuff away?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The thing is, while I'm sure the "threat level" has increased a little bit, the REAL difference that people are feeling is not so much that, as it is the fact that this  asshat of an administration has broken every rule in the book, as it were, on handling terrorist situations. In particular, they publicize everything. It scares the public (and fills them with fake-ass patriotism), while they announce loudly and proudly, "We're coming for you!" If they would have followed in Clinton's footsteps in dealing with Osama, he would be in custody today.



All i need to know is that these fucking freaks hate me, you, and everything we stand for. I have no hang-ups about turning their world upside-down or overthrowing the governments that they control. I guess you can call that patriotism. 

Btw, it was Clinton's half ass stance on dangerous countries that allowed Osama bin Laden to organize the attacks. Do you remember what happened in Somalia in '93? I am hard pressed to agree with anything Clinton did, and i definately wouldnt follow in his footsteps. I wouldnt have even screwed Monica Lewinsky. She's not that hot.

Memeticverb, the towers did not collapse from the basements. If explosives had been put there, the videos would not have shown the towers giving way where the planes hit. Watch the videos again. The top 40 (or so) floors fall first.

Alric, the Al Quaeda videos that warn of an attack is all the back-up you should need. 

Let them attack us. Maybe then the world could grow some balls and rally up to finish the religious fanatics off.

----------


## Neruo

> All i need to know is that these fucking freaks hate me, you, and everything we stand for. I have no hang-ups about turning their world upside-down or overthrowing the governments that they control. I guess you can call that patriotism.



lol.

When you close your eyes and think of the middle-east, you really do see a dessert full of people in turbans and with AK47's looking all angry and yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA!", don't you?  :smiley: 





> Btw, it was Clinton's half ass stance on dangerous countries that allowed Osama bin Laden to organize the attacks. Do you remember what happened in Somalia in '93? I am hard pressed to agree with anything Clinton did, and i definately wouldnt follow in his footsteps. I wouldnt have even screwed Monica Lewinsky. She's not that hot.



Oh yeah, great augmentation. Lets hate on Clinton, because sex is immoral! (so it seems). The truth is, that clinton did a fine job. And the truth also is, that Bush cut the budget for anti-terrorism greatly shortly after he got ellected.

Also truths are, that on multiple occasions in all levels of the bush administration claims have been made publically, such as "we have bulletproof proof that Saddam is tied with with al-quadia" that are at the very least stupid lies, and at the very worst, as some ex-white house employee or something said, willing lies to deceive the American people.





> Memeticverb, the towers did not collapse from the basements. If explosives had been put there, the videos would not have shown the towers giving way where the planes hit. Watch the videos again. The top 40 (or so) floors fall first.



No-one actually believe the towers were brought down. Just tower 7 conveniently fell down exactly as controlled demolition would cause it to fall down, and it just happened to be ignored a lot.





> Alric, the Al Quaeda videos that warn of an attack is all the back-up you should need.



The back-up to trow an entire country into choas? For all you know, Al-Quadia didn't exist, and was a fake, un-religious, paid terrorist group funded by the Russians. Playing a trick on ye ol' America. Unlikely, but certainly some videos aren't enough reason to ass-rape an entire country, casting it into a civil war costing HUNDREDS of innocent lives a week.

Because yes, it is hard to imagen for you, but there are a few innocent farmers and such in the middle east.





> Let them attack us. Maybe then the world could grow some balls and rally up to finish the religious fanatics off.



How about you start within your own religion-cancer-infested country?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> lol.
> 
> When you close your eyes and think of the middle-east, you really do see a dessert full of people in turbans and with AK47's looking all angry and yelling "DEATH TO AMERICA!", don't you? 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh yeah, great augmentation. Lets hate on Clinton, because sex is immoral! (so it seems). The truth is, that clinton did a fine job. And the truth also is, that Bush cut the budget for anti-terrorism greatly shortly after he got ellected.
> 
> Also truths are, that on multiple occasions in all levels of the bush administration claims have been made publically, such as "we have bulletproof proof that Saddam is tied with with al-quadia" that are at the very least stupid lies, and at the very worst, as some ex-white house employee or something said, willing lies to deceive the American people.
> ...



I'll respond according to your paragraphs.

1. No. Some of them have RPGs:p

2. I never said sex was immoral. I said Monica Lewinsky isnt hot. As to the other part, the problems Clinton created havent been seen until recently. Mainly, giving Hillary Clinton popularity. I'm dead serious.

3. Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda. Loose ties, but nevertheless. 

4. Does anybody have a video of tower 7 falling? I would like to see it.

5. Al Quaeda fought the Russians in the 80's (and kicked Russian ass), so their goes your theory. HUNDREDS of lives a week? Ok. We are freeing those people from opression. Women were killed everyday by the Taliban for skowing skin. Would you want to live in a country like that? You dont, because you live under the blanket of the freedom England and the United States provides. If you believe our military might is not absolutely necessary for the life you live today in your little country, then you dont understand the world.

I am also getting fed up with your rants about the innocent people. The average German citizen in 1944 was innocent. Do you imply that we shouldnt have invaded Germany, soley becasue there were innocent people? That is your logic when you say we shouldnt have invaded Afghanistan.

6. My country tolerates people of other religions. Muslim fanatics cut their heads off. I think i'll start with Iraq.

----------


## Alric

Heck the US has loose ties to Al Quaeda. 'Loose ties' don't mean a thing. You need hard solid facts and proof they are working with them. A high up al quaeda leader visiting saddam one day does not count as proof that they are working togather. Because honestly, you could probably get that on any country in the world and obviously they are not all working togather.

As for video of tower 7 falling, just google video or youtube 'tower 7' and you will get all the pictures you want. They have the video from atleast 3 different angles.

----------


## Neruo

> I'll respond according to your paragraphs.
> 
> 1. No. Some of them have RPGs:p



Oh, great. =D





> 2. I never said sex was immoral.



I was joooo-kiiiii-nggggg. I was just saying that when a guy let a woman lick his nuts, that doesn't change how good or bad his decisions are. 





> I said Monica Lewinsky isnt hot. As to the other part, the problems Clinton created havent been seen until recently. Mainly, giving Hillary Clinton popularity. I'm dead serious.



Yeah, clinton fucked up. He like started wars, caused your economy to take a nose-dive, and score the 2nd or 3rd worst approval ratings in the like 300 year history of America. Oh wait, that was BUSH I am talking about.

You just hate Clinton because other people started saying how bad he was, so you would take your eyes of the crimes your current government is committing. 





> 3. Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda. Loose ties, but nevertheless.



Yeah, ties of killing terrorist. Saddam was a dictator. They don't like terrorism, or anything that will disturb their power. 

Don't you care that the very top of your government told lies to you? 





> 4. Does anybody have a video of tower 7 falling? I would like to see it.



http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY   The magical powers of YouTube.

I could find you one, where some guy is saying it certainly is controlled demolition. Then he goes like: "why would they get in there and blow it up"?  Reporter: "According to the government, they didn't" or something along those lines.

It wasn't wall-mart that was located in tower 7. It was like the FBI and some shit. Also, some weird transactions have been made from the twin towers almost right before the planes hit. Those transactions made someone pretty rich.





> 5. Al Quaeda fought the Russians in the 80's (and kicked Russian ass),



Yeah. They are using the same weapons your government to a terrorist organization to fight You now, instead of the Russians. (wouldn't be the first time the American government supports a terrorist organization or a dictator somewhere. The CIA reports are out there.)





> so their goes your theory. HUNDREDS of lives a week? Ok. We are freeing those people from opression. Women were killed everyday by the Taliban for skowing skin. Would you want to live in a country like that? You dont, because you live under the blanket of the freedom England and the United States provides. If you believe our military might is not absolutely necessary for the life you live today in your little country, then you dont understand the world.



Cozy blanket you have there ^__^ 

I guess you also believe that terrorist attack the western world 'just' because they hate us? The west gets attacked, because he have been stirring up the middle-east for decades. Supporting one party with weapons to gain security over oil, or just actually being there and bombing the crap out of people, often innocents. There are lots and lots of dictators that do worse things, and lots and lots of sick, religious countries where they will stone you for nothing. However those countries don't just attack the west. 
What the taliban did wasn't good, but bombing the shit out of it, causing tribe-wars, and more opium-money for bad-guys, really doens't help in the long term. 

There is no reason why a country or area or religion would 'just attack' some other country, religion or area half-way across the world. It never has happened in history, at least. You got attacked, because the American government bitch-slapped the middle-east around for a bit too long.





> I am also getting fed up with your rants about the innocent people. The average German citizen in 1944 was innocent. Do you imply that we shouldnt have invaded Germany, soley becasue there were innocent people? That is your logic when you say we shouldnt have invaded Afghanistan.



I certainly do not agree with the bombing of entire cities that the allies have done. (Our previous 'king' actually joined the bombings personally, lol. Fucking 'nobility'.) There is a difference between a tactical attack onto a continent that _wants the occupant there_ (france, netherlands, ect)_,_ and bombing the crap out of a country, that hates you as much as the previous dictator(s).





> 6. My country tolerates people of other religions. Muslim fanatics cut their heads off. I think i'll start with Iraq.



Try introducing Muslim prayer in schools or something, or try wearing a burka (a full-body-covering piece of clothing Islamic women wear with the idea they please allah by doing so) in Alabama. You are only tolerant by law for the most part. It's a start, I guess.

It is better then some religious nut-cases in the middle-east, yes. But I don't see your army barging into darfur, when massive genocide took place there, ten times the seize the taliban could only dream of. Also for some lame ethnic or religious reason.

Don't act like you are there to 'save the innocent victims of the taliban'. Don't get me wrong, you probably do hate fundamentalist-Muslims with all your heart by now, but in the end, your government, the one that chooses what country to 'free' today, is there for other interests instead of 'innocent people' you find all over the world. 

-

sidenote:
(Funny to see how in discussions in America, it's always Universal mind, and then some other random ultra-patriotistic other dude. (the 'other dude' keeps changing). Ah well. The more, the merrier. )

----------


## Neruo

> I'll respond according to your paragraphs.
> 
> 1. No. Some of them have RPGs:p



Oh, great. =D





> 2. I never said sex was immoral.



I was joooo-kiiiii-nggggg. I was just saying that when a guy let a woman lick his nuts, that doesn't change how good or bad his decisions are. 





> I said Monica Lewinsky isnt hot. As to the other part, the problems Clinton created havent been seen until recently. Mainly, giving Hillary Clinton popularity. I'm dead serious.



Yeah, clinton fucked up. He like started wars, caused your economy to take a nose-dive, and score the 2nd or 3rd worst approval ratings in the like 300 year history of America. Oh wait, that was BUSH I am talking about.

You just hate Clinton because other people started saying how bad he was, so you would take your eyes of the crimes your current government is committing. 





> 3. Saddam had ties with Al Quaeda. Loose ties, but nevertheless.



Yeah, ties of killing terrorist. Saddam was a dictator. They don't like terrorism, or anything that will disturb their power. 

Don't you care that the very top of your government told lies to you? 





> 4. Does anybody have a video of tower 7 falling? I would like to see it.



http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=antql-Nz4bY   The magical powers of YouTube.

I could find you one, where some guy is saying it certainly is controlled demolition. Then he goes like: "why would they get in there and blow it up"?  Reporter: "According to the government, they didn't" or something along those lines.

It wasn't wall-mart that was located in tower 7. It was like the FBI and some shit. Also, some weird transactions have been made from the twin towers almost right before the planes hit. Those transactions made someone pretty rich.





> 5. Al Quaeda fought the Russians in the 80's (and kicked Russian ass),



Yeah. They are using the same weapons your government to a terrorist organization to fight You now, instead of the Russians. (wouldn't be the first time the American government supports a terrorist organization or a dictator somewhere. The CIA reports are out there.)





> so their goes your theory. HUNDREDS of lives a week? Ok. We are freeing those people from opression. Women were killed everyday by the Taliban for skowing skin. Would you want to live in a country like that? You dont, because you live under the blanket of the freedom England and the United States provides. If you believe our military might is not absolutely necessary for the life you live today in your little country, then you dont understand the world.



Cozy blanket you have there ^__^ 

I guess you also believe that terrorist attack the western world 'just' because they hate us? The west gets attacked, because he have been stirring up the middle-east for decades. Supporting one party with weapons to gain security over oil, or just actually being there and bombing the crap out of people, often innocents. There are lots and lots of dictators that do worse things, and lots and lots of sick, religious countries where they will stone you for nothing. However those countries don't just attack the west. 
What the taliban did wasn't good, but bombing the shit out of it, causing tribe-wars, and more opium-money for bad-guys, really doens't help in the long term. 

There is no reason why a country or area or religion would 'just attack' some other country, religion or area half-way across the world. It never has happened in history, at least. You got attacked, because the American government bitch-slapped the middle-east around for a bit too long.





> I am also getting fed up with your rants about the innocent people. The average German citizen in 1944 was innocent. Do you imply that we shouldnt have invaded Germany, soley becasue there were innocent people? That is your logic when you say we shouldnt have invaded Afghanistan.



I certainly do not agree with the bombing of entire cities that the allies have done. (Our previous 'king' actually joined the bombings personally, lol. Fucking 'nobility'.) There is a difference between a tactical attack onto a continent that _wants the occupant there_ (france, netherlands, ect)_,_ and bombing the crap out of a country, that hates you as much as the previous dictator(s).





> 6. My country tolerates people of other religions. Muslim fanatics cut their heads off. I think i'll start with Iraq.



Try introducing Muslim prayer in schools or something, or try wearing a burka (a full-body-covering piece of clothing Islamic women wear with the idea they please allah by doing so) in Alabama. You are only tolerant by law for the most part. It's a start, I guess.

It is better then some religious nut-cases in the middle-east, yes. But I don't see your army barging into darfur, when massive genocide took place there, ten times the seize the taliban could only dream of. Also for some lame ethnic or religious reason.

Don't act like you are there to 'save the innocent victims of the taliban'. Don't get me wrong, you probably do hate fundamentalist-Muslims with all your heart by now, but in the end, your government, the one that chooses what country to 'free' today, is there for other interests instead of 'innocent people' you find all over the world. 

-

sidenote:
(Funny to see how in discussions in America, it's always Universal mind, and then some other random ultra-patriotistic other dude. (the 'other dude' keeps changing). Ah well. The more, the merrier. )

----------


## Replicon

_Nobody died when Clinton lied_  ::D: 

I'd also like to see some substance to these "loose ties". Gimme some meat, not this vegan stuff...

----------


## memeticverb

Well to Neoron, people do believe the towers were brought down with controlled demolition charges, where did you hear otherwise?

Take a look at the group posted several times now, called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

They give concise arguments. And a video I posted gives irrefutable proof of explosions in the basements, before the collapses.  Which is not to say as Half-Dreaming grossly misinterprets that the collapses began there, but that the necessary prep-work took place for such a controlled demolition of that scale.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> _Nobody died when Clinton lied_ 
> 
> I'd also like to see some substance to these "loose ties". Gimme some meat, not this vegan stuff...



No, but a boatload of folks died when he let Somalia fall into an even bigger civil-war. All because like 16 of our soldiers died.

You want some meat? I aint got "meat". How about yellow cake? 

Memeticverb, i'm going to "draw" this out for you. Now when i say "the top portion", think about that as the floors above where the planes hit.

The top portion falls ontop of the bottom as the bottom portion stays still. Then, the bottom portion floors collapse 1 by 1. The basement was the very last to be affected. Please, watch the videos. Take it in slow motion if you have to. You will see exactly what i said happened. Unless you are talking about WTC7. And dont use words like "irrefutable". You come off as a little smug.

NEURO!!! Here we go.

Yea, we hooked up the Taliban with some Stingers. If you have ever seen "Lord of War", there is a perfect quote. "Did it ever occur to you that i wanted both sides to loose".

Sure, the mid-east attacked us because we have been invading their privacy. Why did we invade their privacy in the first place? Their own mindless violence brought this upon themselves. 

Prayer was not allowed in my public schools. That is the only way to keep it fair. And, yes, Muslim girls _were_ allowed to wear the burkas (which always pissed us off because nobody else could wear hats).

Ultrapatriotic, am I? Maybe, maybe not, but it is better than just considering myself the resident of the country. I am proud as hell to be a part of the greatest superpower in history. Just dont think i dont have any issues with America.

Btw, where are these other ultrapatriotic people? I'm kinda standing alone here.

----------


## Neruo

> Well to Neoron, people do believe the towers were brought down with controlled demolition charges, where did you hear otherwise?
> 
> Take a look at the group posted several times now, called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
> 
> http://www.ae911truth.org/
> 
> They give concise arguments. And a video I posted gives irrefutable proof of explosions in the basements, before the collapses.  Which is not to say as Half-Dreaming grossly misinterprets that the collapses began there, but that the necessary prep-work took place for such a controlled demolition of that scale.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zuq0ANHxvlM



Hmm..

I don't know man. I mean, the little dust-clouds that came out of the tower were bombs one time, and just the ceiling caving in according to others. And the pentagon 'rocket'... Nah.

I do think that they might have let 9/11 happen. It was awfully convenient. but they had no need to Actually blow up the towers, I think. I am going to stick with:

-Tower 7 demolished to hide some stuff about the agencies in that building
-Advanced knowledge about an upcoming attack by the bush administration, but either not taking it serious, or letting it happen (to get the people ready for a war)

Also, that one side of the pentagon the plane flew in 'just happened' to be the ONLY side of the pentagon that was re-enforced like a few months before the plane hit it.. : / strange.

Then again, people, eye-witnesses have also said some flight that crashed that was intended to hit the white house, didn't exist.. Sure. Why would the government go though such trouble?

Ah well, it doesn't matter how much proof for Real things there is. Before some people get the guts to really challenge the facts, the bush administration probably already all died out, the rich, old, greedy men they are.

----------


## Cyclic13

To anyone that knows anything about how political theory, or controlling the masses works, would _clearly_ understand that it's an inside job, and this is nothing new in history. Goverments have been secretly steering and controlling people with their hidden agendas since the very idea of ideaologies and goverments were implemented. They always think they know what's best. You mean next to nothing in the grand scheme of things, so even knowing that it's an inside job does nothing to stop the course of things either way. Oh well...c'est la vie...and woopdie doo...

Also, I'm from Washington D.C. and I happened to be less then 5 minutes away from the Pentagon across the Potomac River smoking a cigarette and talking with some friends outside our college campus about what had happened in NY city, and heard absolutely NO plane fly by what-so-ever at the time of the attack on the pentagon. Of course, I heard and saw the explosion, though. I later heard and saw military jets sortied and fly over AFTER the explosion, but nothing before. How come they won't release any of the hotel security tapes of the day in question if there truly was a plane that hit? It's quite simple: If there's nothing to hide, why hide it?

And, I'm sorry, but only thoughtless consumeristic nuisances to the world and society, inbred inept retards, or vacuous military servicemen that take the big red white and blue cock up their asses every day for their 'flawless and perfect' country, would be so blindly proud of their, 'altogether sanctimonious, but completely clueless country', for spreading their fear and terror to the dumbed down masses in order to start their trumped up wars. You know in all of america's short 300 year history the longest period of time without having a war has been 8 years, and most wars occur in even shorter intervals than that. You see, the thing is, America needs conflict so the masses can feel as if their lives have some sort of direction, purpose, or meaning. And, it's plain as day to those with half a brain that the people in power sit there and draw their imaginary good vs. evil lines in the sand. Doesn't matter whether it was the 'savage' Native Americans, the 'evil' Russians, or the 'evil' Terrorists, all of the propaganda are equally lies and pointless just the same. This time, so they can shred the constitution and bill of rights, and have people willingly hand over their freedoms from their fear of lack of security in order to pave the way for a police state and ultimately a one world goverment. It was done with the Nazis in Germany pre-WWII, and history is just repeating itself. Too bad there's nothing we can do about it, anyway.

I highly suggest you watch the documentaries by BBC's Adam Curtis,

'The Century of the Self', 'The Trap', and 'The Power of Nightmares'

Then again, you can willingly choose to remain ignorant like most do. As I said before, either way doesn't really matter, anyway...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Well, Solskye, then why would Mr. Bin Laden openly admitt to attacking the most powerful country in the world.

You think we are under Nazi-like rule? What? All over some wire taps. Why does that even bother anybody? I dont think George Bush gives a crap if you're cheating on your girlfriend.

My red white and blue cock isnt up my ass, and I'm not inbred. Forget all that other crap involved with with mid-east. All that matters is psycotic religious fanatics wanting to kill me people for stupid reasons. Unlike you, I _believe_ fanatical muslims carried out the attacks. The same organization is the one laying bombs in Afghanistan and Iraq. I have no hang ups about killing these people.

Also, just because you did'nt hear a plane over DC doesn't mean there was no plane. I live in Atlanta, home of the biggest airport in the world. I don't notice all the planes.

----------


## Universal Mind

> To anyone that knows anything about how political theory, or controlling the masses works, would _clearly_ understand that it's an inside job, and this is nothing new in history.







> And, I'm sorry, but only thoughtless consumeristic nuisances to the world and society, inbred inept retards, or vacuous military servicemen that take the big red white and blue cock up their asses every day for their 'flawless and perfect' country, would be so blindly proud of their, 'altogether sanctimonious, but completely clueless country', for spreading their fear and terror to the dumbed down masses in order to start their trumped up wars.



You word way too many of your posts with comments like that and then make those points the themes of the posts.  You are obsessed with making, "I'm better than you," your main argument, and often your only one.  You are very much into trying to make people feel bad about themselves so you can bump up your own self-esteem a tiny little artificial notch.  People who understand psychology don't see that as anything impressive.  So let me tell you... People who understand the nature of logic and legitimate debate know _clearly_ that your rhetoric amounts to assertion and not argument.  Such people react to your particular rhetoric mainly by questioning whether you have Narcissistic Personality Disorder, which results from a subconscious tendency to artificially inflate self image to compensate for subconsciously self-perceived inferiority.  I thought I should tell you.   

Now, give us an actual argument that it was an inside job and not just an insulting assertion that is nothing but hot air.  You were smoking a cigarette and didn't hear an airplane?  Is that all you've got?  I don't believe you.  Give me the most solid argument you can give me.  Don't forget to include details about how Bush or whoever convinced 19 people to commit suicide and thousands of others to help him with his evil conspiracy you know for a fact _clearly_ existed.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I am also not a big fan of "tower science" as proof of it being an inside job. Either side of the argument has it's "facts", and in some cases assumptions. Its just not reasonable when people claim America attacked itself based on people "hearing explosions".

Conspiracy theories based on the physics of falling towers are weak at best.

----------


## Cyclic13

After the two planes went into the twin towers, everyone was jumpy and looking up at EVERY plane after the grounding orders were given so that argument is beyond lame. Not to mention, you'd naturally think someone would at least hear the roar of a low flying 747 jet engine as it flew overhead and into a building less than 5 minutes away. Remember, the plane isn't a mile high in the sky it's flying directly overhead. All the more reason to notice. If I could hear the explosion and see the smoke, logic would dictate I should've been able to hear or see the plane. At the time, it was all kind of overwhelming so I thought nothing of it. Initially, they blocked off the whole crash site with a large tarp so you couldn't even see what the damage looked like, which was also weird in itself. When I actually saw on TV how small the hole was I tried to recant hearing a plane at the time of the explosion, and couldn't. I always personally thought the pentagon attack was fake as hell, whether you believe me or not is irrelevant. I don't know about the other attacks, but after watching some movies about them those smell fake, too.

And, Yes, this situation is very similar to Nazi Germany. Hitler purposely burned down a goverment office and blamed it on an external threat in order to tear apart their civil liberties in the name of homeland security. And obviously, the masses ate it right up, just as they are doing now. There's a reason our system of checks in balances was there in the first place, now that is currently being usurped with things like the patriot act and homeland security, and you _actually_ think that's OK?!? Uhhh...Yeah. I'm sure people trusted Hitler to give them back their liberties just the same. I'm sorry, but if you _actually_ believe that to be OK then that really goes to show how naive some of you actually are. Many of Bush's speeches sound astonishingly similar to some of Hitler's propaganda. They show specific clips and examples of all this stuff and more in, The Zeitgeist movie. It does a great job breaking down all the facts in an understandable and extremely hard to refute way about all the supposed attacks, including the plane that supposedly crashed in Pennsylvania. (Part 1. While equally interesting, deals with the lies behind religions which can be skipped if you want to get to the meat of the film)

Also, Universal Mind, I never said or thought I was better than anyone, but clearly those that blindly deny well laid out facts are, for better or worse... idiots, in anyone's book. Just like religious peons that blindly believe some invisible man in the sky is watching over them every minute of every day. If one doesn't take it upon themselves to get all the information before they open their sad little mouths they just end up sounding as ignorant and afraid as a child in denial of their inevitable loss of innocence. 

And, oh yeah, you might want to know that your attempts at labeling me come across equally condescending, hypocritical, and just as retarded as every other person trying to let out steam for their inadequecies as people. I never said I was perfect, but at least I'm being honest in saying EVERYONE, including myself, is full of shit. I must say, though, it really brings a smile to my face when people think they have the authority to judge others because it's all the same hot air to me. What's your excuse?

----------


## Alric

Even if you don't believe the government had anything to do with the attacks, their is no denying the government took advantage of a bad situation to expand their powers using fear to pass laws they knew would never pass otherwise.

As for basing an entire arguement around Bin Laden admiting it, theres a few flaws with that arguement. The first being that he that he repeated denied over and over again that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He did admit to it yes, but why did it take him so long to come around and finally admit to it? And why did he deny it for so long? Secondly all his videos are always poor quality and you can't always be sure its really him in all of them. Then lastly is bin ladens ties with the US government. And while most people say he is no longer working with the US government, his previous involvement always brings up a slight about of doubt of to where his loyalties really are. So your full proof arguement is on a bit of shaky ground.

----------


## Universal Mind

> And, oh yeah, you might want to know that your attempts at labeling me come across equally condescending, hypocritical, and just as retarded as every other person trying to let out steam for their inadequecies as people. I never said I was perfect, but at least I'm being honest in saying EVERYONE, including myself, is full of shit. I must say, though, it really brings a smile to my face when people think they have the authority to judge others because it's all the same hot air to me. What's your excuse?



My excuse is that I am returning your condescension, which shows up in every post you leave these days, just like your last one where you pulled "inadequacies" out of your ass.  I agree with your point that you are full of shit, and that was my point.  You have no ground for saying that about me.  Also, I would have never come at you with negative judgments if you had not spewed your trash all over the post about inbred retards and American flag cocks.  I am a major supporter of current U.S. foreign policy and would bet both of my legs that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11.  I have what I think are very logical reasons for seeing things that way.  If you want to talk your hostile, narcissistic, unfounded trash about me for honestly seeing my view as legitimate, just be prepared to learn about some of psychology's theories on why you are really saying it.   Don't act like you are so innocent.  You constantly make points (lately) about how you think certain people are inadequate, which is your way of saying you are superior, and you initiate it.  Your last few posts are full of such personal insults.  And your points in the other thread about how you control women by "treating them like shit" and how men who are good to women are "weak" really illlustrate your mentality.  It might be the most arrogant stuff I have ever seen on this web site.  It goes way beyond mere discussion and debate.  

We don't have to fighting about this.  You were pretty cool for a while when you first started posting here.  Just try to talk about this stuff without trying to personally attack everybody who disagrees with you.

----------


## Cyclic13

The insult wasn't directed at you or anyone, if you took it as a personal attack then I apologize because I wasn't refering to anyone in particular. Of course I know I'm not innocent which is why I said, MYSELF INCLUDED. Also, to be quite honest, what I said wasn't even original. It was actually taken from a George Carlin skit on consumerism I was watching the other day. Considering I really like his sense of humor and he's pretty widely respected and accepted for speaking his mind, I'd much rather say it how I see it. Also, I never said women are weak so don't put words in my mouth...If anything, PEOPLE are weak...cuz they are...

Being all politically correct all the time gets boring, you should try taking a different stance from time to time. Rubbing people the wrong way is fun because you really get to see how full of themselves people are.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The insult wasn't directed at you or anyone, if you took it as a personal attack then I apologize because I wasn't refering to anyone in particular. Of course I know I'm not innocent which is why I said, MYSELF INCLUDED. Also, to be quite honest, what I said wasn't even original. It was actually taken from a George Carlin skit on consumerism I was watching the other day. Considering I really like his sense of humor and he's pretty widely respected and accepted for speaking his mind, I'd much rather say it how I see it. Also, I never said women are weak so don't put words in my mouth...If anything, PEOPLE are weak...cuz they are...
> 
> Being all politically correct all the time gets boring, you should trying taking a different stance from time to time. Rubbing people the wrong way is fun because you really get to see how full of themselves people are.



Yes, George Carlin is a hilarious comedian, but he didn't come to this thread and make the point that people who are expressing one side of the argument here are inbred or retarded.  If he did, I'd let him know what he's acting like, and it wouldn't mean I'm full of myself.  Also, I didn't say you said women are weak, so don't put words in my mouth.  I said you said men who are good to women are weak.  And the only stance I will take in a serious debate is the one I actually believe.  Peace.

----------


## Cyclic13

Ah, my bad... must've misread it. I'd be lying if I said I actually read the entire post. Although, I don't recall calling any one particular group 'weak'...pathetic perhaps, but not weak. Also, for the record, we are all inadequate in some way. Don't think for a second that I'm excusing myself just because I mention it regarding others. NO ONE can escape hypocrisy, and contradictions, which this paradoxical universe is founded on, and full of. So, naturally this also proudly includes me. From now on, try and do what I do; think of any post where I've refered to someone or something in a particularly negative or positive light, and know that I'm always fully aware that what I'm actually doing is also ultimately refering to a part of myself, and you'll finally be able to see that I'm actually looking at all of this as just some light-hearted fun- a simple way of killing time. Because it is. Basically, you can scream at the top of your lungs, or take a vow of silence. The freedom comes in never believing that either of those choices actually matters... Moral of the story: Learn to lighten up, hanging on wording will get you no where. :p

Anyway, I hope you eventually realize your belief in the goverment as a source of truth is as empty as me believing in santa claus. Have you actually researched and watched anything regarding these attacks, or are you basing your belief strictly by what the media says!? 

Because, a lot of what you are saying has already been refuted. Like suspected pilots turning up alive after the initial 'confirmed' pilot list. A planted passport being 'found' unscathed in the twin tower rubble of one of the same 'confirmed' pilots. Are we actually supposed to believe that it managed to survive that impact, explosion, AND the collapse without getting so much as singed? Again, some of those videos have evidence and experts that lay it out in ways that simply can't really be refuted. Not to mention, being from Washington D.C. I experienced questionable stuff first hand which I have no reason to lie to any of you about. It's not like I can make any money or boost my meaningless reputation by saying I experienced these things.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Even if you don't believe the government had anything to do with the attacks, their is no denying the government took advantage of a bad situation to expand their powers using fear to pass laws they knew would never pass otherwise.
> 
> As for basing an entire arguement around Bin Laden admiting it, theres a few flaws with that arguement. The first being that he that he repeated denied over and over again that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He did admit to it yes, but why did it take him so long to come around and finally admit to it? And why did he deny it for so long? Secondly all his videos are always poor quality and you can't always be sure its really him in all of them. Then lastly is bin ladens ties with the US government. And while most people say he is no longer working with the US government, his previous involvement always brings up a slight about of doubt of to where his loyalties really are. So your full proof arguement is on a bit of shaky ground.



All the conspiracy theories are on shaky ground, not Osama bin Laden's confession.

Is it possible that the administration passed all those laws to protect America, and not for oil money? Nothing will get a president thrown out faster than incompetency leading to another attack. Not everyone in power is evil.

The US government had ties with Hussein, too. And I'm pretty sure Osama bin Laden is more loyal to his fantical muslim friends than the US government. Remember, everyone hates us.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Personally (and I know I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but it's just an honest observation), I don't think the "Osama Bin Laden" that confessed to the tower attacks (in the somewhat grainy, yellowish video) looks much like the Osama Bin Laden that we've seen on every video, since that one - unless he lost a good 50 lbs and got a nose job, that is. (I dunno, maybe its just the video, or the heavier clothes, or the difference in the beard?)

Now, I'm not accusing the Administration (or anyone else, for that matter) of staging that confession, but I gotta be honest: It makes me wonder.


Bin Laden 1: (The Confession)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0FVe...elated&search=

Bin Laden 2: (In this one, notice, there is no confession. The attacks are praised, but not taken responsibility for)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dls5JTD-uG0

...But on a lighter note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR2jX...elated&search=


[EDIT: Just found this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xp9gZ...elated&search= ]
And if anyone hasn't heard the song "Tell the Truth, by Mos Def and Immortal Technique, that is linked to, beneath the video, you should. I've heard the song before, but that's the first time I've seen the video. I love that they actually wrote out the lyrics.]

----------


## tyrantt23

> Remember, everyone hates us.




That type of thinking doesn't make it ok to pass freedom-limiting laws that are absurd to say the least. Being able to throw anyone in jail without a court hearing, simply because there is (questionable) suspicion that the person might possibly be involved with some mid eastern country? That's abuse of power and taking advantage of a situation in my opinion.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> That type of thinking doesn't make it ok to pass freedom-limiting laws that are absurd to say the least. Being able to throw anyone in jail without a court hearing, simply because there is (questionable) suspicion that the person might possibly be involved with some mid eastern country? That's abuse of power and taking advantage of a situation in my opinion.




The people we throw in jail are not citizens of the United States. They are not entitled to the rights and freedoms we provide. 

It doesn't happen like you are saying it. They dont throw anybody who has ties with the mid-east in jail. If that were the case, my father would be in jail. What does the administration have to gain from throwing innocent people in jail?

I will concede that the Patriot Act is a little excessive, but it was created with good intentions. The terrorists who attacked us lived here. Mainly, it was just a homeland security boost.

----------


## Cyclic13

They can arrest and detain ANYONE without any evidence or a lawyer for an indeterminate amount of time for whatever reason they deem a 'threat', not just non-citizens. Even if it were just non-citizens that way of thinking is based around fear and clearly flawed on so many levels it's disturbing. It starts there and pretty soon you'll have announcements daily updating people of what they arbitrarily consider 'threats' to the status quo. 

Here's a glimpse of where this way of thinking takes you...

*playing repeatedly from loud speakers setup throughout the city* 
Attention: Please inform your nearest PSTO (Patriot Security Threat Officer) of any suspicious behavior and get free consumer credits for you and your family! Because a concerned citizen... is a good citizen!

Threat # 3456654332
Walking opposite of traffic on the sidewalk. 

Threat # 3456654333
Standing on the wrong side of the escalator

Threat # 3456654334
Sighing in public

Threat # 3456655335
Illegal trafficing of an emotion chip to a minor

Threat # 3456654336
Display of emotion in emotion-free zone

Etc...

Remember:The road to hell is paved in good intentions....

I'm sure Hitler's homeland security changes were also done in good intentions, it doesn't make them right. It would be wise to stop defending such obvious lapses in judgement.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Are you really asserting that the government would put me in Guantanamo for J-walking? And don't think we are _afraid_ of these people. 

The people in Guantanamo deserve to be there. In fact, if we are talking about citizens of the US, they should be tried and put to death for treason.

Still, I believe the Patriot Act is excessive, along with having the stupidest name ever given.

----------


## Cyclic13

What's to stop them? They have every right to do whatever they please now. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely...

By the way, alot of those people are there without sufficient evidence or cause and later released...Not that you care because they aren't citizens anyway, right? Say Wha? Not american = subhuman?

They should give a shirt to those people saying, "I (heart) The Patriot Act", and the back reading, "I got wrongfully arrested, extradited, and tortured for treason, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."

----------


## tyrantt23

Just to get one thing straight... the Patriot Act applies to everyone in this country. Citizen or not, legal or not.

Here's one example of the abuse of power onto a Asian American citizen.

Here's a quote from this link which talks about legislators criticizing the Patriot Act:




> Jafar "Jeff" Siddiqui, a Seattle real estate broker who emigrated from Pakistan 30 years ago, told committee members about a Hindu college roommate who once was hauled into a Pakistani prison without any explanation. The government simply cited safety and security, saying his friend was perceived as a threat.
> 
> 
>   He said his friend was held for a long time, then released -- again without any explanation. Siddiqui argued that tenuous links to terrorism should not be enough to jail people indefinitely without charging them with any crime.



Here's another quote taken from Wikipedia:




> *Wrongful accusations under the Act*
> 
>   In May 2004, Professor Steve Kurtz of the University at Buffalo reported his wife's death of heart failure. The associate art professor, who works in the biotechnology sector, was using benign bacterial cultures and biological equipment in his work. Police arriving at the scene found the equipment (which had been displayed in museums and galleries throughout Europe and North America) suspicious and notified the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The next day the FBI, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Department of Homeland Security and numerous other law enforcement agencies arrived in HAZMAT gear and cordoned off the block surrounding Kurtz's house, impounding computers, manuscripts, books, and equipment, and detaining Kurtz without charge for 22 hours; the Erie County Health Department condemned the house as a possible "health risk" while the cultures were analyzed. Although it was determined that nothing in the Kurtz's home posed any health or safety risk, the Justice Department sought charges under Section 175 of the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Acta law which was expanded by the USA PATRIOT Act. A grand jury rejected those charges, but Kurtz is still charged with federal criminal mail and wire fraud, and faces 20 years in jail. Supporters worldwide argue that this is a politically motivated prosecution, akin to those seen during the era of McCarthyism, and legal observers note that it is a precedent-setting case with far-reaching implications involving the criminalization of free speech and expression for artists, scientists, researchers, and others. [14][15]
>   FBI agents used a USA PATRIOT Act "sneak and peek" search to secretly examine the home of Brandon Mayfield, who was wrongfully jailed for two weeks on suspicion of involvement in the Madrid train bombings. Agents seized three hard drives and ten DNA samples preserved on cotton swabs, and took 335 photos of personal items. Mayfield has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. government, contending that his rights were violated by his arrest and by the investigation against him. He also contends the USA PATRIOT Act is unconstitutional. [16]



Need any more examples?






> I will concede that the Patriot Act is a little excessive, but it was created with good intentions. The terrorists who attacked us lived here. Mainly, it was just a homeland security boost.



Yeah, and you are too blind to know the difference between a security boost and an unconstitutional abuse of power. Here's a hint: it's the latter.

----------


## Alric

> Is it possible that the administration passed all those laws to protect America, and not for oil money? Nothing will get a president thrown out faster than incompetency leading to another attack. Not everyone in power is evil.



Your wrong on both accounts. Its not for oil and its not for our protection. Its about expanding the size and power of the government. Governments always try to expand their power and influance, and always try to gain more control over people. In this case they passed all the laws to gain more power over us.

If you don't believe that, all you have to do is look at the actual laws passed. Things like the Patriot Act is almost never used against terrorists, its nearly always used in criminal cases. Thats all fine and good except it was sold to the people as being needed for terrorists not for criminals. And is just an example of how they took advantage of the attack to shove laws down the throats of scared americans.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Your wrong on both accounts. Its not for oil and its not for our protection. Its about expanding the size and power of the government. Governments always try to expand their power and influance, and always try to gain more control over people. In this case they passed all the laws to gain more power over us.
> 
> If you don't believe that, all you have to do is look at the actual laws passed. Things like the Patriot Act is almost never used against terrorists, its nearly always used in criminal cases. Thats all fine and good except it was sold to the people as being needed for terrorists not for criminals. And is just an example of how they took advantage of the attack to shove laws down the throats of scared americans.




The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people. There will probably be a Democrat in the office next term anyway, who will change all this.

----------


## Neruo

> The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people.



That is funny! HAHAHA! HAHAHA! HahaHaha*halliburton*_._

-

And many other economic interests, like the Huge oil-pipeline all the way across Afghanistan.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> That is funny! HAHAHA! HAHAHA! HahaHaha*halliburton*_._
> 
> -
> 
> And many other economic interests, like the Huge oil-pipeline all the way across Afghanistan.




I was refering to the Patriot Act.

----------


## Neruo

> I was refering to the Patriot Act.



Yes I knew..

Okay, I didn't read everything.

Still, you don't think the patriot act is an extremely useful tool for a government to control it's citizen? You couldn't run a fascist 21th century empire without something like the patriot act. 

So generally speaking, patriot act like things are bad, mkay?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Anyway, I hope you eventually realize your belief in the goverment as a source of truth is as empty as me believing in santa claus. Have you actually researched and watched anything regarding these attacks, or are you basing your belief strictly by what the media says!?



Is it supposed to be the government or the media you assume I have blind faith in?  You suggested one and then turned around and suggested the other.  I am extremely skeptical about what the government says and know of many examples of where it has lied.  As for the news media, I don't have complete faith in any of them, but I do know how capitalism works.  The large news corporations are in major competition with each other, and if any of them were to flat out lie, the other ones would be all over it so they could increase their own profits.  Dan Rather and that New York times reporter are two good examples of where that has happened in recent years.  That makes them highly credible.  The  underground liberal fanatic blog sites don't have such a driving force behind truth telling.  Also, videos of Al Qaeda leaders' confessions and Al Qaeda's every day involvement in terrorist acts against Coalition troops in Iraq makes it even more probable that Al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks.  





> Because, a lot of what you are saying has already been refuted. Like suspected pilots turning up alive after the initial 'confirmed' pilot list. A planted passport being 'found' unscathed in the twin tower rubble of one of the same 'confirmed' pilots. Are we actually supposed to believe that it managed to survive that impact, explosion, AND the collapse without getting so much as singed?



What news source do you have blind faith in?  

Plus, I still don't understand why engineers aren't popping up in obscene numbers with enormous petitions if the structural happenings of the towers were so out of line with the theory that Al Qaeda hit the buildings with airplanes and caused them to fall.  I know some pissed off liberal engineers have done that, but if so many people in this very thread who are not engineers can supposedly understand the stuff so well that they are convinced the U.S. government demolished the towers with bombs, wouldn't that mean that EVERY engineer would see this as an open and shut case?  Practically every engineer and demolition expert in the world would be screaming that the Al Qaeda theory doesn't add up.  Don't you think?  The silence is deafening.  Why?

----------


## Acedreamer

> Watch Fahrenheit 9-11, Michael Moore knows more about this stuff than even some members of the administration.  The web of lies is so complicated I don't think we'll ever know what is really going on in the administration, they've covered up their illegal deeds pretty well.  It's slowly unraveling itself, but they cast doubt.
> 
> EDIT:  This post was accidental and was written by a terrorist, please ignore.
> 
> EDIT EDIT:  Don't believe them, they've kidnapped me and have me in Guantanamo Bay, I was able to steal quick internet access to type this.  Get rid of the PATRIOT act before they



Yerp, I personally think that Micheal moore is a true American!
Go watch 1 of his latest Documentary called ''SICKO''.
From there, you can see how f**ked up the American Government are!
You wanna know whats the problem with you american?

You're too afraid of your own government because for so long they have poison your thought with all these fear.

Any of you ever heard of Operation Northwoods?

You should check it out!

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yerp, I personally think that Micheal moore is a true American!
> Go watch 1 of his latest Documentary called ''SICKO''.
> From there, you can see how f**ked up the American Government are!
> You wanna know whats the problem with you american?
> 
> You're too afraid of your own government because for so long they have poison your thought with all these fear.
> 
> Any of you ever heard of Operation Northwoods?
> 
> You should check it out!



If Malaysia ever gets invaded, you will immediately stop thinking of us as a problem and think of us as the solution.  I don't think it will be Iran or Syria you call for help.

----------


## Acedreamer

> If Malaysia ever gets invaded, you will immediately stop thinking of us as a problem and think of us as the solution.  I don't think it will be Iran or Syria you call for help.




See what i meant by FEAR?,afraid of invasion, terrorism, violent? That kind of thought never entered us malaysian mind. We lived in harmony and i dont have to lock my door everynight like you when i go to bed because theres nothing to fear.
Pardon me for saying this, America is not a problem for us niether a solution...and you'll pardon me too if i ask you to kiss my pucker.. :wink2:  

Your government stick thier dick too much into foriegn affair that your political system is now like a whorehouse and the citizen are the prostitute..and at the end everybody got f**ked!

----------


## Alric

> The beauty of American government is that no President can experience the long term benefits of his actions. George Bush and his administration have nothing to gain from making our government bigger and controlling its people. There will probably be a Democrat in the office next term anyway, who will change all this.



There is so many flaws with that statement I don't know where to start. Please allow me to educate you in US government 101.

1. Laws are passed by congress not the executive branch of the government(which the president is in charge of). Wars can also only be declared by congress not by the president. 

2. Congress has no term limits on how long they can stay in office.

3. Democrats are for even bigger government that republicans. Meaning if they are elected they will try to pass even more laws not less.

4. We have two large parties made up of people working togather toward common goals.

So what does this mean? Congress shoved laws(such as the patriot act) down your throat to try to expand their own future powers as they can be continue being relected for as long as they keep winning votes. The president starting expanding his powers(such as the illegal wire taps) for his own short term gain. Both congress and the president also expand the powers of their offices as even after they leave people of their party can continue their work, working towards the same goals. Also this is the same type of crap governments always try to pull and being a democrat or a republican have nothing to do with it. If anything republicans are 'supposed' to be the party of small government, which they no longer are.

----------


## Universal Mind

> See what i meant by FEAR?,afraid of invasion, terrorism, violent?



If you read a world history book, you will see that that kind of stuff NEVER happened on this planet.   





> That kind of thought never entered us malaysian mind.



That's because we're here to keep you safe.   ::wink::   If it weren't for our military, much more Malaysia would have been entered by foreign invaders than your mind.  The Nazis and the Soviets are two of the scummy gangs that would have done it.  





> Pardon me for saying this, America is not a problem for us niether a solution.



It sounds to me like we're a pretty important thing in your life.  Please forgive me for not having a lot of thoughts about Malaysia.  That's a group of islands or something, like maybe... in the Pacific Ocean?  Yeah, I've heard of you.  I think in the past few minutes I have given Malaysia more thought than I did in the previous 35 years.  But you're pretty into us, huh?  Cool!  





> and you'll pardon me too if i ask you to kiss my pucker..



 ::kiss:: 





> Your government stick thier dick too much into foriegn affair that your political system is now like a whorehouse and the citizen are the prostitute..and at the end everybody got f**ked!



That's sounds like an interesting porno movie you saw.  If it is a good movie, I bet it was made here.

----------


## Acedreamer

> If you read a world history book, you will see that that kind of stuff NEVER happened on this planet.   
> 
> 
> 
> That's because we're here to keep you safe.    If it weren't for our military, much more Malaysia would have been entered by foreign invaders than your mind.  The Nazis and the Soviets are two of the scummy gangs that would have done it. 
> 
> *I think you are the one who should read the history,..we've been invaded countless times by hundred of years and now you're telling me that your country got my back? Please,i dont even trust my mother, and you'll expect me to believe that?*
> *aherm...trust me, those nazis and soviets are nothin compare to the japs.*
> 
> ...



Eww...porn? Thats childish!

----------


## Universal Mind

Well, we set those Japs straight for you a few decades ago, little girl.  They won't be screwing with you any more.  Okay, you started being sort of nice, so I'll quit talking trash to play games with your buttons.  I'll just say that what Bush is doing right now with the Patriot Act and in the Middle East looks bad on the surface to a lot of the world, but I really believe that eventually the world is going to see what it was all about and that it will work out for the much better in the long run.  The current transition phases in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the measure of that.  The rest of the unfolding of history is.  I think the Patriot Act went a bit too far, but I think it's fairly understandable.  It is also temporary.  Our citizenry will guarantee that because we have the power to vote everybody out of office.

----------


## Acedreamer

> Well, we set those Japs straight for you a few decades ago, little girl.  They won't be screwing with you any more.  Okay, you started being sort of nice, so I'll quit talking trash to play games with your buttons.  I'll just say that what Bush is doing right now with the Patriot Act and in the Middle East looks bad on the surface to a lot of the world, but I really believe that eventually the world is going to see what it was all about and that it will work out for the much better in the long run.  The current transition phases in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the measure of that.  The rest of the unfolding of history is.  I think the Patriot Act went a bit too far, but I think it's fairly understandable.  It is also temporary.  Our citizenry will guarantee that because we have the power to vote everybody out of office.




I dont really care about what they are doing now. for me,...Bush,saddam,osama and all the gangs are just a bunch of asshole!

I read an interesting article few month back. It said, that America's economy are being challenge aggressively by the other rising nation such china, so they need to react and they need to do it quick! So by sacrificing a couple of towers and a few thousand of peoples..to get more that what they bargain for! America's done this shit since the old days, they have always keep on looking for something to exploit! By invading Iraq and Afghan, they'll be able to stop other country from rising up and suck up the entire countries sources and recharge the economy thus securing thier throne as the world leader.

2 Tower for 2 Country!...What more can you ask for?

----------


## Cyclic13

I have blind faith in no outside source, but I do trust my own two eyes and ears to provide me with the facts. 

I have come to this conclusion based off what my friends and I saw happen having been only five minutes away from one of the supposed 'attacks', seeing the news footage later of other people initially claiming they didn't see or hear or see a large commerical jet, reporters also having said that it didn't look like a plane had actually hit, and seeing how secretive the authorities were with not allowing news cameras coverage at the initial pentagon crash scene clean up. Major stations at the scene did also mention how small the hole had looked. 

9/11 Pentagon Strike, Flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon
PENTAGON - 9/11 INSIDE JOB
9/11stealth - WTC Pentagon - Removing Evidence and Witnesses
9/11 - Pentagon: Plane, or Cruise Missile?
9/11 CONSPIRACY: Did the Global Hawk drones use Uranium?

HERE ARE THE ONLY TWO LAME VIDEOS THEY RELEASED OF THE 'JET'
Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 1 of 2 (skip to 1:25) 
Judicial Watch September 11 Pentagon Video -- 2 of 2 (skip to 0:25)

Also, WHERE and WHY were the hotel security tapes of the incident confiscated? Doesn't an automatic red light go off when things like that happen? What's a legitimate excuse to hide over 80 confiscated videos of an event like that if it ultimately proves their sensationalist claims of a commerical jet hitting? People aren't just questioning these things for their health, or because they are paranoid or crazy, it's because some of these things just don't seem to add up. There are very few people that actually eye-witnessed any of these attacks to be able to doubt the legitimacy of the reports in the first place. And, those with enough sense to question what is presented before them as true, to take the time to do a fair amount of research into these things are few and far between, and obviously not enough to matter or make a big enough ripple in the grand scheme. So, when trying to go against a cover story once everyone has already bought into it, is undoubtedly hard... if not next to impossible. It wouldn't be the first time our goverment has lied to us, though. What about the existence of Area 51 and other black budget projects that were covered up but later admitted to having? 

In this particular case, you amount to just one of the masses that saw absolutely nothing and have simply bought into the cover story hook, line, and sinker and then turn around saying I'm the one running on blind faith? You forget I was actually close enough to supposed crash site to be able to have a doubt. Sorry, but where were you during this to be able to say anything is worth believing beyond a reasonable doubt? EXACTLY...you can't, which unfortunately resigns you to the role of a gullible person if you do. 

When you look at what has happened in favor of the american goverment since the events of 9-11, it makes a lot more sense that our government just might've known a little more than they lead on, probably played an active role in hiding the truth in order to give them trumped up reasons to start wars, strip freedoms, and otherwise impose their fear on others to their own benefit.

----------


## Acedreamer

SolSkye,...that was one good post!
You didnt argue with anyone...you just expressing your view.
I like that!..and yeah, dont worry...this isnt the 1st time your government lied to you...if you look way back in history,..there was tons of conspiracy theories leading toward the american government. 


Im not an American, but..based on my common senses, i dont really think your President have that kind of power to manipulate the people of America. There's gotta be someone higher than him thats pulling all the strings. 
George Bush are just mere puppet...dress up to be fucked!

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Yea, the only time I have heard about "Malaysia" was in Zoolander. Apparently there's a lot of child labor there.

Acedreamer, you _really_ don't understand American culture, no matter how much you think you do. You think we are _scared_ of our government? What a crock. We attack our government every waking day on this planet. You think we are afraid? Why don't you come on over to the USA and see how afraid we are. Live hasn't changed the smallest bit.

And Solskye, I'm not going to trust any source called "9/11, Inside Job", or any other of your sources. Your logic is extremely flawed. Sure, you can post all this "truth" about people saying a plane never hit the Pentagon, but it doesnt mean it's true. Do you honestly believe the government could just LIE about a jet hitting a building? Whatever. 


Btw, it sounds to me like both of _you_ are afraid. Your "what if" conspiracy theories prove it. You are afraid the American government has too much power over you. Its pathetic.

This is a weak post by me. I really don't know what to say to you guys! If you took your theories to court, you would loose miserably for lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. O yea, here's _my_ indisputable truth.

http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html

My favorite part is how the hole in the Pentagon matches the width of the Boeing 757. Thank you :wink2:

----------


## Acedreamer

Half/Dreaming...
Thanks for the critic!
Child Labor huh?hurm...apperently, you need to study more my friend.

I have never said i understand your culture. If you arent AFRAID of your government then tell me, why is the level of poverty are still high while you government are making money at the war? Are you saying this is your culture?
WAR? You may not be afraid of your government but they did'nt give a damn about you either! They have scared you off so bad, that you just have to tag along with them so that you will feel like you are protected.well,Are you? Go ask any of your soldier friend who went to IRAQ, ask them did your government care about you? You are just a mere dog to them, they will play with you and keep you happy for a while and then when you get f**k, who got you back? The Government?...F**k you! You're on your own! 
You wanna act like a patriotic redneck,You wanna talk like you got someballs, try going to IRAQ and i promise you, it aint gonna take a day see what is going on in this world and what is your government are doing to it.



Buddy, what is so hard to understand? Nobody asked for you to believe it. 
If you government are innocent, then why do they have to hide so many things?
The video tapes, the radio transmission log and so many astounding evidence 
just went missing. What is that? Explain it?


Im not afraid, i just felt pity for you people who work so hard to build that great country, and your government didnt appriciate that. I didnt hate you nor your country, i just dont like the way your government run things.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Our culture is one where if you don't help the country, the country doesnt help you. Please explain to me why poor people deserve money just for being alive. They are poor for a reason. If the reason is legitamite, they should get money, but drug addicts, alcoholics, and plain lazy people don't deserve tax money.

Btw, I'm going to Iraq. I've already signed the papers. And believe me, i never said our government is innocent. I just said they didn't plan 9/11. Also, don't call me a redneck. You think anybody who believes Al Qaeda should be gone is a redneck? I could just as easily call you Asain stereotypes, but I have the courtesy not to. 

O yea, the child labor thing was a joke. Watch Zoolander, you'll understand.

----------


## Acedreamer

Because as the government gets richer, the people are suppose live better too. Letme tell you, how its works ok?

The poor- Work like a friggin slave and got a shitty pay and pay motherload of taxes.

The Middle-Class-Does all the rich guy, works and pay all thier taxes to the government.

The Rich-Does nothing, pays no taxes and live rich like a bastard!

So, They keep on getting rich, while the poor suffer continously and the government couldnt turn table around because they know...the rich own them. 

Before you go to Iraq, think for a second, whos paying the war? You think your government, is crazy enough to supply that much of money?
When you said poor dont do shit! You should think again next because they are the one who are doing worst shit ever out there while you are sleeping and still nobody gives a rat ass about them. Is this what America's have become? Tell me then, why should you care about going to Iraq then?
You dont care about your people.

----------


## Alric

> Acedreamer, you _really_ don't understand American culture, no matter how much you think you do. You think we are _scared_ of our government? What a crock. We attack our government every waking day on this planet. You think we are afraid? Why don't you come on over to the USA and see how afraid we are. Live hasn't changed the smallest bit.



Thats not exactly true. There was a big thread a while ago on here of people who think he police are corrupt. And really there are a lot of people who think that because they are afraid of the police. Then look at this thread, how many people think 9/11 is in an inside job? Do you think they would believe such a thing and not be scared of the government?

Like SolSkye said, why are they hiding stuff? Doesn't that make you the least bit uncomfortable? Why do you think "We attack our government every waking day on this planet"? Its because people are scared of our government growing out of control and they are desperately trying to stop it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Because as the government gets richer, the people are suppose live better too. Letme tell you, how its works ok?
> 
> The poor- Work like a friggin slave and got a shitty pay and pay motherload of taxes.
> 
> The Middle-Class-Does all the rich guy, works and pay all thier taxes to the government.
> 
> The Rich-Does nothing, pays no taxes and live rich like a bastard!
> 
> So, They keep on getting rich, while the poor suffer continously and the government couldnt turn table around because they know...the rich own them. 
> ...



I'm going there to help fight the last real evil on the planet. If I could help the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then that would be awesome.

You once again prove that you don't know much about my country. The poor get tax breaks here, and some are basically exempt from taxes. And they are not the hardest workers in our country. Also, rich people get jacked big time.

Also, despite what you think we care about our soldiers.

----------


## Alric

> Also, despite what you think we care about our soldiers.



I have heard countless stories of soliders coming back from iraq injured and the government refuses to pay for their treatment. Often time people come back with life long disabilities and they are left alone to figure out what to do by themself. The people care about our soilders, the government couldn't care less.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I have heard countless stories of soliders coming back from iraq injured and the government refuses to pay for their treatment. Often time people come back with life long disabilities and they are left alone to figure out what to do by themself. The people care about our soilders, the government couldn't care less.




I'm not sure if they are being _denied_ healthcare, but it is in shabby condition. Soldiers aren't getting the care when they need it. However, the amount of fraud is amazing, so the government is extremely careful with it. Unfortunately this leads to poor healthcare.

On an unrelated subject, the whole thing about soldiers being refused body armor is completely wrong. All soldeirs with combat roles are issued body armor, and they are never sent into battle without it. The people who dont get it are like cooks and water treatement personel etc., who sometimes die without body armor on.

----------


## Acedreamer

> I'm going there to help fight the last real evil on the planet. If I could help the democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then that would be awesome.
> 
> You once again prove that you don't know much about my country. The poor get tax breaks here, and some are basically exempt from taxes. And they are not the hardest workers in our country. Also, rich people get jacked big time.
> 
> Also, despite what you think we care about our soldiers.



Hey, listen to Alric allright. He gotta point and i gotta point.
1 more thing, are you actually poor? If not then you wouldnt know... you just an ignorant man who couldnt care less about his own country and now you wanna go out and help those guys in the middle east? Get the fuck outta here!
You're just gonna be a stool and you aint gonna do shit. ill bet you, that you will never going fire a single bullet over there...because, You american have kill all of them already! So if you really wanna bring peace to the middle east then i guess you and the government are just the same bunch of lunatic! who kill 1st and think later.

Lets look at this fact allright?

*Iraq- Poor country and had a couple of small militant group who are just trying to protect thier goats and shit.

American- Tanks,Heavy machinery,Aircraft,State of the art weapon.*

Whats the threat? Where the diplomacy? 
Owh they attack you first? of course they do, you invaded thier country, kill thier people and rape thier women! What would you expect? A nice dinner?
You wanna kill the terrorist? Go look for them, use your so-called elite soldier and find them!...just like what you try to do with Fidel Castro back then. What kinda man call himself a soldier when all he did, was fly around in an aircraft and bombing all the place like he's playing nintendo. Thats ridiculous! You wanna show the world that you are the best? you want to show them that you are against terrorism? Then why did you kill all the kids? Are they terrorist to you? This is a simple example that shows what america's are. A country thats filled with fear, hatred and insecurity.

This is whats up :





> Yes, I know all about it. 
> 
> You see, I'm educated. 
> 
> What we had under Saddam Hussein was a Secular Government that was suppressing the revolutionary tendencies of both the Sunni Fundamental Sects and the Shia Fundamentalist Sects.  Also Iraq's secular government was managing the Kurdish Revolutionaries in the North who wanted to tear Iraq apart to create an independent Kurdestan -- just so their own fat cats could have their own tyrany.  And the Saddam Government was able to do this, to maintain Peace and Order with relatively little duress or bloodshed, when compared to how much Blood and Duress the Americans have been using without the leanest fraction of the success that Saddam had with his regime. 
> 
> You see, what all too many idiots forget is that Saddam was once handpicked by the CIA simply because he was the best man for the job.  A Secularist.  for 8 years Saddam fought against Iran, as America's Surrogate. 
> 
> he took Kuwait because he thought that after spending 1,000,000 Iraqi Lives for a War waged entirely for American Self Interests, that he deserved it.  That Iraq deserved it. 
> ...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

You're way to hostile, AceDreamer, and you don't sound like you know much.

1.Saying that I'm not going to do anything in Iraq is like saying my vote for the president doesn't matter. What a stupid notion.

2.I am not "poor", but many of my good friends are. I've been to their houses, and i know how they live. I also know why they are poor.

3. Were you high for all of 2003? I recall *months* of the diplomacy you love so much. Saddam was stubborn.

4. We only invaded the Middle-east _after_ they attacked us, unless you count us freeing Kuwait from Iraq.

5. WE do not kill the kids. The US is responsible for 30&#37; of civilian deaths in Iraq. 70% is caused by terrorists.

Still, it sounds to me like you are the one with hatred and insecurity, not to mention ignorance. You need some serious education on the subject.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I dont really care about what they are doing now.



Of course you don't care what Japan is doing now.  If it weren't for the United States, you would.  We changed their government in 1945 so that they would stop screwing with other countries, like yours.  Now they are a great capitalist nation of wealth, intelligence, and respect for freedom.  I challenge you to say something nice about that.  





> You're just gonna be a stool and you aint gonna do shit. ill bet you, that you will never going fire a single bullet over there...because, You american have kill all of them already!



Now THAT might be the best Twilight Zone statement I have seen in this thread so far!  Americans have already killed ALL of the people in Iraq!  Damn, how did you figure us out like that?   

EDIT:  Oh my God... I just noticed that you quoted Leo Volont as a form of argument.  Do you know who that is?  He was an asshole pedophilia sympathizer who got banned.  What is supposed to be the value of quoting him?  And how did a newcomer like you hunt down a Leo Volont quote?  Leo, is that you?  If so, I have a theory that you might be Charles Manson on a prison computer.  





> In this particular case, you amount to just one of the masses that saw absolutely nothing and have simply bought into the cover story hook, line, and sinker and then turn around saying I'm the one running on blind faith?



Again, what are your sources other than your own supposed eye witness testimony?  I told you why the videos I have seen and the fierce nature of corporate competition make my sources the best possible.  It takes blind faith to accept what the left wing fanatic blog sites say, and it would take blind faith for me to just drop everything and accept the words of some every day Joe I've only talked to on the internet.  That would be especially hard considering the number of people who work at the Pentagon and were actually there for the crash.  Can you post a petition of thousands of Pentagon workers saying, "Uh, we were at work at the Pentagon at that moment, and we don't remember any 747 airplane crashing into the building.  We did notice a big hole in the building, and it formed some time after we arrived, and we did see an 747 driving up to the side of the building, but we don't remember anything about an airplane crash."?  Do you think you can find that for me?

----------


## Alric

> 4. We only invaded the Middle-east _after_ they attacked us, unless you count us freeing Kuwait from Iraq.
> 
> 5. WE do not kill the kids. The US is responsible for 30% of civilian deaths in Iraq. 70% is caused by terrorists.



Um they never attacked us so number 4 is totally untrue. And yea, killing 30% is still killing 30%. Meaning we have infact killed children.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Al Qaeda attacked us. Thats the whole reason we went there in the first place. I feel like I'm not getting through to you guys.

----------


## tyrantt23

> Al Qaeda attacked us. Thats the whole reason we went there in the first place. I feel like I'm not getting through to you guys.



Oh right, because Iraq always had close ties with Al Qaeda.

 ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Alric

Thats because you just said we invaded the middle east because Al Qaeda attacked us, as if the middle east was al qaeda or something.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Thats because you just said we invaded the middle east because Al Qaeda attacked us, as if the middle east was al qaeda or something.



If you want to get technical as hell, i can oblige. _Technically_, we haven't invaded the middle east, just a few of it's countries.

Are you going to challenge any of my or Universal Mind's points? This should be about the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, not Iraq. My last point was that the hole in the Pentagon was almost exactly the size a Boeing 757 (btw, flight 77 wasnt a 747, and neither were any of the other planes). Can you argue against that?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats because you just said we invaded the middle east because Al Qaeda attacked us, as if the middle east was al qaeda or something.



We are at war with Islamofascism, and that war was influenced by Al Qaeda's attack on us.  That does not mean we think every single Islamofascist or Islamofascist government attacked us.  

Let's say the Crypts attack some old ladies.  As a result, the mayor of Los Angeles decides it's time to go to war with street gangs.  A result of that decision is the decision to go after the Bloods.  Does that mean the mayor thinks the Bloods attacked those old ladies?  No.  It means his government is at war with street gangs.  The Bloods pose the same type of threat and an even greater form of it than the Crypts did, so they have to be taken on also as a result of the new policy that was influenced by the Crypts' attack.

----------


## Ynot

Most of the origins of the various middle eastern conflicts emanate from us (the British)
read up on the Balfour declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...ration_of_1917

We've also had a historical tenancy to move into foreign countries, dissolving any government or other governing authority in place, claiming the country is now under British rule, then just forgetting about the country altogether.  Allowing it to degrade and fall into the hands of whoever can buy authority (drug barons, usually) and then 100 years later, wondering why the old colonies are corrupt and the poor are oppressed.

----------


## Alric

> We are at war with Islamofascism, and that war was influenced by Al Qaeda's attack on us. That does not mean we think every single Islamofascist or Islamofascist government attacked us. 
> 
> Let's say the Crypts attack some old ladies. As a result, the mayor of Los Angeles decides it's time to go to war with street gangs. A result of that decision is the decision to go after the Bloods. Does that mean the mayor thinks the Bloods attacked those old ladies? No. It means his government is at war with street gangs. The Bloods pose the same type of threat and an even greater form of it than the Crypts did, so they have to be taken on also as a result of the new policy that was influenced by the Crypts' attack.



The difference was that Iraq is a government and they are not islamofascist.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> The difference was that Iraq is a government and they are not islamofascist.



Saddam gassed Kurds because they would not choose a side in his opression of Shi'a Muslims, also because he thought they were inferior. The supression of other religions by a Muslim group is pretty much the definition of Islamofascism.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The difference was that Iraq is a government and they are not islamofascist.



Did you read what I wrote about their history with Israel?  Their support for Hamas and providing of financial incentives for Palestinian suicide bombers?  Hussein called the United States "Satan" and "infidels", both of which illustrate their Islamofascism.  We had a major terrorist problem on our hands with the existence of the Hussein regime.  We couldn't just ignore it, and nothing else worked.  They had to go.

----------


## Acedreamer

Hey Dumbass!..saddam Hussein Is Dead,.....Ok?
So Stop Bullshitting. We Are Talking About Now, You Might Be The Kinda Off Guy Who Live In The Past, But I Expected You To Be Someone Who At Least Knew A Bit Or 2 About What's Your Government Still Doing In Iraq!? Terrorism? 
Al-qaeda Is A Total Bullshit Story!...look At It This Way Ok?... For Any Conspiracy Believers Here, America Was Attack By Your Very Government And They Took That As A Reason To Attack The Middle East! The Iraqi Never Did Anything To YOU. They Helped You Out With Iran Did'nt They?

Saddam was a cruel dictator and he went too far, but he did a good job because without him, all hell would have break loose! Im not saying he's good, yes he is evil....but he is a necessary evil.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Let's try to keep this conversation civil, Acedreamer.
Thanks.

----------


## Acedreamer

yeah...sorry, i think i went to far too.
My bad..i havent slept in a while...
sorry people!...im outta here.
It was fun arguing with you!
haha

----------


## Universal Mind

> Hey Dumbass!..saddam Hussein Is Dead,.....Ok?
> So Stop Bullshitting. We Are Talking About Now, You Might Be The Kinda Off Guy Who Live In The Past, But I Expected You To Be Someone Who At Least Knew A Bit Or 2 About What's Your Government Still Doing In Iraq!? Terrorism? 
> Al-qaeda Is A Total Bullshit Story!...look At It This Way Ok?... For Any Conspiracy Believers Here, America Was Attack By Your Very Government And They Took That As A Reason To Attack The Middle East! The Iraqi Never Did Anything To YOU. They Helped You Out With Iran Did'nt They?
> 
> Saddam was a cruel dictator and he went too far, but he did a good job because without him, all hell would have break loose! Im not saying he's good, yes he is evil....but he is a necessary evil.



So how was he not a threat?  We were talking about justification for the war, which did not exactly start today.  Explain how the threat should have been handled in terms of the specific considerations I discussed.  Thanks.  

As for the rest of your post, I will respond with this video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

----------


## Alric

He was not a threat to us. Just like most of the 'terrorists' your scared of are really not a threat. I am sure you will argue about his WMD which were proven not to exist and his connections to al qaeda which were next to non existent, or how he hated his neighbors which has nothing to do with us. Or maybe you will throw in how he was a murderer, which while true, provides no threat against our countries which is nearly half way around the world from his.

If your arguement was one based on humanitarian reasons, you might have an arguement. But an arguement based on iraq being a serious threat to our security is laughable at best.

----------


## Universal Mind

> He was not a threat to us. Just like most of the 'terrorists' your scared of are really not a threat. I am sure you will argue about his WMD which were proven not to exist and his connections to al qaeda which were next to non existent, or how he hated his neighbors which has nothing to do with us. Or maybe you will throw in how he was a murderer, which while true, provides no threat against our countries which is nearly half way around the world from his.
> 
> If your arguement was one based on humanitarian reasons, you might have an arguement. But an arguement based on iraq being a serious threat to our security is laughable at best.



Did you read my post where I talked about the big picture of why the Hussein regime was such a threat?  Look there for my reasons.  There are a lot of them which come together to form a horrible picture.  The regime had a history of terrorism, including WMD terrorism.  That is not disputed.  And the WMD's were not proven not to exist.  They were just never found.  The regime was required by our ceasefire to demonstrate the destruction of the WMD's we knew they at one time had.  They failed on that and several other terrorism grounds.  We also were given intelligence from five ally governments and the U.N. that the regime had stockpiles of WMD's, which is very serious when it regards a government with a history of WMD terrorism and who has arrogantly violated your ceasefire for 12 years on terrorism grounds and who angrily calls you "Satan" and "infidels".  You make it sound like Hussein was just some every day murderer who wasn't really a terrorist.  He in fact was, and he was our bitter enemy.  We couldn't chance his getting WMD's into the hands of the terrorist organizations he supported or Al Qaeda, with whom he did have meetings as well as a common Islamofascist support of suicide bombings against "infidels" and a common enemy-- the United States.  Put all of that together.  See my other post for further details of that picture.

----------


## dodobird

<dodo interval>

Hey people, if you could bring the subject back to 911 conspiracies I would much appreciate it, as I find them much more entertaining.

</ dodo interval>

----------


## Universal Mind

> <dodo interval>
> 
> Hey people, if you could bring the subject back to 911 conspiracies I would much appreciate it, as I find them much more entertaining.
> 
> </ dodo interval>



We are talking about that by talking about whether the Iraq invasion was justified, which gets to whether the U.S. government has been pulling our legs about this whole thing, which gets to whether 9/11 is part of some big crock of shit.  But I have an idea.  Whatever you want to talk about very specifically, make a point about it so people will start discussing it.

----------


## dodobird

> We are talking about that by talking about whether the Iraq invasion was justified, which gets to whether the U.S. government has been pulling our legs about this whole thing, which gets to whether 9/11 is part of some big crock of shit.  But I have an idea.  Whatever you want to talk about very specifically, make a point about it so people will start discussing it.



OK, though I admit I don't know much about it. About the plane at the pentagon that SolSkye said may be fake: Seems to me a huge risk to try to fake that, I mean what if someone made a video of a missile or a bomb or something hitting the pentagon, and the government missed them and didn't confiscate their footage in time? Doesn't seem to me likely that they will be so stupid as to take such a huge risk.

----------


## Ynot

Wow
no talk about the petrodollar / petroeuro in here?

The whole US economy is floated on the petrodollar
and creates an international demand for US dollars

The United States economy depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits

----------


## dodobird

Ah.. please explain that in words dummies like me can understand  :smiley: 





> Wow
> no talk about the petrodollar / petroeuro in here?
> 
> The whole US economy is floated on the petrodollar
> and creates an international demand for US dollars
> 
> The United States economy depends on the dollar foreign-currency reserves in order to sell the Treasury debt that sustains budget deficits

----------


## Ynot

> Ah.. please explain that in words dummies like me can understand



I started to write my own explanation, but this pretty much sums it up

http://www.petrodollar.info/indexp1.html





> Imagine this: you are knee deep in debt but every day you write cheques for millions of dollars you don't have — another luxury car, a holiday home at the beach, the world trip of a lifetime.              Your cheques should be worthless but you keep buying stuff regardless because you've made sure that none of those cheques you write will ever reach the bank!
> 
> 
>              How? Well, you have an agreement with the producers of one thing that everyone needs and that everyone wants that they will accept _your_ cheques -and _only_ your cheques - as payment. 
>              The product in question is oil, and your agreement with the oil producers means everyone must hoard your cheques so that they can buy it.
> 
> 
>              Since they have to keep a stock of your cheques, they can also use them to buy other stuff too. You write a cheque to buy a TV, the TV shop owner swaps your cheque for petrol/gas, that seller buys some vegetables at the fruit shop, the fruiterer passes it on to buy bread, the baker buys some flour with it, and on it goes, round and round — the cheque gets recycled but never actually makes it back to the bank.
>              You have a debt on your books for the cheques you wrote, but so long as they never reach the bank, you don't have to pay off your debts and in effect you have received your oil and TV for free.
> ...




There's a whole historic background to this, from the early 1900's, though World War One and the abolishment of the Gold Standard, through the 1930's American depression to the rise of Europe as a rival super-power during the 1960's, etc. etc., but the above gives a fairly good overview

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?

The truth is that our oil prices have gone up big time. This has nothing to do with our oil companies wanting more money, its about Middle Eastern countries jacking up their prices. Thats the "petro-dollar" talk.

----------


## Neruo

> I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?
> 
> The truth is that our oil prices have gone up big time. This has nothing to do with our oil companies wanting more money, its about Middle Eastern countries jacking up their prices. Thats the "petro-dollar" talk.



I was to lazy to read the article. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm

It seems awfully convenient that that oil pipeline could be build. Probably the Taliban wouldn't allow it. Also, Saddam was a big treat to American accessibility to oil in that region, right?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I don't think Saddam was screwing up our oil trade, but i'm not sure.

I also don't understand why this oil pipline in Afghanistan has'nt been bombed. Probably because all Afghanis know it is good for their country.

----------


## Alric

Its not about physically owning the oil. Its about having control over it. Besides your not thinking on a global scale.

Its a fact that the US debt is at nearly 9 trillion dollars. An amount we can not pay. If tomorrow the government took everything ever person in the US owned and sold it, it still wouldn't be enough to pay off what we owe. The US is basicly bankrupt and our money is worthless. Now what Ynot is saying is this. Even though our money is basicly an IOU with no real value, people still need it in order to buy oil, and as long as they need it there is some value to it. Now if for some reason you no longer need the money to buy oil, there is no value left in it. Its just a piece of paper, worth about as much as monopoly money.

So then the question is moved away from should we attack iraq or risk terroist attack? To should we attack or risk the total collapse of our economy? Of course the government can't say that, as it would cause massive panic and likely collapse our economy from the inside as people start ditching the dollar for something with value.

----------


## tyrantt23

> I would like to see 1 proven incedent of US soldiers pumping oil, putting it in their trucks, and shipping it to the States. Anybody?



I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.





> Its not about physically owning the oil. Its about having control over it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.



They were also ordered to safeguard mosques, but that doesn't mean we want to pray in them.

----------


## tyrantt23

> They were also ordered to safeguard mosques



citation please?

----------


## Acedreamer

> I don't know if you recall this, but when Iraq was first invaded, US soldiers were ordered to safeguard Iraq's oil ministry in Baghdad. Meanwhile, the Iraq National Museum was getting sacked and some 7,000 year old Sumerian Artifacts were being stolen.



Sigh...you and Alric are the man.
Finally,someone come up with a concrete evidence.
How did you guy find that out? Owh well..
That should shut all these guys up for a while.

Damn This thread is getting too hot and heavy!

----------


## Cyclic13

You still haven't answered my question...WHY would they hide hotel rooftop security videos of the plane if there is nothing to hide. Here's another one they released after a court order...conveniently STILL no visible commerical plane. Gee... maybe because it doesn't exist.
9/11 - NEW PENTAGON FOOTAGE DOUBLETREE (JudicialWatch)

9/11 No Plane Wreckage at Pentagon

You honestly believe the media has no ulterior motives? Give me a friggan break...Check out the amazing unbiased FOX news Geraldo Rivera in action as he skips the gentleman's valid clips and speaks to him in a condescending tone. Screw mass media. I'm stupified you actually think of them as valid sources of information. Just proves to me your level of peon-ism. 
Did a 757 really hit the pentagon on 911?

Also, Half/dreaming, the hole doesn't correspond with a 757, where did you ever get that idea? Any footage of the crash clearly shows the pentagon windows surrounding the 'crash' still intact and the blast damage hole is confined to 14-16feet. Hardly the size of a 757. Since you guys obviously like to avoid staying informed, if you could just watch the last video and skip to 3:45. I'd be happy to eat my doubt and my words, if you would please show me any video evidence proving me otherwise? OHHH YEA... that's right... the goverment still hasn't released any of the 80 videos they so quickly scooped up and confiscated so you can't show me anything to the contrary because it doesn't exist...and if it does...WHY HIDE IT!? 

Seriously, you two need to stop defending stuff you didnt even eyewitness yourselves. At least I can say I was actually there within an earshot's distance. You two act so convinced of what happened having not even seen or heard a goddamn thing. You can't even allow for the possibility of the american goverment being a fallible and secretive organization into your closeminded way of thinking. If that's not being a gullible peon, I honestly don't know what is...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> You still haven't answered my question...WHY would they hide hotel rooftop security videos of the plane if there is nothing to hide. Here's another one they released after a court order...conveniently STILL no visible commerical plane. Gee... maybe because it doesn't exist.
> 9/11 - NEW PENTAGON FOOTAGE DOUBLETREE (JudicialWatch)



And YOU haven't answered why the hole in the Pentagon is the size of the plane that hit it. Check out the source i mentioned earlier. I have hard proof while you are citing "why did they take videos". Your entire argument is based on "what ifs". If we went to court, I would win.

They took videos because they didn't know what happened at first. They needed all the video they could get. There are no other videos because none of those people shot any good footage.

Do you _honestly_ think the government would risk overlooking a video? All it would take is 1 random guy to take a photo, and all of the administration would be in JAIL!!! Like it or not, you are not as smart as they are.

Your conspiracy theory kin is a dying breed. There is a reason why the whole world has'nt jumped on your so called "evidence". Becasue its not true.

----------


## Universal Mind

Solskye, I am still waiting to see a petition from thousands of Pentagon workers who say, "Plane crash?  What plane crash?"  Can you give me some of the names on such a petition?  I don't know of a single Pentagon worker who claims that.  

Also, you have not explained how your sources are more credible than big media corporations driven by extreme financial competition.  One lie gives major power to the competition and results in major financial loss, so telling the truth (though with political slants) is much more reliable with those sources than it is with left wing fanatic blog sites that ATTRACT viewers by lying.  Do you know how obsessive corporate executives are about making money?  Have you ever met that type of person?  They are the most ambitious and money obsessed people on the face of the Earth.  They don't play Russian roulette by allowing their reporters to pull things out of their asses.  It only happens in rare cases like the one with Dan Rather, who no longer has a career even though he was one of the top men in the business.  Where is the hole in my theory?

----------


## dodobird

SolSkye, can you respond to my comment on post #209?

----------


## Alric

I am still waiting for someone to explain what happened to building 7. Something I asked on the first page of this thread.

----------


## tyrantt23

> Solskye, I am still waiting to see a petition from thousands of Pentagon workers who say, "Plane crash? What plane crash?"



 



> You still haven't answered my question...WHY would they hide hotel rooftop security videos of the plane if there is nothing to hide.



 



> And YOU haven't answered why the hole in the Pentagon is the size of the plane that hit it.



 



> SolSkye, can you respond to my comment on post #209?







> I am still waiting for someone to explain what happened to building 7.



And I am still waiting for someone to tell me what's the deal with airplane peanuts! :p

----------


## Universal Mind

> And I am still waiting for someone to tell me what's the deal with airplane peanuts! :p



Yeah!  $700 for a ticket, and they give me a pack of five peanuts that a backward ass gas station would be too embarassed to sell!  That's what really pissed off the 9/11 hijackers.

----------


## Cyclic13

I shared my own little worthless two cents, argued a little bit, got whatever quick release I could've possibly gotten from this pointless discussion, and have since grown tired of this thread and moved on...But, since Univeral Mind asked me nicely to come back and respond, I'll humor him just this once...

The thing is, no one can disprove or prove anyone wrong because everyone admittedly knows next to nothing about the day in question. The events have long since been over, so if there was a coverup no speculating can do anything about it now. If there wasn't a coverup, then there were many questionable elements of that day that still remain unanswered. 

So, it will forever be like the ultimate question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know...

The least you can do is entertain all possibilities no matter how unlikely until they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like any fair court of law. I dont feel any of these matters have been proven outright wrong. I also don't think that asking questions like, what happened to the confiscated tapes, is crazy...it's a legitimate question. Especially, since I didn't personally hear or see a plane hit the pentagon being fairly close to the whole ordeal. If they have more tapes of that day, by all means, make them available. Isn't that what the freedom of information act is for? What possible harm could the tapes serve now unless they have incriminating evidence countermining current versions of the story? Yet, the requests to view them have been continually denied. Why? *shrugs* Dunno, sounds pretty fishy to me. Anyway, whether it was an inside job or not, I'm pretty sure the goverment knows something more than they are leading on about it, and have capitalized on that to spread fear and gain more power. It's naturally what goverments are good at...

You need only look at my signature, but I think, everyone should question everything until they see proof one way or the other. I think that's a healthy way to look at the world. So, until the time someone provides us with some solid incontrovertible proof... everyone is neither right or wrong...

See ya around...  ::chuckle::

----------


## tyrantt23

> I shared my own little worthless two cents, argued a little bit, got whatever quick release I could've possibly gotten from this pointless discussion, and have since grown tired of this thread and moved on...But, since Univeral Mind asked me nicely to come back and respond, I'll humor him just this once...
> 
> The thing is, no one can disprove or prove anyone wrong because everyone admittedly knows next to nothing about the day in question. The events have long since been over, so if there was a coverup no speculating can do anything about it now. If there wasn't a coverup, then there were many questionable elements of that day that still remain unanswered. 
> 
> So, it will forever be like the ultimate question: How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? The world may never know...
> 
> The least you can do is entertain all possibilities no matter how unlikely until they are proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Like any fair court of law. I dont feel any of these matters have been proven outright wrong. I also don't think that asking questions like, what happened to the confiscated tapes, is crazy...it's a legitimate question. Especially, since I didn't personally hear or see a plane hit the pentagon being fairly close to the whole ordeal. If they have more tapes of that day, by all means, make them available. Isn't that what the freedom of information act is for? What possible harm could the tapes serve now unless they have incriminating evidence countermining current versions of the story? Yet, the requests to view them have been continually denied. Why? *shrugs* Dunno, sounds pretty fishy to me. Anyway, whether it was an inside job or not, I'm pretty sure the goverment knows something more than they are leading on about it, and have capitalized on that to spread fear and gain more power. It's naturally what goverments are good at...
> 
> You need only look at my signature, but I think, everyone should question everything until they see proof one way or the other. I think that's a healthy way to look at the world. So, until the time someone provides us with some solid incontrovertible proof... everyone is neither right or wrong...
> ...




Just thought I'd say... very nice post SolSkye!

----------


## memeticverb

Unfortunately for 911 Truth deniers, there _is_ incontrovertible proof.  ::o:  

Demolition waves are clearly visible, exploding before the top mass can pulverize it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc

WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition, not to mention features which can only be explained by it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFkbo3o0NM

Scientists and Academics have written articles claiming to prove the controlled demolition theory, and have not been refuted.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...Demolition.pdf

Its a simple fact that government officials have tried to cover up evidence, like the molten metal.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501

And I havnt seen one person in any forum discussing this topic even attempt to refute any of the facts and arguments provided by over a hundred of Architects and Engineers.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Unfortunately for 911 Truth deniers, there _is_ incontrovertible proof.  
> 
> Demolition waves are clearly visible, exploding before the top mass can pulverize it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri9Uz1Wa-Xc
> 
> WTC7 displays all the characteristics of controlled demolition, not to mention features which can only be explained by it.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFFkbo3o0NM
> 
> Scientists and Academics have written articles claiming to prove the controlled demolition theory, and have not been refuted.
> ...



This proves 100 percent that the United States government is responsible. Because of these wonderful unbias videos you've shown me, I will ignore all the evidence that stupidly points to Al Qaeda. Thank you, sir, for opening my eyes to our government killing people it's people for oil. Our politicians so desperately need money.

I guess the people who were willing to kill themselves so Bush's cronies could get rich knew where the explosives were planted and flew their planes _exactly_ 1 floor over them. 

And the people responsible said, hey, why not destroy Tower 7? Its only been a couple of hours after the attacks!! These people also said, hey, there is NO POSSIBLE WAY a single person could photograph our cruise missile going into the Pentagon. Lets go forward with the plan!!

I also guess they knew Saddam Hussein wouldn't let Inspectors into the bunkers. I guess they knew a major terrorist leader would admitt to the attacks. All thanks to the government's Oracle of Truth, who can tell the future.

It all makes sense. Thank you, sir.

By the way, you are a 9/11 Truth denier. And do you not think Democrats would be jumping all over this shit to blame Bush? You think you understand what happened. Democrats know much more than you do, and they are not calling it a conspiracy. They would piss their pants if they found that out, and it would be on the news every day.

----------


## memeticverb

ROFL!  Yeah keep telling yourself that you actually responded to a single piece of evidence just posted and _didnt_ commit multiple logical fallacies!

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> ROFL!  Yeah keep telling yourself that you actually responded to a single piece of evidence just posted and _didnt_ commit multiple logical fallacies!




You have no proof for me to counter. I watched your videos. There is no proof, and fankly I didn't see any explosions.

I will ask again. *Why aren't Bush's political enemies saying this everyday?*

While you're at it, prove to me that fanatical Muslims didn't do this. I swear to God I will come to where you live and kiss your feet if you can do that.

I would also like to point 1 more time that the buildings did not fall from the bottom. Explosives in the basement would not have done a thing.

I did you a courtesy by watching your videos. Now if you would, please read this article.

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archiv...14-610042.html

----------


## memeticverb

> You have no proof for me to counter. I watched your videos. There is no proof, and fankly I didn't see any explosions.



You mean all I have to do for every fact that I dont like is say, "Thats not a fact," and I can believe anything I want?  

Sorry, simply saying that there isnt any proof *isnt even an argument. * Half Dreaming, youve responded neither directly nor indirectly to any evidence.

There so much proof that hundreds of Architects and Engineers have created an independent organization with the sole purpose of spreading the truth about the 3 WTC buildings that were demolished with explosives.

Theres so much proof that thousands of academics, and millions of intelligent Americans have accepted the CD theory as undoubtedly true.

Even more proof than all the links I just posted (some showing molten iron flowing out of one of the twin towers, other showing demolition waves exploding before the tower can collapse, others showing the perfectly symmetrical collapse of WTC7 impossible without cutter charges removing the resistance, etc) can be found here:

http://journalof911studies.com/volum...emistryWTC.pdf

----------


## Universal Mind

> Sorry, simply saying that there isnt any proof *isnt even an argument.*



Oh, it's not?  Well then...  The invisible aliens working for the CIA have sex with vegetable robots from Atlantis, which was shipped to Neptune in 2538, in order to create a voodoo spell which projects holographic images of soldiers to create the illusion that the U.S. military exists.  Kennedy is still the president of the supposed United States, and he is also the Great Pumpkin.  I guess the sky is the limit on the legitimate acceptance of claims if the point that there is no proof doesn't qualify as an argument.

----------


## Rainman

I certainly would not nearly go as far as to say that our own GOVERNMENT is responsible for these attacks. I loath and despise most or our current government, but to say that they would kill thousands of their own citizens to me seems completely unrealistic. As far as these videos, I will not deny that they do have SOME rather convincing bits of evidence, such as the demolition thing, and the fact that it is scientifically impossible for a boeing 700 series jet to be vaporized entirely by jet fuel as the government claims. 

I think the government knows a lot that we do not, but I still have concluded at least for myself that this was terrorists. Logically, it makes sense. Around the world we are gaining more enemies constantly. Just a thought.





> Originally Posted by *memeticverb* 
> Sorry, simply saying that there isnt any proof isnt even an argument.



That..doesn't quite make sense. Of course that's an argument. The lack of proof or a logical explanation of things is grounds for a lost argument.

On a side note...

Many psychologists say that aggression is most commonly linked to fear. Do many of you act so immature and childlike because you might be....afraid of being wrong? I guess all of the unnecessary childish sarcastic remarks are a result of letting kids partake in what once were "intelligent" discussions. So sad that so few have the maturity to have a friendly debate. it is not impossible to make your point without insulting other people.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Of course I'm afraid of being wrong. Its part of the human condition. And, yes, insults and smirky remarks are a defense mechanism. But when I read some of the stuff I do here, smirky remarks just sound _so good_ in my head. It kind of spices up the conversations.

But, my sacrasm, especially 2 posts before this one, is meant to point out the idiocy of the conspiracy theory, in a way that only sarcasm can do. Read that post, and you will see how stupid the conspiracy theory is, and how shaky the ground it stands on is.

On the other hand, the al Aqeda "theory" is rock hard.

----------


## Rainman

And why is not agreeing with someone grounds for insulting them? There is no way you can justify it. It is entirely unnecessary, and you'll never convince me otherwise. Defense is one thing, but when someone presents a point, and gets insulted out of the blue, that's not defense, that's entirely offense. People attack others on these forums, for absolutely no reason. There's no getting around this one.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> And why is not agreeing with someone grounds for insulting them? There is no way you can justify it. It is entirely unnecessary, and you'll never convince me otherwise. Defense is one thing, but when someone presents a point, and gets insulted out of the blue, that's not defense, that's entirely offense. People attack others on these forums, for absolutely no reason. There's no getting around this one.



We're all big-boys here. I don't think anyone has gotten their feelings hurt. 

My sarcasm only surfaces when I feel like people aren't reading or understand what I am saying, something Solskye had admitted to doing. But you're right, that doesn't mean it is going to make a difference.

----------


## Rainman

> We're all big-boys here. I don't think anyone has gotten their feelings hurt.



That's not the point. I am only acknowledging that it is unfortunate that people are so simple minded that they are incapable of arguing intelectually and like mature adults. So instead many people throw insults into the argument that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and it doesn't contribute in any way.

Please understand that I am by no means singling you out. If you feel like I was, sorry. I'm merely pointing out that all of these insulting comments people continuously make are completely pointless, and actually counterproductive. But let's not hijack the topic of this thread, no pun intended :p

----------


## Half/Dreaming

9/11 was carried out by fanatical Islamo-fascist terrorists because we interfered with their ignorant violence directed toward all "infidels", which includes other Muslims and Jews. They believe our attempt to create stability by establishing the boundaries of Israel was a dirct intervention of their conquest to exterminate the Jews.

Now, the same people think they can break our will by using sissy tactics and killing civilians, and to get us to leave so they can continue their oppressive regimes of the countries they used to rule. In the future, they want oppressive Islamic leadership of the world and the conversion, enslavement, or death of every non-Muslim.

Any person who denies the existence of fanatical Islam or their intentions to kill us using terrorist attacks is absolutely ridiculus.

----------


## Rainman

It would indeed be silly to imply that there are no terrorists. That much is obvious. However, it was not our buisiness to interfere with the ongoings of their pointless violence. America thinks it's god and we can just step in whenever the fuck we want. Ridiculous. We brought this on ourselves, largely. Notice how no one ever fucks with countries like Australia? It's cause Australia doesn't stick their nose in things that have nothing to do with them.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

America has been the protector of the world for the last 60 years. We assumed that position after WW2, because the major European countries let Hitler rise to power and construct his army, breaking god knows how many EU rules for Germany. American politicians feel they must take preliminary action so that never happens again. If you say "well its not going to happen again", think about that for a moment. It will never happen again because of America's might. But, if we become a "peace only" nation, our might and fear factor is gone. The duality is amazing. Our war mongering actions are the same actions that provide security to the world. 

So many people hate America. But deep down they know that if America were to just dissapear one day, they would find themselves in a deep pile of shit. Just imagine a world where America's big ass army wasn't there to free Kuwait. Who knows how many other countries would just take other countries if they weren't afraid of retalliation from us.

----------


## tyrantt23

> Now, the same people think they can break our will by using sissy tactics and killing civilians, and to get us to leave so they can continue their oppressive regimes of the countries they used to rule.




I find it funny in a dark humor kind of way that you say that. You know, terrorists aren't the only ones killing civilians. Some american soldiers in Iraq are only worsening the situation by many degrees! Take a look at this video, and this one about how "air support" works on the battlefield (warning, graphic content). Is that how you are supposed to protect and defend other countries? Is that how you provide security to the world? I would actually say that's actually how you piss off the rest of the world...

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> I find it funny in a dark humor kind of way that you say that. You know, terrorists aren't the only ones killing civilians. Some american soldiers in Iraq are only worsening the situation by many degrees! Take a look at this video (warning, graphic content). Is that how you are supposed to protect and defend other countries? Is that how you provide security to the world? I would actually say that's actually how you piss off the rest of the world...



27&#37; of the civilian deaths in Iraq are attributed to Coalition forces. Get your facts straight. 

You know dude, just because there are isolated incidents of soldiers doing terrible things doesn't mean our entire mission is misled. These are _soldiers_ not politicians, and our politicians are the one's who make the decisions to go into countries. What random soldiers do there shouldn't be a reflection of our entire country.

By the way, the only body I see in that video has a gun laying to the right of it, and you can't even tell what they are shooting at. There's no way the people in the cars were being shot at, because they would be dead. No rounds hit the car or the ground around it. The marines also comment about sniper rounds hitting their location.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Many psychologists say that aggression is most commonly linked to fear. Do many of you act so immature and childlike because you might be....afraid of being wrong? I guess all of the unnecessary childish sarcastic remarks are a result of letting kids partake in what once were "intelligent" discussions. So sad that so few have the maturity to have a friendly debate. it is not impossible to make your point without insulting other people.



Satire is a valid method for illustrating the logical flaws in a point, especially after the person using it was insulted by the other person in another thread.  It's also known as taking a concept "to the Nth degree".  That is a method for putting an idea under a microscope and seeing where it would logically lead, which serves as a measure of the truth of the concept.  Friendly satire is a legitimate form of trash talk to use with somebody who started the trash talking.  But flat out beligerant insults shouldn't be used.

----------


## jedimind

Yea 9/11 was the most elaborate government conspiracy ever devised LMFAO. The American governement can't even organise the military effort in iraq yet you think they're able to carry out such a complicated plan. 

http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641

LoL

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Yea 9/11 was the most elaborate government conspiracy ever devised LMFAO. The American governement can't even organise the military effort in iraq yet you think they're able to carry out such a complicated plan. 
> 
> http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641
> 
> LoL



Nice!!! Kudos for the South Park. The best scene is when George W. is explaining how they got away with it. So funny. Either that or when Cartman tries to explain 9/11. He blame Kyle, and actually has proof!!! Probably more proof than conspiracy theories have in real life.

----------


## memeticverb

> Yea 9/11 was the most elaborate government conspiracy ever devised LMFAO. The American governement can't even organise the military effort in iraq yet you think they're able to carry out such a complicated plan. 
> 
> http://www.911blogger.com/node/3641
> 
> LoL



This is a simple logical fallacy...

...Not to mention completely proven wrong by the very fact that Operation Northwoods was not brought to public attention until 1999.  Thus, Operation Northwoods proves that 1) the Pentagon does indeed have the technological and monetary capability to plan in detail a staged terrorist attack against the U.S. public. and 2) that this sort of activity can be kept secret for a very long time.

Now for those who think they can debunk the evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC, you must first _engage_ that evidence, and not simply pretend it doesnt exist.  Flat denials are not arguments.  So..heres just a tiny fraction of the evidence, as presented by PhD professors with relevant experience:

Dr. Crocket Grabbe, winner of the National Science Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship, and teacher of graduate courses in Plasma Physics and Mathematical Physics recently wrote this:
*Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
Widespread Impact Damage*
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf

Terry Morrone. Professor Emeritus of Physics, Adelphi University
*Proof That The Thermal And Gravitational Energy
Available Were Insufficient to Melt Steel in the Twin Towers and WTC7*
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...ngWTCsteel.pdf

And again, heres the proof that there was in fact tons of molten iron and a govt offical's attempt to deny it:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...03712325092501


___________________________________

Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
http://www.ae911truth.org/

----------


## Universal Mind

There are two things I still haven't had explained to me.  

1.) If speculating lay people in this thread can understand demolition so well that they know the WTC towers fell because of base explosions, then why are demolition experts and engineers all over the world not coming together by the millions and screaming that?  Somebody here responded to that question by telling me that there are some engineers and demolition experts saying it.  That doesn't answer my question.  I am asking why they are not doing it by the millions.  Why is there not a huge outcry by the construction/demolition masses about this?  Why isn't there chatter at the dinner tables and bar circles of every construction expert and demolition expert in the world?  A lot of the conspiracy theories about 9/11 keep making me ask questions like that.  Here is another example...

2.) Why are Pentagon workers not screaming their heads off by the thousands that NO AIRPLANE hit the Pentagon when they were at work?  If the biggest news story of all time involved my place of work and I didn't recall a big ass passenger airplane hitting the building where I was working, I would be on every talk show in the world talking about it.  Thousands of my co-workers would be with me.  Where are those people?  If you believe in the conspiracy but think an airplane did hit the Pentagon, who the Hell was flying it?  And what about the other three airplanes?  Were at least four people willing to kill themselves so Bush and Cheney could get good oil company pay offs?  

If somebody could clear up those two issues, I will be significantly closer to seeing things from the conspiracy theory point of view.

----------


## Alric

Obviously some thing hit the Pentagon, the people inside obviously wouldn't know what it is. If they did they were close enough to die as it hit them. Personally thats not something I even bother argueing about, since it has nothing to do with all the other facts. To often people go say they don't believe what happened at the pentago so refuse to listen to what happened to the towers, even though they are two different theroies which nothing to do with each other.

As for your other question, there isn't millions of engineers all around the world looking at it. Most probably didn't pay attention, believe what the government said and moved on, couldn't care less either way, or its really not there area of expertise. You can hardly say someone is lying because everyone doesn't agree with them, that makes no sense at all. Besides how do you know what they are talking about? We are talking about people who stepped forward to say it was demolition. Theres atleast 5 people for everyone who steps forward, that won't pubically say its because its not popular or they are scared, or think people will make fun of them.

It seems you always base your arguement on other people opinions instead of the facts. There are polls in new york and stuff where they got like 80% of the people said they thought the government was hiding stuff, but since its not on the news its not true right? Because if it was true the news would cover it? That is a flawed way of thinking.

----------


## Universal Mind

Alric, your thinking is flawed.  I am not just simply interested in public opinion.  I am interested in the opinions of experts, and I am interested in whether or not people heard an airplane hit the Pentagon and other social factors that are relevant to this conspiracy stuff.  That's not the same as giving a damn what somebody like you thinks about whether there was a 9/11 conspiracy.  

If an airplane hit the Pentagon, people working there would know.  We don't have 1/6 of the thousands of people working at the Pentagon saying that it was not hit by an airplane.  We have 0/6.  They were there, while average Joe on the street was not.  The Pentagon has windows, a parking lot, air traffic controllers responsible for its area, cops that react to its criminal situations immediately, and workers who can go outside immediately and see if it was a metal ball on a crane that hit the Pentagon.  How would all or practically all of those people miss a missile or metal ball or whatever?  Why would the government roll dice like that?  If something other than an airplane hit the Pentagon, it would be widely known.  Please explain how it would not.  

Also, we don't have 1 out of 6 engineers or demolition experts or construction foremen saying the biggest news story in history, which involves construction/demolition aspects and issues, is flawed.  You know good and well that most of them give a damn on some level about the story, especially the American ones, especially the Americans in New York.  Do you claim that all of them know what really happened and are too scared to talk, except a very tiny percentage of them which can be accounted for by the Bush hate cult factor?  Why aren't the masses going off about it?  You underestimate the phenomenon of grape vine talking.  A few engineers talking would get enough engineers interested enough to do more talking, and it would be an enormous matter.  It would make Watergate look like a jay walking incident in Hazelhurst, Mississippi.  Public opinion by itself is unimportant to me, which is why just seeing non-experts in this thread talking about how a bunch of demolition and construction principles that I know very little about, while the masses of actual experts are close to completely silent, does not mean much to me and is not going to have me going after an engineering degree so I can get to the bottom of their non-expert claims.  But psychology/sociology principles that I know for a fact exist (stuff I do know a lot about) and are not at play in a situation where they should be if the situation is actually real does have me calling bullshit on ideas.  If I hear about a situation where I know certain social phenomena will result, and those social phenomena do not result, the idea that the situation happened will seem absurd.  

Let's say that somebody claims hurricane Katrina was just a regular storm and never a category 5 hurricane, not even a category 1 hurricane.  Suppose that the claim is that the government and media hyped it up to make it look like there was a hurricane.  They might say the levee was blown up so there would be a flood so the government and media could say there was a hurricane.  Now suppose that the claim is correct.  Don't you think people in Mississippi and Louisiana would be all over the place going off about how there was no hurricane?  Well, they're not doing it.  What does that tell you?  So this is not about mere public opinion.  It's about social phenomena that do occur under certain circumstances.  If A results in B, and B does not happen in a situation, then A did not happen in that situation.  Do you understand?

----------


## memeticverb

> This is a simple logical fallacy...
> 
> ...Not to mention completely proven wrong by the very fact that Operation Northwoods was not brought to public attention until 1999.  Thus, Operation Northwoods proves that 1) the Pentagon does indeed have the technological and monetary capability to plan in detail a staged terrorist attack against the U.S. public. and 2) that this sort of activity can be kept secret for a very long time.
> 
> Now for those who think they can debunk the evidence of controlled demolition of the WTC, you must first _engage_ that evidence, and not simply pretend it doesnt exist.  Flat denials are not arguments.  So..heres just a tiny fraction of the evidence, as presented by PhD professors with relevant experience:
> 
> Dr. Crocket Grabbe, winner of the National Science Foundation's Postdoctoral Fellowship, and teacher of graduate courses in Plasma Physics and Mathematical Physics recently wrote this:
> *Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and
> Widespread Impact Damage*
> ...



To UM, you committed two fallacies in each of your last two points, and answered neither of the above points posted by myself.

To argue that because _only_ hundreds of prominent architects, engineers and physicists have made public statements or written scholarly articles, instead of the millions that are in existence, does not in any way provide evidence against the controlled demolition theory.  It is very important to understand this as its a common fallacy promoted constantly on the internet. 

The second point made by UM is also widely recognized as a strawman fallacy, since the first person to propose the missile theory for the Pentagon was Donald Rumsfeld.  The idea was then promoted by a number of hoax artists pretending to be a part of the 911 Truth movement.  This is called Psy-ops; where a wild theory is promoted by agents of disinformation to discredit the wider movement in which it is injected.  Even if it were true that the vast majority of 911 researchers believe a missile hit the Pentagon (they definitely do not) it would be a fallacy of reasoning to discount all the other pieces of evidence based on the falsity of just one.

----------


## Riley

Personally, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a government conspiracy to make them seem all-powerful.

----------


## Universal Mind

> To argue that because _only_ hundreds of prominent architects, engineers and physicists have made public statements or written scholarly articles, instead of the millions that are in existence, does not in any way provide evidence against the controlled demolition theory. It is very important to understand this as its a common fallacy promoted constantly on the internet.



That is not an argument.  It is an assertion.  Explain yourself.  I am still waiting for a counterargument, not a mere contradiction.  





> The second point made by UM is also widely recognized as a strawman fallacy, since the first person to propose the missile theory for the Pentagon was Donald Rumsfeld. The idea was then promoted by a number of hoax artists pretending to be a part of the 911 Truth movement. This is called Psy-ops; where a wild theory is promoted by agents of disinformation to discredit the wider movement in which it is injected. Even if it were true that the vast majority of 911 researchers believe a missile hit the Pentagon (they definitely do not) it would be a fallacy of reasoning to discount all the other pieces of evidence based on the falsity of just one.



That does not in any way counter my point.  If you will read my post more carefully, you will see that question 2 was two part.  I addressed one of the common hypotheses, which comes in many forms, not just a form involving the idea of a missile.  The second part was meant for those who believe an airplane did hit the Pentagon but that the airplane was part of a government conspiracy.  I asked who would be willing to die for whatever the "real" agenda was.

I am nowhere near being a construction or demolition expert.  I have a learning disability when it comes to that stuff.  I get dizzy thinking about how legos fit together.  I am not going to argue about that stuff because I don't know how the buildings should have fallen.  But my understanding of human behavior tells me that your conspiracy hypothesis doesn't add up.  I know how hysterical society in general is, and I know how information travels in academic circles and in society in general.  It is not traveling the way it would if what you are arguing were true.  Did you read my Katrina analogy?  Until you explain away my points about this, you are not going to convince me of anything, no matter how much you talk about this board going this way and that metal melting that way.  I am not going to take an extreme minority's word for it.  Now give me some direct counterarguments.  





> Personally, I think that the 9/11 conspiracy theory is a government conspiracy to make them seem all-powerful.



If it is, they are doing a great job of achieving the objective.  I think it's funny to see people talk about what an absolute moron Bush is and then turn around and say he pulled off by far the most impressive conspiracy stunt in the history of the world.  That reminds me of the South Park episode that's been brought up in this thread a few times.

----------


## Alric

The flaw with your arguement however is there is people who are running around complaining about it. You just call them crazy and move on however. Its easy to say no one is talking about it when you decide to ignore everyone with the 'wrong' view.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The flaw with your arguement however is there is people who are running around complaining about it. You just call them crazy and move on however. Its easy to say no one is talking about it when you decide to ignore everyone with the 'wrong' view.



I said there are some.  But I am talking about social phenomena that involve the masses.  If you can figure out the demolition stuff, then every engineer, demolitionist, and construction foreman and supervisor in the world would have understood it in September of 2001.  A two minute bar room conversation would result in every one of those people in the world knowing that the government's explanation is incorrect.  That would turn into the biggest news story ever.  I don't see any way around that.  It would be like the government explaining how somebody died and using false medical science in the explanation.  The entire medical community would pick up on that in a matter of days, and from there the whole world would know.  So if the medical community at large doesn't do that, it means people posting in this thread so far generally would not have some keen understanding of any medical falsehoods the government is using.  Think about that.  We are talking about the biggest news event ever, and one that is at the root of a war my country is involved in.  If there were construction/demolition falsehoods being used by the government that you and Memeticverb and others in this thread understand, how in the world would that not be getting screamed out by the masses of the actual experts?  You're saying it, but they aren't?  I don't come anywhere near seeing how that makes sense.

----------


## Alric

There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51% of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?

----------


## Alric

Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.

----------


## Universal Mind

> There are a lot of them that say it, your only problem is you don't believe there is 'enough' of them saying it. How many is enough? Where is the line between it being true and false based on how many agree? Does 51&#37; of them believing it make it true. Do you only need 40% or do you need nearly all of them to say it before it is true?



You are still misunderstanding my point.  I am not saying popular belief means truth.  I am saying that truth that is so accessible and easy to understand that even regular Joes on a lucid dreaming forum site can understand it will be understood by the masses of experts, and when that happens in the type of evil situation we are talking about and it is the biggest news story of all time, the expert chatter would be the loudest sound in the world.  It is about a social phenomenon that is not happening, not that popular belief automatically means truth.  If what you are saying about stuff that is so building construction 101 is true, experts who disagree with it should be very rare.  I don't know what exact number I would put on it, but it would be something in the insignificant zone.  Experts are often wrong, but not about stuff that is this easy for every single one of them.  We are not talking about rocket science or brain surgery principles that are debatable among people who understand those things.  We are talking about no-brainer stuff for people who understand the basics.  Something like what you are saying would be huge.  And why would the government lie about something so easy for the experts to figure out in the biggest news story in history?  

Again...  Who could have possibly been flying the airplanes?   What suicide terrorists would be willing to die for Bush?  Doesn't it make much more sense that they were suicide bombers dying for Allah and attacking their #1 enemy?  The latter is so much more plausible.





> Here is a question? How come the masses didn't raise up and ask what happen to building 7? Obviously it fell, thats a fact. Obviously it wasn't hit by a plane, that is a fact. All people agree on both of them but then you put them togather and you get, building 7 wasn't hit by anything yet it fell. The obvious question is why? Yet there are still people don't even know building 7 fell.



I am not an expert on how it works, but I think it was supposed to be caused by the debris of two of the tallest buildings in the world crumbling and slamming to the ground.  I will ask my construction supervisor friend about it some time.  Or do you think I should ask a bar tender?

----------


## Alric

If you look at the video though, there is next to no damage to the building. If you have a friend like that I don't see why you don't ask him. Honestly I would like to hear his opinion as well. How come one of the least damaged buildings in the area fell?

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you look at the video though, there is next to no damage to the building. If you have a friend like that I don't see why you don't ask him. Honestly I would like to hear his opinion as well. How come one of the least damaged buildings in the area fell?



I'll have to wait until he gets out of rehab.  He never brought up the issue when we used to hang out all the time, and we were best friends when 9/11 happened and talked a lot about terrorism and the war on terror.  

My lay person hypothesis would be that what matters is where the damage occurs and not how much damage there is overall that determines whether a building falls.  I guess.  But that's about all any of us here can do.

EDIT:  My hypothesis is the explanation given in an article in the magazine _Popular Mechanics_.  It goes into detail about what could have happened.  

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=5

----------


## Alric

That may true but it fell the same way as the other buildings did, straight down. There isn't one key point in the building if hit, will collapse the entire thing. Now if the building fell over side ways like the site was trying to say it did, then yea I would say that was possible. Theres video from every angle of that building though, including from the side which was damage, up to and including the moment it collapsed and the front of the building that was hit did not collapse first.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That may true but it fell the same way as the other buildings did, straight down. There isn't one key point in the building if hit, will collapse the entire thing. Now if the building fell over side ways like the site was trying to say it did, then yea I would say that was possible. Theres video from every angle of that building though, including from the side which was damage, up to and including the moment it collapsed and the front of the building that was hit did not collapse first.



The article talks about internal stress damage that was relevant.  It said stress on one face could be transferred to the other faces and cause a vertical collapse.  

And again...  Who do you think was flying those airplanes?

----------


## Alric

Its easy enough to control a plane by computer control. Its basicly what autopilot does anyway. Besides its not like its trying to do any complex like landing, it just needs to slam into a building.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Its easy enough to control a plane by computer control. Its basicly what autopilot does anyway. Besides its not like its trying to do any complex like landing, it just needs to slam into a building.



Imagine how hard it would be to pull that off.  Plenty of workers on the planes would know the pilots aren't there.  Air traffic control would know that they aren't talking to the pilots.  People working on the runway would look inside the airplanes and see that pilots are in there.  Maintenance workers would see that the cockpit has some crazy extra equipment in it.  There is no way the government could pull that off without a lot of people noticing.

----------


## Alric

Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.

As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.
> 
> As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.



I'm confused. Are you saying this is what happened, or are you just saying its a possibility? What about the phone calls from Flight 93. We know there was a hostile takeover.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats not really true. No one is really watching the cockpit. Once they go in there and lock the door. Basicly you really only need someone to say they are talking to the pilots and maybe a boss to change a few things on a schedule so no one notices. Thats all it really takes, two people.
> 
> As for all the equipment, it may be possible to do it with very little or no changes. And if it not, your having a maintenance put it in anyway so no chance anyone else is going to see it.



Flag people on the runway communicate with the pilots using signals, and several people in air traffic control talk to them.  And the plane workers know the pilots personally and know when they are not there.  





> What about the phone calls from Flight 93. We know there was a hostile takeover.



Yeah, that too.  


If the conspiracy really did happen and was pulled off so well, it is the most impressive thing I have ever heard of.  It is about the most evil thing I have ever heard of too.

----------


## Alric

I am just saying its possible.

----------


## memeticverb

If you notice, "Universal Mind's" posts are usually excessively wordy for their lack of substantive content, almost never contain reputable sources, (or even any source) and often contain logical fallacies (the simplest of which he doesn't acknowledge or probably even comprehend).

It is a *fallacy,* therefore irrelevant improper reasoning, to argue as UM does, that because there are not "millions" of scientists or other experts saying that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives that this counts against this theory.  This is such a terrible and arbitrary argument its hard to believe it is even seriously being used.  On the contrary, we should expect politically disruptive theories to be vehemently opposed by officials and very hesitantly acknowledged by the relevant experts.  

The controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings has already been *proven* by experts, (hundreds if not thousands of them).  If one wishes to argue against their proof, which is based in science and logic, then they must use logic and scientific reasoning to do so.

Again, they should start with any argument or scientific article written in the Journal of 911 Studies, or found in the group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage 
*Dr. Crockett Grabbe*
http://www.journalof911studies.com/v...nsEvidence.pdf


The Sustainability of the Controlled Demolition Hypothesis for the Destruction of the Twin Towers 
*Tony Szamboti, ME*

9/11  Evidence for Controlled Demolition: a Short List of Observations
*Frank Legge (Ph D)*

http://www.journalof911studies.com/a...olition_20.pdf


Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Please, UM, or Half Dreaming, or other people violently reacting to the 911 Truth movement, just engage any of these articles, or any of the arguments found on the AE91truth.org site, and not your own illogical concoctions.  And others, whether you agree or not, critical engagement with the work of experts is always productive.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

There weren't any explosives in the basement. How many times do I have to mention that the bottom floors and basement were the very last to go?

The hole in the Pentagon was the exact size of the cabin of the 757 that hit it.

Building 7 fell hours after the attacks. The massive amount of explosives it would have taken to destroy that building was never heard. The explosives would have made a louder noise than the actual building falling.

Osama bin Laden, the architect/terrorist, confessed to the attacks, assuming the wack-ass theory that al Qaeda doesn't exist isn't true.

The phone conversations of Flight 93 indicate Arabic speaking people taking over the plane.

Last of all, and my favorite, *the 9/11 Commission Report knows better than you do. 585 pages of "9/11 Truth" beats the crap out of your "expert opinions".* 1200 interviews in 10 countries, and HALF A MILLION documents came up with our "theory". What do you have on that? Read for yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Commission_Report

The simple fact that your theories don't have as much support as mine proves which one is right. And my support isn't from a buch of rogue architects.

What about the bombings in London? Were they a conspiracy too?

----------


## Universal Mind

> If you notice, "Universal Mind's" posts are usually excessively wordy for their lack of substantive content, almost never contain reputable sources, (or even any source) and often contain logical fallacies (the simplest of which he doesn't acknowledge or probably even comprehend).
> 
> It is a *fallacy,* therefore irrelevant improper reasoning, to argue as UM does, that because there are not "millions" of scientists or other experts saying that the WTC buildings were demolished with explosives that this counts against this theory. This is such a terrible and arbitrary argument its hard to believe it is even seriously being used. On the contrary, we should expect politically disruptive theories to be vehemently opposed by officials and very hesitantly acknowledged by the relevant experts. 
> 
> The controlled demolition theory of the WTC buildings has already been *proven* by experts, (hundreds if not thousands of them). If one wishes to argue against their proof, which is based in science and logic, then they must use logic and scientific reasoning to do so.
> 
> Again, they should start with any argument or scientific article written in the Journal of 911 Studies, or found in the group Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
> 
> Direct Evidence for Explosions: Flying Projectiles and Widespread Impact Damage 
> ...



Why do you always have to go into personal attacks?  It's because your points lack substance.  You insult me and throw negative labels at my arguments, but you never actually counter them.  That's because you can't.  And I did post an article from Popular Mechanics along with making many logical arguments about how the conspiracy hypothesis does not add up.  Let's see you actually counter the arguments I have made, beyond saying the already made and countered point that some engineers have said they think there was a conspiracy.  Again, I am talking about the masses of experts who easily understand what somebody like you could understand and the social phenomenon of the travel of important knowledge in the midst of the biggest news stories of all time.  Review my arguments, and try to counter them.  I don't think you can.  Your hollow labels are vague and not backed up by specific arguments.  Let's see what you can actually argue, not just assert.  

And again, I am not a demolition expert, and I don't think you are either.  We are not qualified to argue the demolition specifics because there are too many alternative explanations and factors to consider for us to form anything conclusive.  The people in those videos are in the extreme minority and have nothing to do with my argument that the masses of experts would be creating chatter that has not been happening.  I made many other arguments too.  Let's see if you understand the concept of direct counterargument.  Your hollow hostility is very weak.

----------


## memeticverb

> Why do you always have to go into personal attacks?  It's because your points lack substance.  You insult me and throw negative labels at my arguments, but you never actually counter them.  That's because you can't.  And I did post an article from Popular Mechanics along with making many logical arguments about how the conspiracy hypothesis does not add up.  Let's see you actually counter the arguments I have made, beyond saying the already made and countered point that some engineers have said they think there was a conspiracy.  Again, I am talking about the masses of experts who easily understand what somebody like you could understand and the social phenomenon of the travel of important knowledge in the midst of the biggest news stories of all time.  Review my arguments, and try to counter them.  I don't think you can.  Your hollow labels are vague and not backed up by specific arguments.  Let's see what you can actually argue, not just assert.



lol.  I didnt personally attack you, which you admit when you say I "labeled" your arguments as logical fallacies.  They are. And you just committed a few more, proving my point that you do not comprehend basic use of logic.

Popular mechanics makes good use of fallacies as well and that you think it offers _any_ valid arguments shows how little you've studied this topic before spouting off at overly-repetitive length on it.





> And again, I am not a demolition expert, and I don't think you are either.  We are not qualified to argue the demolition specifics because there are too many alternative explanations and factors to consider for us to form anything conclusive.  The people in those videos are in the extreme minority and have nothing to do with my argument that the masses of experts would be creating chatter that has not been happening.  I made many other arguments too.  Let's see if you understand the concept of direct counterargument.  Your hollow hostility is very weak.



Im not being hostile but merely pointing out faulty reasoning.  No one needs to be an expert to be able to debate or be knowledgeable on any topic.  Academic expertise only adds credibility, it doesnt establish or confine truth.  

And no one is arguing demolition "specifics" anyways, but general characteristics that are visibly plain in any demolition.  We cannot debate specifics because the steel needed to do so was destroyed despite protest by 911 Families and scientists who wanted it properly analyzed for arson.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

....arson?

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol. I didnt personally attack you, which you admit when you say I "labeled" your arguments as logical fallacies. They are. And you just committed a few more, proving my point that you do not comprehend basic use of logic.



Do you understand the difference between an assertion and an actual argument?  Prove it.  You talk about my inability to "comprehend" and how I used fallacies, but then you don't say what I didn't comprehend or what the supposed fallacies are.  Now try actually countering the points of mine which got our little exchange (It hasn't risen to the level of debate yet because you won't actually debate.) going.  Do you think you can handle that?  I don't.  





> Popular mechanics makes good use of fallacies as well and that you think it offers _any_ valid arguments shows how little you've studied this topic before spouting off at overly-repetitive length on it.



Yeah, the professionals who read it don't know that, but you do because... uh, I don't know how you know.  I guess you're just the man.  I'll take your word for it. 





> Im not being hostile but merely pointing out faulty reasoning. No one needs to be an expert to be able to debate or be knowledgeable on any topic. Academic expertise only adds credibility, it doesnt establish or confine truth.



Saying faulty reasoning is there is not the same as actually pointing out faulty reasoning.  You have yet to point out faulty reasoning.  I used the Popular Mechanics article because somebody said I had no expert opinion backing up my doubt.  I didn't say it proved everything.  You still have not countered my arguments.  





> And no one is arguing demolition "specifics" anyways, but general characteristics that are visibly plain in any demolition. We cannot debate specifics because the steel needed to do so was destroyed despite protest by 911 Families and scientists who wanted it properly analyzed for arson.



Oh, you can't debate specifics?  You also apparently can't debate my arguments.  What can you debate?  All you have done is say that my points are illogical, but you have not specifically said how they supposedly are or countered them.  That amounts to nothing but spewing hot air.  At least attempt to debate my points.  Let's see what you can do.

----------


## memeticverb

Blah...blah..blah.  What a joke!  UM, Im starting to wonder if you are a computer bot that randomly spits out redundant lines of half-baked thought.  Your posts are getting quite ironic.

I did in fact refer you directly to the fallacy you made, which was of the form, "Because there are not X number of experts making a public statement B, that therefore B is untrue."  This is a non sequitur (meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premise), combined with an appeal to unbelief (few people believe A, therefore A is false.) And yes, fallacies can be combined to form ultra fallacies!  ::o: 

You committed a similar fallacy by exclaiming that one must be a demolitions expert in order to understand the most basic characteristics of controlled demolition as seen in WTC7.

And you have also made a factual error in claiming that Popular Mechanics somehow constitutes an expert opinion.  The best they could do with the article on 911 was obtain a list of experts without any explanation of what evidence or research these experts provide to substantiate their inclusion in the article.  Yes, this is an appeal to authority.

And just now you committed your favorite fallacy again by saying that because I am not "one of the experts who reads Popular Mechanics" that I am therefore not in a position to critique it.  Seriously, given your astounding repetition of the same errors of reasoning its hard to believe you are being honest in debating at all.

Youtube: Popular Mechanics Caught Lying

Also 

"In the case of Popular Mechanics, we see people being quite openly deceptive in their strong support of the Bush Administration's terror story. In their book they promote false claims that the government no longer supports, including the Pancake Theory. They also promote other, more ridiculous ideas including the claim that massive damage was done to the basement levels of a WTC tower by a bolus of jet fuel that meandered its way through several elevator shafts in the jogged elevator system, moving carefully around the elevators themselves and waiting all the while to explode in the sub-basements over 90 stories below. Additionally, PM repeats the false and ludicrous claim that the buildings were designed for airliner impacts, but not for jet fuel fires. In fact, John Skilling, the actual chief engineer of the WTC, made it clear in 1993 that jet fuel fires were considered in the structural design.[19]"...

----------


## Universal Mind

> Blah...blah..blah. What a joke! UM, Im starting to wonder if you are a computer bot that randomly spits out redundant lines of half-baked thought. Your posts are getting quite ironic.
> 
> I did in fact refer you directly to the fallacy you made, which was of the form, "Because there are not X number of experts making a public statement B, that therefore B is untrue." This is a non sequitur (meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premise), combined with an appeal to unbelief (few people believe A, therefore A is false.) And yes, fallacies can be combined to form ultra fallacies! 
> 
> You committed a similar fallacy by exclaiming that one must be a demolitions expert in order to understand the most basic characteristics of controlled demolition as seen in WTC7.
> 
> And you have also made a factual error in claiming that Popular Mechanics somehow constitutes an expert opinion. The best they could do with the article on 911 was obtain a list of experts without any explanation of what evidence or research these experts provide to substantiate their inclusion in the article. Yes, this is an appeal to authority.
> 
> And just now you committed your favorite fallacy again by saying that because I am not "one of the experts who reads Popular Mechanics" that I am therefore not in a position to critique it. Seriously, given your astounding repetition of the same errors of reasoning its hard to believe you are being honest in debating at all.
> ...



I said you didn't tell me specifically what the fallacy was.  You told me the premise and conclusion involved in the supposed fallacy, but not the actual fallacy.  Your explanation shows that you have not been reading very carefully.  Look again...  





> I said there are some. But I am talking about social phenomena that involve the masses. If you can figure out the demolition stuff, then every engineer, demolitionist, and construction foreman and supervisor in the world would have understood it in September of 2001. A two minute bar room conversation would result in every one of those people in the world knowing that the government's explanation is incorrect. That would turn into the biggest news story ever. I don't see any way around that. It would be like the government explaining how somebody died and using false medical science in the explanation. The entire medical community would pick up on that in a matter of days, and from there the whole world would know. So if the medical community at large doesn't do that, it means people posting in this thread so far generally would not have some keen understanding of any medical falsehoods the government is using. Think about that. We are talking about the biggest news event ever, and one that is at the root of a war my country is involved in. If there were construction/demolition falsehoods being used by the government that you and Memeticverb and others in this thread understand, how in the world would that not be getting screamed out by the masses of the actual experts? You're saying it, but they aren't? I don't come anywhere near seeing how that makes sense.



 




> You are still misunderstanding my point. I am not saying popular belief means truth. I am saying that truth that is so accessible and easy to understand that even regular Joes on a lucid dreaming forum site can understand it will be understood by the masses of experts, and when that happens in the type of evil situation we are talking about and it is the biggest news story of all time, the expert chatter would be the loudest sound in the world. It is about a social phenomenon that is not happening, not that popular belief automatically means truth. If what you are saying about stuff that is so building construction 101 is true, experts who disagree with it should be very rare. I don't know what exact number I would put on it, but it would be something in the insignificant zone. Experts are often wrong, but not about stuff that is this easy for every single one of them. We are not talking about rocket science or brain surgery principles that are debatable among people who understand those things. We are talking about no-brainer stuff for people who understand the basics. Something like what you are saying would be huge. And why would the government lie about something so easy for the experts to figure out in the biggest news story in history?



So if you think more clearly, you will see that my point is about social phenomena, not the automatic correctness of experts in all situations.  But I also do believe that experts understand the mechanics of building collapse better than any of us.  That includes Popular Mechanics.  I can see why Bush haters who make up conspiracy theories would hate Popular Mechanics for calling bullshit on them.  You seem to hate them for the same reason.  Still, my main point is that the lack of social phenomena that in fact are not happening does illustrate that the bizarre conspiracy you claim happened did not happen.  I made other arguments you have been ignoring.  





> Again... Who could have possibly been flying the airplanes? What suicide terrorists would be willing to die for Bush? Doesn't it make much more sense that they were suicide bombers dying for Allah and attacking their #1 enemy? The latter is so much more plausible.







> Imagine how hard it would be to pull that off. Plenty of workers on the planes would know the pilots aren't there. Air traffic control would know that they aren't talking to the pilots. People working on the runway would look inside the airplanes and see that pilots are in there. Maintenance workers would see that the cockpit has some crazy extra equipment in it. There is no way the government could pull that off without a lot of people noticing.



And I expressed agreement where Half/Dreaming elaborated on the last one. 





> What about the phone calls from Flight 93. We know there was a hostile takeover.



Do you get it yet?  Counter away.

----------


## Cyclic13

::yawn:: YAAAAAWN... are you _still_ blowing your hot air UM? Just look at yourself. Now your arguing over whether or not he previously directly outlined the fallacy of your arguing style instead of dealing with the actual topic and points presented. Either way, he's already laid out where your way of thinking goes stagnant, regardless. Do you honestly need to wonder why people do nothing but skim over your lame baseless posts?

Here is his breakdown of your thinking since you seemed to have missed it, so you could attempt to bring it up for whatever lame reason...




> I did in fact refer you directly to the fallacy you made, which was of the form, "Because there are not X number of experts making a public statement B, that therefore B is untrue." This is a non sequitur (meaning the conclusion does not follow from the premise), combined with an appeal to unbelief (few people believe A, therefore A is false.) And yes, fallacies can be combined to form ultra fallacies!




It's a shame the only supporter of your baseless views is, Half/Dreaming, who is as equally Half/Witted as yourself. If only you were able to somehow splice your two minds together you might be able to have perspective enough to keep an open mind to grasp some of the concepts being presented in here... quite a shame really.  :Sad: 

There's no point for me stepping back into this arguement because you two already have your minds made up about it, and never post sources or admit when a valid question has been raised. Openmindedness at it's worst. 

I just thought I'd letcha know I wholly agree with memeticverb, and see the lame circular pattern of baseless biased ad hominum rhetoric, and have moved on. See ya around.  ::banana::

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Solskye, your borderline fanatical views on this subject are the ones without support. Our "Al Qaeda" theory has, for all intensive purposes, "all the support in the world"  :wink2: 

I think the thought of a conspiracy gets both of you sexually excited. I'm also sure it makes sense in your heads. The is no other reason why your theories would "make sense" to you.

If tower 7 was rigged with explosives, the noise of the explosives would have been much louder than the sound of the buiding falling. That sound was never heard.

----------


## Universal Mind

> YAAAAAWN... are you _still_ blowing your hot air UM? Just look at yourself. Now your arguing over whether or not he previously directly outlined the fallacy of your arguing style instead of dealing with the actual topic and points presented. Either way, he's already laid out where your way of thinking goes stagnant, regardless. Do you honestly need to wonder why people do nothing but skim over your lame baseless posts?
> 
> Here is his breakdown of your thinking since you seemed to have missed it, so you could attempt to bring it up for whatever lame reason...
> 
> It's a shame the only supporter of your baseless views is, Half/Dreaming, who is as equally Half/Witted as yourself. If only you were able to somehow splice your two minds together you might be able to have perspective enough to keep an open mind to grasp some of the concepts being presented in here... quite a shame really. 
> 
> There's no point for me stepping back into this arguement because you two already have your minds made up about it, and never post sources or admit when a valid question has been raised. Openmindedness at it's worst. 
> 
> I just thought I'd letcha know I wholly agree with memeticverb, and see the lame circular pattern of baseless biased ad hominum rhetoric, and have moved on. See ya around.



Wow, Solskye, you said... absolutely nothing.  That is very consistent of you.  I would congratulate you on your substantive arguments, but unfortunately, you didn't make any... ever.  But let's go down  your list of assertions that you can't back up with anything of substance. 

1. Reality does not exist.  
2. Women should be treated like shit because they know they suck.
3. Treating women like shit is justified as long as SolSkye gets his selfish way. 
4. Al Qaeda does not exist. Anybody who thinks they do is a robot.  
5. Anybody who disagrees with SolSkye is a robot. 
6. Even atheists who think drugs should be legalized, flag burning should be legal, and religion has no place in government functions is a right wing robot. 
7. SolSkye is better than everybody else just because he thinks he is.  Remember...  Reality does not exist.  
8. SolSkye's music is anything better than God awful.  

I think that pretty much sums up everything you have ever said here.  If you don't have anything to add to that list, you will just be repeating your hollow assertions.  Let me know if you actually have something to add to this conversation, even if it is just something to counter the things I said and reiterated when Memeticverb couldn't comprehend them.  Maybe you can't either.

----------


## memeticverb

> Unfortunately for 911 Truth deniers, there _is_ incontrovertible proof.  
> 
>  Demolition waves are clearly visible, exploding before the top mass can pulverize it.
> 
> Scientists and Academics have written articles claiming to prove the controlled demolition theory, and have not been refuted.
> 
> Its a simple fact that government officials have tried to cover up evidence, like the molten metal.
> 
> And I havnt seen one person in any forum discussing this topic even attempt to refute any of the facts and arguments provided by over a hundred Architects and Engineers.



Again, since none of the 911 Truth deniers has responded to any of these arguments or facts, they bear repeating. As well as this video comparison of WTC7 to a controlled demolition. 

Oh and UM, why didn't you respond to the short video link I provided showing how Popular Mechanics "chief researcher" for the 911 article was caught in multiple lies?  Or the fact that the article was not written by a real scientist, contained multiple fallacies, and was backed by no credible research?  Popular Mechanics has lied so many times that it would take an hour to post all of them.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

What about Flight 93?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Again, since none of the 911 Truth deniers has responded to any of these arguments or facts, they bear repeating. As well as this video comparison of WTC7 to a controlled demolition. 
> 
> Oh and UM, why didn't you respond to the short video link I provided showing how Popular Mechanics "chief researcher" for the 911 article was caught in multiple lies? Or the fact that the article was not written by a real scientist, contained multiple fallacies, and was backed by no credible research? Popular Mechanics has lied so many times that it would take an hour to post all of them.



What major source is that?  Some Youtube video that claims to be something credible?  Okay, let's pretend we should blindly trust that nobody source.  They split hairs over the use of the term "pull it" and hound a mechanics expert on where a DNA sample came from and he didn't know.  Yippie whooptie wooo!!!  I am not basing my argument on Popular Mechanics any way.  I told Alric that none of us are demolition experts and flat out said I was speculating on what might have happened to building 7 and said on a side note that a Popular Mechanics article argued what I speculated.  I have said many times in this thread that I don't know enough about the mechanics of demolition to argue about how boards and beams should have fallen and melted.  So let's get to the arguments I have been making and you have been ignoring.  

Respond to the points you have ignored after two rounds of my posting, particularly the ones concerning the social phenomena I described and didn't happen and the points about the airplanes.  Your bizarre story is not adding up.

----------


## Cyclic13

UM, Since you must resort to direct insults without correlation or connection to the debate, you have in essence conceded defeat. That'd be the exact same thing as, after having ran out of steam to continue on, you have no choice but to stoop as low as throwing around, YO MOMMA, jokes in desperation. How old are you again, 35? going on 12? How pathetic.

Hating on my music has nothing to do with al Qaeda, 9-11, or anything about anything, and all it proves to me is you are some jealous unproductive loser ex-social worker who stays up until ungodly hours of the morning, arguing things without backing them up, while listening to Led Zepplin, and knows next to nothing about music or music production. If you knew anything about music or the elements and instruments involved you would know you are full of it, it's pathetic really. No one in real life has ever said any of the things you said, because quite simply there is no one that feels the way you do.  :Cool: 

So, tell me again where does my music, or my views on manipulation which you even later agreed with me on, have anything to do with this? You unproductive jealous tool, you.  :wink2:

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I'll bet there's a lot of people on Earth that don't like you. Go ahead, make another post about how my insults are an act of desperation  ::rolleyes:: . Honestly, how are you any different?

What about Flight 93?

Also, can I get a link to this music? I want to hear the next Elvis before he gets famous.

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM, Since you must resort to direct insults without correlation or connection to the debate, you have in essence conceded defeat. That'd be the exact same thing as, after having ran out of steam to continue on, you have no choice but to stoop as low as throwing around, YO MOMMA, jokes in desperation. How old are you again, 35? going on 12? How pathetic.
> 
> Hating on my music has nothing to do with al Qaeda, 9-11, or anything about anything, and all it proves to me is you are some jealous unproductive loser ex-social worker who stays up until ungodly hours of the morning, arguing things without backing them up, while listening to Led Zepplin, and knows next to nothing about music or music production. If you knew anything about music or the elements and instruments involved you would know you are full of it, it's pathetic really. No one in real life has ever said any of the things you said, because quite simply there is no one that feels the way you do. 
> 
> So, tell me again where does my music, or my views on manipulation which you even later agreed with me on, have anything to do with this? You unproductive jealous tool, you.



Oh, I was thinking you used personal insults in your previous posts, as well as the above one.  Maybe not.   ::rolleyes::   Your entire argument is always, "You're a robot.  You're a sheep.  You suck.  I'm better than you."  So I thought I would play your game a little bit, but only after making points that you obviously can't counter.  You know very little about my job history or the business I do now.  I got a law degree after I stopped being a social worker, and now I work for myself.  I do know about music, and I am not the only person on Earth who would gag after hearing your music.  Make it where five people on Earth have heard it, and you will get the same reaction.  Now if you would like to get insults out of our conversations, let's see it.





> Also, can I get a link to this music? I want to hear the next Elvis before he gets famous.



There's a Myspace link in his sig line.  Prepare yourself.

----------


## Cyclic13

All of my insults have been in the vein of the topic at hand and should've been taken with a grain of salt. You didn't actually let one hit home, did you? Only after you bothered to stoop as low as to throw around Yo momma jokes, did I bother doing the same about talking about your ex-social worker too much free time loser status. Only to show how pointless and stupid a method it is.

An eye for an eye leaving the world blind, and all that jazz. Fun stuff.

I know what our music is and what it isn't. You try talking like you know what you like and what not, but we have plenty of people that dig our music and have listened to it so it really means nothing that you hate it. I wouldn't want someone with your 'refined' tastes listening to our music anyway. Try looking into the 'shakuhachi' which we incorporate into the music. It's only one of the world's most difficult instruments to play, and all. Y'know, nothing special. Be my guest though. Lace into our music all you want. You must know absolutely nothing about our music or our influences, or you wouldn't be able to say the things you are saying. It's funny how you're desperately trying to find something that'll strike a nerve with me, and as always, you are sadly mistaken. Poor baby  :Sad:

----------


## Universal Mind

> All of my insults have been in the vein of the topic at hand and should've been taken with a grain of salt. You didn't actually let one hit home, did you? Only after you bothered to stoop as low as to throw around Yo momma jokes, did I bother doing the same about talking about your ex-social worker too much free time loser status. Only to show how pointless and stupid a method it is.
> 
> An eye for an eye leaving the world blind, and all that jazz. Fun stuff.
> 
> I know what our music is and what it isn't. You try talking like you know what you like and what not, but we have plenty of people that dig our music and have listened to it so it really means nothing that you hate it. I wouldn't want someone with your 'refined' tastes listening to our music anyway. Try looking into the 'shakuhachi' which we incorporate into the music. It's only one of the world's most difficult instruments to play, and all. Y'know, nothing special. Be my guest though. Lace into our music all you want. You must know absolutely nothing about our music or our influences, or you wouldn't be able to say the things you are saying. It's funny how you're desperately trying to find something that'll strike a nerve with me, and as always, you are sadly mistaken. Poor baby



Calling me lame, half witted, full of hot air, and closed minded was on topic?  This thread is supposed to be about me, not 9/11?  I'm honored.  A grain of salt?  Oh, how convenient.  Uh, yeah, me too.  While I'm at it, I agree that your music is very special and that nobody with taste could ever possibly not like it.  At least I didn't strike a nerve with you.   ::chuckle::   If you have anything to say to disprove the statements I made about the actual subject of this thread, I'm ready to get back to it whenever you are.  Try to stay on topic from now on.

----------


## Cyclic13

I've already said I'm done arguing in this thread since you guys don't even bother entertaining or acknowledging legitimate questions, or outlining where you get your ideas. Honestly though, it doesn't strike a nerve with me about critiquing the music, at least I do something productive with myself. How about you? Also, I'd say winning a few composition contests, getting over twenty-five thousand plays in a little over a year's time, is pretty damn good. We didn't go searching for all those fans, either. *shrugs* Meh... just luck, I guess.  ::chuckle::

----------


## Universal Mind

> I've already said I'm done arguing in this thread since you guys don't even bother entertaining or acknowledging legitimate questions, or outlining where you get your ideas. Honestly though, it doesn't strike a nerve with me about critiquing the music, at least I do something productive with myself. How about you? Also, I'd say over twenty-five thousand plays in a little over a year's time, is pretty damn good. We didn't go searching for all those fans, either. *shrugs* Meh... just luck, I guess.



Obviously I didn't strike a nerve.  You must be telling the truth.  People won't shut the Hell up about you.  All I ever hear about around town any more is SolSkye.  I keep seeing your videos everywhere I go.  The kids around town have your name all over their notebooks too.  You're huge!  If you ever play in Jackson, I will buy out the auditorium so I can enjoy your greatness all by myself.  Well, maybe I won't have to spend that kind of money.  I'll tell you what.  I'll give you $5 if you play in my backyard.  I'll even let you use my computer so you can change the subject in fourm threads and demand that people believe your music is worth a damn.  I'll even help you out by telling them it is.  Everybody, spread the word...  SolSkye's repetetive racket with that annoying voice is so awesome! 

Please tell me again how the social phenomena I described would not take place if the 9/11 conspiracy were true.  Or did you mean to answer that by insulting everybody who doesn't love your enchanting melodies?

----------


## Cyclic13

Jackson? Where is that Mississippi? With a whopping 184k for a population. What a place to be from, you must be so proud to be from a place with such cultured and refined tastes! Do they even have dance clubs in Mississippi, or just hoe downs?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Jackson? Where is that Mississippi? With a whopping 184k for a population. What a place to be from, you must be so proud to be from a place with such cultured and refined tastes! Do they even have dance clubs in Mississippi, or just hoe downs?



No debate?  I'm so surprised.  

The metro area has more than half a million.  Along with being the birthplace of a lot of classic country music legends, Mississippi is the birth place of the blues and rock and roll.  Have you ever heard of those?  It's not the repetitive bing bong vomit quest you know so well, but those are widely considered great forms of music.  But not as good as SolSkye.  A lot of the greatest writers in history are from here too.  Get yourself educated.   ::wink:: 

Have you gotten up the guts for some more debate yet?

----------


## Cyclic13

I am educated, you forget I'm from the diverse capital of our nation and now have an international business at age 25. I know what I'm talking about, unlike yourself.

WOW... a whopping Half a million, eh? It must be a thriving metropolis with all kinds of artsy-fartsy tomfoolery for everyone then!  ::o: 
As of the census&#178; of 2000, there were *131,420 people*, 47,676 households, and 35,709 families residing in the county. The population density was 70/km&#178; (181/mi&#178 :wink2: . There were 51,678 housing units at an average density of 27/km&#178; (71/mi&#178 :wink2: . The racial makeup of the county was *75.35&#37; White, 20.87% Black or African American, 0.33% Native American, 1.57% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.72% from other races, and 1.12% from two or more races. 2.14% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race*... SUCH A DIVERSE PLACE!

So no dance clubs, eh? Thought so.  :Cool:  
Waait a minute, you do have dance clubs...oops that's SQUARE dance clubs...LOL. Face Your Corner -- Dosado; Face Your Partner -- Dosado; around 2 dancers -- Dosado. *annoying incessant fiddle playing with a bunch of overweight middle-class hick white women dancing around in country getup* I shudder to think...


Anyway, that's quite alright... there's no point in arguing with some close-minded country bumpkins about how things work outside their backwater town. I'm out of here. Peace out. (^o^)v

----------


## Universal Mind

> I am educated, you forget I'm from the diverse capital of our nation and now have an international business at age 25. I know what I'm talking about, unlike yourself.
> 
> So no dance clubs, eh? Thought so.  Anyway, that's quite alright... there's no point in arguing with some close-minded country bumpkins about how things work outside their backwater town. I'm out of here. Peace out. (^o^)v



You should get paid to pull things out of your ass.  By the way, I want to follow SolSkye next summer.  Then I can brag to the Widespread Panic fans that I topped them.  I'm sure they'll agree.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Solskye, what about Flight 93 and Osama's confession?

----------


## memeticverb

Just to summarize, here are a couple points UM and Half Dreaming have not even engaged, let alone given arguments against.

*1)  FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has along with many other FBI agents, blown the whistle on top officials within the FBI, saying they have supported terrorists and protected them.* 

Her claims were reviewed and *confirmed* by the Justice Department, but all efforts since this have been *blocked* by Attorney General without cause.

"On *January 14, 2004* , the Justice Department's Office unclassified summary of the Justice Department's Inspector General's report on Edmonds found that many of her claims "were supported, that the FBI did not take them seriously enough, and that her allegations were, in fact, the most significant factor in the FBI's decision to terminate her services."


*2)* FBI AGENT ROBERT WRIGHT SAYS FBI AGENTS ASSIGNED TO INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO PROTECT TERRORISTS FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

"Wright is the only FBI agent to seize terrorist funds (over $1.4 million) from U.S.-based Middle Eastern terrorists using federal civil forfeiture statutes, prior to the September 11th attacks. The original source of the funds was Yassin Kadi, a Saudi businessman, who is reportedly a financier of Osama bin Laden.

SA Wright points to recent misconduct and falsifications of wiretap warrant applications by FBI agents (signed-off by the former FBI Director, Louis Freeh) to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court. Prior to September 11th, SA Wright alleged FBI intelligence agents lied and hid vital records from" criminal agents for the purpose of obstructing his criminal investigation of the terrorists in order to protect their subjects, and prolong their intelligence operations."

__________________________________________________  __________

Ok so we can leave the physical hard evidence alone for a brief moment, because as has already been pointed out, such evidence is irrefutable, and the best rebuttal from has been a *logical fallacy,* not to mention _completely_ unsupported by any kind of evidence.  According to UM - "There should be more engineers risking their lives and careers besides the thousands who are already doing so because..."

Lets talk about the whistle-blowers, whose claims have been *verified by the justice department*, and the official investigations of which have only been *blocked by executive order*.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the FBI, or these people's ranks and access to classified materials. Yet in the end, all you have is the assumptions of a few FBI. I also know that if this were tied to 9/11, no peons like the ones you've mentioned would be allowed to know. 

As to "controlled demolitions". That amount of explosives would have made and undeniable noise, predicted by professionals to be as loud or louder than the actual buildings falling. This noise would have also been in one, short BOOM. You claim this happened in 3 buildings. Nobody heard these noises. Due to the lack of people claiming to hear these noises, it is illogical that they ever happened. I feel obligated to mention that explosives in the basement would have dropped the entire building, then fell. Instead, the basement was the very last to be affected.

I have responded to your "evidence". Now please, by the grace of GOD can you counter our arguments? What about Flight 93 and the proven hostile takeover? What about Osama bin Laden, the educated architect, and his confession? 

For the sake of the argument don't respond to my counterarguments until you have answered my questions. Do it in the same post if you want. But, I have gone a very long time without getting these answers.

----------


## memeticverb

> I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the FBI, or these people's ranks and access to classified materials. Yet in the end, all you have is the assumptions of a few FBI. I also know that if this were tied to 9/11, no peons like the ones you've mentioned would be allowed to know. 
> 
> As to "controlled demolitions". That amount of explosives would have made and undeniable noise, predicted by professionals to be as loud or louder than the actual buildings falling. This noise would have also been in one, short BOOM. You claim this happened in 3 buildings. Nobody heard these noises. Due to the lack of people claiming to hear these noises, it is illogical that they ever happened. I feel obligated to mention that explosives in the basement would have dropped the entire building, then fell. Instead, the basement was the very last to be affected.
> 
> I have responded to your "evidence". Now please, by the grace of GOD can you counter our arguments? What about Flight 93 and the proven hostile takeover? What about Osama bin Laden, the educated architect, and his confession? 
> 
> For the sake of the argument don't respond to my counterarguments until you have answered my questions. Do it in the same post if you want. But, I have gone a very long time without getting these answers.



Anyone can counter your arguments, quite easily in fact.  As for a few FBI, no its quite a few, and they have evidence that they discovered, and has been *verified by the Justice Department.*

You say no one heard explosions in the tower.  Wrong.  118 Firefighters and paramedics reported hearing very loud explosions.  Dozens of them distinctly referencing controlled demolition and bombs.

The govt did everything in its power to stop these testimonies from being released to the public.  Just read what some of the judges ended up saying about that.  Why would t 911 Families have to wage multiple court battles to release something that was public property?  Why was the govt trying to hide them, and _what_ were they trying to hide?

As for your questions they are irrelevant and in no way, even if proven correct, (that osama had a hand in the attacks, or that 93 happened the way the govt says) would discount all the evidence for controlled demolition, and the evidence *verified by the Justice Department* of numerous FBI whistle-blowers that top officials in the FBI are *funding and protecting terrorists.*

----------


## Half/Dreaming

Where were these explosives planted?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Just to summarize, here are a couple points UM and Half Dreaming have not even engaged, let alone given arguments against.
> 
> *1) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has along with many other FBI agents, blown the whistle on top officials within the FBI, saying they have supported terrorists and protected them.* 
> 
> Her claims were reviewed and *confirmed* by the Justice Department, but all efforts since this have been *blocked* by Attorney General without cause.



I did talk about that in the the thread about Al Qaeda's supposed nonexistence.  You should start reading the responses you request.  Supposedly some disgruntled FBI agents who probably need jobs and probably want book money said some crazy things about classified subject matter.  Wow, that proves once and for all that Bush put bombs in the World Trade Center that he could  blow up as soon as remote control airpanes hit the towers after robots posed as pilots and talked to the other workers on the airplanes and communicated with the workers on the runways and caused the buildings to collapse in such a way that you know a bomb had to have done it but the engineers, constructions supervisors, and demolition experts of the world are not engaged in any major chatter because the government was willing to take that kind of risk with what would be the biggest news story of all time.  No, I don't agree with you.  But you are welcome to finally answer my questions and counter my points, if you think you can.  I don't. 





> *2)* FBI AGENT ROBERT WRIGHT SAYS FBI AGENTS ASSIGNED TO INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS CONTINUE TO PROTECT TERRORISTS FROM CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS



Oh, a guy said that.  I can't believe so much is known by an agent who is too low on the totem pole to know about certain classified information.  Well then screw the thousands of other agents and CIA workers and everybody else who says otherwise.  Terrorists are treated as prisoners of war in most cases, and a great deal of the information concerning them is classified.  We are at war.  How would that prove that 9/11 was an inside job?  And what would terrorists have to do with this if terrorists were not responsible for 9/11? 

And where is the big chatter among construction/demolition professionals?  And where is the major chatter from government workers (about a 9/11 coverup, not just any supposed corruption you think you have found)?  And who faked the hostile takeover on flight 93?  And who showed up for work posing as pilots?  And who flew those airplanes?  And why was the government willing to roll such risky dice?  And why do you keep dodging these questions?

----------


## memeticverb

Talk about not reading the posts your trying to respond to!! LOL

Sibel Edmonds' evidence, as already pointed, out was CONFIRMED by the JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.  They verified her information, and her case was going to court proceeding.  THEN, Ashcroft placed gag orders on her.  THEN he even gagged the congress from further hearing any of her evidence, or even mentioning anything about her case like the languages she spoke!

UM, you are hopelessly in denial.  So whats YOUR crackpot reason for why Sibel Edmonds is the most gagged person in history?  Oh yeah, she is supposedly just a disgruntled ex-FBI who is absolutely no threat to those in power right??   ::rolleyes:: 

Her case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court.  Her allegations are so damning, and since already verified by evidence as first presented to congress and the Justice Department (_then retroactively classified_), they will lead, according to Daniel Ellsberg (you know who that is right UM? lol) criminal indictment of Ashcroft himself for failing to meet the criteria for having sufficient reason o place the gag orders.

----------


## memeticverb

And it gets WORSE.

The Judge "randomly assigned" to both of Sibel Edmonds federal cases was a long-time Bush insider. (and also the Judge in the "Scooter" Libby case).  This person, Judge Walton, has had his entire financial statement redacted. 

Less than 1% of Judges have their financial disclosure statements hidden...

_"In July 2004, Judge Reggie Walton disposed of Edmonds First Amendment case on the basis of the governments assertion of State Secrets Privilege. On the same day as the decision, Judge Walton quashed a subpoena for Edmonds deposition by attorneys representing over 1,000 family members who lost love ones during the terrorist attacks on 9/11. In limiting the deposition in the case, Burnett et al. v. Al Baraka Investment & Development Corp., Judge Walton prevented the 9/11 attorneys from asking a majority of the proposed questions related to the attacks."_

----------


## Universal Mind

Let's just assume that every bit of that is true.  Every bit of it.  Yeah.  How the Hell does that prove that 9/11 was a government operation?

And please answer the questions I have asked you.

----------


## memeticverb

Your question has already been answered, ten-fold.  Can you simply state just one of Sibel Edmonds' allegations??  Then you will have your answer.

You will also know why a large group of 911 Family members had requested her as a primary witness, but of course, were gagged and denied by the same Judge Walton..  Do you read anything??


Sibel Edmonds Interview
_"Some respected, great Representatives, Democratic                      Congressmen, have expressed interest in my case. The leader                      of that group was Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), and I                      briefed his staff several times, by giving them the same                      details I gave five years ago to the Judiciary Committee.                      They obtained the classified version of the Inspector                      Generals report two years ago and they were outraged. I                      have several letters from Congressman Waxman saying he finds                      these gag orders stunning and that the Republicans were                      preventing a hearing from taking place on my case. Well, in                      January, after we went through the change [in Congress],                      Congressman Waxman is now Chairman Waxman and there is no                      power within Congress that can prevent him from holding this                      hearing. He has the jurisdiction, the authority to put the                      hearing there, and I have already obtained the consent and                      names of conscientious, good agents. One of them was the                      head of the Turkish counter-intelligence operations who                      actually retired two years ago. Theyre all willing to come                      forward and testify on all the issues I have been gagged on.                      And that gag doesnt work in Congress during a hearing._

_                     So in January, after the election results, especially since                      we have such a great Chairman today, 30 organizations have                      put together this petition addressed to Chairman Waxman                      saying you have been promising us for the past five years.                      These are major organizations, and we call them                      transpartisan, because there are organizations from the                      right, organizations from the left, organizations that are                      whistleblower-related such as the Project on Government                      Oversight (POGO), the Government Accountability Project                      (GAP), the National Whistleblower Center, human rights                      organizations, the National Coalition Against Censorship (NCAC),                      civil liberties-related organizations such as the American                      Civil Liberties union (ACLU). We have 30 solid                      organizations. According to the ACLU, there has been no case                      of an American citizen who has had so many gag orders issued                      on her._

_                     We also had 15,000 citizens sign the petition, and they                      delivered it to Chairman Waxmans office in March 2007, just                      over a month ago. And based on the offices own report, tens                      of thousands of people in the past 3-4 weeks have called to                      say, well, when are you going to hold a hearing?"_

Sibel Edmonds: Still Fighting for 911 Truth

----------


## Universal Mind

Let's say that's for real.  What are your answers to my questions?  
Saying they are answered is not the same as answering them.  What are your answers?

----------


## Universal Mind

> And where is the big chatter among construction/demolition professionals? And where is the major chatter from government workers (about a 9/11 coverup, not just any supposed corruption you think you have found)? And who faked the hostile takeover on flight 93? And who showed up for work posing as pilots? And who flew those airplanes? And why was the government willing to roll such risky dice? And why do you keep dodging these questions?



Hello?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I would like to ask, where were the explosives in the twin towers placed?

----------


## Bonsay

> Hello?



The answer to those is. I don't know. The risky dice thing makes sense. They made sure that people would think it was a jihad invasion. They got what they wanted, the war of terror thing.

I have a question for you. Don't you want to know the truth? Do you even look at the facts, evidence the "conspiracy theorists" present. Don't tell me that when you see all the info you still don't see a reason to even doubt, just a little bit. Are you going to believe them, just because you're waiting for someone who took part in the inside job to stand up and speak. I know you're smart, but why blind yourself. It's true that I should be open minded, but with all I've seen I just can't believe the usual Osama did it because he's evil truth.

Half/Dreaming, for what it's worth:
Core column pic
There are also videos of people talking about explosions and some videos showing the probable explosions themselves (the one on the base or the other ones, I'm no professional).

----------


## Universal Mind

> The answer to those is. I don't know. The risky dice thing makes sense. They made sure that people would think it was a jihad invasion. They got what they wanted, the war of terror thing.
> 
> I have a question for you. Don't you want to know the truth? Do you even look at the facts, evidence the "conspiracy theorists" present. Don't tell me that when you see all the info you still don't see a reason to even doubt, just a little bit. Are you going to believe them, just because you're waiting for someone who took part in the inside job to stand up and speak. I know you're smart, but why blind yourself. It's true that I should be open minded, but with all I've seen I just can't believe the usual Osama did it because he's evil truth.



If my government pulled that superhorrendous act, which really wigged me out personally and shook up almost all of the people I know and care about for a long time, making us worry our asses off about our country having to go to war, possibly a world war, and face future terrorist acts where tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans or more could be killed in single attacks, then HELL YEAH I want to know.  That would be very huge.  I'm not shutting out the possibility of it.  I am asking questions to try to understand the concept better, and I get almost nothing but evasiveness and insults.  Do you know what the conversation in the last few pages of this thread reminds me of?  It reminds me of the Religion forum.  I am talking to people who passionately spew out their extreme views, and when I ask the most relevant questions that can be asked, I get flipped off and avoided.  I am not merely trying to cross examine people and back them into corners.  I really want to understand the areas where I think the logic fails, just like I do with Christianity.  This is just like arguing with Keeper and Jeremysr.  Since the very interesting and extremely serious notion has been thrown at me like I am a bastard of the universe for not believing it, I want to know how airplane and airport staff were fooled into thinking there were pilots on those airplanes.  I want to know why construction and demolition experts all over the world are not engaged in large scale chatter, or even small scale chatter, just trace chatter.  The only evidence I see has to do with tiny minorities of experts and large masses of nowhere near experts saying stuff about how boards and beams should have fallen and how a few firemen heard a loud noise when what used to be the two tallest buidings in the world were in the process of collapsing, and how some of the information about our most serious national security issue of all time is classified.  That doesn't cut it for me, so I have to ask questions.  I want to know why my government would take such an INSANE risk in order to bring about an incredibly controversial war.  I want to know why government officials have not leaked that they were involved in the biggest horror stunt of all time.  Not one wife or best friend!  I want to know who is leading the major terrorist organization our soldiers are fighting in Iraq if it's not Bin Laden and Al-Zawihiri.  I want to know who Al-Zarqawi really was.  I want to know who Khallid Sheik Muhammed really was.  I want to know who all of those people in Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq POW camps are.  This is the most insane conspiracy theory I have ever seen masses of people take seriously, outside of religion.  I want to understand the idea in such a way that all of my doubts about it have been cleared up.  But I don't get much more than evasions and insults about how closed-minded I supposedly am, when really I am begging for my mind to be filled with answers.  I am not getting them.  I am dealing with a religion.

----------


## Bonsay

Yes it is a religion. But a religion is a theory, this is a hypothesis. Look, I can't get any of the info you want. I could dedicate my life and become eternaly marked as the conspiracy theorist who believes that Hitler is on the moon. Only that way I could get you the answers you want and even then I might never get them. I want to know all those things as well, everything you ask I have interest in aswell. Call me closed-minded, but you see I have a little switch that clicks when something makes enough sense to be real. Yes my opinions are very subjective, I'm not american, but this which I believe is true makes me quite angry. I could also look at it objectively and even when I do it all looks like an inside job. I want to know why wasn't anything done when the planes were hijacked, I want to know why didn't they send military planes to intercept the planes, I want to know why the military had hijack exercises that day, I want to know what's the deal with the supossed hijackers who supossedly couldn't even fly a plane, I want to know why some of the hijackers are still alive, I want to know why did the buildings fall while being built to withstand a direct hit by a plane, why did people feel, see, get hurt by explosions under the WTC, why were there signs of controlled demolitions, why is there only one pentagon video when there were many other cameras filming the plane or impact, why is there no plane visible in the pentagon, why is there so little damage.... I have as many questions as you. The technique "consipracy theorists"  talk about was used before. Make it look like you were  attacked, brainwash people, do what you want and they'll support you. It really isn't something new. The people might be "religious" but the "theory" isn't.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

I still hold that if explosives were planted in the basement, the towers would have fallen like WTC 7 (the entire building would drop, and floors would cush from the lowest floors to the highest floors. Instead, the basements were the last to see damage)

The conspiracy theorists have formed into a cult. In the end, the evidence is overwhealming in support of the Al Qaeda theory, and is the result of all different government intelligence. It really makes me sick that people allow their own selfishness and need for self worth to point the finger in the exact wrong direction.

In the end, who had more to gain from 9/11? People who want oil, or people who want us dead? And so what if we are controlling oil over there? Iraq and Afghanistan will be better because of it.

----------


## Bonsay

Sorry, I just don't see the overwhelming evidence. 
I don't think it's sick that people want the truth. The last time I checked the country is owned by the people (should be). If the people want something they should get it.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Sorry, I just don't see the overwhelming evidence. 
> I don't think it's sick that people want the truth. The last time I checked the country is owned by the people (should be). If the people want something they should get it.



Have you seen videos of the people that run 9/11truth.com/.org? They are up on their podiums screaming and yelling incoherant crap all over the place. These people think the people responsible for 9/11 are the same people that killed JFK. They get sick pleasure from it.

The reason you don't see overwhealming evidence is because the majority of evidence is so simple, it gets overlooked. ALL the conspiracy theories have never been proven. We "Al Qaeda theorists" have videos and signed papers from Osama bin Laden admitting to masterminding the attacks. We have phonecalls from the people on hijacked planes. What do conspiracy theorists have? It _looks_ like maybe there were explosions here? 

I watched a show on the history channel last night called "9/11 Conspiracy Theories: Fact or Fiction". They went though and thouroughly debunked every single conspiracy theory with overwhealming expert opinion. If I can find a link, I will post it.

I will also say again that anyone who believes explosives were placed in the BASEMENT is extremely stupid.

----------


## Sandform

Whose winning?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Whose winning?



Its not even a contest.

----------


## Bonsay

> Whose winning?



I am winning.

----------


## Sandform

> I am winning.



Which side are you on?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

> Which side are you on?




The hippy side :smiley:

----------


## Flinte

I don't know if it is too late to post this, or if someone else already has, but here are some websites to clear up the whole 9/11 conspiracy. Here is a halarious maddox arcticle about the conspiracy if you're up for a good laugh, it's also where I got the websites below.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yes it is a religion. But a religion is a theory, this is a hypothesis. Look, I can't get any of the info you want. I could dedicate my life and become eternaly marked as the conspiracy theorist who believes that Hitler is on the moon. Only that way I could get you the answers you want and even then I might never get them. I want to know all those things as well, everything you ask I have interest in aswell. Call me closed-minded, but you see I have a little switch that clicks when something makes enough sense to be real. Yes my opinions are very subjective, I'm not american, but this which I believe is true makes me quite angry. I could also look at it objectively and even when I do it all looks like an inside job. I want to know why wasn't anything done when the planes were hijacked, I want to know why didn't they send military planes to intercept the planes, I want to know why the military had hijack exercises that day, I want to know what's the deal with the supossed hijackers who supossedly couldn't even fly a plane, I want to know why some of the hijackers are still alive, I want to know why did the buildings fall while being built to withstand a direct hit by a plane, why did people feel, see, get hurt by explosions under the WTC, why were there signs of controlled demolitions, why is there only one pentagon video when there were many other cameras filming the plane or impact, why is there no plane visible in the pentagon, why is there so little damage.... I have as many questions as you. The technique "consipracy theorists" talk about was used before. Make it look like you were attacked, brainwash people, do what you want and they'll support you. It really isn't something new. The people might be "religious" but the "theory" isn't.



I am not lumping you in with the fanatics because you have shown that you can control yourself and are able to consider other views.  The difference between the questions you posed and mine is that mine are rooted in undeniable facts.  There are videos of Bin Laden and Al-Zawihiri, and I asked who they are.  That is not the same as asking why some of the hijackers are still alive.  BL and AZ are on video, or else actors playing them are on video.  My question about who in the world they are is a question about undeniable reality, the reality that there are men in those videos.  The idea that hijackers are still alive is not something undeniable.  It is in a category with Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.  It is just like the claim that Elvis Presley is still alive.  It sounds just like a Christian asking how Jesus rose from the dead and floated away.  The same goes for those other questions, except the one about no military airplanes trying to shoot down Flight 93.  The government most likely did prepare to do that and saw that it wasn't necessary, but that is not the type of thing they want to discuss with the public.  It would not be necessary to discuss it, but it would be very freaky information for the families of the victims.  I know for sure that the hijackers could fly planes.  They attended flight schools in the U.S.  There was a lot of discussion about that early on by the people who attended those schools with them.  Experts have explained away all of the issues you raised, but I have yet to see anybody explain away most of the issues I raised.  A large commercial passenger airplane doesn't just take off without pilots flying it without anybody noticing.  Things that dime a dozen experts would understand are not going to be ignored by the masses of experts when those things are a part of the huge lie the government has been telling about the biggest news story of all time.  The Al Qaeda theory has a ton more solidity to it than the government inside job hypothesis.

----------


## Half/Dreaming

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PZe3AgOLGCQ

This video explains a very important issue. It shows Bill O'reilly beating some guy into the dirt, asking why the guy doesnt take his "evidence" to a foreign media to get the "truth" out. It also has some South Park for a humorous slant.

Why does no official media outlet approve of the conspiracy theory? Why don't all the nations that hate America, 2/3 of the world, jump on this proof and use it against us? Because its all bullshit and speculation. The only reason it survives is because its entertaining.

----------


## jaasum

I am probably coming in very late to this subject, but. 

Conspiracy or not, what has happened after 9/11 is completely wrong. Our government has used 9/11 to go into pointless wars to spread our goals in the middle east.

I don't think they planted bombs or any of that ridiculous shit (because I don't let college dropouts tell me what happened on 9/11, loose change) the worse that could have happened (if you look at history) is they let it happen. They got intelligence that such an event was coming, but they stood down. Because they need the support of the American people to perform what they wanted to perform. This is how we have gotten into almost every war.

----------


## memeticverb

> I am probably coming in very late to this subject, but. 
> 
> Conspiracy or not, what has happened after 9/11 is completely wrong. Our government has used 9/11 to go into pointless wars to spread our goals in the middle east.
> 
> I don't think they planted bombs or any of that ridiculous shit (because I don't let college dropouts tell me what happened on 9/11, loose change) the worse that could have happened (if you look at history) is they let it happen. They got intelligence that such an event was coming, but they stood down. Because they need the support of the American people to perform what they wanted to perform. This is how we have gotten into almost every war.



This very recent organization is composed of 149 Architects and Engineers who are far from collage drop-outs.  They all have degrees and many of them have PhDs.  

Richard Gage has given many lectures to architecture firms and has said that almost everyone after his presentations agrees with his conclusions: that the Twin Towers, and WTC7 were brought down by explosions.

This fact has also been indisputably proven through many scientific methods and research projects by many very distinguished PhD's in physics.

i would post the links, but they are always ignored, and no matter how many brilliant architects, engineers, and scientists produce irrefutable research providing explanation of factual evidence (i.e. tons of molten iron before the collapse) the official conspiracy theorists will simply and pathologically tell themselves that these people are crazy, OR as Universal Mind uses the fallacy, if they were right then most others like them would agree.  But this is a logical fallacy, not to mention fully unsubstantiated by any kind of poll that would need to be done.

the nail in the coffin for the govt complicity aspect however, is that the govt has tried its best to cover up mountains of evidence.  Such as the firefighter testimonies, hundreds of which detail explosions and many specifically stating controlled demolition as the cause.  Why would the govt make the 911 families go to court 3 times before they were forced by the highest court to release them?

----------


## Half/Dreaming

OK, thats all fine and dandy memetricverb. Why isnt everybody on Earth besides George Bush and his cronies putting your "evidence" on the news every night?

You've got nothing. You're articles about molten metal dont prove jack. Do you know what they didn't find? A single blasting cap. A single piece of explosive equipment. Do you know how much explosives are necessary for a job like that? Anywhere on all 3 sites where you say explosives were planted, there was NOTHING.  The odds of there being explosives are astronomicly small.

Btw, explosives don't make molten metal. They just blow shit apart.

----------


## Universal Mind

> This very recent organization is composed of 149 Architects and Engineers who are far from collage drop-outs. They all have degrees and many of them have PhDs.



149?  That's a pretty microscopic minority, wouldn't you say?  Why the deafening silence, especially considering that even a non-professional like you supposedly can understand what happened?  

How did the airport and airplane staff get fooled into thinking there were pilots on those airplanes and not remote control electronic devices?

I've given up on the unrealistic goal of getting you to answer all of my questions, so please answer those two.  Your preach and run tactic is very reminiscient of Christian fundamentalism.

----------


## Sandform

Whose posted links to the south park show yet?  hehe.

Really?  Really?

----------


## memeticverb

> OK, thats all fine and dandy memetricverb. Why isnt everybody on Earth besides George Bush and his cronies putting your "evidence" on the news every night?
> 
> You've got nothing. You're articles about molten metal dont prove jack. Do you know what they didn't find? A single blasting cap. A single piece of explosive equipment. Do you know how much explosives are necessary for a job like that? Anywhere on all 3 sites where you say explosives were planted, there was NOTHING.  The odds of there being explosives are astronomicly small.
> 
> Btw, explosives don't make molten metal. They just blow shit apart.



lol.  You are so stereotypically (and willfully) misinformed its no surprise you so persistently act as a sock puppet to Universal Mind.  Are you the same person?  Just asking.

Ill just take this opportunity to repost the strong evidence of explosives as presented by people much more qualified than I (though I do think almost anyone can intuitively understand the basic physical laws that explain how the WTC collapses were impossible without explosives).  

But first, here is the weakest evidence, yet the most compelling for those daunted by science.  It would be very important in a court trial.

Can you guess why the 911 Commission barred these testimonies from its report, and the City of New York refused to release them through several court battles?  Thankfully the 911 Families eventually won, and we have these:

118 Testimonies by Firefighters and first responders.
Heres just one.

"Somewhere around the middle of the World Trade Center, there was this orange and red flash coming out. Initially it was just one flash. Then this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building." *EMS Captain Karin Deshore

*Now, some science that cannot be refuted.
Direct Evidence for Explosives: Dr Crocket Grabbe PhDWho's Who in Science and Engineering , 1996, 1997. National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1977-78. Lyndon B. Johnson Fellowship -- University of Texas Graduate Studies, 1973. B.S. in Physics with Highest Honors and Special Honors in Physics  -- University of Texas, 1972 (Graduated first in class in Physics, GPA = 3.95)

High Velocity Bursts of Debris From Point-Like Sources in the
WTC Towers

*WTC7 Compared to a Controlled Demolition*

----------


## Universal Mind

Memeticverb, you can go ahead and answer my questions any time now.  Just go ahead and attempt it whenever you think you're ready.

----------


## Mystic7

Reporter: _"building 7 has now collapsed"_
(ok then *why is it still standing in the background*)

Forgot to check it was demolished before reading script.  :Oops: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc

Does the media have a time machine. how can you report things before they happen?

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU

That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue. 

 :Boggle:

----------


## tyrantt23

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU
> 
> That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue.



 ::rolllaugh:: 

That's the best video about the 9/11 inside job. No, not for the information it gives... I already knew all that. But you can't help but feel good about a bunch of hot babes talking about his... hahaha.  :boogie:   ::banana::   :boogie:

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvfmZvppKKU
> 
> That is for halfdreaming and the other dumbass trying to argue.



Wow, that is the best evidence I have ever seen for anything.  Whatever those girls say is gospel, and I couldn't tell how they were deliberately misleading with the actual facts they stated.  I think that if Girls Gone Wild would make a video where slutty college girls recite misleading and far fetched propaganda, it would be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that electronic devices disguised themselves as pilots and crashed airplanes in such a way that Meteticverb and the gang can figure how how the buildings REALLY collapsed in the biggest news story in history yet the masses of actual experts are giving off a deafening silence.  I'm sold!   :boogie:

----------


## Mystic7

> Wow,  that is the best  evidence I have ever seen for anything. Whatever those girls  say is gospel,  and I couldn't tell how they were deliberately  misleading with the  actual facts they stated. I think that if Girls  Gone Wild  would  make a video  where slutty college girls  recite misleading and far  fetched propaganda, it would be proven beyond a  shadow of a  doubt that  electronic  devices  disguised  themselves as pilots and crashed airplanes in such a way that Meteticverb and the gang can figure how how the  buildings REALLY   collapsed in the biggest   news story in history yet the  masses of actual experts  are giving off a deafening silence.  I'm sold!




*3 options for Universal Mind* ::ghosttown::  _911 Multiple choice 101_

1)Believe media has time machine to report building 7 before it collapsed
2)Listen to logic or hot chicks
3)  :Dead Horse:  <---keep arguing senselessly

----------


## Keeper

Oh yes, that will definitely change his mind. You are opening yourself up for quite a few attacks.

Big text
Stupid corruption of a quote
"Listen to Hot chicks"

... Not working ...

Do you want to change his mind or do you want to post nonesence?

----------


## Bonsay

I saw some videos about people saying that it was Osama even before the towers collapsed, like a few minutes after the crash. What's up with that?

----------


## Mystic7

*Go back to sleep*  ::evil:: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3biFKW_vWY

----------


## Mystic7

WaKE uP yOU rEALLY ARe  dREAMING!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-G9pIn8TaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkqfC9NX_DY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvgm0RJnHRo

 ::rallysmile::

----------


## Sybot

Regarding the early reporting of WTC7 falling: Which do you think is more likely?

1) Someone made a mistake in the confusion of the day.
2) BBC knew the tower would fall before it did, meaning they were in on the conspiracy. Then they were somehow able to keep this quiet despite not being lackeys of the American government but rather journalists who would stand to gain a lot by exposing it. 

Now stop it. You sound like a raving lunatic.

----------


## memeticverb

> Regarding the early reporting of WTC7 falling: Which do you think is more likely?
> 
> 1) Someone made a mistake in the confusion of the day.
> 2) BBC knew the tower would fall before it did, meaning they were in on the conspiracy. Then they were somehow able to keep this quiet despite not being lackeys of the American government but rather journalists who would stand to gain a lot by exposing it. 
> 
> Now stop it. You sound like a raving lunatic.



You taking things out of context.  Whats more likely:

1.  BBC made up a report about WTC7 falling because they were confused, and then coincidentally "lost" the source of the report.

2.  BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them.  To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."

WTC7 Compared to a Controlled Demolition

----------


## Universal Mind

> *3 options for Universal Mind* _911 Multiple choice 101_
> 
> 1)Believe media has time machine to report building 7 before it collapsed
> 2)Listen to logic or hot chicks
> 3)  <---keep arguing senselessly



I have a feeling I might be arguing with a 15 year old.  Hey Junior, answer the questions I keep asking.  They keep getting ignored.  If you can't anwer them but keep acting like that any way, then you are acting in a very religious fundamentalist manner.  And "blah" does not qualify as a counterargument.  

Now I am going to answer your question.  In return, I ask that you answer mine.  If you will not do that, then you are not really here for intellectually honest discussion.  The answer is none of those.  If the story is for real, then the media could have easily gotten a false report based on the fact that people were informed that it apparently was going to happen.  

Your turn.

----------


## Mystic7

> Your turn



You enjoy this game.  ::laughtillhurts::

----------


## Mystic7

> 1. BBC made up a report about WTC7 falling because they were confused, and then coincidentally "lost" the source of the report.
> 
> 2. BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them. To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."



And they haven't achieved anything in regards to explaining why such an error is even possible in the first place. We are suppose to believe that in the most important event, they are so incompetent they predict the collapse of an entire building before it actually falls down. And not only that bizarre error on their hands,  but they cannot even explain losing the sources for how they got the news "wrong". So they can't even explain where they got the source to clear anything up! No, they have the source. They are not allowed to reveal it obviously. They got the timing wrong. And the mysterious source that knew what was going to happen was correct and ordering them what to say. If anything else was the case. It's unlikely they would fail to explain their sources and lose tapes and things that would clear their name, being one of the most important documented events in history, and with such ability to cover it. But no, they lost the files for that day. Oh dear you lost the evidence that would prove your innocence. And santa is real.

----------


## dodobird

> And they haven't achieved anything in regards to explaining why such an error is even possible in the first place. We are suppose to believe that in the most important event, they are so incompetent they predict the collapse of an entire building before it actually falls down. And not only that bizarre error on their hands,  but they cannot even explain losing the sources for how they got the news "wrong". So they can't even explain where they got the source to clear anything up! No, they have the source. They are not allowed to reveal it obviously. They got the timing wrong. And the mysterious source that knew what was going to happen was correct and ordering them what to say. If anything else was the case. It's unlikely they would fail to explain their sources and lose tapes and things that would clear their name, being one of the most important documented events in history, and with such ability to cover it. But no, they lost the files for that day. Oh dear you lost the evidence that would prove your innocence. And santa is real.



But how can you think it's possible that BBC was in on the conspiracy? It's a news agency packed with ambitious reporters just dying to get a scoop. Especially if the scoop is against the US or British governments.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You enjoy this game.



You lost this game.   ::wink::

----------


## Mystic7

> how can you think it's possible that BBC was in on the conspiracy?



the only thing that can assist you in understanding this is perhaps a cartoon song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIWjSGQKEJc

----------


## Mystic7

> You lost this game



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbRjOE6sGc

----------


## Sybot

> 2.  BBC got a report from other people on the scene (proven) who were told that WTC7 was going to collapse, but when angry 911 Families asked them how they could have known such a thing, "the source" then told them to shut-up and they all conveniently forgot how they found out or who had told them.  To this day, no official has been found to explain how they were able to make the prediction that the perfectly stable and motionless WTC7 was going to "collapse."



Given that the firefighting operation in the building had been abandoned leaving fires burning and the building had suffered structral damage, it was a safe guess that the building would collapse. Of course there is no way of knowing whether this was the case or if the source knew about a conspiracy. Whatever the case that the BBC report is not proof of any wrongdoing because of this uncertainty.

Also, by insinuating that the BBC convered it up, you are saying that they are supporting the conspiracy, which as I said before doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Mystic7

> the building had suffered structral damage, it was a safe guess that the building would collapse.



A safe guess? Is it a safe guess after Larry Silverstein admits on television that they decided to PULL (demolish) the building? Note this is after they tried very hard to explain how it fell into it's own footprint. When that failed. Oh yeah it was pulled on purpose. Yet anyone that works in the industry knows you can never demolish a building on short notice without planning ahead. So that doesn't add up at all. First it collapsed, then it was demolished. They can never get their story straight. But no, it makes perfect sense to Sybot. It's perfectly reasonable that BBC would report the collapse before it happened. Not give out any sources or explain the mistake. While Silverstein admits it was demolished. And it wasn't even hit by anything. It was just a very weak building with lots of critical information in it that needed to be destroyed immediately. Sybot your right that's perfectly sensible to assume they are not hiding anything.  ::wtf2:: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTUEjnb-fO0

----------


## Neruo

The only reason why people like Universal Mind are still telling themselves the American Government is completely innocent when it comes to 9/11, is because all people tend to be stubborn. Like no matter how much proof you would launch at an creationists, he just isn't going to accept it. 

Somewhat a good thing, is that politics change. And maybe in 20 years or so, Universal Mind can look at the current government somewhat more detached. Look at the facts, look at the lies. 

You can't keep up acting like your government hasn't committed crimes and betrayed the American people. 

And probably, in 20 years, you will agree. Only probably, you will act like you don't care. Like how Christians 'forgot' how wrong they were about the flatness of the earth, even while they are as wrong right now about evolution. 

If you want to stay such a polarised sheep that can't keep his emotions out of thinking out of politics, at least vote for Ron Paul, or one of the other rare people, besides the large majority that wants to keep you stupid, of presidential candidates. 

Tower 7.
+
there just happened to be training-operations at 9/11 for the very yets that should defend against airplane-highjacks. 
+
The CIA not releasing files about Bin Laden and such, and about how most of the 'highjackers' of the 9/11 flights are still alive.
+
Your own president and vice president not willing to speak under oath about 9/11... 
+
to much to mention.

----------


## Sybot

I see you ignored my point about the fires left unchecked in the building.





> A safe guess? Is it a safe guess after Larry Silverstein admits on television that they decided to PULL (demolish) the building?



That was not an admission by any means. In context, he recieved a call from the fire department saying they couldn't control the fire. From there it makes sense that 'pull it' is referring to the firefighting operation, not the building. Also, in demolition terms to 'pull' eans to literally pull the building down with cables which clearly did not happen here. 





> Note this is after they tried very hard to explain how it fell into it's own footprint. When that failed. Oh yeah it was pulled on purpose. Yet anyone that works in the industry knows you can never demolish a building on short notice without planning ahead.



Exactly. When the J.L. Hudson Department Store (a building 300ft shorter than WTC7) was demolished, it took 12 men 24 days to plant all the explosives. To demolish WTC 1, 2 and 7 would have taken much more effort. Why were these preparations not noticed by anyone?





> *conspiracy gibberish*



I'm looking at the facts and just as importantly whether they had the capability to do it without anyone noticing. You on the other hand are pulling together ambigious info which may or may not point to a cover-up and spinning it into a massive conspiracy involving ridiculous numbers of people.





> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTUEjnb-fO0



That video just proves my point seeing as they mention *debris hitting it* and *fires raging for hours*.

----------


## memeticverb

> To demolish WTC 1, 2 and 7 would have taken much more effort. Why were these preparations not noticed by anyone?
> 
> That video just proves my point seeing as they mention *debris hitting it* and *fires raging for hours*.



The preparations *were* noticed by many people.

And "raging fires" do not bring 47 story, very wide, super redundant structures down to the ground in second in perfect symmetry, and displaying all the characteristics seen in a controlled demolition. Why cant they make a computer model using all the proper physical laws to show how this is possible?

----------


## Universal Mind

> The only reason why people like Universal Mind are still telling themselves the American Government is completely innocent when it comes to 9/11, is because all people tend to be stubborn. Like no matter how much proof you would launch at an creationists, he just isn't going to accept it.



Neruo, I have said that I don't completely rule out the possibility, and I have said exactly why I think it's far fetched.  Did you read what I wrote about how 9/11 conspiracy theorists are like fundamentalist Christians?  You act just like redneck Baptist preachers do about Christianity claims when it comes to this stuff.  Do you know how fundamentalist Christians are so gung-ho about being preachy until they start getting hard questions thrown at them.  Then all they do is dodge the questions and change the subject to how witnesses saw Jesus float away and how they understand evolution better than the masses of evolutionists.  Similarly, I don't get answers to my questions about the 9/11 conspiracy notion, but I do get lots of negative comments on a personal level about how I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy and then more stuff about how the masses of demolition and construction experts have missed the obvious and how news reports talked about what was obviously going to happen before it quite happened.  That doesn't clear anything up.  Until somebody can logically explain it to me, I am not going to believe that remote control devices disguised themselves as pilots and fooled the co-workers of the pilots and snuck into the airplane cockpits.  

Everybody else so far has backed down to my questions.  Le'ts see if you have the belief and the courage to attempt answering them.   Just like I keep asking Christians to explain to me how an infinitely powerful God who is toally good allows suffering to exist even though he could achieve any result without being bound by any rules, I am asking 9/11 conspiracy theorists a bunch of questions about the areas that are behind my major doubt.  But nobody will answer them, just like my major questions in the Religion forum never get specifically answered.  People who truly believe what they are saying jump for an opportunity to clear up somebody's doubt.  You people are not doing that.  Until you can answer my questions, you are in no position to call me stubborn.  You are only in a position to do your best to clear up the specific areas of my doubt.  If you won't do that, it means you have your own major doubts.  Answer my questions, if you think you can.





> If my government pulled that superhorrendous act, which really wigged me out personally and shook up almost all of the people I know and care about for a long time, making us worry our asses off about our country having to go to war, possibly a world war, and face future terrorist acts where tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans or more could be killed in single attacks, then HELL YEAH I want to know. That would be very huge. I'm not shutting out the possibility of it. I am asking questions to try to understand the concept better, and I get almost nothing but evasiveness and insults. Do you know what the conversation in the last few pages of this thread reminds me of? It reminds me of the Religion forum. I am talking to people who passionately spew out their extreme views, and when I ask the most relevant questions that can be asked, I get flipped off and avoided. I am not merely trying to cross examine people and back them into corners. I really want to understand the areas where I think the logic fails, just like I do with Christianity. This is just like arguing with Keeper and Jeremysr. Since the very interesting and extremely serious notion has been thrown at me like I am a bastard of the universe for not believing it, I want to know how airplane and airport staff were fooled into thinking there were pilots on those airplanes. I want to know why construction and demolition experts all over the world are not engaged in large scale chatter, or even small scale chatter, just trace chatter. The only evidence I see has to do with tiny minorities of experts and large masses of nowhere near experts saying stuff about how boards and beams should have fallen and how a few firemen heard a loud noise when what used to be the two tallest buidings in the world were in the process of collapsing, and how some of the information about our most serious national security issue of all time is classified. That doesn't cut it for me, so I have to ask questions. I want to know why my government would take such an INSANE risk in order to bring about an incredibly controversial war. I want to know why government officials have not leaked that they were involved in the biggest horror stunt of all time. Not one wife or best friend! I want to know who is leading the major terrorist organization our soldiers are fighting in Iraq if it's not Bin Laden and Al-Zawihiri. I want to know who Al-Zarqawi really was. I want to know who Khallid Sheik Muhammed really was. I want to know who all of those people in Guantanamo Bay and the Iraq POW camps are. This is the most insane conspiracy theory I have ever seen masses of people take seriously, outside of religion. I want to understand the idea in such a way that all of my doubts about it have been cleared up. But I don't get much more than evasions and insults about how closed-minded I supposedly am, when really I am begging for my mind to be filled with answers. I am not getting them. I am dealing with a religion.

----------


## Sybot

> The preparations *were* noticed by many people.



I don't think you quite comprehend how much it would take to bring down those towers. It would have been the single biggest controlled demolition in history. It would have taken a massive team of men to completely rig them with explosives in the short time these 'evacuations' happened. For example the 36-hour powerdown referred to would not be enough to anything with less than a 100+ man team.

We keep seeing 'coincidences' as the man at the start of the video keeps referring to, but we never see anything conclusive. We never see people reporting explosives or detonator wiring or anyone from the enormous demolition crews coming foward.





> And "raging fires" do not bring 47 story, very wide, super redundant structures down to the ground in second in perfect symmetry, and displaying all the characteristics seen in a controlled demolition. Why cant they make a computer model using all the proper physical laws to show how this is possible?



I'm no expert on building structure so I had to do some research. Let's look at the evidence for WTC7 overall.





> What we do have for sure.
> 
>     1) Fireman saying there was "a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors." "I would say it was probably about a third of it".
> 
>     2) A laymen officer the fireman was standing next to said, "that building doesnt look straight." He then says "It didnt look right".
> 
>     3) They put a transit on it and afterward were "pretty sure she was going to collapse."
> 
>     4) They "saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13".
> ...



More details at the indicated site. All in all it is far from conclusive proof of a demolition of WTC7. I'll believe it when more actual structural engineers come foward and prove that it is impossible for fire to do that.

----------


## Mystic7

Sybot some more obvious evidence for you to struggle with. Make sure your fairy tales are convincing. That website is failed. And if I had time I would prove it. For now I'll just add more fuel to the fire  :smiley: 

* *Building fell at free-fall speed. Impossible* if it simply "fell" down by itself. Because there would be a least some resistance from each floor collapsing. So the building, according to the laws of nature. "fell down" too fast than is possible.

**Thermite traces were proved to be in the building*. Which is a chemical reaction *to cut through steal*. Piles of Molten metal were discovered. And the metal could not even have melted as the heat was not strong enough. All the fuel from the planes mostly burnt up on impact anyway. The building was designed to withstand more than a plane impact. No building has ever collapsed from top down from fire, in the history all mankind. But on 911 it's supposedly somehow happened 3 times in one day.

*Everything went into fine powder dust. If a building collapses. Chucks of concrete should be piled up. Atleast something should be seen burnt. Computer monitors and such, all went to nothing but dust. All you have is just fine dust everywhere, typical effects of demolition, along with great clouds of smoke traveling for miles, another sign of demolition. As concrete when it simply falls down never goes completely into finely powdered dust. In the video the building can be seen exploding outwards. Pockets of the charges going off along each level of the building can be seen in the video. 

*there was proven to be an explosion at the basement of the building before the planes even hit it. People came out with their skin hanging off them from the explosion in the basement. That happens when you weaken a building from the bottom before taking it down which is common demolition procedure, if you were going to take the building down. 

This is just some more little tiny specs, and tips of the iceberg on the surface. I have piles and piles more evidence, and in more detail. remember I haven't even mentioned anything about the pentagon. That is ANOTHER entire subject. When you put it all together. It's obvious.

By the way Sybot. The collapse of building 7 does not make sense. Everyone who has a brain understands what the building contained that day and why it was pulled down. That's why it was _not_ included in the official report, they didn't even try to explain it, they were not that foolish to attempt that. Or it would have been even more obvious. That's how pathetically obvious the error is that they don't even mention it. As an explanation did not even make the fraudulent official report. There is no evidence explaining what happened with building 7. Just like there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon. The hole looks like a missile. And there was not even any wreckage of the plane afterwards. Why no photos of the plane hitting the building. Is there no cameras working that day....This is another subject.

----------


## Mystic7

> I don't think you quite comprehend how much it would take to bring down those towers.



If the building takes a lot of effort to demolish in a controlled fashion. Then some suicide guy wouldn't be able to do it by himself in a hijacked aircraft full of people. Especially since the structure easily withstands that kind of impact. Why did the buildings fall in the wrong order. The plane that hit first. That building should have fallen first. And yet it fell second. How could all of Americas security be avoided. And why was their terrorism drills planned that day that was depicting the same event that happened. Maybe this explains why the moon is made of cheese. As it makes no sense. How you can have terror drills that are exactly the same training exercise planned the same time, to the real event that happens on the day. Is that some kind of joke that they had to go from the practice event of it, to the real event. That's more impossible than the lotto. Also why did the same thing happen with the london bombings. Same terror drill practice event happened the same time as the real event.

----------


## Mystic7

> I'll believe it when more actual structural engineers come foward and prove that it is impossible for fire to do that.



Well it has never happened in history. So you'd be pretty foolish to assume it's possible without any evidence in the first place. Just because it fell down is not evidence that fire did it. And silverstein was obviously talking about demolition of the building. It is a term that means demolition.  It looked exactly like a demolition. Experts (that are not paid off) have already agreed it's obviously a perfect collapse of a demolition. And it's stupid to suggest he is talking about ordering peolpe out of the building. No-one uses the term "pull" unless your talking about demolishing a building. Or doing something to someones dick. I can accept "we decided to pull people out of the building" that might be closer to reality. But I cannot accept "We decided to pull the building". When pull is a term for demolition. That's a little to obvious. And besides. By the look of how it collapsed. You would be at pains to explain how it could have been anything else. It certainly didn't fall by accident by itself. not to mention the media reporting it's collapse before it happened.

----------


## Sybot

> *Building fell at free-fall speed. Impossible*



In every video and photo, columns are visible falling faster than the rest of the building, which shows it wasn't falling at freefall.





> **Thermite traces were proved to be in the building*



I don't know about this, but this can just as easily be turned back on you. Why weren't any traces of actual explosive found at ground zero? Unless you think that thermite alone can somehow bring down a building.





> *Everything went into fine powder dust.



Strange, I can quite clearly see concrete here . Keep in mind that large chunks of concrete would have been the first things removed from the wreckage. Also, this is a ridiculous argument as enough explosives to pulverise all the concrete in the building would have been plainly obvious.





> In the video the building can be seen exploding outwards. Pockets of the charges going off along each level of the building can be seen in the video.



What, you mean the bursts of air caused by the floors pancaking as it collapsed. Those were not squibs, as they behaved differently. Explosives sprays start powerful and peter off. These increased as time went on, just as they would with a rush of air. Also, only a few 'squibs' were seen at seemingly random floors. This is inconsistent with real demolitions where many squibs are used.





> *there was proven to be an explosion at the basement of the building before the planes even hit it.



That is not proven. Show me evidence of explosives or indeed anything conclusive in that regard. Given that the towers collapsed from the impact site down, explosives in the basement would have accomplished nothing.





> Just like there is no evidence a plane even hit the pentagon. The hole looks like a missile. And there was not even any wreckage of the plane afterwards. Why no photos of the plane hitting the building. Is there no cameras working that day....This is another subject.



No wreckage?

As for the hole, there were two hole, one caused by the plane going through and having its wings sheared off in the process. The other one was due to landing gear. A plane hit the pentagon these people agree. Unless they were bought off too?





> If the building takes a lot of effort to demolish in a controlled fashion. Then some suicide guy wouldn't be able to do it by himself in a hijacked aircraft full of people. Especially since the structure easily withstands that kind of impact.



You're misinterpreting me. I said a controlled demolition took a lot of effort. Obviously a building could be brought down by enough damage and structrual weakening, but that would be uncontrolled. The demolition of the towers was uncontrolled, as evidenced to the damage done to the surrounding buildings.





> Why did the buildings fall in the wrong order. The plane that hit first. That building should have fallen first.



Maybe because the effects of the plane crash were slightly worse in the second impact. Also, I could ask the sae thing of you. If it was a demolition why did they demolish the second tower first when that would implicate a conspiracy.





> And yet it fell second. How could all of Americas security be avoided. And why was their terrorism drills planned that day that was depicting the same event that happened.



You mean where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure." (Associated Press, 22 August 2002.). That is hardly the same situation as 9/11.





> Also why did the same thing happen with the london bombings. Same terror drill practice event happened the same time as the real event.



I guess the conspiracy grows. Now you are implicating the British government, the contracters who did the exercise and many more. This makes it even less believeable.





> No-one uses the term "pull" unless your talking about demolishing a building. Or doing something to someones dick. I can accept "we decided to pull people out of the building" that might be closer to reality. But I cannot accept "We decided to pull the building"



Don't lie. He said "pull it" not "pull the building". And as I said, in demolition terms to 'pull' means to literally pull with cables, which did not happen here.

----------


## Neruo

> Neruo, I have said that I don't completely rule out the possibility, and I have said exactly why I think it's far fetched.  Did you read what I wrote about how 9/11 conspiracy theorists are like fundamentalist Christians?  You act just like redneck Baptist preachers do about Christianity claims when it comes to this stuff.  Do you know how fundamentalist Christians are so gung-ho about being preachy until they start getting hard questions thrown at them.  Then all they do is dodge the questions and change the subject to how witnesses saw Jesus float away and how they understand evolution better than the masses of evolutionists.  Similarly, I don't get answers to my questions about the 9/11 conspiracy notion, but I do get lots of negative comments on a personal level about how I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy and then more stuff about how the masses of demolition and construction experts have missed the obvious and how news reports talked about what was obviously going to happen before it quite happened.  That doesn't clear anything up.  Until somebody can logically explain it to me, I am not going to believe that remote control devices disguised themselves as pilots and fooled the co-workers of the pilots and snuck into the airplane cockpits.  
> 
> Everybody else so far has backed down to my questions.  Le'ts see if you have the belief and the courage to attempt answering them.   Just like I keep asking Christians to explain to me how an infinitely powerful God who is toally good allows suffering to exist even though he could achieve any result without being bound by any rules, I am asking 9/11 conspiracy theorists a bunch of questions about the areas that are behind my major doubt.  But nobody will answer them, just like my major questions in the Religion forum never get specifically answered.  People who truly believe what they are saying jump for an opportunity to clear up somebody's doubt.  You people are not doing that.  Until you can answer my questions, you are in no position to call me stubborn.  You are only in a position to do your best to clear up the specific areas of my doubt.  If you won't do that, it means you have your own major doubts.  Answer my questions, if you think you can.



A) Ask a question.

B) Answer questions yourself. Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney speak under oath, or even with (written) recording when they talked about 9/11? Why is the Laden family so tied up with the CIA for years? 

The tricky questions not being answered, are more from Your side, then from 'ours'. 'Our' side being a huge generalization. I don't think there is a big chance the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile. I do think it is strange a horrible pilot could hit that building at like 400 mph. I don't think they actually placed bombs in the WTC, like some people, but it is strange that building 7 collapsed, with hardly any fire in it. Also, it collapsed exactly like expected with controlled demolition. It is also strange that that tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 report, if I recall correctly. Also it is strange, that a few of the highjackers are said to be alive. Also there are ties, including confirmed, between CIA and a great deal of staged 'terrorist attacks'.

I never heard Anyone answer Those questions, to be honest.

----------


## Mystic7

> it wasn't falling at freefall.



Why don't you time it, and tell me the exact speed. Do you know the exact time it took to fall down once it started falling?

Also considering my statements were very basic and broad, and general. I did not provide detail. So you tread over them very easily in an ignorant manner hoping others do not check out the detail of it's accuracy. Well don't worry I'll be presenting it all in more detail later. So you'll need a new approach to debunk.  :wink2:

----------


## Mystic7

> I don't know about this, but this can just as easily be turned back on you. Why weren't any traces of actual explosive found at ground zero? Unless you think that thermite alone can somehow bring down a building.



Did I say thermite was the only contributing factor? No. But it is a known chemical reaction that cuts through steal like butter. No traces of explosives were openly admitted, which is a lot different to, discovered. Besides they illegally took as much evidence as they could away from the scene. Loaded perfectly cut chucks on metal onto the demolition companies truck and shipped it right out of the country.






> Strange, I can quite clearly see concrete here . Keep in mind that large chunks of concrete would have been the first things removed from the wreckage.



yeah, the bottom of it. I don't think you understand how much powder there was, and things that would usually not be reduced to powder. Such as all the contents of the floors on each building. Including computers, furniture and other things that can't completely burn just from a little bit of jet fuel.





> explosives to pulverise all the concrete in the building would have been plainly obvious.



It is plainly obvious. That's why it's a demolition of the towers.






> What, you mean the bursts of air caused by the floors pancaking as it collapsed. Those were not squibs, as they behaved differently. Explosives sprays start powerful and peter off. These increased as time went on, just as they would with a rush of air. Also, only a few 'squibs' were seen at seemingly random floors. This is inconsistent with real demolitions where many squibs are used.



As you a demolition expert? Because I have talked to one and he has already explain all this to me from the video, and what they were. You are distorting things, they are not rushes of air what I am referring too. It is not inconsistent with demolition you are making fantasies. 






> That is not proven. Show me evidence of explosives or indeed anything conclusive in that regard. Given that the towers collapsed from the impact site down, explosives in the basement would have accomplished nothing.



ah, The explosion in the basement happened. That is enough cause for concern. Also power downs in the building leading up to the event are suspicious. The dust and thermite reaction. The way the building collapsed. As metal only weakens at certain temperature. The way it was designed in general does not allow for accidental collapse. All this is cause to believe in evidence of a controlled demolition. As nothing else is even possible. You have no option. Nothing else is physically possible.






> No wreckage?



Funnily enough, there was some little pieces of wreckage. Just no mark on the ground from an airplane crash. The problem with the wreckage is it was not identified as the same plane. So it doesn't count. Not only do you have little evidence of wreckage. The wreckage you do have. Is not the same aircraft. Someone placed a different wreckage there. So that's even worse. There is a photo of them taking something out from the pentagon. but it's wrapped in a big blue tarp material. So why the mystery? 






> As for the hole, there were two hole, one caused by the plane going through and having its wings sheared off in the process. The other one was due to landing gear. A plane hit the pentagon these people agree. Unless they were bought off too?



Yes most people you reference will be lairs. Where is this second hole? What are you talking about. I only have a photo of one hole. That's all there was. One missile like clean circular hole, and that's all. No photo of the plane. Since there is no picture of the plane flying into it. That's pretty funny that you think you can argue if you have no evidence of the plane's presence. I think with the security of the pentagon. One picture would be available. That's if you believe they were unable to react and shoot the plane down. But it doesn't exist so there was only a picture of the missile going into it.






> You're misinterpreting me. I said a controlled demolition took a lot of effort. Obviously a building could be brought down by enough damage and structrual weakening, but that would be uncontrolled. The demolition of the towers was uncontrolled, as evidenced to the damage done to the surrounding buildings.



No only building 7 was somehow magically damaged to the point of collapse. It was not uncontrolled because structural weakening is not possible just from 1 plane.





> Maybe because the effects of the plane crash were slightly worse in the second impact. Also, I could ask the sae thing of you. If it was a demolition why did they demolish the second tower first when that would implicate a conspiracy.



Very unlikely since both impacts were similar in nature. Your right about something. I think they made the mistakes so obvious, that they want us to know they are hiding something. Which in itself is disturbing enough.






> You mean where "a small corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure." (Associated Press, 22 August 2002.). That is hardly the same situation as 9/11.



NO. That is not the military terrorism drill I am talking about. That has nothing to do with it.





> I guess the conspiracy grows. Now you are implicating the British government, the contracters who did the exercise and many more. This makes it even less believeable.



No actually one of the contractors went on television and told us what happened. That is how I knew about the exercise. And it only demonstrates that false flag operations are common.





> Don't lie. He said "pull it" not "pull the building". And as I said, in demolition terms to 'pull' means to literally pull with cables, which did not happen here.



when he said decided to "pull it" it's obvious he was referring to the building. If you doubt this in any case don't worry you still have plenty more things you can't explain. If you look it up "pull" has nothing to do with any cables. It's a demolition term to bring down a building.

----------


## Universal Mind

> A) Ask a question.
> 
> B) Answer questions yourself. Why wouldn't Bush and Cheney speak under oath, or even with (written) recording when they talked about 9/11? Why is the Laden family so tied up with the CIA for years? 
> 
> The tricky questions not being answered, are more from Your side, then from 'ours'. 'Our' side being a huge generalization. I don't think there is a big chance the plane that hit the pentagon was actually a missile. I do think it is strange a horrible pilot could hit that building at like 400 mph. I don't think they actually placed bombs in the WTC, like some people, but it is strange that building 7 collapsed, with hardly any fire in it. Also, it collapsed exactly like expected with controlled demolition. It is also strange that that tower 7 wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 report, if I recall correctly. Also it is strange, that a few of the highjackers are said to be alive. Also there are ties, including confirmed, between CIA and a great deal of staged 'terrorist attacks'.
> 
> I never heard Anyone answer Those questions, to be honest.



A.)  I have asked my questions REPEATEDLY, and I gave you a summary of them in my last post, except they were in the form of "I want to know why..."  You know what the questions are, so stop copping out.  I have answered questions the past ten rounds or so without getting a single answer to my questions.  I have even answered the questions you just posed.  I want MY questions answered.  You are the one proposing the off the wall idea.  If you are actually serious about it, answer my questions.  The burden of proof is on the person making the claim that something exists.  Don't you make that point in the Religion forum all the time?  

B.) I'm not saying you think the airplanes were missiles.  I kept asking in this thread who would be willing to die for Bush's supposed conspiracy, and finally somebody said they were remote control devices, not people.  So if I am to accept this bizarre idea, I have to first know of even some wild at least hypothetical explanation of how remote control devices diguised themselves as pilots and fooled airport and airplane staff, from stewardesses to the guys waving flags on the runway to air traffic control, into thinking they were human pilots.  That's just one of my questions.  See my last post for the rest of them.  

The quesions your side keeps posing almost always involve the classified nature of government information, which has been going on since the country was founded and goes on with every government, or stuff that is not backed up  by anything credible.  Why won't Bush and Cheney speak under oath?  They haven't been charged with anything, and speaking under oath would open up the possibility that Cheney might say something was red when it was really blue and then we have total chaos to deal with while he is supposed to be a vice president during a war.  Nothing to gain, everything to lose.  The "horrible pilots" went to flight schools in the U.S., as confirmed by the instructors and students.  As I have said many times in this thread, I am not a construction or demolition expert, so I can't get too far into the specifics of how the buildings should have fallen, and I don't think you can either.  But I can talk about the lack of chatter among the masses of those who actually are experts.  The hijackers "said to be alive" are like Elvis Presley "said to be alive".  I haven't seen any better evidence for living 9/11 hijackers than I have for the continued living of Elvis Presley.  The Bin Laden family was tied up with the CIA for years because they were our allies against the Soviets when the Soviets were trying to take over Afghanistan.  The thing about CIA and "staged terrorist attacks" is in the category with Elvis and hijackers being alive.  I haven't seen any good evidence for it.  

There are your answers.  Now it's your turn to answer my questions.

P.S.--  Since Half/Dreaming has gone off to fight the mere holographic images my government calls "Al Qaeda", I want to pose the issue he couldn't get anybody to even attempt to clear up.  Why did the family members and friends of the people on those airplanes want to make up the lie that their family members and friends said they were being hijacked?  Why do those people claim they heard the struggles and yelling?  If those friends and family members of the victims are not lying, who was hijacking those airplanes?  Even in theory/hypothesis, who could it have possibly been?

----------


## Mystic7

Universal, the reason no-one wants to answer you is because your questions are stupid and irrelevant. And no-one wants to discuss what is irrelevant.

----------


## Universal Mind

Mystic, you actually attempted a little bit and then chickened out.  What happened?  I thought I was about to come across some courage you might have in you.  You edited your post while I was responding to you.  You didn't really answer anything, but at least you addressed some specifics.  But you edited your post to say only this...





> Universal, the reason no-one wants to answer you is because your questions are stupid and irrelevant. And no-one wants to discuss what is irrelevant. Discuss the bigger more important questions and not sideline speculations.



My questions are completely relevant, and you can't answer them because they have stumped you.  YOU claim that there was a 9/11 conspiracy.  I see holes in that idea, but I am willing to discuss them.  I point out your holes, and you run away from my points.  That is exactly how religious fanatics act.  They make wild claims, and when questioned on them, they dodge the questions while spewing hostility.  What a bizarre way to act.  Any way, I will post what I said in response to the part of your post that had a little more balls than what you ended up with.  





> Universal, I don't think anyone is claiming something wild that does not exist. If anything you are the one doing this. The burden is with you because of your claims that something can go against the laws of nature. You are trying to explain away the laws of nature. So that's much worse than just a reasonable and only explanation of what could have happened.



You misunderstood me again.  I didn't say anything about claiming something wild that does not exist.  I talked about claiming that something wild exists.  That is what you are doing.  You claim that the history of a 9/11 conspiracy exists.  That is why the burden of proof is on you.  I have not tried to explain away any laws of nature.  I have said many times that I am not a construction/demolition expert.  I doubt you are either.  That is why I don't get way into conversations about how boards and beams should have fallen.  However, I do have a background in psychology and social phenomena, so I keep asking why the masses of people who actually are construction/demolition experts have not engaged in astronomically loud chatter.  That is the law of nature your conspiracy hypothesis violates.  Can you explain it?  





> Then why bring it up? You didn't say there was a purple monster flying a UFO in my back yard. Yet there is no need for me to say, that you didn't say it.
> Not all the planes were missiles. No. All planes existed. And a missile hit the pentagon. It might be complicated for you to keep track of what is relevant.



Why bring it up?  Because Neruo did.  I was addressing his point.  So you claim all of the planes existed?  Now get to my big question in this area.  Who was flying those planes?  If you say they were remote control devices, then please (for the zillionth time) explain how they disguised themselves as pilots and fooled so many airport and airplane staff members into thinking they were pilots.  Now that you say a missile hit the Pentagon, please tell me how that happened without thousands of Pentagon workers looking at it and going, "Hey, that's a missile!!!"  Can you give me a list of Pentagon workers who have said that?  Try focussing less on insulting me personally like you are some juvenile delinquent who isn't capable of disagreeing without acting like an emotionally unstable little shit.  I would hate to think that's what you are.  Try actually answering my questions instead, if education for both sides and shared ideas really are your interest in this.  





> your right, this question explains everything.



But your comment doesn't explain anything.  

You said that airplanes hit the two towers and the field, right?  So tell me...  Who in the Hell was flying them?  Can you come up with even a reasonable hypothesis on that?  My question is completely relevant.  Let's see what kind of answer you can give.  I don't think Bush would have had too easy of a time finding people willing to hijack airplanes to die for his conspiracy you claim existed.  What do you think?  

(END)

That is how far I got.  Like I said, you weren't really answering anything, just acting like an ass who has been stumped, but at least you got the ball rolling by responding at all.  If you want to successfully illustrate the truth of your claim, if it by some bizarre leap of nature is real, you are going to have to answer the questions the skeptics have.  If you can't do that, you are just going to look like a delusional religious fanatic who has a belief system that seriously lacks substance.  If you claim that The Great Pumpkin caused the Titanic to sink, I am going to ask you why nobody on the boat reported a giant pumpkin attacking the boat.  If you refuse to answer the question, you will be making a mockery of yourself.  That is what you are doing.  Let's face it.  You have been checkmated.   ::goodjob2::

----------


## Mystic7

::cheers::

----------


## Universal Mind

> 



 
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::  
:yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::   ::dancingcow::   ::cactus::   ::coolspot::   ::banana::   :boogie:   :Boxing: :yumdumdoodledum:  ::aphiusiscrazy::   ::muffin::

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNbRjOE6sGc

 ::laughtillhurts::  ::laughtillhurts::  ::laughtillhurts::

----------


## shark!

I don't think the conspiracy theory has anything to do with bombs in the buildings or missles etc...



The Spanish-American war had "The mysterious sinking of the battleship USS Maine"

WWII had "Pearl Harbour"

Vietnam had "The Gulf of Tonkin Incident"

and the War on Terror has "9/11."

follow the money, don't read the history textbooks, unless you're feeling nostalgic for the year 1984.  And get  acquainted historical revisionism.

----------


## Universal Mind

::yawnorama:: 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8FAqKt3Atcs

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmBh5QkrSc

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjmBh5QkrSc



Oh my freaking God!!!!!   ::shock::   A radio show caller!!!  That annihilates all of the points I have made.  Thank you for countering everything I have said with the recording of one random dipshit.

----------


## memeticverb

> Oh my freaking God!!!!!    A radio show caller!!!  That annihilates all of the points I have made.  Thank you for countering everything I have said with the recording of one random dipshit.



His name is Richard Gage, a highly credentialed architect.  Just because he is doing a radio show interview does not mean he is a "random dip*&&*".

----------


## Jeff777

I received a dollar bill once that had written on it in ink "9/11 was an inside job".  Kind of makes you think...a teacher of mine said there's a rumour that the plane headed for the white house was shot down by our government deliberately so it wouldn't hit the white house...how true that is, I don't know.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I received a dollar bill once that had written on it in ink "9/11 was an inside job". Kind of makes you think...



 :Oops:   I wrote that on there.  Sorry to alarm you.  





> a teacher of mine said there's a rumour that the plane headed for the white house was shot down by our government deliberately so it wouldn't hit the white house...how true that is, I don't know.



I heard the rumor that a military jet was flying beside it and came close to shooting it down so it wouldn't hit a target like the other hijackers had but the military pilot decided not to because the plane went down on its own.  

By the way, you are the first person I know of from Mississippi I have run into on this site in all of the time I have been here.  What town are you in?

----------


## Jeff777

lol thanks, shit, I see you're from jackson...wow man...i'm from Clinton Mississippi  :wink2:   Anthriel is on this site too and he lives in jackson, MS.  What school do you go to?

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol thanks, shit, I see you're from jackson...wow man...i'm from Clinton Mississippi  Anthriel is on this site too and he lives in jackson, MS. What school do you go to?



That's crazy.  We both live in suburbs of Jackson.  I brought up Clinton on this site just a few days ago when I talked about how Britney Spears used to stay at Lance Bass' house in Clinton.  I live out at the Reservoir, so I'm not technically within any city limits even though my address says Brandon.  I was living downtown when I got my account on this site, and we all call the whole metropolitan area "Jackson", so I kept that as my location.  I'm 35 now and no longer in school.

----------


## Jeff777

wow lol

----------


## Mystic7

Media control failing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHAScDFZd8A

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVzY1FPhdDU

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Y6R2JLJxY

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtsLZM8Ktx4

----------


## Universal Mind

::yawn::   I'm still not seeing the answers to my questions.  What's the hold up?

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

Yea...
All the 9/11 Conspiracys  (like almost all other Conspiracys) are not true. You will all just have to face the fact that this was a terrorist attack done by muslum extremists. with an evil (albiet clever) plan to crash our own planes into finacial and military buildings to prove there point and to tell us that they want us all dead.

People who say: BUSH DID IT! IT WAS ALIENS! PEOPLE FAKED THEre DEATH! IT WAS THE JEWS!  these people are just taking advantage of the destruction of so many lives to further their conspiracry lifestyle of denial and paranoia.

Thank you.

----------


## Bonsay

How can you be so sure?

----------


## Universal Mind

Let me put it this way.  I challenge anybody to give a summary of how the 9/11 attacks happened from beginning to end.  If you REALLY believe this stuff, tell the story about what you claim happened on those airplanes and then tell me what happened at the Pentagon.  Be sure to include the conversations victims were reported to have had with their friends and family members and how remote control devices passed themselves off as pilots, and tell me about what workers at the Pentagon did after they heard something really loud and looked outside.  That will clear up a lot of things, if you can do it, or even give a hypothetical story that makes some kind of sense.  If you claim the story happened, tell it.

----------


## Oneironaut Zero

Whether the conspiracy(s) exist or not, is anyone else watching "_9/11, as it happened_", on MSNBC? I'm seeing the attack from angles that I've never seen before, and I can't help but just stare at it in awe/shock/horror. I've seen the attacks over and over, before, while researching the conspiracy theories, but to see this presentation that I have never seen just takes me back to that very first day of seeing the second plane hit, as it happened. Regardless of whether or not any of the theories are true, the event itself is just so awe-inspiring (in the most negative way possible). I simply could not imagine being there.

----------


## Mystic7

Everyones got to learn sometime.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6C7EYJV8no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tx2mOI_BDM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WtiqOrL_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyPYkpkhouQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQBo4Y1o1_0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjxzn42LuvQ


and there's plenty more links and information available.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Everyones got to learn sometime.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6C7EYJV8no
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tx2mOI_BDM
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_WtiqOrL_8
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyPYkpkhouQ
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQBo4Y1o1_0
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kjxzn42LuvQ
> 
> ...



You can't tell me the story?  If you want to, you can go straight to the part about remote control devices making co-workers think they were human pilots and how they used hypnosis to make the passengers call their friends and family members and cry about hijackings that were heard in the background.  And who did you say are the actors playing the Al Qaeda leaders?  Didn't they get fired from Days of Our Lives or something?  

Then again, you can just keep playing dodgeball.  I would hate for you to question your own faith.

----------


## Keeper

this is like watching a train wreck ...

Mystic, why don't you debat instead of posting links?

----------


## Universal Mind

> this is like watching a train wreck ...
> 
> Mystic, why don't you debat instead of posting links?



Mystic.... debate????   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::   ::lol::

----------


## Keeper

It was directed at him, not you.

Give him time ... and point out the futility of link posting without debating and he will come around.

----------


## bro

I don't give a thought to any of these conspiracy theories. Notice how after many major crises in history there have been countless conspiracy theories...most completely unfounded or based off of loosely interpreted facts...

Meh...I wouldn't give them consideration of even an idea, I see them as attention-grabbers.

----------


## Universal Mind

> It was directed at him, not you.



I'm not Mystic?  Dammit, then why am I wearing his underwear?

----------


## Keeper

> I'm not Mystic?  Dammit, then why am I wearing his underwear?



I'd rather not speculate on that ...

----------


## memeticverb

> I don't give a thought to any of these conspiracy theories. Notice how after many major crises in history there have been countless conspiracy theories...most completely unfounded or based off of loosely interpreted facts...
> 
> Meh...I wouldn't give them consideration of even an idea, I see them as attention-grabbers.



Not even examining theories for the simplistic reason that there are a lot of theories, means that you dont even care about this issue, and shouldnt waste yours and everyone else's time posting about it.  Whats the point in posting the opinion that "I dont want to even think about it..."  ??

The 911 Truth movement contains experts from every relevant academic field, and then some.  

Structural Engineers
Military Leaders
 scientists, 
politicians, 
legal scholars, 


And guess what, if you believe the government's official conspiracy theory you are insane, according to these highly educated psychologists and psychiatrists, who have not even been challenged.  Wheres the pubic denouncement in the form of a legitimate challenge?  All government apologists can do is avoid, distract, and deceive. They are on every forum discussing this issue.  Just read up on disinfo tactics and you can spot them a mile away.

----------


## Mystic7

Firstly. The one with the most to gain is cheney. We already know that for sure. Secondly, it doesn't make sense people who have less intelligent views and beliefs. How they would be more intelligent than the entire security of America. Thirdly, look at how 911 has been used. To justify an Iraq war that has being a complete mess and nightmare from the beginning which was not democratic. Not only that, but considering Norad standing down. And all this evidence that is piling up which I have mentioned in this thread that skeptics here have not bothered to even attempt to look at. The history of false flag terrorism among western governments to promote war. Throughout history there is many examples of false flag operations. 911 is the most recent example and weakest link because the mistakes revealed are so serve that's why it's so important to use this as a weapon against the sliding away of democracy into a police state. By understanding and educating people on the facts behind this event.

I've debated on this thread for many pages. And also provided links. Universal mind talks about remote devices which I find irrelevant. Others mention aliens and other conspiracies and somehow think it relates to 911 truth. 911 truth is not even theorist. It's a gathering of known facts and demanding answers. I find it scary anyone in our society that is not evil would attempt to support the official story of 911 as it is a major sign of intellectual disability to do so.

Everyone that is intellectual and not willingly ignorant, when they do the research, understand clearly that the official story of 911 is complete lies. it's being admitted in mainstream media even. And many in this thread have stated things that skeptics here cannot even touch. Memeticverb also mentions what I have being saying.

To be honest the conspiracy people are the ones who are gullible enough to believe the lies and myths behind 911 promoted by campaign by cheney and others. When they even openly admitted they were going to use "a new pearl harbor" to make change faster. They are the most undesirable as it's not an intellectual position to have to support these lies. Skeptics of 911 truth are supporting murderer's and backstabbing Un-American Facist Nazi Neo cons like Cheney.

----------


## Mystic7

> if you believe the government's official conspiracy theory you are insane, according to these highly educated psychologists and psychiatrists, who have not even been challenged.



Correct...

911 official myth of a lie * "1+1=5"*
911 military false flag operation tactic *"1+1=2"*

----------


## Mystic7

_The BBC has been caught in another 9/11 faux pas on the anniversary of the attacks, lending credence to a study that validates the pancake theory as the cause of the twin towers' collapse, despite the fact that this explanation was dismissed by NIST itself years ago and it violates the fundamental laws of physics.

Though the 9/11 truth movement has remained steadfast in its conclusion that nothing other than explosives or incendiary devices could have caused the towers to collapse in the way they did, the "official version" has flip-flopped around with numerous different explanations as each one was disproved.

One of those explanations became known as the "pancake theory," an assertion that the rapid collapse of the towers was due to the weight of each floor creating a domino effect and pulverizing the floor below it as the collapse progressed.

The problem with this hypothesis is that it failed to answer why support mechanisms that were completely undamaged offered next to no resistance as the collapse unfolded, and it violated the Law of Conservation of Momentum.

"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum  one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors  and intact steel support columns  the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case  somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans," writes Professor Steven Jones in his paper Why Indeed Did The WTC buildings Collapse?

 NIST were forced to acknowledge the weakness of the pancake theory when they tested steel samples from the World Trade Center.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th," concluded NIST in their Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.

However, the fact that actual scientific lab tests of World Trade Center steel completely ruled out the pancake collapse theory didn't stop the BBC from lending credence to a new study that claims "mathematics" has shown that the pancake collapse was plausible.

Exactly what these "mathematics" entail and why they are more reliable than actual scientific lab tests of WTC steel undertaken by NIST as well as the basic laws of physics and gravity is not fully explained in the article.

One would think the BBC would be reticent to engage 9/11 truth again after their previous attempts at debunking left the corporation, disgraced in light of the recent quiz fix scandal, with a bloody nose.

A February 2007 documentary, pitched as a balanced investigation into claims made by the 9/11 truth movement, turned out to be a bias hit piece characterized by outright lies, spin and emotional manipulation.

Barely a week later, the BBC were forced to respond when footage emerged of their reporters describing the collapse of WTC 7 over an hour before the building actually fell - leading many to question how the BBC and other news networks had gained advance knowledge of what seemed to be an pre-planned script on 9/11._

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles...ake_theory.htm

----------


## Mystic7

And btw, Fox News just looks plain stupid at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPwfoO4KKaE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPwfoO4KKaE

----------


## Universal Mind

> Universal mind talks about remote devices which I find irrelevant.



I have talked about many things you refuse to address.  I have answered tons of  your questions, but you won't answer mine.  You know that.  I have flat out asked you and your partners in religion to tell the story of the 9/11 attacks as they happened, and you won't do it.  SOMEBODY or SOMETHING was flying those airplanes, and that is EXTREMELY relevant.  You won't even answer how even in theory those airplane flights happened.  Tons of people have talked about the conversations they had with friends and family members who were on those flights, and those people say that they both heard hijackings happening and talked to their friends and family members about how they were being hijacked.  Not one person who talked to people on those flights says otherwise, and I am not getting this from left wing lunatic sites that make their money off loonie land lying and have nothing to lose by telling bizarre lies.  There are prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and you won't address who they are.  We do have Al Qaeda leaders on video, and you won't say who they supposedly "really" are.  Thousands of people work at the Pentagon, and you won't even try to explain why not one of them says there was a missile in the side of the building after they heard a thunderous crash or that they saw an airpline slowly driving up to the building.  Those are very important facts to address in this, and you won't do it.  All you do is talk from an nonexpert standpoint about demolition specifics that the masses of actual experts roll their eyes at and the fact that some government information is classified, and other such things, and you won't answer the questions the doubters have.  That is classic religious brainwashing you are trying to engage in and have apparently been subjected to.  Your side of this debate is extremely weak and evasive.

----------


## Mystic7



----------


## Mystic7

And btw, Fox News just looks plain stupid at this point.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPwfoO4KKaE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPwfoO4KKaE

----------


## Mystic7

> All you do is talk from an nonexpert standpoint about demolition specifics that the masses of actual experts roll their eyes at and the fact that some government information is classified, and other such things, and you won't answer the questions the doubters have. That is classic religious brainwashing you are trying to engage in and have apparently been subjected to. Your side of this debate is extremely weak and evasive.

----------


## Universal Mind

> 



Oh, okay.  That explains away all of the issues I have been raising and just discussed in my last post.  Thanks for helping me understand you position so much better.   ::roll::

----------


## Mystic7

> Oh, okay. That explains away all of the issues I have been raising and just discussed in my last post. Thanks.

----------


## Mystic7

*Are you getting the picture yet*

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D0JYwBwtHs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luLGWaEVJhs

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Mystic7

Universal that is a very good likeness  ::lol::  

Just give me your questions in a nutshell. Make sure they are good ones. I will respond best I can.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Universal that is a very good likeness  
> 
> Just give me your questions in a nutshell. Make sure they are good ones. I will respond best I can.



Really?  Cool.  

1.  Who was flying the airplanes?  If they were non-human devices, how did they fool air traffic control, sign-in staff, stewardesses, the guys who wave flags at pilots on the runways, and other airport and airplane staff into thinking they were human pilots? 

2.  What was really happening when passengers on the airplanes called their friends and family members, who were told by the passengers about hijackings taking place and who reportedly heard hijackings taking place?  

3.  What hit the Pentagon, and how does your answer relate to what thousands of Pentagon workers reported and didn't report?  

4.  Who are Bin Laden, Al-Zawihiri, Sheik Momammed, Al-Zarqawi, the other supposed leaders and mere members of Al Qaeda, the supposed Al Qaeda members the Coalition troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay?  Who are they REALLY?  

5.  Why have there been no leaks from any of the many perpetrators of the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?  

6.  Why are the masses (not the very small minority of exceptions) of construction and demolition experts in the world, particularly the ones who live in New York, not passionately on the bandwagon to claim the government's reports about the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are out of synch with true demolition principles?

----------


## Mystic7

> Really? Cool.
> 
> 1. Who was flying the airplanes? If they were non-human devices, how did they fool air traffic control, sign-in staff, stewardesses, the guys who wave flags at pilots on the runways, and other airport and airplane staff into thinking they were human pilots?



Understand that your discussing something that is more unclear than the core of the evidence. It's not the center of 911 truth evidence. I have not looked deep enough into this particular aspect of it to be sure enough to say. I studied what I saw as the most important parts of 911. Since you asked Air traffic control can be ignored easy. To get past all the security is suppose to be difficult. Expecially for a hi-jacker. So I don't know why your asking this as it gives my view more validity than yours doesn't it?

If the plane was piloted somehow. They would still not have fooled air traffic control. Just ignored them perhaps.  :smiley:  Personally my observation of the plane in detail (i was really interested in planes/weapons etc when I was a kid and still obsessed with technology) I think it is not even from an airline company at all. But some military similarity that was available and custom for the mission. The bottom of the plane gives this away as it is different. My understanding of aircraft and common sense tells me this from photos I have observed, and the video. While I have seen no evidence to the contrary.

I'm digressing a bit. Basically who was flying the airplanes? Look I know for sure it wasn't the hi-jackers they claimed for one reason in particular. The video security tape timing I observed did not add up to the time it would take him to board the aircraft. They were caught red handed mucking around with the timing of the security camera tape. On the media it was shown incorrectly. And it became evident that it would be impossible for him to be on the plane. From when the supposed hi-jacker was seen at the airport checking in.

Secondly, just something I remembered. The passport was supposely found in the destruction. Do you really think that it is realistic that the passport could survive, but everyone in the plane, and the plane exploding into the building. But no, they found his passport in perfect condition somehow? Highly unlikely. But very convenient for the promotion of the identity of the hi-jacker.

Another thing is usually those airplanes are installed with recording devices that cannot be destroyed in the most serve accident. Yet they went missing and could not be recovered. Despite the impossibility of such a thing. But the passport was found. Again, very convenient for the bush administration. 

There is even more information I would have forgotten about this that I might get back to you, on how it's impossible for them to actually be the hi-jackers on the plane. For now I'm running out of time. But this in itself should be enough to answer your question.





> 2. What was really happening when passengers on the airplanes called their friends and family members, who were told by the passengers about hijackings taking place and who reportedly heard hijackings taking place?



For one thing. I have no information on anyone connected to witnesses of family members or others in the plane who would have experienced the hi-jacking of the aircraft. This kind of verification would not be an entirely trustworthy source second hand as there is a lot of dis info perpetrated to cloud the truth. Even though I find all this pretty irrelevant at this time to core issues of 911 in general. All I can say is I probably know about as much as you at this time when it comes to passengers and relatives experience on the plane.





> 3. What hit the Pentagon, and how does your answer relate to what thousands of Pentagon workers reported and didn't report?



A missile hit the pentagon. And Pentagon Workers are trained a certain way to do their job according to certain habits and trends of the culture within the pentagon that allows this kind of suppression to be enforced. While maintaining the illusion that it's not. Most don't need to know about it and are unaware. Like you were on the day. Meanwhile High officials knowing anything do not risk their job to report false flag operations if they are helping design them and have something to gain from it. Others are scared and intimidated by belittlement and threats. Your career is ruined if you question the official story properly. While there has been quite a few whistle blowers that have written and spoken on this topic at large. They have given up their careers to do so. And that's part of my research.





> 4. Who are Bin Laden, Al-Zawihiri, Sheik Momammed, Al-Zarqawi, the other supposed leaders and mere members of Al Qaeda, the supposed Al Qaeda members the Coalition troops are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay? Who are they REALLY?



Are you fishing for something to attack and distract us with? Rather than providing honest genuine questions? These are rather extreme and irrelevant things you ask about 911. 

If you insist to ask. Bin Laden is a public figure totally unrelated to the attacks. Just as George Bush is unrelated to the core of his speeches. That is a pattern. A wise enemy will never reveal the source directly in public to become a target. Unless they are unwise puppets of others, then they become the scapegoat for intelligent and more dangerous Evil. AL Qaeda is a funded enemy by those who insist we need protection from AL Qaeda. This is a trick. Terrorism is real. But the terrorist are not what you think. The real terrorist are funding the enemy so they are not discovered by the people. We can tell there is Evil in the world. So those who are evil and successful understand they must create and fund their own mini me enemy so a real one does not come to defeat them and find them. To give the destruction a place to go other than them self so they are not targeted or suspected. If they want to promote this idea of global terrorism and present a solution to benefit their intentions. They must first create global terrorism and someone to blame for it other than them self. Once they have created the problem they can say "look what they have done we must enforce protection for you from 'these people'". Meanwhile it is them that funded and fostered 'those people' in order to create this problem for their 'solution'. So the people you mention there are not even major players at all. They are merely public figures, scapegoat puppets of authority representing evil. Not that they are good people. They are corrupt too obviously in alliance on a lower level. From other organizations within the bilderberg group for example. Meanwhile guess what. In secret they are protected and welcomed by those who promote them as the enemy. Hence the reason why bin laden is safe and securely flown out of America.





> 5. Why have there been no leaks from any of the many perpetrators of the supposed 9/11 conspiracy?



There is plenty of leaks Universal. Many people speak out for what is right and true in this world but are not supported or herd mainstream in corporate setting as usual due to centralized globalization. Could it be that you are unrealistic to expect it all on a platter? If your asking for the leaders of the terror and suppression in the highest positions to all come out of hiding and all of a sudden tell everyone on television one day._ "Hey people of the world. Yeah many of us made these terrible mistakes against your rights and we are no longer going to suppress this information from you like we have. It was I and friends that wanted to steal everything and kill and oppress your freedom and destroy you mind. We stole all that money from the pentagon. We made these wars for gain. We blamed it on others. We debunked efforts to expose us. And many more things behind your back. By the way don't forget these acts of sexual abuse of the children we kidnapped. Oh and it was us that wanted to dominate in a fascist order for our own greed. It was us that tricked you into submission. That was responsible for Nazism and contributing to help sink America and the world over these years. We shot Kennedy and we hi-jacked the economy under the disguise of the federal reserve. We owned it all and made certain you didn't understand. But now we want to tell  you how we have brainwashed you. And we ask for your forgiveness so we may help you so we are trusted in the future. _  

Seriously think what your asking. They are not going to admit what they planned behind your back. When you are a certain amount sadistic set in your ways. You don't give in an be nice one day for no reason. In addition you must not understand the scale of this operation and how things work in the reality to think 'no-one has spoken out about it'. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a war between "good guys" and "bad guys". You are supporting the "bad guys". Because you defend the illusion, while I try and expose it.





> 6. Why are the masses (not the very small minority of exceptions) of construction and demolition experts in the world, particularly the ones who live in New York, not passionately on the bandwagon to claim the government's reports about the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings are out of synch with true demolition principles?



Your question itself is misinformed and more of a statement. You'll find all honest and balanced informed individuals are infact passionately trying to save America and the world from further decay and corruption. This includes experts speaking out in varies fields. Memeticverb already gave you a list of experts supporting reality.

Now I have taken the time to answer your questions maybe you could address some of my issues?













__________________

----------


## Universal Mind

> Understand that your discussing something that is more unclear than the core of the evidence. It's not the center of 911 truth evidence. I have not looked deep enough into this particular aspect of it to be sure enough to say. I studied what I saw as the most important parts of 911. Since you asked Air traffic control can be ignored easy. To get past all the security is suppose to be difficult. Expecially for a hi-jacker. So I don't know why your asking this as it gives my view more validity than yours doesn't it?
> 
> If the plane was piloted somehow. They would still not have fooled air traffic control. Just ignored them perhaps.  Personally my observation of the plane in detail (i was really interested in planes/weapons etc when I was a kid and still obsessed with technology) I think it is not even from an airline company at all. But some military similarity that was available and custom for the mission. The bottom of the plane gives this away as it is different. My understanding of aircraft and common sense tells me this from photos I have observed, and the video. While I have seen no evidence to the contrary.
> 
> I'm digressing a bit. Basically who was flying the airplanes? Look I know for sure it wasn't the hi-jackers they claimed for one reason in particular. The video security tape timing I observed did not add up to the time it would take him to board the aircraft. They were caught red handed mucking around with the timing of the security camera tape. On the media it was shown incorrectly. And it became evident that it would be impossible for him to be on the plane. From when the supposed hi-jacker was seen at the airport checking in.
> 
> Secondly, just something I remembered. The passport was supposely found in the destruction. Do you really think that it is realistic that the passport could survive, but everyone in the plane, and the plane exploding into the building. But no, they found his passport in perfect condition somehow? Highly unlikely. But very convenient for the promotion of the identity of the hi-jacker.
> 
> Another thing is usually those airplanes are installed with recording devices that cannot be destroyed in the most serve accident. Yet they went missing and could not be recovered. Despite the impossibility of such a thing. But the passport was found. Again, very convenient for the bush administration. 
> ...



So let's get this straight.  The airplanes, which had commercial labels, were replicas of airplanes that had been scheduled by major companies to fly from the same specific locations at the same specific times as the "military" replicas?  I bet it was pretty damn hard to dispose of the real airplanes that had been sent to those locations.  Are they buried under the airports with the real pilots and other staff still in them, never having been reported missing?  There are also the flag guys on the runway.  They would have noticed if the planes were not being operated by people.  If people were operating them, who in the world was willing to die for this supposed conspiracy?  And you can't just ignore air traffic control.  Such a thing would have been an FAA disaster that would have caught national attention before any actual hijackings or crashes had been reported.  It would have raised a hijack alarm immediately.  Plus, they would have had to have dealt with air traffic control and airport staff to land the airplanes on the runways in the first place.  Impossible.  

Some things get burned up in crashes while other things do not.  I am not sure about the credibility of those reports any way, though they may be credible, but finding a passport though not finding a recording is nothing significant.  





> For one thing. I have no information on anyone connected to witnesses of family members or others in the plane who would have experienced the hi-jacking of the aircraft. This kind of verification would not be an entirely trustworthy source second hand as there is a lot of dis info perpetrated to cloud the truth. Even though I find all this pretty irrelevant at this time to core issues of 911 in general. All I can say is I probably know about as much as you at this time when it comes to passengers and relatives experience on the plane.



Lots of people had cell phone conversations with the people on the airplanes while the hijackings, or mock hijackings you might call them, were happening.  A great deal has been written about this by the friends and family members, and many of them have given interviews that have been very public.  Even if you want to claim that the writings are government put ons and the interviews are of actors hired by the government, the fact is that cell phones were very common at the time and cell conversations would have happened.  Not one person has claimed that they talked to a passenger who said everything was actually okay at those moments.  They have all said quite the opposite, in very large numbers.  





> A missile hit the pentagon. And Pentagon Workers are trained a certain way to do their job according to certain habits and trends of the culture within the pentagon that allows this kind of suppression to be enforced. While maintaining the illusion that it's not. Most don't need to know about it and are unaware. Like you were on the day. Meanwhile High officials knowing anything do not risk their job to report false flag operations if they are helping design them and have something to gain from it. Others are scared and intimidated by belittlement and threats. Your career is ruined if you question the official story properly. While there has been quite a few whistle blowers that have written and spoken on this topic at large. They have given up their careers to do so. And that's part of my research.



So job incentive keeps thousands of people from reporting that a missile hit their building at work?  Think about that for a few seconds.  "I don't want to report that the biggest news story in history is false in that it was actually a MISSILE that hit my work building.  I just so desperately want to keep working at the place that was hit by a missile shot by the organization I work for."  Do you really think that makes sense?  We are talking about thousands of people.  Somebody would have said something.  Who are the supposed whistle blowers you are talking about?  Did you read about their existence in one of those check out line magazines that talks about missing World War II planes orbiting Mars?  





> Are you fishing for something to attack and distract us with? Rather than providing honest genuine questions? These are rather extreme and irrelevant things you ask about 911. 
> 
> If you insist to ask. Bin Laden is a public figure totally unrelated to the attacks. Just as George Bush is unrelated to the core of his speeches. That is a pattern. A wise enemy will never reveal the source directly in public to become a target. Unless they are unwise puppets of others, then they become the scapegoat for intelligent and more dangerous Evil. AL Qaeda is a funded enemy by those who insist we need protection from AL Qaeda. This is a trick. Terrorism is real. But the terrorist are not what you think. The real terrorist are funding the enemy so they are not discovered by the people. We can tell there is Evil in the world. So those who are evil and successful understand they must create and fund their own mini me enemy so a real one does not come to defeat them and find them. To give the destruction a place to go other than them self so they are not targeted or suspected. If they want to promote this idea of global terrorism and present a solution to benefit their intentions. They must first create global terrorism and someone to blame for it other than them self. Once they have created the problem they can say "look what they have done we must enforce protection for you from 'these people'". Meanwhile it is them that funded and fostered 'those people' in order to create this problem for their 'solution'. So the people you mention there are not even major players at all. They are merely public figures, scapegoat puppets of authority representing evil. Not that they are good people. They are corrupt too obviously in alliance on a lower level. From other organizations within the bilderberg group for example. Meanwhile guess what. In secret they are protected and welcomed by those who promote them as the enemy. Hence the reason why bin laden is safe and securely flown out of America.



So Al Qaeda does exist and does make video tapes about how they pulled 9/11 and is fighting our military in the Middle East and is getting captured and taken to Guantanamo Bay and does state that they want to pull future terrorist attacks that rival 9/11 and to make Americans extinct, but they really had nothing to do with 9/11?  They ought to be pissed that they got framed like that.  





> There is plenty of leaks Universal. Many people speak out for what is right and true in this world but are not supported or herd mainstream in corporate setting as usual due to centralized globalization. Could it be that you are unrealistic to expect it all on a platter? If your asking for the leaders of the terror and suppression in the highest positions to all come out of hiding and all of a sudden tell everyone on television one day._ "Hey people of the world. Yeah many of us made these terrible mistakes against your rights and we are no longer going to suppress this information from you like we have. It was I and friends that wanted to steal everything and kill and oppress your freedom and destroy you mind. We stole all that money from the pentagon. We made these wars for gain. We blamed it on others. We debunked efforts to expose us. And many more things behind your back. By the way don't forget these acts of sexual abuse of the children we kidnapped. Oh and it was us that wanted to dominate in a fascist order for our own greed. It was us that tricked you into submission. That was responsible for Nazism and contributing to help sink America and the world over these years. We shot Kennedy and we hi-jacked the economy under the disguise of the federal reserve. We owned it all and made certain you didn't understand. But now we want to tell you how we have brainwashed you. And we ask for your forgiveness so we may help you so we are trusted in the future._ 
> 
> Seriously think what your asking. They are not going to admit what they planned behind your back. When you are a certain amount sadistic set in your ways. You don't give in an be nice one day for no reason. In addition you must not understand the scale of this operation and how things work in the reality to think 'no-one has spoken out about it'. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a war between "good guys" and "bad guys". You are supporting the "bad guys". Because you defend the illusion, while I try and expose it.



I am not talking about the supposed conspirators themselves.  I am talking about wives, girlfriends, husbands, boyfriends, friends, etc.  A lot of people would have been necessary for such a big and insane stunt.  Something would have gotten out by now.  Who has come forward with that type of information?  





> Your question itself is misinformed and more of a statement. You'll find all honest and balanced informed individuals are infact passionately trying to save America and the world from further decay and corruption. This includes experts speaking out in varies fields. Memeticverb already gave you a list of experts supporting reality.



You are overlooking what people overlook every time I bring up that issue.  I am not asking why there have not been any such experts.  I am asking why the MASSES of experts are not giving a damn about this.  Think how the masses of people who actually do understand demolition would be going off if the biggest news story in history, which concerns one of the most tragic and freaky things that has happened in American history, involved a false demolition report from the government.  Imagine how that would be getting talked about by the masses of experts in reality.  It is not happening.  





> Now I have taken the time to answer your questions maybe you could address some of my issues?



I have addressed your issues, but feel free to give me a short list of questions.  However, I am far from being a demolition expert, so I am not going to answer questions about why boards fell down the way they did, just like I am not going to answer questions about why capillaries did what they did during world news megastory heart surgery when the masses of heart surgeons and other medical doctors don't think it's worth addressing, even if ninety doctors in the world claim voodoo spirits must have been present.  I will also say ahead of time that a lot of government information is and should be classified when it concerns military matters.  That answers a lot of your questions.  With those two things in mind, ask away.

----------


## Mystic7

see, you just ramble on incoherently after I give in to your irrelevance. Your never satisfied. You just want to make statements and things to suit your argument as you go cherry picking what to concentrate on. Things on the side which are not important. What you have is a pre-conceived mantra that is not only distracting from the main truth but very weak, and at the best of times. Merely Irrelevant to 911. It resembles foolish denile and ignoring of central information.

Universal answer the proper questions.

1)* Please explain why the varies experts are incorrect from the list that was provided.*
Knowledge from:
Structural Engineers
 Military Leaders
Scientists
Varies other Highly Credible People
Legal Scholars

Are all these people mistaken? Give your reasons why. 

2) *How did the buildings fall? including building 7*
3) *Why is there no photo of the airplane hitting the pentagon
*
4) *Why did Norad stand down.*


If you can't answer these basic foundational things you have no chance of making any solid argument here. It's only sensible to go into more detail after you have covered the basic things. You have not addressed what I am asking you here at all. All you can do is state that no-one is interested or talking about it. When everyone is talking about it. To the point where fox news is overwhelmed with outraged protesters during broadcast. While other mainstream newspaper and sources now is revealing all the lies in plain site. And you think that no-one is trying to get the word out?

I answered your 'questions'. You pretty much ignored my reply and stated exactly the same thing again. Then when I ask you the central most important questions. You shy away from it and complain I have not answered you. When in fact you just have not listened.

Is no-one trying to get the word out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIOtPKIffZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMiHMylSZo

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

People don't like the idea that some terrorists can come in and with a clever but sinister plan, destroy a national monument. People like to think that there is always a great plan to destroy something great. Conspiracy guys, like mystic, can't take this fact and make up story's (with other people) saying that they were American drones piloted my Saudi nationals and JFK was in a military style ambush. 

The truth is, this attack was caused by a group of religious extremists who came into the country, got on-board some planes (and with help of low security airports) they brought on-board small weapons. they used these weapons to take control of the planes and crash them into strategic points over the US; to send a message and to kill people. George Bush although saddened by this news took advantage of the peoples newfound hate for the middle east to attack Iraq and be just like his daddy. He also passed some laws giving himself more power.

At first everyone was happy but then as time went on they (the north) realized they elected a retard and he was just trying to kill Saddam but maybe get some oil in the process.

In the end after Bush is out of office he will go down as the worst president in American history. Then we will elect some new guy who will obviously do better and begin to pull troops out of Iraq and focus more on homeland security. (hopefully)

This is the longest post I've ever written. thank you.

Oh and Mystic.... Watch, Penn and Tellers: Bullshit It basically says everything in a nutshell (and its hella funny)

Thanks.

----------


## Mystic7

> People don't like the idea that some terrorists can come in and with a clever but sinister plan, destroy a national monument. People like to think that there is always a great plan to destroy something great. Conspiracy guys, like mystic, can't take this fact and make up story's (with other people) saying that they were American drones piloted my Saudi nationals and JFK was in a military style ambush.
> 
> The truth is, this attack was caused by a group of religious extremists who came into the country, got on-board some planes (and with help of low security airports) they brought on-board small weapons. they used these weapons to take control of the planes and crash them into strategic points over the US; to send a message and to kill people. George Bush although saddened by this news took advantage of the peoples newfound hate for the middle east to attack Iraq and be just like his daddy. He also passed some laws giving himself more power.
> 
> At first everyone was happy but then as time went on they (the north) realized they elected a retard and he was just trying to kill Saddam but maybe get some oil in the process.
> 
> In the end after Bush is out of office he will go down as the worst president in American history. Then we will elect some new guy who will obviously do better and begin to pull troops out of Iraq and focus more on homeland security. (hopefully)
> 
> This is the longest post I've ever written. thank you.
> ...

----------


## Mystic7

So can anyone answer my questions?

----------


## Universal Mind

> see, you just ramble on incoherently after I give in to your irrelevance. Your never satisfied. You just want to make statements and things to suit your argument as you go cherry picking what to concentrate on. Things on the side which are not important. What you have is a pre-conceived mantra that is not only distracting from the main truth but very weak, and at the best of times. Merely Irrelevant to 911. It resembles foolish denile and ignoring of central information.



That is a very weak assertion.  The questions of how key parts of the supposed conspiracy happened, such as how the planes got to the airports and then flew with the illusion of hijackings and how this all happened without large scale expert chatter about false reports concerning the airplane crashes are not irrelevant.  You are intellectually dishonest for saying that they are.  Please explain how those questions are irrelevant.  What an absurd concept.  





> 1)* Please explain why the varies experts are incorrect from the list that was provided.*
> Knowledge from:
> Structural Engineers
> Military Leaders
> Scientists
> Varies other Highly Credible People
> Legal Scholars



When you are dealing with very large pools of people commenting on a subject, some of them are going to be wrong.  You and I are only two people, and you are wrong, and you are a whole 50&#37; of us.  Your backup represents less than 1% of the entire pool.  You are illogical for taking extreme minority opinions and using them as though they prove something just because they are stated at all. 





> 2) *How did the buildings fall? including building 7*



I am not sure.  As I told you in my last post and several other  posts, I am far from being an expert on that and am not going to try to pretend otherwise.  However, the MASSES of experts, people who understand the subject far better than you, do not dispute the government report on it.  You never told me why that might be.  You only reiterated your point that some experts, which I keep pointing out comprise a microscopic minority, say that the government report is out of synch with true demolition principles.  





> 3) *Why is there no photo of the airplane hitting the pentagon*



Perhaps because there was none taken.  Why is there no photo of you typing your last post?  Did you have a camera man who knew about the coming crash waiting on the sidewalk to take a picture?  If there was such a picture taken, the government would have good reason to suppress it.  Such a picture would cause major excitement among terrorists and potential terrorists and be an excellent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.  





> 4) *Why did Norad stand down.*



The notion that they did is shaky and disputed.  If it happened as you characterize it, there would have possibly been confusion in the communication.  The 9/11 situation was a major curveball to the communications among various departments of the government.  It is a situation we started working to improve after 9/11 to be even more prepared for a possible future event of that type.  Do you claim that the FAA and Norad were in on this humongous conspiracy?  





> If you can't answer these basic foundational things you have no chance of making any solid argument here. It's only sensible to go into more detail after you have covered the basic things. You have not addressed what I am asking you here at all. All you can do is state that no-one is interested or talking about it. When everyone is talking about it. To the point where fox news is overwhelmed with outraged protesters during broadcast. While other mainstream newspaper and sources now is revealing all the lies in plain site. And you think that no-one is trying to get the word out?



You keep so dishonestly misconstruing what I am saying.  Are you even reading my posts?  I never said that nobody agrees with you.  I know there are zillions of pissed off hippies who are showing what despiccable people they are by interrupting Fox News broadcasts and screaming all over the streets.  That personality disordered absurdity has been going on since the 1960's.  I am talking about MASSES of EXPERTS.  *MASSES* of *EXPERTS*.  Stop lying.  I would hate for people to get the strange impression that 9/11 conspiracy loonies are dishonest.  





> I answered your 'questions'. You pretty much ignored my reply and stated exactly the same thing again. Then when I ask you the central most important questions. You shy away from it and complain I have not answered you. When in fact you just have not listened.



You FINALLY answered all of my major questions but one, and I pointed out the absurdities of your answers, the funniest of which was the idea that major airlines never reported their airplanes and workers missing after the military painted commercial labels on some substitute/imposter airplanes and used remote control devices to crash them after using the passengers' cell phone calls to put on faked hijackings.  You are really a trip.  Do you stand on street corners and scream about how the government ignores Bigfoot?  Feel free to ask me stump questions about Bigfoot too.  I think this conversation is a riot.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ERdW5IiWH...elated&search=

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_lh7PxF1-2M

----------


## Keeper

Mystic, please keep your points in ONE post, not a string one after the other ...

----------


## Mystic7

> how the planes got to the airports and then flew with the illusion of hijackings



If they can create entire military cities that the public are not even aware of and are not allowed in. I think they can do something simple like make an operation for an airplane take off as per normal and then divert/replace, take control of it etc smoothly. There is a reason no-one cares about this aspect of 911. It's hardly relevant to the collapse of the actual buildings, which is what killed most. If you are so interested in this aspect there is information on it. But why discuss only an unbalanced side of this. Why not go into ALL aspects evenly.






> how this all happened without large scale expert chatter about false reports concerning the airplane crashes are not irrelevant.



If you don't see it on the television. It didn't happen.  ::roll:: 





> Please explain how those questions are irrelevant. What an absurd concept.



1) The planes hit the 2 buildings
2) End of immediate relevance to core investigation of the 3 building collapses.
3) Building collapses suspect. How planes are controlled irrelevant as building collapse impossible.

So why talk about just the planes? That's ridiculous. You have far more serious concerns. Such as changing the laws of physics to suit your argument about how the buildings could have collapsed. Or are you not educated enough to talk about it?






> You are illogical for taking extreme minority opinions and using them as though they prove something just because they are stated at all.



First they are not opinions just observations of what happened and what we know to be true. Together with the laws of physics. You are illogical for not even looking at the material and information stated by those people. You don't even know what your arguing against. You have not even attempted to debate anything these people have stated in your response so far.






> I am not sure. As I told you in my last post and several other posts, I am far from being an expert on that and am not going to try to pretend otherwise.



I rest my case. You don't even understand that the theories which have changed all the time as they have been presented and disproved by science again and again. So you can't even argue anything at this stage as you have not even researched what the current theory is of how they fell. This is because there is NO theory how they fell that is backed up by science. EXCEPT the theory containing explosives. Even though you don't need to be any expert to understand the core evidence of 911 truth. You remain conveniently and willingly ignorant of it.





> However, the MASSES of experts, people who understand the subject far better than you, do not dispute the government report on it.



That is complete nonsense. The masses of experts are crying out for a proper investigation. As the official report has been proven as an unbalanced fabrication.





> a microscopic minority, say that the government report is out of synch with true demolition principles.



You like to use this word minority as if it means anything. Again, complete nonsense. If your taking into account average Americans that don't know how to tell an expert from a imitation. Then yes. Among all those lemmings, they are in the minority. As experts in their field. They are a majority that are not able to be included into the propaganda of globalization for the lemmings. They are not supported by the process either. So you won't see them explaining the sense of it on television.





> Perhaps because there was none taken. Why is there no photo of you typing your last post?]



There is a difference between my home. And the security of the pentagon. You sound ridiculous. The government would have every reason to show the plane if there was one. How could they not? It's the pentagon!





> Such a picture would cause major excitement among terrorists and potential terrorists and be an excellent recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.



So you are suggesting a photo of a plane would be too much inspiration for terrorist so the government had good reason to suppress it. Did they also suppress the wreckage and the marks on the ground? Did they suppress the wings of the aircraft before impact? Was it too much excitement to release evidence? According to this logic the government should have suppressed the other two planes also. Not just the 3rd one. And this doesn't make sense as there is still a picture of the hole in the pentagon and many other images of the event that would 'cause excitement'. Yet when everyone ask to see the plane that hit the pentagon. All we get is an explosion of a missile effect hitting it and no other footage is available? That doesn't make sense.

*[In relation to norad standing down]*




> The notion that they did is shaky and disputed.



Complete nonsense. It is fact. There is evidence available that proves it.





> I am talking about MASSES of EXPERTS. MASSES of EXPERTS.



You are talking complete garbage. Just because those with active intelligence disagree with evident lies and want freedom instead of fascism. Does not make them automatically hippies because they disagree with something the government says. The real disturbed ones are the lemmings that stare at fox news every day worshiping government.






> You FINALLY answered all of my major questions but one, and I pointed out the absurdities of your answers, the funniest of which was the idea that major airlines never reported their airplanes and workers missing after the military painted commercial labels on some substitute/imposter airplanes and used remote control devices to crash them after using the passengers' cell phone calls to put on faked hijackings.



First, that it not what I claim. Second. Show me evidence of the plane with the commercial label, going into the building. Then you might be able to laugh

P.S
homework...
_I need more detail on why you think norad didn't stand down. (laughable)
I need reasons why you disagree with the experts (links have being provided)
I need your theory of how the buildings could have collapsed. (without controlled demolition)
I need solid evidence of this plane that you think hit the pentagon.
I require proof that the airplanes were actually hi-jacked by the people you claim did it.
_

----------


## Universal Mind

> If they can create entire military cities that the public are not even aware of and are not allowed in. I think they can do something simple like make an operation for an airplane take off as per normal and then divert/replace, take control of it etc smoothly. There is a reason no-one cares about this aspect of 911. It's hardly relevant to the collapse of the actual buildings, which is what killed most. If you are so interested in this aspect there is information on it. But why discuss only an unbalanced side of this. Why not go into ALL aspects evenly.



How in the Hell the airplanes were controlled, how they were used to put on illusions of hijackings, and where in the world the REAL airplanes are right now are extremely relevant issues.  You can't explain how it happened, and you are the one claiming the results of it happened.  I have exposed the absurdity of the story you are only partially telling, and you cannot counter that exposition.  

Hidden military cities?   ::rolllaugh:: 





> If you don't see it on the television. It didn't happen.



If you don't see or hear about it from the masses of experts, who are all over the place, then what you say is laughable.  Perhaps some day you will go off about a government brain surgery report regarding the biggest news story in history when the masses of brain surgeons don't see problems with it. 





> 1) The planes hit the 2 buildings
> 2) End of immediate relevance to core investigation of the 3 building collapses.
> 3) Building collapses suspect. How planes are controlled irrelevant as building collapse impossible.
> 
> So why talk about just the planes? That's ridiculous. You have far more serious concerns. Such as changing the laws of physics to suit your argument about how the buildings could have collapsed. Or are you not educated enough to talk about it?



I have talked about far more than just the planes, but the planes are what hit the buildings, and how in the Hell they were operated is extremely relevant to this issue.  I have told you repeatedly that I am uneducated on demolition specifics, and I don't think you are an expert either.  If you are not going to read my posts, this conversation isn't going to get very far.  You have yet to get around my point about the lack of MASS expert chatter.  





> I rest my case. You don't even understand that the theories which have changed all the time as they have been presented and disproved by science again and again. So you can't even argue anything at this stage as you have not even researched what the current theory is of how they fell. This is because there is NO theory how they fell that is backed up by science. EXCEPT the theory containing explosives. Even though you don't need to be any expert to understand the core evidence of 911 truth. You remain conveniently and willingly ignorant of it.



No, they have been disagreed with by your microscopic minority of experts who are your fellow members in the anti-Bush hate cult.  The massses of experts disagree with your nonexpert opinion.  Bitch about a "false" report about rocket design while you are at it, and if the MASSES of rocket scientists are not blocking out the cricket noises, we can argue about that too.  You can even call their silence "irrelevant".   ::roll::  





> First they are not opinions just observations of what happened and what we know to be true. Together with the laws of physics. You are illogical for not even looking at the material and information stated by those people. You don't even know what your arguing against. You have not even attempted to debate anything these people have stated in your response so far.



You are being quite repetitive.  I am not going to pretend I am a demolition expert, and it is hilarious that you do.  The cricket noises heard over the actual experts says volumes, and you have yet to get around that issue.  





> That is complete nonsense. The masses of experts are crying out for a proper investigation. As the official report has been proven as an unbalanced fabrication.



Bullshit.  I know architects, engineers, and construction supervisors, and they are all over the place.  They think people like you are in a category with Marshall Applewhite followers.  





> You like to use this word minority as if it means anything. Again, complete nonsense. If your taking into account average Americans that don't know how to tell an expert from a imitation. Then yes. Among all those lemmings, they are in the minority. As experts in their field. They are a majority that are not able to be included into the propaganda of globalization for the lemmings. They are not supported by the process either. So you won't see them explaining the sense of it on television.



Yes, it does mean something.  It means when you think about the majority of experts (PROFESSIONALS who work administrative positions in construction and demolition), you suddenly don't care so much about expert opinion.  That is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. What is your claim on why expert opinion means so much to you until you get to the vast majority opinion?  





> There is a difference between my home. And the security of the pentagon. You sound ridiculous. The government would have every reason to show the plane if there was one. How could they not? It's the pentagon!



Such a photograph, if there was one taken of that side of the Pentagon at that moment, would be used as an exciting recruiting tool for terrorists.  It's the pentagon!  





> So you are suggesting a photo of a plane would be too much inspiration for terrorist so the government had good reason to suppress it. Did they also suppress the wreckage and the marks on the ground? Did they suppress the wings of the aircraft before impact? Was it too much excitement to release evidence? According to this logic the government should have suppressed the other two planes also. Not just the 3rd one. And this doesn't make sense as there is still a picture of the hole in the pentagon and many other images of the event that would 'cause excitement'. Yet when everyone ask to see the plane that hit the pentagon. All we get is an explosion of a missile effect hitting it and no other footage is available? That doesn't make sense.



I don't know, but I can see why they would.  The Pentagon is the government's Department of Defense building.  An image of the hitting of it would be far more symbolically powerful than photographs of airplanes hitting the World Trade Center.  I still want to understand why thousands of Pentagon workers have been silent about no airplane hitting their work building because they want to keep working in the building that their bosses hit with a missile.  Have you really thought about that?  





> Complete nonsense. It is fact. There is evidence available that proves it.



It is heavily disputed.  Have you bothered to read about the disagreement to your notion?  It is in fact very much disputed.  





> You are talking complete garbage. Just because those with active intelligence disagree with evident lies and want freedom instead of fascism. Does not make them automatically hippies because they disagree with something the government says. The real disturbed ones are the lemmings that stare at fox news every day worshiping government.



I didn't say they are all like that.  I just said that they are part of the ilk.  In case your last part was supposed to be about me, I get my news from many sources, and they compete with each other on a major level and have everything to lose by lying.  What about your sources?  And if you think I worship the government, you have not been reading in this forum what I have said about the war on drugs and other terrible policies.  





> First, that it not what I claim. Second. Show me evidence of the plane with the commercial label, going into the building. Then you might be able to laugh



I am not saying it is what you claim.  I am saying it is what would have had to have happened.  (Why do I keep having to set you straight on what I said?  Try being more honest.)  The people got on the airplanes.  Would they have done that if the airplanes looked like military planes and not the ones they had tickets for?  Think.  





> P.S
> homework...
> _I need more detail on why you think norad didn't stand down. (laughable)_
> _I need reasons why you disagree with the experts (links have being provided)_
> _I need your theory of how the buildings could have collapsed. (without controlled demolition)_
> _I need solid evidence of this plane that you think hit the pentagon._
> _I require proof that the airplanes were actually hi-jacked by the people you claim did it._



-  I said where I stand on the Norad situation, a possible situation of poor communication.  

- In areas where I am far from being an expert, I see the probability as lying with the vast majority of experts and not the microscopic minority.  Why do you automatically side with the microscopic minority?  Would you dare to answer that question?  

- Don't ask me one more fucking time to pretend that I am an expert on demolition.  Your skull is very thick on this.  Even if I learned enough about demolition to talk about it, I would not know enough to be able to propose countertheories and say what specifically is wrong with your microsopic minority of expert reports, which makes it laughable that you call them "the" experts.  

- The burden is not on me to prove that a plane hit the Pentagon.  It is on you to prove that it was a missile.  The passengers of the reported plane were found dead and were buried, and Pentagon workers are not talking about seeing a damn missile.  YOU prove that there was a missile, since that is the claim that goes contrary to the general reports of officials and family members and friends of the victims and even the lowest ranking of Pentagon workers and the Washington Police and so on and so on and so on.  Do you claim that the dead passengers got on board a missile?  You are claiming this bizarre missile stuff.  Prove it.  If you claim that God exists, the burden of proof is on you to prove it and not on me to prove he doesn't.  IF I can't tell you how humans ended up on Earth, it does not mean you have proven the existence of God or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or anything else.  You are making the wild claim about a conspiracy, so the burden is on you to explain how it happened.  

- The reports of the passengers themselves and the government officials are that the airplanes were hijacked.   The burden of proof is on you to prove the absurd story that would have happened if the airplanes were not hijacked.  You call it irrelevant, but now you suddenly seem to think that this issue is relevant.  Which is it?  Any way, prove that the commercial airplanes that were supposed to be boarded were substituted by military airplanes that were remotely controlled and had some crazy system for feigning hijackings.  Can you do that?  

And since I just answered your second round of questions, it is your turn to go back to my post where I answered your first round and answer to my responses.  Calling them incoherent and irrelevant is an act of lying and does not qualify as countering or answering.

----------


## memeticverb

I would suggest ignoring Universal Mind.  His goal, like all spammers of ignorance, is to distract and deceive.  He has committed more errors of reasoning in this thread than all of the other threads on this site combined (well maybe not, but its close).  However, since he insists on using fallacies to promote his view, he is actually doing a trememndous disservice to it!  Keep it going genius!  

We have the same kind of thing happening to the 911 Truth movement, where people infiltrate posing as honest researchers or activists and then spread disnfo or use fallacies to discredit the movement as a whole.  They have failed; mostly because the majority of evidence for 911 Truth is empirically verifiable and has been tested to a high degree of certainty by experts who havnt been refuted publicly.

Such evidence consists partly of:

*1: Actual remnants of molten iron which have been proven to be the result of demolition incendiary devices. * This has been triple confirmed through three categories of sources, all requiring temps much hotter than jet fuel can produce: 

A. Videos of a thermate reaction.

B. Pieces of previously molten iron in the exact form of a thermate reaction

C. And micro-sized, previously molten particles found extensively in the WTC dust.

*2: High Velocity streams of debris* exactly resembling those of controlled demolition, again confirmed through many sources, including analysis by relevant PhD educated experts like Dr Grabbe, who also points to the evidence of destroyed cars that show signs of high temperature, but not smoke of fire damage, interestingly.

*3.  The speed and symmetry of the collapses,* especially WTC7, exactly resembled a controlled demolition.  The intense grid of steel beams and columns was cut from underneath and the collapse ensued at an accelerated pace.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I would suggest ignoring Universal Mind. His goal, like all spammers of ignorance, is to distract and deceive. He has committed more errors of reasoning in this thread than all of the other threads on this site combined (well maybe not, but its close). However, since he insists on using fallacies to promote his view, he is actually doing a trememndous disservice to it! Keep it going genius!



Look at how nonresponsive and substanceless your points are now that I have you in checkmate.   ::wink::

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFXAdPeZREY



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFXAdPeZREY

----------


## Keeper

Mystic, please don't post useless pictures.

----------


## Keeper

I repeat: Please don't post useless pictures. And also summerize what your videos say.

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE

----------


## Universal Mind

Since Mystic is stumped and the conversation is back on this level again...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=V5pe8EQ8fzk

----------


## Keeper

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPhAiEkO7NE



Great, Mystic: Deleting your post to make it look like I double posted.

You will get nowhere if you just keep posting links without explination.

Give data, _then_ post links

----------


## Universal Mind

> Great, Mystic: Deleting your post to make it look like I double posted.
> 
> You will get nowhere if you just keep posting links without explination.
> 
> Give data, _then_ post links



Gosh, what are you talking about?  Posting links to Geico cave man spoofs wins intellectual debates every time.

----------


## Keeper

Sarcasm aside, do you actually want an intellectual debate?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Sarcasm aside, do you actually want an intellectual debate?



Are you asking me?  Yes.  Why would you feel the need to even ask that?  If you have read this thread, you have seen how persistently I have tried to get logical answers to my biggest questions and how I follow up on the responses with my actual reasoning on the issues.  I challenge you to find a single instance of where I initiated the kindergartenization of a string of debate dialogue.  I will play kindergarten games with those who initiate it after they turn over their kings, but I am obviously game for whoever actually wants to debate.

----------


## Mystic7

::roll::  lol. We have provided data. Read the posts. Memeticverb has being extremely patient and civil with you and is a way better example than me on how to relate to you skeptical lemmings. But you ignore his points constantly. And you ignore mine. Just ignoring facts and then winging. Pictures are just a bit of humor sometimes to break the ice, since you are so serious all the time.
I'm not making summaries of every video, Your being lazy.

If you want intelligent pleasant discussion. Learn how to recognize it when it's present and respond and contribute to what has being provided.

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol. We have provided data. Read the posts. Memeticverb has being extremely patient and civil with you and is a way better example than me on how to relate to you skeptical lemmings. But you ignore his points constantly. And you ignore mine. Just ignoring facts and then winging. Pictures are just a bit of humor sometimes to break the ice, since you are so serious all the time.
> I'm not making summaries of every video, Your being lazy.
> 
> If you want intelligent pleasant discussion. Learn how to recognize it when it's present and respond and contribute to what has being provided.



No, you ignore my repeated point that I am not going to pretend to be a demolition expert who can argue all sides, angles, potential confoundings, and loopholes regarding a government report that you, a few actual experts, and a large nest of Bush hate cult members claim is bogus while the masses of experts think what you are saying is a joke.  You two are narcissistic out of your minds for thinking you can.  You are the people who claim this Bigfoot UFO type stuff happened, and I can't even get you to explain key parts of the supposed story.  That is exactly what I run into in the religion forum on a regular basis.  You posted answers to my questions once, after so many of your posts that dodged the Hell out of my questions, and then I couldn't get you to go back to my responses.  I have pointed out Texas size holes in your conspiracy hypothesis, and you won't explain them away.  You are a religious zealot who has nothing left to do but post Geico spoofs, so I hope you enjoyed my Twilight Zone and Yoga checkmate videos, since you are in checkmate.

You apparently haven't read Memeticverb's personal insults against me.  Look just a few posts back for a good example.  I am civil toward people who are civil to me, and you and Memeticverb do not fit that description.  If you truly believe the conspiracy stuff you are preaching, make a solid effort to really understand why I am not so quick to buy into it.  Look at the issues I have with it and do your best to clear up where I am supposedly wrong.  That has not been your style.  Understand what my specifically stated disagreements are, and show an open mind to the fact that people are not going to just drop everything and follow you like sheep because you think you thoroughly understand demolition backwards and forwards.  Look at my specifically stated disagreements, and make a commitment to clearing them up ALL the way, if  you are actually serious about this.

----------


## Mystic7

And keeper. If you don't like me posting pictures. Why would you quote the picture and essentially post it again by your reply making it come up twice.  :Clap: 

Ok back to 911





> I would suggest ignoring Universal Mind. His goal, like all spammers of ignorance, is to distract and deceive. He has committed more errors of reasoning in this thread than all of the other threads on this site combined (well maybe not, but its close). However, since he insists on using fallacies to promote his view, he is actually doing a trememndous disservice to it! Keep it going genius!
> 
> We have the same kind of thing happening to the 911 Truth movement, where people infiltrate posing as honest researchers or activists and then spread disnfo or use fallacies to discredit the movement as a whole. They have failed; mostly because the majority of evidence for 911 Truth is empirically verifiable and has been tested to a high degree of certainty by experts who havnt been refuted publicly.
> 
> Such evidence consists partly of:
> 
> 1: Actual remnants of molten iron which have been proven to be the result of demolition incendiary devices. This has been triple confirmed through three categories of sources, all requiring temps much hotter than jet fuel can produce:
> 
> A. Videos of a thermate reaction.
> ...

----------


## Universal Mind

Read the top part of that quote.  What was it you were saying about Memeticverb's civility?  

You are harping nothing but demolition specifics, and ONCE AGAIN, I don't know enough about that stuff to think I can argue it (And I don't think you do either.), so I see the probability as lying with the MASSES of experts and not your microscopic minority.  Get it?  Now clear up my supposed misunderstandings.  You know what they are by now.  And give a committed effort this time.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal mind.

I'll make it very simple for you this time ok. Little bits at a time.

1) The buildings are known to have fallen at free fall speed. This cannot be ignored that such a thing cannot happen in an accidental collapse.

2) Cannot get around the fact there is no evidence of the pentagon plane. There is evidence different bits of small pieces of wreckage was planted on the site from a different aircraft! Which is even more cause for concern. But no markings on the ground from a plane crash. You must explain how it's possible. It's highly suspicious and reasonably impossible. When security would provide not only the evidence easily but should have easily shot down the so called plane. Security must be *disabled* before a plane is allowed to hit the pentagon. You foolish man. The security of the pentagon cannot be breached and defeated by an aircraft without notice. Even from miles away aircraft are easily kept track of.

3) Please get it through your skull that you must prove *your* nutcase theory which is the ONLY theorist speculation here with no evidence. Not the other way around. I am *not* a theorist just stating what are *facts.* And demanding proof of *your insane speculations* that override common sense.

Memeticverb was perfectly justified in what he said to you.

----------


## Keeper

> Are you asking me?  Yes.  Why would you feel the need to even ask that?  If you have read this thread, you have seen how persistently I have tried to get logical answers to my biggest questions and how I follow up on the responses with my actual reasoning on the issues.  I challenge you to find a single instance of where I initiated the kindergartenization of a string of debate dialogue.  I will play kindergarten games with those who initiate it after they turn over their kings, but I am obviously game for whoever actually wants to debate.



I did not mean to imply that you are not debating logically. It is just that I feel that acting like Mystic with regard to posting data (as well as the sometimes pointed "childish-acting" you do when provoked) doesn't exactly help.

----------


## Mystic7

Btw. Maybe some who read this thread would like to hear some of the discussion about the protest on this september can be found Here.

----------


## Universal Mind

Mystic, you didn't address my areas of disagreement.  That is because you are stumped and don't even really believe what you are saying yourself.  You don't win over converts by ignoring the issues people bring up.  You are barking up trees that do not fix my skepticism.  That makes me question what your goal in this really is.  You are stuck on demolition specifics, despite what I keep saying about your fixation.  True experts, which is a category that does not include you, do address your amateur perspective and can actually have an exchange with you on all possible *confoundings, flaws, exceptions, other possible explanations, loopholes, and so forth*.  You have seen them do it.  I am NOT one of those people, and I am not going to pretend to be.  You are barking up the wrong tree.  

I explained the Pentagon airplane sitution, and your last post did not address what I said.  You just started right back at the beginning.  Are you even reading my responses?  Pick the conversation up where I left it, not back at the beginning.  

My theory on this conversation is that you are not being honest about what you believe and report.  I have caught you misconstruing my words many times in this conversation.  That shows your lack of commitment to truth.  I will show you a very solid recent example of your intellectual dishonesty.  Memeticverb said this to me yesterday...





> I would suggest ignoring Universal Mind. His goal, like all spammers of ignorance, is to distract and deceive. He has committed more errors of reasoning in this thread than all of the other threads on this site combined (well maybe not, but its close). However, since he insists on using fallacies to promote his view, he is actually doing a trememndous disservice to it! Keep it going genius!



And you said this to me today, the same day you quoted the above post...





> Memeticverb has being extremely patient and civil with you



That is just a flat out lie.  Why do you do that?  I have noticed that that is a trend among members of your cult.  Then you made the point that he should have said it, which compeltely dodges the point and is a dishonest response.  Be committed to the truth, and be committed to understanding why I and the rest of the vast majority of skeptics are not buying your claims.  If you are not even going to attempt to understand the specific areas of skepticism and clear them up, then you are just spewing hot air pointlessly and are not committed to understanding and communicating truth.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal you are defeated big time. You sound really silly accusing me of being in a cult and your credibility is just about shot to pieces from what you have said. The majority of experts do not back you. That is your illusion. I would accept when you are mistaken and move on.

Smoking gun WTC7 was a controlled demolition

Air force reserve medic and 911 first responder Kevin Mcpadden discussing the countdown to demolish WTC7

Alex intro: _"Did you just hear what this first responder was saying and we've talked to dozens that have said the same thing. it's on the record the local radio has announced it. The countdown to blow building 7. Smoking gun proof.But CNN wants me on television tomorrow in a taped interview and only want to talk about the pentagon, the pentagon, the pentagon. So they want to only stay on that subject. Not the 100's and 100's of witnesses of bombs and countdowns." [to the responder] Please take a few of my minutes and detail what you were just talking about with the controlled demolition._

In the video the responder goes on to explain his experience with the countdown to the demolition.

Clip of this can be found Here

That is just one witness.

*And one of many documentary's detailing evidence of controlled demolition can be found* *Here*

*WTC Demolition Evidence*

*Fire Fighters controlled demolition testimony*

*911 revisited*

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, don't respond to what I keep saying.  Just keep repeating the same tactic I have explained 30 times doesn't clear up my skepticism.  That's so effective.   ::roll:: 

I'll tell you what, since you are stuck in your checkmate rut and cannot get out to try a different approach, I am going to try a different approach with you.  I am going to give a summary of how the 9/11 story happened, according to what would apparently be the case if your la la land claims are correct.  You tell me where the story is wrong and substitute in what YOU think happened.  If you ignore this and post obscure demolition claims, you will have officially admitted defeat.  Actually, you did that a long time ago, but I am interested in this stuff.  

Here is the story...

The United States government wanted to take a very extreme risk and pull a Pearl Harbor type stunt so there would be an excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and get good oil money even though the oil would still belong to the people of those countries.  So lots and lots of members of the White House staff, the FBI, the FAA, the CIA, Norad, the military, the news media, demolition crews, the Washington police, and other bodies all got together and took a big risk by talking about doing this, and everybody happened to agree to it, except maybe a few people who opted out yet decided not to talk about something so humongous and despiccably evil and devastating to their own country and economy.  This enormous group of people who all turned out to happen to be far more evil than the worst of serial killers decided to make military airplanes to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in the middle of nowhere.  This would make it easy to blame everything on the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who just so happens to exist for the purpose of engaging in such attacks and had even done so in the past.  Little did Al Qaeda know that they would soon finally get their big breaks as actors working for the very government they organized for the purpose of destroying.  

All of the necessary bodies worked with the military to take military passenger airplanes that look just like commercial passenger airplanes, unknown military airplanes that were the only three in the world that fit that description, and painted the necessary colors and commercial labels on them since military green makes it look like the airplanes are not the airline company jets the passengers had tickets to board.  Since nobody in the military was willing to die for somebody ele's outrageously large scale oil scheme, remote control devices were put in the airplanes.  Passengers got onto the airplanes and were greeted by robotic stewardesses.  Then the planes headed down the runways as the remote control devices smiled for the flag men on the runways, who reported nothing unusual.  There was a problem with the fact that the actual airline companies sent the real airplanes to the airports with real airplane staff and passengers and communicated with airport staff about the arrangements, so the enormous oil conspiracy legion of people who just happened to all be more evil than serial killers decided to hide the real airplanes and staff under the airports when nobody was looking and replace the staff with robots who have all of the same memories and behavior patterns as the real staff.  Much to the good fortune of the psychopath network of oil conspirators, nobody noticed when one of the airplanes passengers got on was actually a missile.  Or maybe those people are buried under the airport too.  

While in the air, the government turned on their background hijack noises and swung metal balls from the ceiling with remote control devices so the passengers would be hypnotized into thinking they were being hijacked and call their friends and relatives to cry while saying goodbye.  Then all of the crashes happened.  One of the crashes, the one that involved a horrendously loud blow into the U.S. governments' Department of Defense building, involved a missile hit during work hours.  Thousands of people were working in that building, but none of them reported that it was a missile that hit the building, even after they soon realized that the biggest news story in the history of the world, one that concerned a missile attack on their work building while they were at work, was false.  That is because they all wanted to keep working at the building that was hit by a missile that was deliberately fired by their bosses while those workers were in the building.   

The World Trade Center was hit by the government's remote control passenger airplanes instead of missiles just for the sake of randomness, but it was strategically placed bombs that made the buildings fall.  The claims of the government and many experts about how the buildings fell was wrong, and the incorrectness of those reports was so obvious and undisputable that even amateur punks on the internet go off about it with complete certainty and are totally correct even though the vast, vast majority of engineers, construction supervisors, architects, and demolition supervisors don't agree with the claim and have the insanely bizarre idea that those people are just punks on the internet, or else just don't really care, even though the United States and its coalition are fighting two wars right now because of the illusory terrorism threat and the major influence of what so many people are crazy enough to believe were terrorist attacks of all things.  

The government now has many actors who got fired from Days of Our Lives and after school specials playing members of Al Qaeda along with actual Al Qaeda members and taking credit for the attacks on video as well as threatening to pull more attacks, which they have done in many places in the Middle East and Europe, because they are trying to get roles on sitcoms and jobs hosting reality shows.  The mass network of conspirators has kept a very tight lid on what they all know really happened in the horrific tragedy that was the subject of the biggest news story in the history of the world and the major influence of two WARS that are going on right now.  

THE END

Can you SORT OF see why I don't just baaaah and accept your claims, especially since you have yet to even tell me what the story is supposed to be?  Talk to me.  This is interesting stuff.  Tell your version of that particular story.

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

Mystic and freinds,

I want you to watch this video, its from, Penn and Teller's: Bullshit

Hopefully it will convince you to top arguing over something as silly as conspircys.

Penn and Teller's: Bullshit.

----------


## Mystic7

Soul sleeper. 

Here can be found one of many Co-operative Agent's  *they discredit themself on purpose*.

Let me repeat as it's very important. *They discredit themself on purpose.*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqNRiY040do

They constantly plug by resisting credible sources in a dumb way. To the point where it helps concentrate on truth while acting intellectually challenged. Or in penn and tellers case. They target skeptics who are intellectually challenged and create a bias report to mock them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8r8osSqiB4

penn and teller are in exactly the same category. They are just backstabbing and making fun of your skepticism behind your back. Note the word bullshit in their title. It has a double meaning. In other words what they are reporting with foul language and unbalanced reports. Is bullshit.

----------


## memeticverb

> Soul sleeper. 
> 
> Here can be found one of many Co-operative Agent's  *they discredit themself on purpose*.
> 
> Let me repeat as it's very important. *They discredit themself on purpose.*
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SqNRiY040do
> 
> They constantly plug by resisting credible sources in a dumb way. To the point where it helps concentrate on truth while acting intellectually challenged. Or in penn and tellers case. They target skeptics who are intellectually challenged and create a bias report to mock them.
> 
> ...



lol.  im glad im not the only who thought they should be taken as being sarcastic.

----------


## Universal Mind

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7eSzE3QJR...related&search=

----------


## Mystic7

911 Truth Continues

----------


## Universal Mind

continues.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal I'm not finished with you. You will become a believer. In everything. Lucky for you I ran out of time for the moment.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Universal I'm not finished with you. You will become a believer. In everything. Lucky for you I ran out of time for the moment.



Well you just go ahead and tell me the real version or even just a possibly real version of the 9/11 story whenever you think you are ready.

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

Mystic your an idiot,

Penn and Teller are two if the most famous skeptics and atheists out there. they dont hate skeptisism, they hate retards who belive stupid things like god, and "9/11 conspiricys"

----------


## Original Poster

I figured it out, it seems so obvious now.

I think that there are bombs in ALL of our major buildings in the United States.  Think about it, all the evidence fits, we were attacked, we were infiltrated, and it was Osama bin Laden.  What the government doesn't want us to know is that at any given time they could demolish any major building in any major city.  It's for insurance purposes, if a building topples it can take out a block.  They thought they were picking the lesser of two evils.  It makes so much sense.

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

Are you being saracastic? I can't tell. 

That theory is wrong.

----------


## Original Poster

No I know it's wrong, but it does make sense as a very possible conclusion.  There's video evidence of the owner of building 7 claiming they felt they had to pull it because of the risk it posed.  It makes sense that the government would cover that up, and I mean frankly it feels weird that we can occupy countries all over the world with absolutely no repercussions.  To think we were invincible enough that the only attack landed on us was by our own government is absurd.  It's not absurd that our own government would attack us, but that we are invulnerable.  This attack was coming for years, the CIA has been warning us about our presence in other countries claiming this was exactly what we were risking.

Okay, so I jumped the gun on ALL the evidence (like that the terrorists apparently never got on the planes, or that there were bombs going off in the basement before the planes hit), but evidence for 9/11 isn't exactly a black and white thing, either.  There's spinning of the facts going on on both sides, mostly the anti-conspiracy theorists.  Yeah, and I mean feel free to argue me next time instead of giving some bullshit response.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal this is my point. We are looking to gather a full report and proper investigation to punish those responsible for what happened. We are getting justice. This war in Iraq is ridiculous. We have proven many official reports to be fabrications that was also written by people who have known to have written other fraudulent reports in the past. 

So since we have already figured this much out. We are in the process of creating and initiating a means and expression for a proper investigation and report via evidence of what we do know about what happened. Enough support is already gained that the truth has forced independent researches and others qualified to investigate that have interest in making justice possible. Which is and will continue to expose the criminals involved.

I don't care what fox news says. As that organization is totally discredited and irresponsible, scripted, and motivated by corporate welfare. I only take independent intelligent journalist that do their own research and reporting and that are able and willing to understand what is going on for the good of the people and not their own greed.


*Latest report by Keith Olbermann*

*Recent Alex Jones GNN Interview - Unanswered Questions*

*Steven Jones & Kevin Ryan Debunk the NIST Report*

There is a lot of information in those reports that I do not wish to type out word for word. A summary cannot do it justice. Please view the reports and then you will have a solid foundation on which to reply to my post. Otherwise if you don't take a look at the information available it will waste our time.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

----------


## Universal Mind

Mystic, I asked for the story of what happened.  You are the one saying the story happened, and I am asking the obvious question of what that story is.  You won't even tell me that.  What is it?  I told the story of what I think would have had to have happened according to your perspective and asked you to correct it where you think it needs to be corrected.  Let's see it.  

I get my news from many sources, and I don't trust any organization that has nothing to lose by lying.  I am also trying to understand things even better by getting to the bottom of your perspective.  Do you want me to understand your perspective or not?  Why are you even posting in this thread if you don't want to communicate in regard to other people's specific areas of doubt?  You are being totally evasive.  I see that as a sign that you don't really believe what you are saying.  If you are not going to address my points and answer my questions, then this conversation is pretty much over.  I told the 9/11 story as it would have apparently happened according to your perspective.  Now YOU tell what YOU claim is the REAL story of the conspiracy, or just one that is possible EVEN IN THEORY, if you actually believe such a thing happened.  

So far, all you are doing is basically arguing the theist part of this conversation...

Theist:  The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.
Atheist:  Why do you think that? 
Theist:  You can't prove that it's not true. 
Atheist:  It is not my job to prove it is not true.  You made the claim, so prove it.
Theist:  If the big bang really happened, how do you explain the fourth energy level quark combustion leading to ionization of chromium binary molecules in the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula?  There are a few physicists in the entire world who agree that it disproves the big bang. 
Atheist:  I don't really know enough about that subject to argue too much of it, but I do know that the vast masses of actual physicists are not making an issue of it.  Why aren't they?  
Theist:  Aha!  The Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe!  
Atheist:  Oh yeah?  Tell me the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of the universe.
Theist:  Here's another link about the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula.  Explain it away! 
Atheist:  I am not going to pretend to be a physicist.  I am not qualified to argue all angles, possible confoundings, rival explanations, loopholes, and possible misconceptions of that issue.  But tell me the story of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of the universe, since you claim it happened.
Theist:  Here is another link about the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula.
Atheist:  If you won't tell your own story, then I will give it a try.  Okay, wheat grew on a planet in another dimension and evolved into a flying organism with eyes and the ability to create a universe.....(long story)... The End.  If you disagree with that story, tell the real one, or at least one that could even possibly be real. 
Theist:  Here is another link about the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula from atheistshavesexwithpigs.com.  How do you explain away that objective source's findings? 
Atheist:  Once again, I don't know enough about the subject to argue all angles and possibilities of it.  Tell me this story about the Flying Spaghetti Monster's creation of the universe, since you claim it happened.
Theist:  Stop getting your information from the Science Channel!  You are a spammer of ignorance who is only trying to deceive!  I am being nice and patient with you.

----------


## Universal Mind

So basically, we are here...

----------


## Mystic7

lol. Universal in reality this is a much more accurate reflection of what is happening with us.

Mystic7: Evidence proves these official reports are inaccurate
Theist: What is your theory? Otherwise your debunked
Mystic7: It's not a theory it's what is proved.
Theist: But what is your theory of what happened otherwise your theist.
Mystic7: I don't theorize. It's what I know for sure. These official reports are false.
Theist: What really happened? Otherwise they are true.
Mystic7: I'm not going to speculate, I'm just showing the evidence.
Theist: You are evasive.
Mystic7: Why do you still back these official reports when there is evidence they are false.
Theist: Because your evidence does not come with any theory.

Get the picture? Who is the religious nutcase?





> I asked for the story of what happened. You are the one saying the story happened, and I am asking the obvious question of what that story is.



??????

Mystic7: This is the evidence the official reports are false.
Theist: Since you claim this story. What is your story?
Mystic7: No this is the evidence.





> I told the 9/11 story as it would have apparently happened according to your perspective. Now YOU tell what YOU claim is the REAL story of the conspiracy, or just one that is possible EVEN IN THEORY, if you actually believe such a thing happened.



*I have the evidence the official reports are false. Your asking me to speculate on a theory. While not telling me why you still back what I have disproved. Speculations aside*





> So far, all you are doing is basically arguing the theist part of this conversation...

----------


## Universal Mind

That is a mischaracterization.  The "theory" you kept saying in that dialogue I am ignoring is something I have not been ignoring.  I have told you that the experts who make your claim are incredibly obscure and that if their claim were true, the vast masses of experts would be making at least some noise about it.  They are not doing that.  Why does that not even begin to set off alarm bells in your mind?  They do not agree with the obscure claims you are so quick to cling to regarding the biggest news story in the history of the world.  So it is not as simple as, "It has been proven."   The general world of engineering, architecture, construction, and demolition disagrees with the claim you cling to so faithfully.  They don't even blink at it.  And very importantly, your point goes way beyond the mere stance that the government's reports are false.  You do go from there to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.  Your dialogue presented the notion that no such conclusion is reached based on the reports.  You are not merely claiming that the government's claims are false.  You are saying that the government did an inside 9/11 job.  Are you not?????  So I am asking you how it would even be POSSIBLE that such a thing happened, since as you can see by my satirical story it is a profoundly absurd idea.  

Theist:  I was only claiming in the earlier dialogue that the official report on ionization in the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula is false.  I believe that because 30 physicists in the world have explained it on atheistshavesexwithpigs.com and nonbelieversarerotten.org.  
Atheist:  No, you were also claiming that the findings prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.  I have already explained in many different ways how such an idea involves a great deal of absurdity.  
Theist:  But you can't explain away what I said about the Zandar Howdy Doody Nebula. 
Atheist:  Well those who can are the supermajority by a trillion miles, and they don't take your claims seriously at all.  So being the nonexpert that I am, I am not going to just jump up and accept your very obscure claims and leap from there to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe.  Do you understand?  Now tell me even just a possible story of how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could have created the universe.

----------


## Mystic7

_A good analogy of the way reincarnation works can be found in the movie "Groundhog Day" starring funny man Bill Murray. In the movie, Bill Murray played a man who suddenly discovered that he's continuously reliving the same day over and over again. Every day was identical to the one before it with the same events happening and the same people saying the same things. The only difference was the man played by Bill Murray who remembered all the previous days and therefore learned to adapt to his strange situation._

Universal. It is my belief that it is a reasonable conclusion 911 is an inside job. But I am not arguing a theory to you. I am arguing against your fantasy. Which is that the official reports are not false.

I don't care if 1 million lemmings have a certain belief. 1 person with a brain that does superior experiments and debunks the lemmings cancels out the lemmings television fantasy.

----------


## Universal Mind

[I]



> Universal. It is my belief that it is a reasonable conclusion 911 is an inside job. But I am not arguing a theory to you. I am arguing against your fantasy. Which is that the official reports are not false.



And I keep telling why I disagree with your claims about the reports and your leap to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.  What you are basically saying is this...

_The United States government caused remote control military airplanes to hit the two towers of the World Trade Center and a field in the middle of nowhere and caused a missile to hit the Pentagon during work hours.  I can't explain how they made remote control devices appear to be pilots or what they did with the real airplanes and the people who worked on them or how they made the people on the airplanes think they were being hijacked by Middle Eastern terrorists or how they created background hijack noises for people on the other ends of cell phone conversations or why people at the Pentagon desperately wanted to keep their jobs at a place that was attacked by a missile fired at them by their bosses or why so astronomically many people would dare to take the risk of proposing such an astoundingly evil and big time risky plan to each other and happen to agree to it and never leak what they did, but I believe it happened any way. _ 

If you ever figure out how your story could have possibly happened, let me know.  Until then, I am not going to believe it.

----------


## Mystic7

> I keep telling why I disagree with your claims about the reports and your leap to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job. What you are basically saying is this...



haha Universal I am not backing your theory you are putting in my mouth. It is not a leap of a conclusion. I am not claiming any story. I am providing evidence. You have not provided any reason why my evidence is false. All you said is many people say so. Even that statement from you is false. You never addressed any facts or my evidence. You won't even look at it. You are too busy making up stories and putting them in my mouth and then saying you don't believe what you just made up. Well that's good because it's not to do with the evidence I posted. Talk about mischaracterization. Your story about my conclusions was full of it. And I'm not even saying you have to believe in anything not proven. You just fail to recognize evidence to begin with.

----------


## Universal Mind

> haha Universal I am not backing your theory you are putting in my mouth.



That last thing was not a theory.  It was a characterization of the fact that you can't tell any of the major parts of your own story.  





> You have not provided any reason why my evidence is false. All you said is many people say so.



Wrong.  I didn't say "many people".  I said "THE MASSES OF EXPERTS".  I thought you would be tired of repeating that defeated lie by now.  

The Flying Spaghetti Monster crashed those buildings.  If you don't think so, explain away this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...stic_equations

----------


## Mystic7

Um, there is no need to tell a story if you have evidence the official reports are disproved. Your just as responsible to find a new theory of what happened as I am. The only difference between my theory is I know it's reasonable while you think yours is proved when it's already refuted. Atleast my conclusions are based on something. And the so called masses of experts, are a phantom of your imagination. As my evidence still presents a major problem to what you believe while you fail to address the issue. While you try to explain away the circumstantial evidence I conclude you are meanwhile believing in what is disproved already. Not a smart thing.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Um, there is no need to tell a story if you have evidence the official reports are disproved. Your just as responsible to find a new theory of what happened as I am.



Wrong.  You claim something happened, so the responsibility is on you to explain how it could possibly happen when it defies so many areas of logic.  You cannot clear up my areas of disagreement, and I am not talking about things it would take an expert to thoroughly argue about, such as what in the Hell could have possibly happened to the real airplanes and why friends and relatives heard hijackings and reports of hijackings on the fake airplanes.  





> And the so called masses of experts, are a phantom of your imagination.



Right.  The few engineers you have referenced are the only ones in the entire world.  Awesome point.  

I am not claiming some unearned expert opinion.  Anybody can thoroughly understand that something would have happened to the real airplanes without the workers or any of their bosses anywhere on the ladder making a public issue of it, hijackings would have to have been faked on the fake airplanes, workers at the Pentagon would have decided to keep their jobs even though their bosses fired a missile at the building while they were in it as part of the biggest and most evil lie of all time, tons of people would have been involved in the conspiracy and had to have all been more evil than the worst of serial killers, there would have been no leaks to the public at large, and the demolition reports would have fooled the masses of experts but not punks on the internet.  Those are all facts that can be thoroughly understood by the general public.  You believe in something that is absurd and impossible.  

I thought of something else.  Let's say that the insane airplane and missile stunt I have repeatedly shown would be impossible to pull off would not actually be impossible.  Let's go to the land of the unicorns for a moment and pretend that.  You say the government had bombs in the WTC and blew it up with them and that that is how the buildings really fell.  Wouldn't it have been much easier to just blow up the buildings and not worry about the insane measures necessary to fake airplane hijackings and crash them into the buildings and then blow them up?  Why wouldn't they just blow up the buildings and blame it on terrorists who acted in the style of the WTC bombers of 1993?  Why pull this outrageous airplane stuff?

----------


## Mystic7

> Why wouldn't they just blow up the buildings and blame it on terrorists who acted in the style of the WTC bombers of 1993? Why pull this outrageous airplane stuff?



Firstly you need to realize your not debating fairly or relevantly to my points. That's not how you debate. Your constantly using defamation. Second you could ask bin laden the same stupid question. Not everyone can know every aspect of what happened just because they are present on the day. Your confused about how your culture really works. That is part of your culture by the way.

1) I study the occult and I recognize it as a ritual and it's esoteric meaning is beyond you. 911 is what you use to call emergency help. In numerology it has a meaning and again all that is beyond you.  Now you have no idea what any of this is symbolizing. As you know nothing about it. While I have studied the esoteric in society. The implications to me is something you are not aware of through your entire life.

2) Something less mysteries is people would question the ability for some bin laden group to collapse the center piece of materialism in new york. The towers. They would find it equally difficult that the pentagon was attacked with some missile by bin laden and gang. Most are not aware of their own nations security, military and how it functions obviously. As the pentagon cannot not prevent a plane hitting it. You have to disable the security for that to happen.

P.S. If you really want to know what I think of 911. You need to go deep down the rabbit hole before your even in a place to understand. But just for laughs I'll tell you. 911 is not only planned. But it's exposure as an inside job is also planned. Not only it's exposure planned. But the entire revolution has being set up from the beginning by people with more wisdom than you. Even herd of the esoteric order of the golden dawn? freemasonry? None of these names ring a bell?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Firstly you need to realize your not debating fairly or relevantly to my points. That's not how you debate. Your constantly using defamation.



I have explained the illogic of your belief.  That is extremely relevant. 





> Your confused about how your culture really works. That is part of your culture by the way.
> 
> 1) I study the occult and I recognize it as a ritual and it's esoteric meaning is beyond you. 911 is what you use to call emergency help. In numerology it has a meaning and again all that is beyond you. Now you have no idea what any of this is symbolizing. As you know nothing about it. While I have studied the esoteric in society. The implications to me is something you are not aware of through your entire life.



Pure defamation mixed with the land of the unicorns.  You did not clear up my specific areas of skepticism by putting me down personally for not subscribing to another one of your irrational philosophies.  





> 2) Something less mysteries is people would question the ability for some bin laden group to collapse the center piece of materialism in new york. The towers. They would find it equally difficult that the pentagon was attacked with some missile by bin laden and gang. They need the plane accident effect to dupe the public into little men out of no-where could infiltrate and do it. As they have been watching Hollywood movies and believe this crap. That the administration is incompetent enough that one day not watching it was a surprise.



If terrorists used bombs again after the increased security, that would have been even scarier.  Your hypothesis does not hold water.  





> That's truly how dumb masses have become about their government and it's culture. That they are not even aware of their own nations security, military and how it functions. Some don't even know there is secret police. People are really disconnected to the secrecy that is used. They think everything is out in the open all the time. It's not like that. Something is only out in the open when secret societies say it is. Unless people expose it by playing the same game.



 ::rolllaugh::   This is REALLY starting to get interesting.  Do you relate your secret police ideas to the UFO conspiracies involving Bigfoot?  Seriously, do you?  

Tell me about your superior culture we should all be jealous of, not that you are jealous of us or anything.

----------


## Mystic7

Lets make it more interesting 	 ::rolllaugh:: 

*911 PROPHECY* 

we are getting really scientific now.......

----------


## Universal Mind

Okay.  I agree with you now.

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk

----------


## Universal Mind

I admit that I am a big believer in the New World Order and that nothing can stop its total domination.  There is evidence of its coming major power status on video, and you can see here that the New World Order is serious business you shouldn't mess with...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dmrauVw1k...related&search=

----------


## Original Poster

Um... the elitist NWO advocates are definitely not going to conquer the planet but they're going to give us a run for our money, that's for sure.

And I wasn't saying um like I'm stammering, Um is just my nickname for universal mind.

And you don't have to take it seriously, I don't.  I just believe there are people in tbhis planet that do.  They are rich, powerful people that literally think they should install a world government with themselves at the top.  While they could never succeed, in trying to do so they will bring about tragedies just like 9/11 over and over again.

Anyway I agree with mystic7.  Your original story was a mischaracterization because you were placing mystic in the theist role but mystic admits he wasn't there and doesn't know what happened, he just knows that the official story is impossible and therefore the people that have propagated it should be held accountable so that we CAN find out what really happened.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Um... the elitist NWO advocates are definitely not going to conquer the planet but they're going to give us a run for our money, that's for sure.



Be sure you click the link if you didn't already so you can at least get a peek and see why I said what I did.    





> Anyway I agree with mystic7. Your original story was a mischaracterization because you were placing mystic in the theist role but mystic admits he wasn't there and doesn't know what happened, he just knows that the official story is impossible and therefore the people that have propagated it should be held accountable so that we CAN find out what really happened.



Mystic goes way beyond that.  If his entire point were that the official story has holes in it, my approach to debating him would be completely different.  He does not stop there.  He goes from there and does an Evel Knieval over the Grand Canyon style jump to the conclusion that the goverment committed the 9/11 attacks and even goes into detail about remote control imposter airplanes and ignored missiles, an idea I have illustrated is full of a multitude of profound absurdities.  That is where he goes from merely overestimating his ability to understand the complex sea of ins and outs and but ifs and what ifs of engineering and ignoring the severe absence of a very real social phenomenon and leaps all the way to the land of Oz.  It is just like ancient people who heard thunder and concluded that Zulubulu the Lord of Thunder was making it happen.  That is why I put him in the theist role in the satirical dialogue.  The idea that the government made the 9/11 attacks happen is about as possible as the existence of Zulubulu and cannot be concluded just because of a lack of knowledge of an alternative explanation.  It is light years past the fringes of reality.  Seeing problems in the government's report, which as I have argued I don't think he can be sure are there and is an idea that has an enormous hole in itself, is not a sufficient basis for claiming stuff that just doesn't make any sense.

----------


## Mystic7

> If his entire point were that the official story has holes in it, my approach to debating him would be completely different.



There is more than 1 official story. Each one has been disproved. I provided information before we started joking around the other night. You don't debate properly. You just want to talk about remote control devices.

----------


## tyrantt23

> You don't debate properly. You just want to talk about remote control devices.



 ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Original Poster

Again I agree with mystic7.  You can't just claim that someone is acting crazy because they make a claim.  Your attacks against his claim were fallacal... fallac... whatever.

It's the same thing with the JFK assassination.  The official story is impossible, and by trying to hold people accountable and then watching them nervously slide past the issue we saw how obvious it is there was a conspiracy there.  That doesn't mean we know for a fact who was responsible, though.  We just know what's impossible, and whatever's left, no matter how improbable, is the truth.  Who are the suspects for 9/11?  Who, besides the people that could not have *possibly* committed the attacks, stood to gain from them?  There are a whole lot of suspects, but the only ones who could have have possibly done this and were even possibly motivated to commit this crime are members of our country's upper class.

It's not like our government hasn't done it before, anyway.  How do you think we started the Mexican American war?

----------


## Keeper

Okay, Mystic: What happend?

Tell us what actually happend.

----------


## Universal Mind

> There is more than 1 official story. Each one has been disproved. I provided information before we started joking around the other night. You don't debate properly. You just want to talk about remote control devices.



Yeah, I have only talked about remote control devices.  That's such an honest statement.  The truth is that I have debated in such a way that you don't know what to do but dodge and lie.  





> Again I agree with mystic7. You can't just claim that someone is acting crazy because they make a claim. Your attacks against his claim were fallacal... fallac... whatever.
> 
> It's the same thing with the JFK assassination. The official story is impossible, and by trying to hold people accountable and then watching them nervously slide past the issue we saw how obvious it is there was a conspiracy there. That doesn't mean we know for a fact who was responsible, though. We just know what's impossible, and whatever's left, no matter how improbable, is the truth. Who are the suspects for 9/11? Who, besides the people that could not have *possibly* committed the attacks, stood to gain from them? There are a whole lot of suspects, but the only ones who could have have possibly done this and were even possibly motivated to commit this crime are members of our country's upper class.
> 
> It's not like our government hasn't done it before, anyway. How do you think we started the Mexican American war?



Al Qaeda exists for the very purpose of pulling such attacks.  They were pulling them in different parts of the world before 9/11.  They are pulling them in Iraq and Afghanistan now and have pulled several in Europe.  Do you think they don't exist?  The conclusion that the American government pulled the 9/11 attacks is not the only remaining conclusion regarding the narcissistic interpretations of engineering matters.  If you come to the conclusion that the U.S. government could not have committed the attacks just like you have with Al Qaeda, are you going to conclude that voodoo spirits were responsible?  

Mystic is saying that he can't come up with counterarguments to what are very conveniently the majorly obscure points of the microscopic minority of engineering/demolition views, so it is therefore reasonable to have no limits on the amount of absurdity involved in what he concludes based on that.  That is an extremely illogical way of thinking.

----------


## Mystic7

*The Truth. Can You Handle The Truth.*

I don't think Universal or keeper is ready to progress beyond this aspect of the debate. Omnius Deus however seems to have more potential here.

----------


## Keeper

First off, I am not the one debating you.

Second, you aren't answering Universal's question.

----------


## Universal Mind

Mystic, I have explained that it is illogical to believe absurd circumstances just because you cannot explain other circumstances.  That has been my theme for a while, and you refuse to address it. 

cannot explain very obscure demolition interpretations
V
V
V
(very long leap)
V
V
V
conclusion that inherently accepts the existence of profoundly absurd circumstances

So my argument is not only that your conclusion involves absurd circumstances and that your premise is based merely on obscure interpretations that you are not qualified to understand the full scope of what ifs and but ifs they call into question.  I am also arguing that it is illogical to go from one to the other.  What is your counterargument?  



http://youtube.com/watch?v=HEm_m1SzX-M

----------


## Mystic7

*Just count the hidden faces*

----------


## Universal Mind

> *Just count the hidden faces*



Faces in clouds type stuff?  Is that what you would call debating properly?   ::roll::   My point stands.

----------


## Mystic7

Not really because *you never believed in UFOs either*.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDOOZ_IPb6Y

*Get with the times skeptic*
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKPeMuKQ9yE

----------


## Universal Mind

Since we are so on topic  ::roll:: ...  

http://youtube.com/watch?v=ToaeOvqIFx0

----------


## Mystic7

lol Universal. Come join the good side. You know you want to.

----------


## Universal Mind

> lol Universal. Come join the good side. You know you want to.



 ::dreaming::   Okay!  Yaaaaaayyyy!!! :woohoo:

----------


## Original Poster

In a note of actual argument, since I have only seen that pos loose change when it comes to conspiracy videos and found myself thinking, "WTF that's not true" to about half the claims made in it, I can understand at least where Um is coming from.  Some of the _facts_ people use to debunk the offical story are far from facts.

But that doesn't make it even remotely possible for the events to take place like the official story said.  These aren't some obscure demlitions experts, these are actual government officials who were silenced and had to make their claims in obscurity because the mainstream media ignores them.  That's why I made the conclusion that the terrorists did hit us, and that the government just decided to pull the buildings because A. it explains why they covered it up and B. I didn't have all the evidence.  The fact is we still don't have all the evidence and we won't until we can actually hold the people who covered information up accountable.

It doesn't mean they did it, but why do they nervously ignore the issue?  Why is no one in the media or government addressing the few aspects of loose change that *are* true?

So to put it in your theist atheist model it goes like this.  I'll even give you the benefit of putting myself on the theist side.

theist: I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, just that because of this nebula bs it couldn't have happened the way the scientists are saying it did.
atheist: then how did it happen?
theist: I don't know, I wasn't there.  God was there, though, and he should fucking tell us and stop being such a bitch about it.
atheist: the nebula bs was thought up by obscure radicals trying to bring down the scientific community
theist: contrarily by seeing this information they are supporting the scientific community by trying to find the truth instead of just letting a potentially grave misunderstanding influence a misinformed perspective on the universe.  Just because the big bang is the answer scientists give us does not mean it's necessarily true.  With my imagination I could think of a hundred different beginnings to the universe, and if I just ignore the evidence I'm sure I could make any of them appear right in my head, it doesn't make them right.  Our job as far as discovering how the universe began obviously isn't over because of this evidence and we shouldn't just let the big bang be the accepted truth because it's the one we've been fed.

----------


## tyrantt23



----------


## memeticverb

> I would suggest ignoring Universal Mind.  His goal, like all spammers of ignorance, is to distract and deceive.  He has committed more errors of reasoning in this thread than all of the other threads on this site combined (well maybe not, but its close).  However, since he insists on using fallacies to promote his view, he is actually doing a trememndous disservice to it!  Keep it going genius!  
> 
> We have the same kind of thing happening to the 911 Truth movement, where people infiltrate posing as honest researchers or activists and then spread disnfo or use fallacies to discredit the movement as a whole.  They have failed; mostly because the majority of evidence for 911 Truth is empirically verifiable and has been tested to a high degree of certainty by experts who havnt been refuted publicly.
> 
> Such evidence consists partly of:
> 
> *1: Actual remnants of molten iron which have been proven to be the result of demolition incendiary devices. * This has been triple confirmed through three categories of sources, all requiring temps much hotter than jet fuel can produce: 
> 
> A. Videos of a thermate reaction.
> ...



Why cant anyone refute this evidence (which is scientifically supported by hundreds of architects and engineers, eminent PhD level scientists from around the world, and countless other PhD educated academics.  Where are all the similarly qualified experts supporting the official story?

----------


## Original Poster

This debate explains the division of our country over this issue pretty clearly.  See, there are two types of people in this debate, those that looked at the evidence and believe there is a conspiracy, and those that ignored the evidence and believe the conspiracists are crazy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> In a note of actual argument, since I have only seen that pos loose change when it comes to conspiracy videos and found myself thinking, "WTF that's not true" to about half the claims made in it, I can understand at least where Um is coming from. Some of the _facts_ people use to debunk the offical story are far from facts.
> 
> But that doesn't make it even remotely possible for the events to take place like the official story said. These aren't some obscure demlitions experts, these are actual government officials who were silenced and had to make their claims in obscurity because the mainstream media ignores them. That's why I made the conclusion that the terrorists did hit us, and that the government just decided to pull the buildings because A. it explains why they covered it up and B. I didn't have all the evidence. The fact is we still don't have all the evidence and we won't until we can actually hold the people who covered information up accountable.
> 
> It doesn't mean they did it, but why do they nervously ignore the issue? Why is no one in the media or government addressing the few aspects of loose change that *are* true?
> 
> So to put it in your theist atheist model it goes like this. I'll even give you the benefit of putting myself on the theist side.
> 
> theist: I'm not saying the big bang didn't happen, just that because of this nebula bs it couldn't have happened the way the scientists are saying it did.
> ...



I really hope you don't think the government has an obligation to address Loose Change.  If they do that, they might as well start addressing Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  They don't want to give credibility to the absurd by treating it like it has basis in reality.  It would not be in the interests of credibility or efficiency to start commenting on each night's Art Bell program.  

As for your dialogue, you did not represent the amazing leap I discussed.  I have said that I don't have much disagreement with people who say, "I have looked at the evidence, and it seems that the big bang did not happen the way the vast, vast majority of PhD theoretical physicists say it did even though I don't know enough to understand the potential counterarguments to what the dissenters are saying."  What I think is astoundingly outlandish is saying, "A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong.  Therefore.... (leaping... leaping... leaping...) the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to have created the universe by sprinkling glittery magic sand on a statue of Lord Banana and singing "It's a Happy, Happy Universe".  





> This debate explains the division of our country over this issue pretty clearly. See, there are two types of people in this debate, those that looked at the evidence and believe there is a conspiracy, and those that ignored the evidence and believe the conspiracists are crazy.



I disagree.  I think two types of people are those who admit that they don't know the ins and outs of demolition and don't take obscure claims regarding evidence and leap to fantasy land conclusions and those who have looked at obscure takes on evidence and think they know enough to understand the full spectrum of how demolition works and go from there to saying things that are absolutely insane.

----------


## Mystic7

> Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster



whenever someone mentions something important. For example strong evidence. Because your always skeptical you bring out this spaghetti Monster garbage.  Just accept that you will not address what memeticverb has posted. Why don't you explain why it isn't evidence. Instead your response is about as relevant and useful as the flying spaghetti monster.





> A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong.



You must be completely absent minded to believe only those things which the majority believe in. That is not a qualification to test if something is correct. There is no leap of conclusion. So this is totally different. We understand enough to conclude it's evidence. Just like we know enough that the earth is round. There is no expert counter argument to the earth being round even when it was first discovered and everyone disagreed. Imaginary 'what ifs' don't count when it is certain. Same as there is no expert argument against the laws of physics when it comes to 911. It's just that your religiously brainwashed to the extent where you  cannot accept any other possibility.


First weird thing in this picture is none of that rubbish is burnt. How did it get there and where is the plane. Second look at the size of that hole. That does not fit the plane. find the Measurements and you'll find the hole does not fit the plane. Besides what about the wings of the aircraft? Did they fall off before it hit? Impossible. That's what a missile impact looks like. Even the video footage shows no plane just an explosion.

Here is the explosion with no plane from the hotel security camera. Funny the hotel has enough security to take a video but all the pentagon cameras failed or the footage got lost magically. Or they simply refuse to release it. Refuse to release what would prove to us the truth. Only once this video got released were they forced to release something. So afterwards here is what the government did release.  STILL NO PLANE


Such a big explosion and impact. Yet only a clean hole and no wing marks of any airplane. Whatever hit it had no wings. NO wreckage. No footage. No evidence of a plane.

*King 4 News
*

----------


## Universal Mind

> whenever someone mentions something important. For example strong evidence. Because your always skeptical you bring out this spaghetti Monster garbage. Just accept that you will not address what memeticverb has posted. Why don't you explain why it isn't evidence. Instead your response is about as relevant and useful as the flying spaghetti monster.



That is not honest at all.  How many times do I need to make the same point?   :Dead Horse:   I do bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster every time somebody says, "I can't explain this.  Therefore I conclude ____________ (Insert preposterous statement.)"  It's extra laughable when the person with the conclusion doesn't know enough to know whether there are possible explanations that illustrate that the present theory has not been proven wrong.  I have seen the demolition debates go to, "But they could melt this way and fall that way if such and such is the case, but they couldn't do that and that under the other circumstances X,Y, and Z," and "Oh, but they couldn't under these five factors, but they could when the wind blows and the sun adds heat and these other things don't happen."  I am going to say this one last time.  If you ignore it yet again, then good luck to you.  I don't know enough to be able to cover the full scope of that debate, and neither do you.    





> You must be completely absent minded to believe only those things which the majority believe in. That is not a qualification to test if something is correct. There is no leap of conclusion. So this is totally different. We understand enough to conclude it's evidence. Just like we know enough that the earth is round. There is no expert counter argument to the earth being round even when it was first discovered and everyone disagreed. Imaginary 'what ifs' don't count when it is certain. Same as there is no expert argument against the laws of physics when it comes to 911. It's just that your religiously brainwashed to the extent where you cannot accept any other possibility.



You are either not reading my posts or are being completely intellectually dishonest.  I have illustrated several instances of your intellectual dishonesty, so you know what my theory on that would be.  I will say this one last time also, and if you still ignore it, good luck to you and your diagnosable delusions.  If you can understand supposed lies about the demolition story involved int the biggest shock in American history and the biggest news story in the history of the world, then so can the actual experts.  The vast masses are not making anything of what you are talking about, so in my nonexpert assessment, I see the probability as lying with the masses of experts and not nonexpert punks on the internet and the handful of experts who are members of your hate cult.  That is not as simple as majority is automatically right.  The actual point is that I don't start baaaaahing like a sheep just because nonexperts who believe in numerology and prophecy and a microcopic minority of experts who have financial and hateful agendas claim something about an area I don't understand in its entirety.  And once again, I sure as Hell wouldn't leap to the land of Oz even if I thought I did understand the engineering debate in its entirety.  Did you catch it that time?  Now stop lying.

----------


## Mystic7

> I sure as Hell wouldn't leap to the land of Oz



Especially with your flying Spaghetti Monster.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Especially with your flying Spaghetti Monster.



Especially?  I might say especially with unreported vanished airplanes and mass ambitions of people to keep working in a building their bosses fired a missile at while they were working in it.

----------


## Mystic7

> Especially? I might say especially with unreported vanished airplanes and mass ambitions of people to keep working in a building their bosses fired a missile at while they were working in it.





_Ahoy! Universal mind. Your Addled! Avast! Belay your Bilge! Gangway Corsair, Going to Keelhaul you Poxy, poxed._

*Arrrrrr! Me hearties, No quarter!*

----------


## Universal Mind

Hurry!  Hide the airplane!  Dammit I hope nobody is watching.

----------


## Original Poster

> I really hope you don't think the government has an obligation to address Loose Change. If they do that, they might as well start addressing Bigfoot and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They don't want to give credibility to the absurd by treating it like it has basis in reality. It would not be in the interests of credibility or efficiency to start commenting on each night's Art Bell program.



Fine, ignore loose change, pretend it never existed.  They still have an obligation to explain how molten steel was running down the building like lava even though jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel.  They still have to explain to all the demolitions experts saying the type of destruction they described would have left the steel beams intact.  Just because you assume if Fox News doesn't report it its not true does not make that so.





> As for your dialogue, you did not represent the amazing leap I discussed. I have said that I don't have much disagreement with people who say, "I have looked at the evidence, and it seems that the big bang did not happen the way the vast, vast majority of PhD theoretical physicists say it did even though I don't know enough to understand the potential counterarguments to what the dissenters are saying." What I think is astoundingly outlandish is saying, "A microscopic percentage of theoretical physicists say the big bang could not have happened according to the official story, and I agree with the microscopic minority because they are experts and the silence of the masses should just be overlooked because in my very limited understanding of the but ifs and what ifs of the scenario, I cannot say how the microscopic minority is wrong. Therefore.... (leaping... leaping... leaping...) the Flying Spaghetti Monster had to have created the universe by sprinkling glittery magic sand on a statue of Lord Banana and singing "It's a Happy, Happy Universe".



Albert Einstein was laughed at at first as well.  In fact many people that first heard his ideas were so quick to write it off as absurd he barely got through his theory the first time without ensuing laughter.  All great realizations by our culture were suppressed by the beginning, the church called it blasphemous, the masses like you just write it off because it doesn't fit your narrow perspective on reality and farbeit from us to try and reach an understanding that doesn't fit into the masses' confirmed reality.  No society just automatically accepts a controversial truth in the beginning.  Rather, history has shown us that people that tell the truth get crucified.  Just because you choose to attach yourself to popular opinion does not make you right.







> I disagree. I think two types of people are those who admit that they don't know the ins and outs of demolition and don't take obscure claims regarding evidence and leap to fantasy land conclusions and those who have looked at obscure takes on evidence and think they know enough to understand the full spectrum of how demolition works and go from there to saying things that are absolutely insane.



I don't know the ins and outs, but the demolitions experts do and they're pretty much unanimous.  Find me a single demolition expert that thinks the offocial story is true and I will find you 30 that don't.

----------


## Mystic7



----------


## Mystic7

*Take a look at the buildings after the planes hit.*



*Now take a look at how they fell down. And give yourself a reality check.*





*
that's exactly what a building looks like when the metal gets weak from jet fuel, then falls down naturally. Not like a demolition conspiracy*  ::wtf2::

----------


## Universal Mind

> Fine, ignore loose change, pretend it never existed. They still have an obligation to explain how molten steel was running down the building like lava even though jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. They still have to explain to all the demolitions experts saying the type of destruction they described would have left the steel beams intact.



I don't think you know enough about the depths of demolition but ifs and what ifs to be sure it is a credible issue.  I told you what would happen if it were one.  





> Just because you assume if Fox News doesn't report it its not true does not make that so.



I agree, whatever that has to do with anything.  What about local news stations in the world?  What about the engineering firms all over the world?  What about the social circles I come across all the time?  What about all of the architecture firms in the world?  What about local newspapers everywhere?  What about my ex who is an architect?  What about my construction supervisor former best friend?  What about street protests and townhall meetings where enormous crowds of engineers could meet?  Why not a million engineer march?  What about a million demolition expert petition?  Where is all of this?  All you have are a few money and attention seeking Bush haters and your own amateur narcissism.  





> Albert Einstein was laughed at at first as well. In fact many people that first heard his ideas were so quick to write it off as absurd he barely got through his theory the first time without ensuing laughter. All great realizations by our culture were suppressed by the beginning, the church called it blasphemous, the masses like you just write it off because it doesn't fit your narrow perspective on reality and farbeit from us to try and reach an understanding that doesn't fit into the masses' confirmed reality. No society just automatically accepts a controversial truth in the beginning. Rather, history has shown us that people that tell the truth get crucified. Just because you choose to attach yourself to popular opinion does not make you right.



Right.  You understand, but the masses of experts do not.  Can I call you Einstein?  Also, pay attention to the fact that I am talking about probability.  There are lots of situations where minority opinion turned out to be correct, even microscopic minority opinions and even lone opinions.   But what are the chances this is one of those situations?  The probability is far from being on your side.  I have no reason to think it is.  Most importantly, I don't think YOU understand something the masses of experts do not.  Got it yet?  





> I don't know the ins and outs, but the demolitions experts do and they're pretty much unanimous. Find me a single demolition expert that thinks the offocial story is true and I will find you 30 that don't.



The masses of demolition experts don't even think there is an issue to discuss.  They see this as a Bigfoot type thing.  Those people are all over the place, and I can hear the cricket noises in their background.  You don't understand something that the masses of experts don't.  Get over yourself.

----------


## Universal Mind

Quick!  Help me hide the second airplane before somebody sees us!

----------


## Mystic7

> My name is universal mind. The fire is burning so hot and the buildings are so damaged that they are sure to collapse in an hour.









> The fire melted the steel, and it naturally fell over. I can't imagine how explosives could be used.





This 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh shit!  Mystic7 and Omnius Deuce are still on our asses about those airplanes!

----------


## Original Poster

[quote=Universal Mind;527392]I don't think you know enough about the depths of demolition but ifs and what ifs to be sure it is a credible issue. I told you what would happen if it were one. 







> I agree, whatever that has to do with anything. What about local news stations in the world? What about the engineering firms all over the world? What about the social circles I come across all the time? What about all of the architecture firms in the world? What about local newspapers everywhere? What about my ex who is an architect? What about my construction supervisor former best friend? What about street protests and townhall meetings where enormous crowds of engineers could meet? Why not a million engineer march? What about a million demolition expert petition? Where is all of this? All you have are a few money and attention seeking Bush haters and your own amateur narcissism.



Um... everything you described exists practically.  You honestly think Fox News gives you all the facts?  That is amateur narcissism,







> Right. You understand, but the masses of experts do not. Can I call you Einstein? Also, pay attention to the fact that I am talking about probability. There are lots of situations where minority opinion turned out to be correct, even microscopic minority opinions and even lone opinions. But what are the chances this is one of those situations? The probability is far from being on your side. I have no reason to think it is. Most importantly, I don't think YOU understand something the masses of experts do not. Got it yet?



If you ever bothered to look at the evidence you'd see the chances are pretty high.






> The masses of demolition experts don't even think there is an issue to discuss. They see this as a Bigfoot type thing. Those people are all over the place, and I can hear the cricket noises in their background. You don't understand something that the masses of experts don't. Get over yourself.



Outwright lie, why don't you do a google search.  I'm not talking about demolitions experts in general, but ones that have examined the attacks.  All that have examined the attacks claim that it was an inside job.

I won't repond to you again because I've already exercised all my arguments and you haven't responded to them with any evidence or logical thought.  You've simply barraged me with ad hominems at this point so to prevent this from becoming a bickering war I'm going to withdraw.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Um... everything you described exists practically. You honestly think Fox News gives you all the facts? That is amateur narcissism,



No.  Why?  





> If you ever bothered to look at the evidence you'd see the chances are pretty high.



That's what I said.  You know, but the masses of experts don't.  





> Outwright lie, why don't you do a google search. I'm not talking about demolitions experts in general, but ones that have examined the attacks. All that have examined the attacks claim that it was an inside job.



Wrong.  The ones you are fiending to believe have said what you are looking for.  You ignore the rest.  Here are a few sources...

http://www.jod911.com/

http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html

http://www.debunking911.com/





> I won't repond to you again because I've already exercised all my arguments and you haven't responded to them with any evidence or logical thought. You've simply barraged me with ad hominems at this point so to prevent this from becoming a bickering war I'm going to withdraw.



If you assert that, it must be true.  You started calling me narrow minded and other things, and that is when I sprinkled some ad hominem on top of my on point responses, so stop acting like a victim.  





> (*crickets* *crickets* *crickets*)

----------


## Universal Mind

Dammit, you snuck off with the wrong airplane!  Get it right!  This is a much better plan than just making it look like the terroirsts used bombs, which they did last time.

----------


## Original Poster

Not a victim, I realized I was insulting you and its because I entered thsi debate to further my own understanding meaning I was hoping for some real evidence.  Finally you gave me a link after I said I was going to stop debating, before you were just pushing everything off as absurd because you said it was absurd.  You weren't responding with logic, just circular arguments, so it became pointless to debate because my own understanding wasn't about to get any better.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Not a victim, I realized I was insulting you and its because I entered thsi debate to further my own understanding meaning I was hoping for some real evidence. Finally you gave me a link after I said I was going to stop debating, before you were just pushing everything off as absurd because you said it was absurd. You weren't responding with logic, just circular arguments, so it became pointless to debate because my own understanding wasn't about to get any better.



Why do you have no qualms about being dishonest?  I have given my reasoning very clearly many times over, and "because I say it is" has not once been the basis for any of my conclusions.  You told a boldface lie when you said I said stuff is absurd just because I say it is.  You know that is not true, so why did you say it?  I have shown vivid examples of where you and Mystic7 have flat out lied.  As I have said, that is a big trend with 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts.  That is one more reason my skepticism regarding what they say is enormous.

----------


## Mystic7

Omnius Deus just ignore him. He tends to take you around in circles.

----------


## Original Poster

I've learned.  It's just puzzling to me how someone can have their head that far up their rear end.

----------


## Mystic7

When your brainwashed, it's a requirement.

Take a look at this pattern for example. I can tell just from speaking with universal mind. His attitude on most things.

Universal Mind: Doesn't believe in UFOs or extraterrestrials. (until fox news says so)
Universal Mind: Believes in fox news
Universal Mind: Doesn't believe he has a soul.
Universal Mind: Believes death is real. (even though he has never died)

Universal Mind: Doesn't believe in intelligent design.
Universal Mind: Agrees everyone with an opinion on 911 beyond what fox news says has a mental problem of some sort.

Universal Mind: Believes in a big bang.
Universal Mind: Doesn't want to study quantum physics.
Universal Mind: Believes global warming is caused by humans and carbon dioxide.
Universal Mind: Doesn't want to explain or study other planets and what they are experiencing in the solar system at this time. Does not want to study how the sun effects climate. 

Universal Mind: Believes the law is not being abused.
Universal Mind: Doesn't believe in chemtrails.


The reason I can say what he believes alot. Is because he's programmed and brainwashed. And it's very easy to tell what they will and will not believe. According to what is known by the brainwasher's agenda. If he was a thinking individual, I wouldn't be able to say all this about him so easy.

Mind control is a science.

----------


## Universal Mind

> When your brainwashed, it's a requirement.







> I've learned. It's just puzzling to me how someone can have their head that far up their rear end.



Oh good.  You stumped whiners have nothing left but ad hominem.  I'm proud of you.  Let me know if you ever delude yourselves into thinking you can debate my points.  

Mystic, I love your idea that I was "brainwashed" into being an atheist while growing up in the American Bible Belt.   ::rolllaugh::  A lot of the other things you said are flat false also and came straight out of your anal canal.  I believe global warming is caused by humans?  Wrong.  I don't want to study quantum physics?  Wrong.  Fox News is my only news source?  Wrong.  I don't believe the law is being abused?  Wrong.  Did you pull that stuff out of your ass while you were looking for buried airplanes in Oz?

----------


## Mystic7

> I believe global warming is caused by humans? Wrong. I don't want to study quantum physics? Wrong. Fox News is my only news source? Wrong. I don't believe the law is being abused? Wrong.



I'm glad to hear it. Now I don't ever have to debate those things with you see. Couldn't get you to admit to the UFO thing though. Next time maybe.

I didn't say fox news is your only news source. I say you believe fox news is a genuine news source. There is a difference.

And it makes sense that if you grew up around bible bashes you would become atheist. That's how you deal with it.

*By the way 3 wrong out of 13 isn't bad.*

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm glad to hear it. Now I don't ever have to debate those things with you see. Couldn't get you to admit to the UFO thing though. Next time maybe.
> 
> I didn't say fox news is your only news source. I say you believe fox news is a genuine news source. There is a difference.
> 
> And it makes sense that if you grew up around bible bashes you would become atheist. That's how you deal with it.
> 
> *By the way 3 wrong out of 13 isn't bad.*



My atheism might be partly explained as a reaction to what I have been surrounded by, but I sure as f*** wasn't "brainwashed" into it.  I was brainwashed into being a Christian, which I was for a long time, and had to reprogram my brain by getting obsessed with logic and alternative cosmological ideas.  

I am almost completely convinced that there there is life all over every galaxy.  I think it would be outrageous if this one mud ball in this one solar system in this one galaxy in this one cluster in this one supercluster (etc.) is the only place where there is life.  I even think there is a significant possibility that this planet has been visited by aliens.  Pensacola and Gulf Breeze are within a four hour drive of where I live, and I have been there (You have to drive through Gulf Breeze to get to Pensacola Beach.) more times than I could even name.  I have seen weird shit in the sky there.  I have seen weird shit in the sky in New Orleans and Jackson too.  I also know people with credibility who say they have seen UFO's.  I don't rule that out at all.  However, I think most of the videos shown on television, including Fox News, are a crock.  I have put on UFO hoaxes myself.  They are very common.  My UFO comments in this thread have been about how they relate to government conspiracies and even Bigfoot, and that is where things really start getting bizarre.  My favoite book, _Cosmic Trigger Vol. 1: Final Secret of the Illuminati_, is about that stuff.  The book is so interesting because it is so insane, and I am not quick to buy into what it talks about.  The author, Robert Anton Wilson, even says himself he is not sure about what he is saying.  

So I believe in aliens, but my philosophy on the issue can be summed up by a line in the movie _Easy Rider_.  Jack Nicholson's character (George) talks about how aliens have been living and working among humans since the 1940's.  Dennis Hopper's character (Billy) goes off about how crazy that sounds.  George says Billy just said he saw something crazy in the sky, and Billy says, "I saw something, but I didn't see it working here."

----------


## Mystic7

ok make that 4 out of 13 wrong. I'm not suggesting your brainwashed into being atheist. I was talking about much more widespread brainwashing than that. You do have some ability to reason and be aware. But not as advanced as you think you are. As you have taken the 911 myth hook line and sinker. Because you cannot recognize the media hoax or evaluate evidence. Apparently.

----------


## Universal Mind

> ok make that 4 out of 13 wrong.



Okay.   ::yddd::

----------


## Mystic7

Universal, Research time now.

www.911Truth.org
www.patriotsquestion911.com
www.scholarsfor911truth.org
www.journalof911studies.com
www.theultimateconspiracy.com
www.PilotsFor9/11Truth
www.Justicefor911.org
www.911independentcommission.org
www.septembereleventh.org
www.911inquiry.org
www.911ea.org
www.wtceo.org
www.911initiative.org
www.william911.com

www.cooperativeresearch.org
www.911Research.WTC7.net
www.911review.com
www.911proof.com
www.truthmove.org
www.911pressfortruth.com
www.911weknow.com
www.911revisited.com
www.william911.com
www.mujca.com
www.truthaction.org
www.911readingroom.org
www.911busters.com
www.9eleven.info
www.tyrannyalert.com
www.universalseed.org
www.deceptiondollar.com
www.questioning911.com
www.911truthnow.org
www.legitgov.org
www.911omissionreport.com
www.911truthseekers.org
www.timetowakeup.net
www.8thestate.com
www.911source.org
www.911think.com
www.911tv.org
www.911.clubivy.org
www.globalconspiracyvideos.com
www.whokilledjohnoneill.com
www.grandtheftcountry.com

www.truth911.net
www.justacitizen.com
www.MartialLaw911.info
www.911truestory.com
www.911sharethetruth.com
www.wanttoknow.info
www.bush911video.com
www.Flight77.info
www.explosive911analysis.com
www.flight93crash.com
www.unansweredquestions.org
www.emergencynow.info
www.911bookshelf.com
www.summeroftruth.org
www.911truthradio.com
www.supportthetruth.com
www.mime11.com
www.oilempire.us
www.physics911.net
www.physics911.ca
www.jonhs.net/911/
www.nw0.info
www.comcast.net/~skydrifter
www.investigate911.com
www.timetowakeup.net

www.v911truth.org
www.stoplying.ca
www.911truth.eu
www.911truthpeterborough.com
www.luogocomune.net
www.911physics.co.nr
www.911info.se
www.serendipity.li
www.911truthbristol.com
www.911truthtotnes.com
www.september11.se
www.vaken.se
www.911oz.com
www.911dossier.co.uk
www.nineeleven.co.uk
www.hintergrund.de
www.broeckers.com
www.thecoop.tv
www.operation911.de
www.medienanalyse-international.de
www.911komplott.de
www.deepjournal.com
www.dknwz.net
www.scottishinternationalist.com
www.truth4peace.co.uk
www.vgb.no
www.911truthskipton.com
www.wytruth.org.uk
www.reopen911.info
www.editionsdemilune.com
www.cremationofcare.com
www.Swedesfor911Truth.com

----------


## Universal Mind

Here you go...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOEq-ImGWJ0





> http://www.jod911.com/
> 
> http://michaelgriffith1.tripod.com/refute.htm
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
> 
> http://www.debunking911.com/

----------


## Mystic7

I think my list is slightly more informing.

Using Alex Jones as a sledge hammer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wm616da_Afc

----------


## Universal Mind

> I think my list is slightly more informing.
> 
> Using Alex Jones as a sledge hammer



Look at the few minutes between my post and yours.  I don't think you read the links.  You kept wanting demolition talk and such.  Now you have it.  I also threw in some footage of the land somewhere over the rainbow.

----------


## Mystic7

I don't think you read my links. The difference is I already seen the wizard of Oz movie. And I've seen those websites you posted. My links refute your links.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I don't think you read my links. The difference is I already seen the wizard of Oz movie. And I've seen those websites you posted. My links refute your links.



My links refute your links.

----------


## Mystic7

Why do you think my sites largely outnumber yours. And contain 10 times more detail. Just do you homework and stop ignoring the information.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Why do you think my sites largely outnumber yours.



Because I didn't spend weeks rounding up tons of sites.  The few I posted made the point.  However, within those sites are links to tons of other sites.  You would of course have to click the links to know that.  There probably are more conspiracy sites than conspiracy skepticism sites, just like there are more Loch Ness Monster sites than there are Nessie skepticism sites.

You asked for answers regarding areas where neither of us are experts.  Now you have them.

----------


## Mystic7



----------


## Universal Mind

Wow, somebody reported the inevitable falling of a building soon before it happened.  That's all you had to say.    ::dreaming::

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD5WlQ54Sg0



Oh my God.  That video really shows what level your view is on.  Complete imbeciles blurting out racial slurs?  That is supposed to support your view?  That says a lot.  By the way, how old are you?

----------


## Mystic7

I thought it was a pretty good video. Better than Britney spears.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I thought it was a pretty good video. Better than Britney spears.



Yeah, I'll give it that, except she is much sexier.

----------


## jaasum

> This 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.



Uhm, for one that is information you are directly regurgitating from Loose Change, who were college drop out FILM STUDENTS. 

Two, the WTC was a different building. 

The picture of posted of the other building was not built the same.

The fires weakened the structures of the suspended floors in the WTC not the entire steel frame. The only "STEEL FRAME" was a couple of tubes down the center and the outer walls. When floor after floor fell onto itself the building collapsed, tearing down the walls as it went. Those "explosions" you see coming out the side are the floors falling.

PLEASE DOES ANYONE DO ANY CRITICAL THINKING ON ANY OF THIS?! OR do we all just watch, agree and regurgitate?

Anyone can find some website that agrees with their philosophies or their facts. That proves nothing, you just gotta think for yourself.

If there was any conspiracy it would only have been that the Adminstration LET the attacks happen, to justify their goals in the middle east. We knew Pearl Harbor was going to happen, and let it. We being the united states as a whole, though it was always played out by a few top ranking officails, that is why they are conspiracies. CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE THEORIES BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT PROVEN. Speculate all you want but you can't prove this stuff until they release some sort of top secret information, such as our past wars.

----------


## Universal Mind

> [img]
> 
> 
> This 32-story building burns for more than 24 hours and does not collapse. It does not collapse because buildings made of steel and concrete, do not typically fall to the ground because of fire. In past events, high-rise buildings burned for as long as six days before the fires were extinguished and yet remained standing.



That's a no brainer.  That buildind does not have hundreds of feet of buidling on top of the burning part.  So the top floors did not collapse down with momentum and slam down all of the floors below.  Are you serious?

----------


## jaasum

But on the flipside you think it happened because we are rich and we are free, lol who believe a conspiracy now?

----------


## Universal Mind

> But on the flipside you think it happened because we are rich and we are free, lol who believe a conspiracy now?



Why do you make up so much stuff?  You get your hateful points from nowhere but your own imagination.  I think we were attacked because Al Qaeda is INSANE and EVIL.  That is first and foremost.  As for their excuses, there are many, one of them being that they despise our form of government.  They believe that every country should be an Islamic state with the Koran as its law book, and Bin Laden said in his letter to the United States that one of his demands for ending their war against us is our formation of that type of government.  Did you know that?  Our presence in the Middle East is their biggest beef that was behind THEIR DECISION to commit the 9/11 attacks, but why do they care so much about our presence in the Middle East?  Because they view us as "infidels".  Has Ron Paul addressed that important factor yet?  And we are not just any "infidels".  Our influence results in the Girls Gone Wildization of cultures.  That is their biggest problem with us.  That problem is at the root of and an even bigger problem than our presence in the Middle East.  They have other problems with us, the most laughable and hypocritical of which is that we are "rude".  That might be the most hypocritical thing I have ever head of.  Another thing is that the leaders of Al Qaeda love their power and how they can have such control over world events.  You also have not taken into account the fact that suicide terrorists think they are doing a favor for Allah by murdering "infidels" and think by doing such evil things they are guaranteed a place in Heaven and will immediately have 72 virgins to orgy away with.  Of course desperately buying into such a thing and being willing to commit suicide comes partly from the despair that comes with poverty, which democracy has a way of fixing, so that too is a factor.  Jealousy of our success is a factor with may of them.  Even large numbers of people in Europe and Canada show signs of that all the time.  The list of factors keeps going way past what I have mentioned here.  

I could talk all day about the social factors at the root of the 9/11 attacks.  The bottom line is that we are dealing with loonies that have ice water running through their veins, have their minds completely shut in regard to other cultures, are led by power hungry psychopaths, and are obsessed with changing the world to one big Islamic state.  That is a fact.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.  It is extremely dishonest.

----------


## jaasum

You think I disagree with those points. 

The problem is not if or if not they are psychopaths that deserve to be killed. That is a NO BRAINER. I don't get why the war supports keep trumpeting that and 9/11 as if the rest of the world just doesn't understand, trust me we do.

The problem here is not about the validity or the tragedy of what happened. The question now is WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT IT?!

Do we go "Oh, they attacked us for our destruction and meddling we caused over there....maybe we should re-look our foreign policy and how it affects the world. because if we make some changes to our decision perhaps we can prevent breeding this type of hatred from our enemies. " Or do we go "They hate our freedom, lets make a mess of that side of the planet." 

You seem to have this idea that the US can do no wrong, that what we have done has in no way actually made the situation worse for us, you in fact actually seem to think it is making it better. But I do not see how going to war, creating enemies left and right and actually GROWING the terrorist groups because of us is doing anything to help our situation. We need better securitiy here, our borders are WIDE OPEN. Going to war with Iran has absolutely nothing to do with us here. Going to war with Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Since we were "at war with Terror" due to retarded intelligence Saddam Hussien now fell underneath that banner. But in reality he didn't have any nuclear bombs (we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a nuclear cloud) and he had no connections to Al-Qeada. But now we somehow think we are doing good by stretching our military so thin, putting it into record low moral and now threatening to go into a third war which would mean a third nation to rebuild.

Forget it, just forget it. Just as much as you think it is a stupid idea that Al Qeada wants to make everyone convert to islam it is just as absurd to "spread democracy" to the middle east. I just don't think you can look at it from another perspective.

----------


## Mystic7

> That building does not have hundreds of feet of buidling on top of the burning part. So the top floors did not collapse



That is the stupidest thing I've ever herd. The entire building was on fire. Look at the picture. Then look at the WTC. Only a little black smoke smoldering. lol. You'd have to be really stupid that after an hour you believe it exploded like you can see in that picture there for no reason other than it got weak. And the tooth fairy and easter bunny live at my house. The floors falling on top of each other theory is disproved by science so your going to have to find another theory.

911 was an inside job. False flag Operation. A common thing through history to promote invasions to go to war. Many historic examples of it.

Vote for Ron Paul 2008.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You think I disagree with those points. 
> 
> The problem is not if or if not they are psychopaths that deserve to be killed. That is a NO BRAINER. I don't get why the war supports keep trumpeting that and 9/11 as if the rest of the world just doesn't understand, trust me we do.



Then stop saying our foreign policy "caused" 9/11.  





> Do we go "Oh, they attacked us for our destruction and meddling we caused over there....maybe we should re-look our foreign policy and how it affects the world. because if we make some changes to our decision perhaps we can prevent breeding this type of hatred from our enemies. " Or do we go "They hate our freedom, lets make a mess of that side of the planet."



I am all for looking for factors.  One of the main causes of terrorism is terrorists, so we are killing them like flies in the vacuum we created in Iraq.  A major possible cause of a terrorist attack in the future could be a WMD, so we are going after governments that could provide them.  But you have got to understand that Al Qaeda's beef with us goes way beyond our infidel presence in the Middle East.  That is where Ron Paul has his head up his ass.  





> You seem to have this idea that the US can do no wrong



Okay, look, this is really getting old.  Stop making shit up about what I think.  You keep imagining things and reporting them as though I said them.  I never said the U.S. government can do no wrong.  I am a million miles from thinking that.  Have you read what I think about the war on drugs?  Have you read what I think about separation of church and state?  Have I ever said the war on terror could not be fought any better?  Tonight alone, you have flat out made up about ten things I supposedly think.  The other leftists here have a bad habit of that, and it is ridiculous.  I am not going to keep defending myself in regard to things people pull out of nowhere.  I might as well go to a mental institution and argue with patients about whether I work for the Illuminati.  





> But I do not see how going to war, creating enemies left and right and actually GROWING the terrorist groups because of us is doing anything to help our situation. We need better securitiy here, our borders are WIDE OPEN. Going to war with Iran has absolutely nothing to do with us here. Going to war with Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Since we were "at war with Terror" due to retarded intelligence Saddam Hussien now fell underneath that banner. But in reality he didn't have any nuclear bombs (we don't want the smoking gun to be in the form of a nuclear cloud) and he had no connections to Al-Qeada. But now we somehow think we are doing good by stretching our military so thin, putting it into record low moral and now threatening to go into a third war which would mean a third nation to rebuild.



Governments that give money and training and potentially WMD's to the terrorist organizations that have stated that they want us extinct are very much a threat to us here.  Iran does support Al Qaeda, and the Hussein regime supported Hamas and Hezballah as well as independent suicide bombers and harbored members of Al Qaeda and had meetings with their representatives.  They were also a terrorist government themselves, one that had engaged in WMD terrorism.  The big worry is that they would get WMD's in the hands of Al Qaeda or some other such organization.  They had a common enemy.  It was a legitimate concern.  





> Forget it, just forget it. Just as much as you think it is a stupid idea that Al Qeada wants to make everyone convert to islam it is just as absurd to "spread democracy" to the middle east. I just don't think you can look at it from another perspective.



Democracy is the ultimate weapon against the oppression and poverty that result in the suicide bomber mentality.  And again, find one of the several Iraq threads in this forum and respond to what I said there.  This issue is way too complex for me to keep typing the same 30 paragraphs in defense of the Iraq war.  Find them and respond to what I said.





> That is the stupidest thing I've ever herd. The entire building was on fire. Look at the picture. Then look at the WTC. Only a little black smoke smoldering. lol. You'd have to be really stupid that after an hour you believe it exploded like you can see in that picture there for no reason other than it got weak. And the tooth fairy and easter bunny live at my house. The floors falling on top of each other theory is disproved by science so your going to have to find another theory.



I saw the picture.  The only fire we can see is near the top, and that building is not as tall as the part of the WTC towers above the burning parts.  That above part put enough pressure on the buildings to cause the collapses, top floors first and bottom floors last.

----------


## Mystic7

First there is no high rise buildings that ever collapsed from fire in history. No matter how many hours it burnt or in what section. Even when the entire building has been on fire for days. That is for starters. Second that picture was merely one example of your delusion. You try and explain it away like a fool not knowing the laws of physics and nature. If anything is religious, it's you.

Finally you have not even looked at the information debunking your websites. Nor have you addressed the evidence. And I doubt you ever will be willing too. As you have some kind of weird intention to stay in your delusion forever. And to drag others into it. Without debating properly.

I only bother about all this because I like the truth and wish others would continue to recognize it too. No other reason.

----------


## Universal Mind

> First there is no high rise buildings that ever collapsed from fire in history. No many how many hours it burnt or in what section. That is for starters. Second that picture was merely one example of your delusion. You try and explain it away like a fool not knowing the laws of physics. If anything is religious, it's you.
> 
> Finally you have not even looked at the book I presented in the picture with the information about the construction and debunking your websites. Nor have you addressed this evidence. And I doubt you ever will be willing too. As you have some kind of weird intention to stay in your delusion forever.



What other sky scrapers have burned like that?  The WTC towers used to be the tallest buildings in the world.  I can tell you that without being an expert. However, I am not delusional enough to think I can get into all of the but ifs and what ifs of most of the other stuff.  You can't either.  Now you admit that the idea of the government conspiracy as you describe it is full of profound absurdities.

----------


## Mystic7

> Now you admit that the idea of the government conspiracy as you describe it is full of profound absurdities



Yeah, your government conspiracy. I'm not a theorist. I have presented information describing and explaining the evidence.





> Iran does support Al Qaeda



Even George Bush or Cheney or any other of the propaganda Nazi artists are not blatant enough to claim this much. The Iran people do not support the vultures who did 911 that funded the boogey man creation of Al Qaeda puppets. Who conveniently grow stronger with their own media equipment and Bin laden totally unharmed and cultivated. Every day while we kill more innocent people at the same time.

I think your the conspiracy nut, not me. That label is wearing thin I'm telling you.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Yeah, your government conspiracy. I'm not a theorist. I have presented information describing and explaining the evidence.



Evidence of hidden commercial airlines that were never reported missing?  Evidence of people wanting to keep their jobs where they know their bosses shot a missile at their building while they were working?  Evidence of remote control devices looking and acting like humans?  Evidence of the ability of hundreds or even thousands of government workers to all come together and just happen to all be more evil than serial killers and act on that evil without any leaks?  Evidence that mass chatter among actual experts concerning something this huge would not happen?  I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Please quote where you posted it.





> Even George Bush or Cheney or any other of the propaganda Nazi artists are not blatant enough to claim this much. The Iran people do not support the vultures who did 911 that funded the boogey man creation of Al Qaeda puppets. Who conveniently grow stronger with their own media equipment and Bin laden totally unharmed and cultivated. Every day while we kill more innocent people at the same time.
> 
> I think your the conspiracy nut, not me. That label is wearing thin I'm telling you.



Yeah, what a bizarre idea.  Iran and Al Qaeda don't share the same enemy and goal or anything.  But they do work together for some reason.  

http://www.meforum.org/article/670

----------


## jaasum

> That is the stupidest thing I've ever herd. The entire building was on fire. Look at the picture. Then look at the WTC. Only a little black smoke smoldering. lol. You'd have to be really stupid that after an hour you believe it exploded like you can see in that picture there for no reason other than it got weak. And the tooth fairy and easter bunny live at my house. The floors falling on top of each other theory is disproved by science so your going to have to find another theory.
> 
> 911 was an inside job. False flag Operation. A common thing through history to promote invasions to go to war. Many historic examples of it.
> 
> Vote for Ron Paul 2008.



Please don't tag Ron Paul onto 9/11 conspiracies. He doesn't think it was an inside job.

----------


## jaasum

> Okay, look, this is really getting old.  Stop making shit up about what I think.  You keep imagining things and reporting them as though I said them.  I never said the U.S. government can do no wrong.  I am a million miles from thinking that.



Back atcha. You like to end posts with "I am winning" or "I am right" when you haven't really proved anything. You also love to tell people about where they are politically. 

Also everything you said above actually doesn't hold any water. Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11. In fact wasn't most of the 9/11 high-jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we meddling with Saudi Arabia more? Everything you say is simply information handed to you and repeated. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD and is actually giving fuel to the terrorists fire. You have to ignore so much of reality to come to these conclusions. It's a mindset that comes from a one-source of information mindset, because you leave out so many other factors in order to develop your view. You know why I think you do that? Because you do that.

----------


## Mystic7

> Please don't tag Ron Paul onto 9/11 conspiracies. He doesn't think it was an inside job.



Regardless what he really thinks. He's the best candidate I see available. I'm not a theorist anyway. How many times do I have to say it. 911 conspiracies are debunked.

----------


## jaasum

> 911 was an inside job. False flag Operation. A common thing through history to promote invasions to go to war. Many historic examples of it.
> 
> Vote for Ron Paul 2008.



That is what I was referring to. 9/11 was an attack by Al-Qeada not an "inside job." And I won't believe the government intentionally let it happen or any more conservative theories until they are proven, though if we look at history it is likely.

----------


## Mystic7

> 9/11 was an attack by Al-Qeada not an "inside job."



Who funded and created Al-Qeada? Who started using that name? Done any research? If I have a sock puppet and his name is bin laden. Can I blame the sock puppet for everything? No. It's childish.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Back atcha. You like to end posts with "I am winning" or "I am right" when you haven't really proved anything. You also love to tell people about where they are politically.



Please show me where I have flat out made up what I claim somebody said. 





> Also everything you said above actually doesn't hold any water. Hezbollah didn't attack us on 9/11. In fact wasn't most of the 9/11 high-jackers from Saudi Arabia? Why aren't we meddling with Saudi Arabia more? Everything you say is simply information handed to you and repeated. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD and is actually giving fuel to the terrorists fire. You have to ignore so much of reality to come to these conclusions. It's a mindset that comes from a one-source of information mindset, because you leave out so many other factors in order to develop your view. You know why I think you do that? Because you do that.



The Saudi Arabian government does not fund terrorism, as far as we know.  The Hussein regime did.  See the difference?





> 911 conspiracies are debunked.



You have said many times that 9/11 was an inside job.  What changed your mind?

----------


## Mystic7

> You have said many times that 9/11 was an inside job. What changed your mind?



I did not change my mind Elmo. I was pointing out your conspiracies are debunked.

----------


## jaasum

> Please show me where I have flat out made up what I claim somebody said. 
> 
> 
> 
> The Saudi Arabian government does not fund terrorism, as far as we know.  The Hussein regime did.  See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> You have said many times that 9/11 was an inside job.  What changed your mind?



I can't believe how blatantly blind you are!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Funding

----------


## Universal Mind

> I did not change my mind Elmo. I was pointing out your conspiracies are debunked.



Oh, people who believe Al Qaeda committed the 9/11 attacks are conspiracy theorists.  That's really funny, Miss Piggy.





> I can't believe how blatantly blind you are!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas#Funding



I am talking about the government, not the citizens.  If the Saudi Arabian government is known for sure by the American government to be funding international terrorism, then of course we should overthrow the Saudi Arabian government too.

----------


## jaasum

They are! But we don't! How can you not see that? They fund Hamas! WHAT DON'T YOU SEE?! If we took down saddam simply for funding and harboring terrorists then the Saudi's are just as guilty! Hamas are the ones that train their children to become suicide bombers with Mickey Mouse! Didn't you ever watch that on the news?

The scene isn't as simple as you think that is what I am trying to show you.

----------


## Universal Mind

> They are! But we don't! How can you not see that? They fund Hamas! WHAT DON'T YOU SEE?! If we took down saddam simply for funding and harboring terrorists then the Saudi's are just as guilty! Hamas are the ones that train their children to become suicide bombers with Mickey Mouse! Didn't you ever watch that on the news?
> 
> The scene isn't as simple as you think that is what I am trying to show you.



We took down the Hussein regime for MANY reasons, not just the funding of terrorist organizations.  I have listed some of them for you.  But I personally think that should be enough reason to take down any government.  I think we should have blown Yassir Arafat and his thugs to the next galaxy.  My government might possibly be keeping quiet about Saudi Arabia because they don't want to make them an enemy and wreck our economy.  I will look more into it.  If you are right, then we need to blow them off the face of the map too.  

By the way, IF (I'm not sure you do.) you happen to think the war in Iraq is about oil, why would we not use the funding of Hamas as an excuse to overthrow the Saudi government and take their oil?  Saudi Arabia has the biggest oil supply of any country in the world.

----------


## jaasum

Also in this mix is the citzens, millions of them. How would you like it if some other country, oh lets say Venezuela, someone the polar opposite of our current leaders decided that because our CIA has committed acts of terrorism in the middle east and in south america to overthrow democratic leaders (they have) That it is part of his war on secret government institutions that fund and cary out terror to overthrow any government that supports them. Then he decides that the US is guilty of this (we would be) and that he will bring his military in and destroy the CIA and all supporters of the CIA. He will then tell us that they old ways are obsolete and that is not what we really want and that Socialism is a much better form of government. Does that begin to paint the picture?

----------


## jaasum

> We took down the Hussein regime for MANY reasons, not just the funding of terrorist organizations.  I have listed some of them for you.  But I personally think that should be enough reason to take down any government.  I think we should have blown Yassir Arafat and his thugs to the next galaxy.  My government might possibly be keeping quiet about Saudi Arabia because they don't want to make them an enemy and wreck our economy.  I will look more into it.  If you are right, then we need to blow them off the face of the map too.  
> 
> By the way, IF (I'm not sure you do.) you happen to think the war in Iraq is about oil, why would we not use the funding of Hamas as an excuse to overthrow the Saudi government and take their oil?  Saudi Arabia has the biggest oil supply of any country in the world.



I think other factors may be involved but our involvement in the middle east has largely been about oil (historically) making osama bin laden what he is had to do with communism so no, it isn't as simple as oil. 

The reason we aren't interested in Saudi is because they already give us oil. The reason we overthrew the democratic government in Iran with our CIA was about oil. We don't dare mess with Saudi Arabia because it's already going our way. The Iraqi oil has already been used and abused. We are not paying for the war with their oil and American companies are benefiting from it. Here is an interesting diagram concerning the oil aspect of it.

----------


## Universal Mind

So why don't we just take over Saudi Arabia and own the oil ourselves?  We could stop being the middle men and become the owners.

----------


## jaasum

Maybe they are too strong because of us. We just have them I think 20 billion dollars worth of weapons. Not to mention there is no direct reason to go in there. Remember we can't look like the bad guys. We mad saddam hussien look like the bad guy that is why people are staying out of it. We are trying to make Iran look like the bad guy now.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Maybe they are too strong because of us. We just have them I think 20 billion dollars worth of weapons. Not to mention there is no direct reason to go in there. Remember we can't look like the bad guys. We mad saddam hussien look like the bad guy that is why people are staying out of it. We are trying to make Iran look like the bad guy now.



I don't think we have to use smoke and mirrors to make the Iranian government look like bad guys.  If the oil conspiracy stuff were true, we would not be giving Saudi Arabia weapons.  We would be taking them away and beating them in the head with them.  If they fund terrorism and we can easily prove it, we could just say, "Uh, they fund terrorism," and walk in and own the country.  The fact that we are not doing that makes me even more skeptical than I already was.

----------


## jaasum

I just gave you a fact that they fund terror "islamofacists" as you call them. The same people who told you we need to take down any government that does this is the same government that is NOT doing that to Saudi Arabia. The neo-cons used this terrorist attack to fuel their foreign interests in the middle east. This has nothing to do with defending our country and I don't want to spread democracy to the fucking world I want to make sure it is good and strong here. We should be the most wealthy prosperous, highest quality of life nation on the planet because of our form of government, but in this last century we have made it our goal to spread it to the rest of the world, that is why we get in these fucked up situations like Vietnam and now this bullshit. If you think it is so fucking important to spread democracy then enlist, I am sure they would take you. 

Also, well nevermind, I am done in this thread just like that last you are impossible to talk to. And yes I know that is probably my fault and I am probably wrong but don't bother, people can just continue posting in this thread about the 9/11 "conspiracy".

----------


## Universal Mind

> I just gave you a fact that they fund terror "islamofacists" as you call them. The same people who told you we need to take down any government that does this is the same government that is NOT doing that to Saudi Arabia. The neo-cons used this terrorist attack to fuel their foreign interests in the middle east. This has nothing to do with defending our country and



I am going to look more into Saudi Arabia's government and terrorism.  I told you how I feel about them if it is all true.  I have come across the completely opposite report from that from several sources, but I am not sure how much I trust the claim.  Some of this stuff gets really iffy and fuzzy.  However, the war in Iraq was about tons of things, while such a war with Saudi Arabia would be about just one thing.  I am totally disgusted with Bush for talking so much trash and not delivering.  He is obviously not going after all terrorist governments.  Iran and Syria's governments should not even be there any more.  Iran is sending fighters into Iraq against us this very moment, and what does Bush do about it?  He has Ahmadenijad come to New York.  Bush is being way too diplomatic about this stuff.  But I do see some room for the possibility that he is making good strategic decisions that have imortant details beneath the surface.  Saudi Arabia's government has in fact helped us a great deal, even if they are definitely funding Hamas.  I still want them gone if it is true.  





> I don't want to spread democracy to the fucking world I want to make sure it is good and strong here. We should be the most wealthy prosperous, highest quality of life nation on the planet because of our form of government, but in this last century we have made it our goal to spread it to the rest of the world, that is why we get in these fucked up situations like Vietnam and now this bullshit. If you think it is so fucking important to spread democracy then enlist, I am sure they would take you.



That is a big difference between me and you.  You see yourself as an American first.  I see myself as a human long before I see myself as an American.  I see the whole human world as my people, and I think everybody deserves democracy.  Vietnam was part of the Cold War, a successful effort to protect democracy worldwide.  We democratized Japan, and now they are an awesome country, like South Korea.  You will eventually see the big improvements in Iraq, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and hopefully other places.  I think the entire world should come together and stamp out dictatorships.

----------


## Original Poster

saudi arabia owns 7&#37; of our government.  Its more complicated than you think, it's not just as simple as stealing oil, its about securing oil, and not for our country, but for a handful of rich people.  It's not just oil, either, there are a lot of political ties and negotiations.  We go in Afghanistan and put up a pipeline, then we go into Iraq and keep our country in a state of perpetual war with almost no real repercussions since their so weak, meaning us, as tax payers end up owing billions of dollars to international bankers, but we also secure oil fields so that we can raise the value of our dollar.

----------


## Soul_Sleeper

That oil chart is out of date.

Canada has alot more oil now because we found a shitload in the Alberta oil sands. Thats why the Canadian dollar is par with the american dollar. Just thought I'd add that.

----------


## Universal Mind

> That oil chart is out of date.
> 
> Canada has alot more oil now because we found a shitload in the Alberta oil sands. Thats why the Canadian dollar is par with the american dollar. Just thought I'd add that.



It looks like we are about to take over Canada.   ::evil::

----------


## shark!

“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" 

-Alan Greenspan // London Times Sept 16th


no one's fucking opinion here comes close to alan greenspan's.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" 
> 
> -Alan Greenspan // London Times Sept 16th
> 
> 
> no one's fucking opinion here comes close to alan greenspan's.



So Canada is next, right?

----------


## shark!

possibly, but we'll start an insurgency, you can't beat those.  if Ho Chi Minh can beat america so can we. IED4Life. We have Airports and airplanes too!

actually just take the oil

----------


## Universal Mind

> possibly, but we'll start an insurgency, you can't beat those. if Ho Chi Minh can beat america so can we. IED4Life. We have Airports and airplanes too!



Ho Chi Minh lost a few million to our 56 thousand.  He did not beat us.  He just did not surrender, and we got screwed up by internal political pressure and left too early.  Don't forget that we could have nuked Vietnam out of existence in a matter of minutes.  Be careful.   :wink2:  





> actually just take the oil



Like you would have a choice.   ::lol::   But somehow I don't think you really believe we are going to invade Canada.  That is where oil conspiracy people fail the intellectual honesty test.

----------


## shark!

was vietnam communist after the war? yes or no?

if there is a takeover, it won't be conventional warfare, I think america can see how well that works...

it would be a slower economic/politcal war...like "vote to join america, year 2050" even thats a stretch though. but if it happened it would be more like that. or you'll just 'buy' it all, no taxes, nafta type stuff

 <real life picture of what the war would be like if it happened

----------


## Universal Mind

> was vietnam communist after the war? yes or no?



Yes, for the reasons I stated.  Did you read my post?  Your reply was very nonresponsive.  





> if there is a takeover, it won't be conventional warfare, I think america can see how well that works...
> 
> it would be a slower economic/politcal war...like "vote to join america, year 2050" even thats a stretch though. but if it happened it would be more like that. or you'll just 'buy' it all, no taxes, nafta type stuff



Why might that be?  We could take you over before sundown.  Why would we wait 43 years and have just a ballot initiative?  You don't think we really are evil enough to invade you and take you over for your oil, do you?

Oh my God, I just saw your cartoon.  You think it would be giant against giant?  Son, you need to spend some time doing some research on the military powers of North American nations.

----------


## shark!

ho chi minh? lost? since when? by not losing he won, by you not winning or losing he won.  i dont really care why or how, you could have nuked them or even not listened to internal politics, you could have not pulled out too fast...etc etcbut no..

----------


## Universal Mind

> ho chi minh? lost? since when? by not losing he won, by you not winning or losing he won. i dont really care why or how



Uh, you are answering a different question for me.  Review the conversation, or else read it for the first time.  





> you could have nuked them or even not listened to internal politics, you could have not pulled out too fast...etc etcbut no..



That's correct.  Our leaders made the wrong decision.  

This is how the United States would handle Canada if we ever decided to invade and take over...  

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d8FPji_xEKo

----------


## shark!

so ho chi minh won. btw you want me to answer some question, what was it? you care what I think? I don't

like a bug? very classy.





> Oh my God, I just saw your cartoon. You think it would be giant against giant? Son, you need to spend some time doing some research on the military powers of North American nations.



wtfuck?  I never forget to stay prejudiced




btw did the south win too?

----------


## Universal Mind

I side with the North when it comes to the Civil War, and I think the 1800's are almost over.  As for your Ho Chi Minh stuff, do you have a calculator?  Please divide 3,000,000 by 56,000 and tell me what you get.  I think you come out with unfortuante politicians pressured by personality disordered hippies.  But I don't think you come out with more than a few hours necessary to take over Canada.  

Canada is America's fat little sister.  We are proud to scare potential invaders away from you, sis.   :wink2:

----------


## memeticverb

> 



Neither of these two 9/11 researchers has been refuted.  If UM anyone else could find a flaw in either of these two thinkers' argument we can drop the issue of 9/11 being an inside job, (and by finding a flaw i mean show the argument in the author's own words, and then proceed to offer a valid critique.  (No straw men)

All the other stuff about fascist military, weapons manufacturing, and oil industries taking over U.S. politics gains credibility from the fact that 9/11 was a converging point for all of them and was in fact carried out thanks to help from within the U.S. government (see testimony by Sibel Edmonds, FBI)

----------


## Universal Mind

> Neither of these two 9/11 researchers has been refuted. If UM anyone else could find a flaw in either of these two thinkers' argument we can drop the issue of 9/11 being an inside job, (and by finding a flaw i mean show the argument in the author's own words, and then proceed to offer a valid critique. (No straw men)
> 
> All the other stuff about fascist military, weapons manufacturing, and oil industries taking over U.S. politics gains credibility from the fact that 9/11 was a converging point for all of them and was in fact carried out thanks to help from within the U.S. government (see testimony by Sibel Edmonds, FBI)



I know you're not challenging me to another demolition specifics debate.  You know what I have said about that.  Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.  Read my satire and tell me where it is incorrect.  Then tell me how demolition disagreements from a handful of experts in a sea of silence from the masses of experts is a basis for jumping to the land of Oz.  Are you even reading my posts?  Counter something for once.

----------


## Original Poster

Finally finished your "debunking" link, um.  They repeat the same sutff I've heard over and over again, claiming that the buildings could collapse even if the steel didn't melt, but witnesses saw MOLTEN STEEL like they were in an iron factory or something.  I don't even think I need to continue, I did not see a single explanation for molten steel in any of the sites you gave me.  I could refute some other facts, but there's no point.  Only bombs could make the building hot enough to melt steel.  Steel melted.  Thank you.

----------


## jaasum

Well the official report doesn't state that the steel "melted" it states that the steel weakened enough to dislodge the joints holding the floors in place, thus starting the domino effect of floors collapsing, therefor the floors that weren't on fire collapsed under sheer weight.

----------


## Mystic7

> Originally Posted by memeticverb
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Neither of these two 9/11 researchers has been refuted. If UM anyone else could find a flaw in either of these two thinkers' argument we can drop the issue of 9/11 being an inside job, (and by finding a flaw i mean show the argument in the author's own words, and then proceed to offer a valid critique. (No straw men)
> 
> All the other stuff about fascist military, weapons manufacturing, and oil industries taking over U.S. politics gains credibility from the fact that 9/11 was a converging point for all of them and was in fact carried out thanks to help from within the U.S. government (see testimony by Sibel Edmonds, FBI)
> 
> ...



UMs Logic repeating again.





>

----------


## Mystic7

> Well the official report doesn't state that the steel "melted" it states that the steel weakened enough to dislodge the joints holding the floors in place, thus starting the domino effect of floors collapsing, therefor the floors that weren't on fire collapsed under sheer weight.



That theory is disproved beyond a doubt as garbage. The design of the building doesn't allow for such a catastrophic and ridiculous error. A Pancake collapse is not scientific knowledge just imaginary dreaming. Try it in real life it won't work. They already did experiments. The official theory you talk about was based on a computer simulation where the steel was measure 42 inches warped. But in real life it was only 4 inches out of place. So that's a bit of a stupid exaggeration 4 inches compared to 42. To base a computer simulation on evidence of what happened. Real proper experiments are more accurate that have being handled in the normal way. Overall it's a shameful report that is not scientific. So don't say that it's a pancake collapse when we know it's impossible when it happened at freefall speed. The fire nor the damage done to the building could possibly come even close to bringing the entire thing down. Fire can't make everything so weak that it all just falls neatly down. It's absurd and I can't believe anyone would buy into the idea. Look at the picture above. It's obviously not falling down how stupid do you have to be.

----------


## jaasum

I don't know, I am neither a demolition expert nor someone who designed the WTC

----------


## Mystic7

If you want to find out more. Start looking at the links provided in the thread or just google it. It's pretty easy to research something you don't need a piece of paper that tells that you are now qualified to know something about it. You can know without being a designer of it. Just go and research the information available from experts and it will become obvious if you don't ignore the information. Normally they explain things that the average person can understand you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize who is talking crap and lieing, avoiding and distracting. Compared to who is being reasonable.

----------


## Original Poster

The offocial report lied because like I said witnessed saw melted steel, steel that was not weakened by jet fuel, but completely melted.  I don't even see the point of mentioning a single other fact against the debunkers until Um can address how jet fuel managed to melt steel.  You can claim it didn't have to in order to topple the buildings, fine, but steel still melted.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The offocial report lied because like I said witnessed saw melted steel, steel that was not weakened by jet fuel, but completely melted. I don't even see the point of mentioning a single other fact against the debunkers until Um can address how jet fuel managed to melt steel. You can claim it didn't have to in order to topple the buildings, fine, but steel still melted.



Yes, I could argue that, and then I could argue that even if I were wrong your point would not be a sufficient basis for arguing that major airline company passenger airplanes disappeared without being reported or that people were determined to keep working at the place where their bosses shot a missile at them while they were in the building or that a very large number of witnesses who talked to the victims on cell phones heard hijackings and direct reports on the spot of hijackings on those airplanes.  And how many witnesses are you talking about any way?  





> If you want to find out more. Start looking at the links provided in the thread or just google it. It's pretty easy to research something you don't need a piece of paper that tells that you are now qualified to know something about it. You can know without being a designer of it. Just go and research the information available from experts and it will become obvious if you don't ignore the information. Normally they explain things that the average person can understand you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize who is talking crap and lieing, avoiding and distracting. Compared to who is being reasonable.



You are so slow.  I am going to explain this ONE more time.  Some of your demolition points were so irrefutably absurd I already debunked them, and the argument ended when it was your turn.  I have already learned about some basic demolition by reading your links and mine, but the problem is that the debates always get into, "Yeah, but this happened too, and that can't happen when those happen," and, "But they could when those happen this other way and those over there didn't happen under these other circumstances."  None of us here are qualified to go all the way with that, and I am not going to attempt it because it would be absurd for all of us to do.  Perhaps that is why you did not argue against the demolition counterclaim links I posted.  However, I know plenty about psychology and logic, and according to what I know about those, the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis is illogical and out of synch with human psychology, as I have illustrated and you have refrained to debate against.  

The burden of proof is on you to argue how what you are saying happened could have even possibly happened, and none of you will do that.  Do you realize that?  Good lord.  You claim something happened, I show how that is far from being in touch with reality, and all you do is insult me personally and harp on your premise you could not know the full scope of and never argue how you go from that premise to your far away conclusion.  That is a failure to argue.  I have also repeatedly made the point that even if your demolition points were true and you were qualified enough to know the full scope of the situation and be sure of what you are saying, that is not a basis for leaping to the absurd story I illustrated would have had to have happened, the one you keep ignoring.  You have not refuted that point or my points illustrated in the satirical story.  You have failed to argue your off the wall assertion.  

If you are not going to refute that, then I think I have had about enough fun playing this silly game.  Good luck.

By the way, carbon dating is bogus.  A few scientists say that for such reasons of religious fanaticism and financial greed.  Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world 300 years ago.

----------


## Mystic7

You can't go long without mentioning this Flying Spaghetti Monster.....Even though it is never relevant.

Realistically, it's reasonable to look at the sources provided here and realize that the authority of designers, and what we know about the WTC and it's design. Is well sufficient to disprove that the WTC could have collapsed without being demolished. All you have to do is look at the information and it is irrefutable.

It is true that the burden is on me to explain it to you. But you can only take a horse to water you can't make it drink.

You can say over and over how you refuted it all perfectly. But you don't mention anything that refutes the information.

Your basic argument is just that people at the pentagon would say something about the missile. And the airplane had to be present. And that people inside the aircraft are witness.

This doesn't cut it because the way the 3 buildings that collapsed. Is very impossible without demolition. The pentagon explosion. Impossible without a missile. In addition a plane impact doesn't look like that. All this add to the fact my side isn't the conspiracy side. It's not just the presence of evidence. It's the lack of evidence to prove otherwise. For example how Norad stands down and why the security of the pentagon is shut down to let the airplane hit it. And why no footage of the airplane is released. And why different bits of wreckage was planted from a different aircraft at the pentagon. But no main wreckage from any aircraft or any mark on the ground from it's impact.

You can't understand 911 without realizing the media hoax. That is what is so difficult for you.

Why do you choose to side with the team that is wrong?

----------


## Universal Mind

> Your basic argument is just that people at the pentagon would say something about the missile. And the airplane had to be present. And that people inside the aircraft are witness.



Until you explain away what I have said about those variables, AND OTHERS, I am not going to be able to believe your bizarre conclusion.  It is too illogical.  I am not an expert on carbon dating, but you are going to have to talk about a whole lot more than that for me to leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world 300 years ago.  





> Why do you choose to side with the team that is wrong?



I am not trying to play a sport here, which seems to be how you see it.  I am just telling you that your conclusion is a light years long leap from a premise that neither of us is expert enough to understand the full scope of.

----------


## shark!

> We are proud to scare potential invaders away from you, sis.



you are good at it too. 

anyways I hope it wasn't a false flag excersise. or maybe they just got tired of false flag excersises with boats: the spainish american war....a boat was blown up, ww1...usa got in to it...over a boat being blown up, ww2...a lot of boats blown up, vietnam...a boat was blown up, planes sounded like more fun?  If it was a false flag I think they would have used iraqi hijackers, not saudis.  but who knows 

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

----------


## Universal Mind

> you are good at it too.



What?  Canada got invaded?  





> anyways I hope it wasn't a false flag excersise. or maybe they just got tired of false flag excersises with boats: the spainish american war....a boat was blown up, ww1...usa got in to it...over a boat being blown up, ww2...a lot of boats blown up, vietnam...a boat was blown up, planes sounded like more fun? If it was a false flag I think they would have used iraqi hijackers, not saudis. but who knows



Did the governments we fought in those wars ever say, "Hey, we didn't do that!  Why are we at war?"?

----------


## Original Poster

Um... I don't care because I have made no claim about what happened on 9/11.  All I have claimed is that the United States is holding information back from us and until we hold them accountable and make them explain this information we won't know what really happened, meaning 3000 American deaths will continue to go unsolved.

You however claim there are no unanswered questions.  There is this one, the only one I'm going to give you until you answer it because my argument is just that simple, there are discrepencies, you seem to think there are not.  Can you atleast admit there are discrepencies then?

----------


## Mystic7

Is this article a joke? I hope so. Prevent terrorism by building it again, and this time putting massive holes in the building. I think they are making fun of you guys. This is basically saying, your not safer it's likely to happen again if we don't put holes in the building. So we are 'incompetent' but don't worry, the building has a hole in it for protection. They are also suggesting they are trying to protect the building from attack. Which is insulting considering who designed 911. See what happens when you don't Impeach bush it gets more and more chaotic. 

I suppose you should build a wall around the pentagon too. Just incase fingers slip and all security disables when a hijacked plane happens to be heading for it. Or a missile that's being ordered to hit it. Then we can rely on media telling us things before they happen.

I think the article is a joke because the freedom tower is what I thought was going to replace it. Frankly I'd like to see the entire ocean replace the entire country.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Um... I don't care because I have made no claim about what happened on 9/11. All I have claimed is that the United States is holding information back from us and until we hold them accountable and make them explain this information we won't know what really happened, meaning 3000 American deaths will continue to go unsolved.
> 
> You however claim there are no unanswered questions. There is this one, the only one I'm going to give you until you answer it because my argument is just that simple, there are discrepencies, you seem to think there are not. Can you atleast admit there are discrepencies then?



Discrepancies among what experts say regarding demolition specifics?  Yes.  





> Is this article a joke?



Probably.  It's the first I have heard.  Precautions are good just in case something goes wrong, but safety holes in a skyscraper just look stupid.  





> Frankly I'd like to see the entire ocean replace the entire country.



Now I am really starting to understand what your perspective is about.

----------


## Original Poster

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong because the last thing I want to do is put wordsw in your mouth, but you're then arguing that there are demolitions experts that say jet fuel can melt steel?

----------


## shark!

yah I'd like to see the ocean replace it too. fuck that shit. total political nihilism, nothing works..

----------


## Universal Mind

> Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong because the last thing I want to do is put wordsw in your mouth, but you're then arguing that there are demolitions experts that say jet fuel can melt steel?



Jet fuel plus other combustible material. 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4





> yah I'd like to see the ocean replace it too. fuck that shit. total political nihilism, nothing works..



Uh, wouldn't Canada be ocean too if that happened?  That might make it worth it.

----------


## Original Poster

> Jet fuel plus other combustible material. 
> 
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4



Okay so burning rugs and stuff made the inside of the building look like an iron works factory (as two firemen put it).  Since I'm not an expert I will let the point go and go to the next one.

Puffs of smoke, this article claims that it was dust being pressurized down from the pancaking floors, but if that were the case, then we would see puffs comes out of EVERY open window, not just one every 5 floors.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Puffs of smoke, this article claims that it was dust being pressurized down from the pancaking floors, but if that were the case, then we would see puffs comes out of EVERY open window, not just one every 5 floors.



I can't really claim I know anything about how that is supposed to work.  Could it be that the windows were collapsing simulataneously with the floors?

----------


## Original Poster

Well that doesn't really make sense to me.  I think one thing we can both concede to is that demolitions experts should be arguing, not us.  I agree the 9/11 truth seekers seem to have gotten too attached to their theories to see that some of the stuff they were looking at simply isn't so, like that Romero guy probably didn't intend to claim what he saod.  This, I find funny though.  The FBI released photos of the hijackers then several of the supposed hijackers came out and said "I'm alive, didn't blow myself up."

The explanation we received was that they simply made a mistake, confusing arab names because their so similar and putting the wrong photos up.  Funny the FBI never changed the list or the photos and Osama bin Laden continues to use these same identidies to reference the supposed hijackers.

----------


## jaasum

If this is at all true I don't know, but I heard they found the hijackers passport in the wreckage. That would be bullshit if it is the official report because you are telling me that a fire burning so hot and out of control it collapsed a building left a passport in tact?

But the demolition theorists don't seem to understand that the tower was like a huge steel cone with a suspension of floors, not your usual "grid" of steel bars. That is why it collapsed in the fashion it did.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I think one thing we can both concede to is that demolitions experts should be arguing, not us.



That is exactly where I stand.  I have said that a more extreme example of amateurs arguing about this is a bunch of us arguing about a 9/11 brain surgery report that 99.999&#37; of brain surgeons don't even talk about.  It would be embarassing for me to even pretend that I can do that.





> This, I find funny though. The FBI released photos of the hijackers then several of the supposed hijackers came out and said "I'm alive, didn't blow myself up."
> 
> The explanation we received was that they simply made a mistake, confusing arab names because their so similar and putting the wrong photos up. Funny the FBI never changed the list or the photos and Osama bin Laden continues to use these same identidies to reference the supposed hijackers.



Are you sure somebody hasn't been pulling your leg?

----------


## tkdyo

Im sure that article is a bust, they are building the freedom tower which is 1776 feet tall.  I know, clever height.  anyways... OD and UM are correct that no matter how many articles you read and how many theories you hear, you are not going to be able to intelligently argue these points unless you have been trained in demo yourself. 

as for the other questions, I think UM is on the right track with why the hijackers could be heard on cellphones, and why the people even called at all if they were not going to be killed?  add to that the flight that was taken down in pennsylvania, are you suggesting that plane just crashed to make everything more believeable and no heroism actually occured?  that is an insult to the passengers.

Last note, I dont understand this feeling of hatred for people in the US.  Sure, hate our government, thats the trend even inside the US, but the people are just as varied and un-classifiable as any other country.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Im sure that article is a bust, they are building the freedom tower which is 1776 feet tall. I know, clever height. anyways... OD and UM are correct that no matter how many articles you read and how many theories you hear, you are not going to be able to intelligently argue these points unless you have been trained in demo yourself. 
> 
> as for the other questions, I think UM is on the right track with why the hijackers could be heard on cellphones, and why the people even called at all if they were not going to be killed? add to that the flight that was taken down in pennsylvania, are you suggesting that plane just crashed to make everything more believeable and no heroism actually occured? that is an insult to the passengers.
> 
> Last note, I dont understand this feeling of hatred for people in the US. Sure, hate our government, thats the trend even inside the US, but the people are just as varied and un-classifiable as any other country.



Yes!  Thank you.    :Clap:

----------


## memeticverb

> I don't know, I am neither a demolition expert nor someone who designed the WTC



You dont have to be to use your logical intuition.

WTC7 Compared to Controlled Demolition

The point we need to realize is how many cutter charges are need to make a building behave that way - accelerating collapse, with all sides and corners remaining straight and even, with huge dust clouds and puffs of ejected material down the sides.  For these things you need explosives placed on every column, and on many floors at regular intervals.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You dont have to be to use your logical intuition.



You do have to be an expert to take the debate as far as it can go.  And I am still waiting for your counter to what I said about all of the absurdities that would have to be involved in a 9/11 inside job.

----------


## jaasum

> You dont have to be to use your logical intuition.
> 
> WTC7 Compared to Controlled Demolition
> 
> The point we need to realize is how many cutter charges are need to make a building behave that way - accelerating collapse, with all sides and corners remaining straight and even, with huge dust clouds and puffs of ejected material down the sides.  For these things you need explosives placed on every column, and on many floors at regular intervals.



You can't compare the WTC to any other building because they were not built like any other building. They were one of a kind. Why do you just ignore this by comparing it to traditional steel structure buildings?

----------


## Mystic7

> You can't compare the WTC to any other building because they were not built like any other building. They were one of a kind.



They were "special" and "extra weak buildings"  ::rolllaugh::

----------


## Mystic7

> I am still waiting for your counter to what I said about all of the absurdities that would have to be involved in a 9/11 inside job.



The only absurdities are the official reports which have been disproved. We have shown you why. So when are you going to turn into an adult and learn to take information in properly.

----------


## jaasum

> They were "special" and "extra weak buildings"



Are you going to look into it at all? I am not making this shit up.

----------


## Mystic7

start explaining.....or give me something. No information I know of that is true suggests this.

----------


## jaasum

Suggests that the WTC was not a traditional steel structured building?!!!??!

How much have you really looked into this? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC#Pla...d_construction

----------


## Universal Mind

> The only absurdities are the official reports which have been disproved. We have shown you why. So when are you going to turn into an adult and learn to take information in properly.



Oh, I've never addressed that topic before.   ::roll::

----------


## Mystic7

> Suggests that the WTC was not a traditional steel structured building?!!!??!



Don't put words in my mouth. Suggests that it was a very unusually weak building. You say you can't compare it. but we can compare it if it's stronger than previous models. otherwise you are suggesting it was weaker. Not true.

Do you get all your information from Wikipedia? Tell me how the building was weak enough to collapse and disintegrate. That article didn't explain any catastrophic design flaws.

As a matter of fact.





> The World Trade Center included many structural engineering innovations in skyscraper design and construction.



This short sentence suggest in one hit the building was obviously not structurally primitive to begin with. You should provide details why the building was weak enough to not be able to be compared to other buildings that did not disintegrate and collapse from fire and damage after burning for days.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You should provide details why the building was weak enough to not be able to be compared to other buildings that did not disintegrate and collapse from fire and damage after burning for days.



The building you posted like that was much shorter than the part of the WTC towers above the fires.  I am talking about hundreds of feet of building.  That is a great deal more pressure.  I am not an expert on how all of that is supposed to work when, but I do know that you are overlooking a major difference factor.  I explained that to you recently, and you did not counter my point.  

But more importantly, your point is that something seems funny about what the structures did because other structures didn't do it, and therefore... http://youtube.com/watch?v=XOEq-ImGWJ0

----------


## jaasum

> Don't put words in my mouth. Suggests that it was a very unusually weak building. You say you can't compare it. but we can compare it if it's stronger than previous models. otherwise you are suggesting it was weaker. Not true.
> 
> Do you get all your information from Wikipedia? Tell me how the building was weak enough to collapse and disintegrate. That article didn't explain any catastrophic design flaws.
> 
> As a matter of fact.
> 
> 
> 
> This short sentence suggest in one hit the building was obviously not structurally primitive to begin with. You should provide details why the building was weak enough to not be able to be compared to other buildings that did not disintegrate and collapse from fire and damage after burning for days.



No, that you don't think the WTC was different than any other steel structured building the whole "A steel structure has never collapsed from a fire" argument.

----------


## Mystic7

> the whole "A steel structure has never collapsed from a fire" argument.



Just because it may have being a more improved design. Doesn't mean it can't be compared to other less effective steel designs. what are you crazy. Ofcourse no building is the same. Basic comparisons still can be made. If a fire disintegrates a building to the ground. That's one hell of a design flaw you need to explain that just doesn't exist. Planes going into the building does not do anything significant to the structure that causes it to collapse. That's why it exploded after an hour. Not straight away. And don't tell me the steel warped from the fire. Or that it pancaked down from damage and fire. All disproved theories.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WsjTYnLweo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRP50bIv2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70guOyx7IwI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMiHMylSZo

----------


## memeticverb

> Just because it may have being a more improved design. Doesn't mean it can't be compared to other less effective steel designs. what are you crazy. Ofcourse no building is the same. Basic comparisons still can be made. If a fire disintegrates a building to the ground. That's one hell of a design flaw you need to explain that just doesn't exist. Planes going into the building does not do anything significant to the structure that causes it to collapse. That's why it exploded after an hour. Not straight away. And don't tell me the steel warped from the fire. Or that it pancaked down from damage and fire. All disproved theories.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WsjTYnLweo
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRP50bIv2M
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70guOyx7IwI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMiHMylSZo



If anything WTC7 and the twin towers were stronger than most steel-framed structures. 


''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' NY Times article on (WTC7)... 

Hmm, so a building that was so redundant in structural integrity that entire floors could be removed and more than half of its columns form one side, and yet still not collapse.

And none of these extremes even if reached, would make the building collapse so rapidly, symetrically, and with all the other signs we could ask for of a controlled demolition.  Again, all the columns would have to be severed at teh same time to get such a perfect collapse.

----------


## Harrycombs

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/

If you haven't seen this show, you should watch it. A lot of the things mentioned in this show answer lots of the things theorists use as evidence. For instance, I remember in a 9/11 documentary, they showed a clip from the original episode in 2002. In this remake, they say that they were wrong, and that the official story has changed a bit. Also, the towers walls were made out of very weak but fire proof material. So, the planes destroyed many of the main columns, and knock out 2 of the 3 stair cases(why there were so many deaths). The fireproofing material was also very very week, and would have been easily been knocked off by the impact of the planes, so the steel holding it together didn't melt, it lost its integrity. So, the reason they fell was because they did not build it out of the strongest materials, and its definitely not one of the strongest buildings in America. It was also not designed to with stand being hit by an Airplane (obviously), so of course it fell. Its also amazing that the buildings lasted as long as they did. Most other buildings would collapse immediately.

So, if they want to spend more money, they could possibly make buildings to withstand being hit by airplanes. But that doesn't happen very often(of course), and would be a waste of money. The only things that I think they should have done was, is add more staircases, and make them wider. It was the staircases fault for so many deaths (besides the terrorists, but you know what I mean).

----------


## jaasum

> Just because it may have being a more improved design. Doesn't mean it can't be compared to other less effective steel designs. what are you crazy. Ofcourse no building is the same. Basic comparisons still can be made. If a fire disintegrates a building to the ground. That's one hell of a design flaw you need to explain that just doesn't exist. Planes going into the building does not do anything significant to the structure that causes it to collapse. That's why it exploded after an hour. Not straight away. And don't tell me the steel warped from the fire. Or that it pancaked down from damage and fire. All disproved theories.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WsjTYnLweo
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnRP50bIv2M
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70guOyx7IwI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiMiHMylSZo



The WTC were basically hollow. They did this to remove those big heavy beams you see in most buildings, the big heavy beams that keep them up in extreme fires.

The WTC architects actually designed to have the building be hit by a plane, but never a direct intentional hit, full of a cross country supply of gasoline. The steel didn't warp, the suspension on the floors weakened, causing floors to fall on floors until the sheer weight tore each suspended floor down. The floors were HANGING IN THE BUILDING that is why it collapsed. This is what made it so different than any other building. Seriously this argument is going nowhere unless you study the design of lets say the empire state building and then the WTC. 



See? See the gigantic floors suspended by the outer steel frame? They collapsed because the frame holding the floors bent and was weakened, thus letting the entire top of the building collapse onto the lower floors.

I couln't find a good picture of the empire state building construction but the sears tower will do.



Notice the difference? If a plane hit the Empire State Building, or the sears building, the grid of steel bars would not allow it to collapse, because that is impossible to collapse without controlled demolition, it is possible, and it effing happened with the WTC. They were HUGE suspended floors, held up by a thin steel frame, the windows were very small because of this, because the outer steel frame couldn't be so spread out like in traditional steel "grid" constructions. And this is just common sense. 

Example?





Oh! And here is a photo of the upper floors collapsing onto the lowers, but those suspended lower floors can surely handle the weight! That's why they had to use explosive demolition!

----------


## Dreamer4Life89

did the US government kill 3,000 people in the WTC? Thats debatable but its a fact the events after 9-11 we're 10 fold worse. over a million peolple people have died after that and the patriot act has eleminated all our freedom.

Just keep in mind that history repeats itself. Hittler bombed his own building and blamed it on comunist terrorist. Then he eleminated German democracy by passing the enabling act.

"HERE's YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT!"-Some guy screaming in agony while being tortured at UCLA library for refusing identifcation and being tazered

----------


## Mystic7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeMifm-euPQ



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfyYjIAHO5M

----------


## Universal Mind

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECmvesH3wqk

----------


## memeticverb

> did the US government kill 3,000 people in the WTC? Thats debatable but its a fact the events after 9-11 we're 10 fold worse. over a million peolple people have died after that and the patriot act has eleminated all our freedom.
> 
> Just keep in mind that history repeats itself. Hittler bombed his own building and blamed it on comunist terrorist. Then he eleminated German democracy by passing the enabling act.
> 
> "HERE's YOUR FUCKING PATRIOT ACT!"-Some guy screaming in agony while being tortured at UCLA library for refusing identifcation and being tazered



Well youre right there.  Except I dont think the patriot act has eliminated all of our freedoms just yet.  And I dont think many believe the U.S govt as a whole was responsible for 9/11, only a small  criminal element that is apparently very protected.  see Sibel Edmonds (who claims the terrorists had help from top officials in the FBI), and Riggs bank (owned by Bush's uncle and recently found guilty of laundering money to terrorists).

Operation Northwoods : This was the would-be 9/11 of the 60s.  If most Americans knew that the govt back then was planning fake terrorists attacks they wouldnt be so surprised about 9/11 being a real false flag.

__________________________________________________  __________

WTC7 ................. Compared to a Controlled Demolition

----------


## jaasum

Is anyone going to discuss what I posted? No? Okay.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Is anyone going to discuss what I posted? No? Okay.



You must have said something they can't argue with.  Join the club.   ::cheers::

----------


## jaasum

Oh, I don't doubt they can argue with it, just wishing they would. 

The problem with us is we go in circles and I just get exhausted.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Oh, I don't doubt they can argue with it, just wishing they would.



Don't hold your breath.

----------


## Mystic7

Universal Mind. I respect your ability to use philosophy intelligently. I condemn your choice to back the most damaging and delusional paradigm in the process.

911 was an inside job

I've already beaten you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYsUNva0CA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL9fvuKALjI

----------


## Universal Mind

> I've already beaten you.



You started your post out so cool and then totally went douche on me.  I respect your ability to repeatedly post propaganda videos and pictures when stumped.  Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster!   ::bowdown::

----------


## jaasum

> Universal Mind. I respect your ability to use philosophy intelligently. I condemn your choice to back the most damaging and delusional paradigm in the process.
> 
> 911 was an inside job
> 
> I've already beaten you.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FlJeoiZxVk
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcYsUNva0CA
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL9fvuKALjI



My long post was for you, please look into it.

----------


## memeticverb

> You must have said something they can't argue with.  Join the club.



You wish.

The pictures Jassum posted support controlled demolition because they show that the floors were attached to the core columns, and had they simply broken at their joints would have left the cores standing.  But the core columns were the first to fail, and within seconds were completely destroyed to the ground, apparently providing no resistance.

Also, if you were suggesting a pancake collapse of the floor trusses you are already challenging the govt's official story, which abandoned that theory a while back.  

They now call the collapse "progressive".

----------


## Universal Mind

> You wish.



Oh really?  Then correct my satire.  Tell a version of the story that is even conceivable.  I challenge you, once again.  Let's see this.





> Here is the story...
> 
> The United States government wanted to take a very extreme risk and pull a Pearl Harbor type stunt so there would be an excuse to go to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and get good oil money even though the oil would still belong to the people of those countries. So lots and lots of members of the White House staff, the FBI, the FAA, the CIA, Norad, the military, the news media, demolition crews, the Washington police, and other bodies all got together and took a big risk by talking about doing this, and everybody happened to agree to it, except maybe a few people who opted out yet decided not to talk about something so humongous and despiccably evil and devastating to their own country and economy. This enormous group of people who all turned out to happen to be far more evil than the worst of serial killers decided to make military airplanes to crash into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in the middle of nowhere. This would make it easy to blame everything on the terrorist group Al Qaeda, who just so happens to exist for the purpose of engaging in such attacks and had even done so in the past. Little did Al Qaeda know that they would soon finally get their big breaks as actors working for the very government they organized for the purpose of destroying. 
> 
> All of the necessary bodies worked with the military to take military passenger airplanes that look just like commercial passenger airplanes, unknown military airplanes that were the only three in the world that fit that description, and painted the necessary colors and commercial labels on them since military green makes it look like the airplanes are not the airline company jets the passengers had tickets to board. Since nobody in the military was willing to die for somebody ele's outrageously large scale oil scheme, remote control devices were put in the airplanes. Passengers got onto the airplanes and were greeted by robotic stewardesses. Then the planes headed down the runways as the remote control devices smiled for the flag men on the runways, who reported nothing unusual. There was a problem with the fact that the actual airline companies sent the real airplanes to the airports with real airplane staff and passengers and communicated with airport staff about the arrangements, so the enormous oil conspiracy legion of people who just happened to all be more evil than serial killers decided to hide the real airplanes and staff under the airports when nobody was looking and replace the staff with robots who have all of the same memories and behavior patterns as the real staff. Much to the good fortune of the psychopath network of oil conspirators, nobody noticed when one of the airplanes passengers got on was actually a missile. Or maybe those people are buried under the airport too. 
> 
> While in the air, the government turned on their background hijack noises and swung metal balls from the ceiling with remote control devices so the passengers would be hypnotized into thinking they were being hijacked and call their friends and relatives to cry while saying goodbye. Then all of the crashes happened. One of the crashes, the one that involved a horrendously loud blow into the U.S. governments' Department of Defense building, involved a missile hit during work hours. Thousands of people were working in that building, but none of them reported that it was a missile that hit the building, even after they soon realized that the biggest news story in the history of the world, one that concerned a missile attack on their work building while they were at work, was false. That is because they all wanted to keep working at the building that was hit by a missile that was deliberately fired by their bosses while those workers were in the building. 
> 
> The World Trade Center was hit by the government's remote control passenger airplanes instead of missiles just for the sake of randomness, but it was strategically placed bombs that made the buildings fall. The claims of the government and many experts about how the buildings fell was wrong, and the incorrectness of those reports was so obvious and undisputable that even amateur punks on the internet go off about it with complete certainty and are totally correct even though the vast, vast majority of engineers, construction supervisors, architects, and demolition supervisors don't agree with the claim and have the insanely bizarre idea that those people are just punks on the internet, or else just don't really care, even though the United States and its coalition are fighting two wars right now because of the illusory terrorism threat and the major influence of what so many people are crazy enough to believe were terrorist attacks of all things. 
> ...



Now you tell me what could have even possibly happened.  Nothing could have.  It is impossible.  Give me some retort, if you have any.

----------


## jaasum

> You wish.
> 
> The pictures Jassum posted support controlled demolition because they show that the floors were attached to the core columns, and had they simply broken at their joints would have left the cores standing.  But the core columns were the first to fail, and within seconds were completely destroyed to the ground, apparently providing no resistance.
> 
> Also, if you were suggesting a pancake collapse of the floor trusses you are already challenging the govt's official story, which abandoned that theory a while back.  
> 
> They now call the collapse "progressive".



Okay seriously, this is pointless. You conspiracy theorists throw out common sense for fabricated realities.

----------


## SourCherryBoy

> Okay seriously, this is pointless. You conspiracy theorists throw out common sense for fabricated realities.



I think he's got a point (I mean memeticverb) when you look into it. But yes, arguing - if both sides are totally unwilling to change their opinions - is pointless, and may lead to a number of unwanted things. Now, I consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, I really do. And I know that a lot of other people like me tend to think of themselves as smart and clever people. Well I say that sometimes you have to back down a bit. There's a time and place for conspiracy theories.  We all have our own truths. Mine is not anyone else's. Your's is not mine. And you might say that I'm apathetic, impassive. And I guess that's true. *The truth* makes people passionate. Sometimes you have to cool off. And sometimes it's very hard to do. And all that means is that you've become somewhat of an extremist. And that goes for everyone who've felt a wave of warmth in their stomachs when they've read a post contradicting their own.

----------


## Mystic7

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pT_ZqCH8TW4

Americans. You would not like the propaganda on our televisions about you right now.

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=pT_ZqCH8TW4
> 
> Americans. You would not like the propaganda on our televisions about you right now.



Can you possibly do anything other than post other people's propaganda?  You have declared a Youtube and posters war on people who disagree with you.  That is not debate.

----------


## Mystic7

Well it's a war. And we are using debate to fight the war. Whoever wins, which will be everyone I support as I can discern what is correct who is more experienced than me. What statements are worthy etc. Overall whoever wins will naturally deserve to overcome and lead everything forward and I have no problem with it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Well it's a war. And we are using debate to fight the war. Whoever wins, which will be everyone I support as I can discern what is correct who is more experienced than me. What statements are worthy etc. Overall whoever wins will naturally deserve to overcome and lead everything forward and I have no problem with it.



Yeah.  Yeah.  But can you do anything other than post other people's propaganda?

----------


## Mystic7

http://youtube.com/watch?v=rFJbWqt6fPs

Not all of it is propaganda. Why should I type something twice when someone else on the net has said it here already?

----------


## Universal Mind

> http://youtube.com/watch?v=rFJbWqt6fPs
> 
> Not all of it is propaganda. Why should I type something twice when someone else on the net has said it here already?



Because your videos and posters rarely answer directly to people's points and questions.  Throwing out ball park videos is not a form of conversation.

----------


## Lambobull

I still cant wild either.  I personally believe that it is rediculous to speculate that 9/11 was anything other than a mass murder by cowardly terrorists.  Two planes flew into two buildings.  Innocent people were in those planes and buildings.  Terrorists did it.  It's that simple.  Anyways I still cant f***ing have a lucid dream.

----------


## tkdyo

> I still cant wild either.  I personally believe that it is rediculous to speculate that 9/11 was anything other than a mass murder by cowardly terrorists.  Two planes flew into two buildings.  Innocent people were in those planes and buildings.  Terrorists did it.  It's that simple.  Anyways I still cant f***ing have a lucid dream.



 ::lol::  best post in this thread good luck with Lucid dreams.  

beside universal mind applauding me  :wink2:

----------


## memeticverb

> Because your videos and posters rarely answer directly to people's points and questions.  Throwing out ball park videos is not a form of conversation.



Thats awfully hypocritical.  Please show me once where you answered any of facts or questions I've posed.

----------


## Lambobull

a little hostile huh?.  I stated the facts.  Take them for what they are.  Not hypocritical. A kind word of advice: when attempting to argue with someone in a civilized manner it is best to not attack them by saying they are hypocritical.  Anyways I wasnt trying to answer any questions that you posed because I had no interest in it.  This isn't your thread anyone can say what they want.  I hope you have more luck in the future.

----------


## shark!

clearly from pasadena

----------


## Universal Mind

> Thats awfully hypocritical. Please show me once where you answered any of facts or questions I've posed.



http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=37085

Do you remember that satire I wrote and asked you about repeatedly?  Are you ready to correct it and write the "real" or even possible in theory version of the story yet?  Are you at least ready to answer the questions I kept asking you?  Or do you want to continue to refuse to acknowledge all of that?  My bet is that you are going to continue to play the ignore game.  I know why you are doing that, and you do too.

----------


## Universal Mind

> clearly from pasadena

----------


## Lambobull

Actually originally from Oregon.  No Im not  playing the "ignore game".  I disagree with your typical LIBERAL tone that's oozing out of your ears.  And why in God's name would I answer your questions which you "kept asking me".  This is so typical we have a liberal(which is not a bad thing no insults here) going off on one of there anti Bush anti Amercan tangents.  SO ORIGINAL.  AND WHAT THE hell do you mean be "clearly from Pasadena".  If I was clearly from pasadena I would be saying the liberal viewpoints.  AnywaysI hope this helps you all with some guidance.

----------


## memeticverb

> Okay seriously, this is pointless. You conspiracy theorists throw out common sense for fabricated realities.







> http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=37085
> 
> Do you remember that satire I wrote and asked you about repeatedly?  Are you ready to correct it and write the "real" or even possible in theory version of the story yet?  Are you at least ready to answer the questions I kept asking you?  Or do you want to continue to refuse to acknowledge all of that?  My bet is that you are going to continue to play the ignore game.  I know why you are doing that, and you do too.



Your last attempt at "satire" consisted of only strawmen (you know, the fallacy, among many others that you keep repeating like a broken record).  I never said anything about remote controlled planes, missiles, fake cell phones, nor anything else you built up to knock down.  

Each of us who have actually admitted there are discrepancies in the official account have been sticking to the facts of what happened, and looking for the best possible explanation that accommodates them.  We understand parsimony in scientific and logical investigation.

ONE fact accommodates all of this evidence:

"1.                                                                        Extremely *rapid onset* of “collapse”                                     
                                     2.                                   Sounds of explosions (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)                                     
                                     3.                                   Observations of flashes  
                                     4.                                   Squibs,                                     or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing”                                     building seen in all the videos                                     
                                     5.                                   Mid-air pulverization                                     of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets &                                     1000 people – mostly to dust                                     
                                     6.                                   Massive volume                                     of expanding pyroclastic                                     dust clouds 
                                     7.                                                                        Vertical progression of full building perimeter                                     demolition waves 
                                     8.                                   Symmetrical collapse                                     – through the path of _greatest__no_ resistance – at free-fall                                     speed — the columns gave  resistance                                     
                                     9.                                                                        1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris –                                     _outside_ of building footprint                                     
                                     10.                                   Blast waves                                     blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away                                     
                                     11.                                   Lateral ejection                                     of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet                                     
                                     12.                                   Total destruction of the building                                     down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.                                     
                                     13.                                                                        Tons of molten Metal                                     found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an                                     incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)                                     
                                     14.                                                                        Chemical signature of                                     Thermate (high tech incendiary)dust samples                                     by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.                                                                          found in slag, solidified molten metal, and                                     
                                     15.                                                                        FEMA finds rapid oxidation and                                     intergranular melting                                     on structural steel samples                                     
                                     16.                                                                        More than 1000 Bodies are                                     unaccounted for                                     — 700 tiny                                     bone fragments                                     found on top of nearby buildings                                     
*And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.* 
                                     1.                                                                        Slow onset with large visible deformations                                     
                                     2.                                                                        Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance                                     (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from                                     the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)                                     
                                     3.                                   Evidence of fire temperatures                                     capable of softening steel                                     
                                     4.                                   High-rise buildings                                     with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”                                     

Taken from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

Ill also add, basement explosions.

And WTC7 as compared to a controlled demolition.

Again, one fact can easily explain all of these occurrences, which are not explained by the official story.

None of this even touching on the all of the facts surrounding the attempts by the U.S. government to cover-up everything from the 118 testimonies of explosions posted above, to ex-FBI agents who claim there are people in the FBI who are aided the terrorists, and are still doing so.

Why did John Ashcroft place gag orders on Sibel Edmonds who claims to have evidence of FBI complicit in 9/11?  Why did he also gag congress from even hearing her evidence when Congress had called her in to testify and present evidence?  

Why did the City of New York's government force the 911 Families to court 3 times before being forced to release the first responders testimony, which detailed explosions?

None of these facts or questions have been explained or answered (but instead covered-up) by any official source.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Your last attempt at "satire" consisted of only strawmen (you know, the fallacy, among many others that you keep repeating like a broken record). I never said anything about remote controlled planes, missiles, fake cell phones, nor anything else you built up to knock down.



The satire involved claims people here have made, and I said that.  It also involved things that would have had to have happened if an inside job really happened.  I did not mention fake cell phones, so I am not sure how much of it you read.  My point is that I wrote one version of how an inside job would have happened and then challenged YOU to tell me how it even possibly could have REALLY happened.  You still have not done that.  I never said that the way I wrote it in its entirety was the only way it could have happened, so it is YOU who is using a strawman.  The only other thing you have done, other than spew ad hominem, is act like the equivalent of a religious fanatic amateur scientist talking about discrepencies in the theory of mitochondrial evolution and leaping from there to the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  The burden of proof is on you to explain how the Flying Spaghetti Monster could possibly exist.  The burden is on you.  Talk.  

So stop chickening out.  Tell me a version of the story that could have possibly happened.  The challenge still stands.  You do believe that a government inside job happened, right?  Then tell me how even in theory one could have possibly happened.  The burden is on you.  Tell me the real version of the story, or even just a hypothetical one that makes sense.  I bet you can't.  The idea makes no sense.

----------


## Lambobull

LIke I said the real version if the story is that Terrorists massed murdered a hell of a lot of people on our land.  There is nothing more to the story.  If thats not what you want to hear then too bad for you.  Where did I come across as one who believed there was a government inside job.

----------


## Lambobull

by "extreme onset of collapse" do you mean how fast the buildings fell

----------


## Universal Mind

> LIke I said the real version if the story is that Terrorists massed murdered a hell of a lot of people on our land. There is nothing more to the story. If thats not what you want to hear then too bad for you. Where did I come across as one who believed there was a government inside job.



I was talking to Memeticverb.  Did you see the quote I posted?

----------


## Lambobull

no

----------


## memeticverb

> Your last attempt at "satire" consisted of only strawmen (you know, the fallacy, among many others that you keep repeating like a broken record).  I never said anything about remote controlled planes, missiles, fake cell phones, nor anything else you built up to knock down.  
> 
> Each of us who have actually admitted there are discrepancies in the official account have been sticking to the facts of what happened, and looking for the best possible explanation that accommodates them.  We understand parsimony in scientific and logical investigation.
> 
> ONE fact accommodates all of this evidence:
> 
> "1.                                                                        Extremely *rapid onset* of collapse                                     
>                                      2.                                   Sounds of explosions (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)                                     
>                                      3.                                   Observations of flashes  
> ...



These empirically verifiable data are what we know.  We do not know who planted the explosives or why.  All individuals are innocent until proven guilty and an extensive trial putting many key players on the stand would have to occur before we were able to even begin to put the pieces together for every single motive and event of that day. 

Also, see the thread in the philosophy forum for an analysis of the thermate evidence (still awaiting a response from Dream Sailor).

We also know that Sibel Edmonds and at least a dozen other FBI whistleblowers have indicated that the FBI has been infiltrated by criminal elements who aided the 9/11 terrorists.  Sibel Edmonds who claims to have documented evidence of this fact has been gagged by the highest authority - The Attorney General's Office, even after her claims were substantiated by a preliminary by the Justice Department.  Since that time gags orders have been repeatedly placed on Edmonds, and even the U.S. Congress form hearing her testimony.  What in the world are they hiding?  Why is Congress allowing Executive Privilege to override congressional oversight?  Ill outline the legal arguments if you cant see them.

This appeal to executive privilege has also been used in the NSA spying scandal to exempt testimony and evidence.  It has also been used in the Riggs Bank case where Bush's uncle was found to have allowed money laundering to two Saudi terrorists responsible for the 9/11 hijackings.  Do you think it is suspicious that the brother of the President (who is already under fire for not going after the _Saudi_ source of funding for the 9./11 terrorists), is now found guilty of laundering money to the 9/11 terrorists?

There are hundreds of _coincidences_ that nearly prove a conspiracy.  They simply need more investigation before a full chronological picture of the events can emerge.

Universal Mind - All you have to do offer one plausible argument or explanation based on _empirically verifiable facts_ for all of those listed in this thread.  All you have done so far is conjure up absurd stories that no one but yourself has adopted as possible, as if this somehow refutes all the facts that have so far gone unanswered.

----------


## Mystic7

Memeticverb we have totally hammered them. But still emotionally they want to believe religiously, in their impossible 911 conspiracy, despite reason.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Universal Mind - All you have to do offer one plausible argument or explanation based on _empirically verifiable facts_ for all of those listed in this thread. All you have done so far is conjure up absurd stories that no one but yourself has adopted as possible, as if this somehow refutes all the facts that have so far gone unanswered.



It looks like you can't even tell a possible version of an inside job story.  You repeatedly back down to that challenge.  You and I both know why that is.  You also can't counter the points I have made.  

Try countering this, for example...  You are not enough of a demolition expert to know the full scope of but ifs and what ifs concerning your amateur interpretations of demolition specifics, and it is illogical to leap from your amateur interpretations to the bizarre conclusion that they prove that something profoundly far fetched happened, an insane scenario in which you cannot even give a version of how it even possibly could have happened.  

Your counterargument please...  (I am definitely not holding my breath.)





> Memeticverb we have totally hammered them. But still emotionally they want to believe religiously, in their impossible 911 conspiracy, despite reason.



You are more than welcome to illustrate a possible scenario any time you are ready too.

----------


## Original Poster

There are demolitions experts thats are arguing in favor of an inside job, quite a few in fact, it's not nearly like 99.9&#37; aren't talking about it and I would like to ask to you to withdraw that statement and apologize to the firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save people in the horrible tragedy.

----------


## Universal Mind

> There are demolitions experts thats are arguing in favor of an inside job, quite a few in fact, it's not nearly like 99.9% aren't talking about it.



Uh, yes it is.  





> I would like to ask to you to withdraw that statement and apologize to the firemen and policemen that risked their lives to save people in the horrible tragedy.



Huh?  What statement, and why firemen and policemen?  Could you maybe tell me what in the Hell you are talking about?

----------


## memeticverb

> It looks like you can't even tell a possible version of an inside job story.  You repeatedly back down to that challenge.  You and I both know why that is.  You also can't counter the points I have made.  
> 
> Try countering this, for example...  You are not enough of a demolition expert to know the full scope of but ifs and what ifs concerning your amateur interpretations of demolition specifics, and it is illogical to leap from your amateur interpretations to the bizarre conclusion that they prove that something profoundly far fetched happened, an insane scenario in which you cannot even give a version of how it even possibly could have happened.  
> 
> Your counterargument please...  (I am definitely not holding my breath.)
> 
> 
> 
> You are more than welcome to illustrate a possible scenario any time you are ready too.



I dont believe fully in an "inside job" story.  Ive merely tried to show the evidence for it, and the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC, which could have been accomplished by foreign terrorists.  If you cant refute or in any way engage this evidence except by pretending it doesn't exist because you don't have a "full story" then that not my problem.  

And you havnt even made any kind of argument.  You simply claim that I made some kind of logical leap in the last few posts of mine, but completely fail to explain how.  How typical.

----------


## Mystic7

Rosie on the view

lol

----------


## Universal Mind

> And you havnt even made any kind of argument. You simply claim that I made some kind of logical leap in the last few posts of mine, but completely fail to explain how. How typical.



I have explained the leap a trillion times, and you keep ignoring it.  How typical.  How dishonest.  Your bizarre challenges for me to act like a demolition expert do not make the inside job story any more believable.  It is absurd.

----------


## Mystic7

> I have explained the leap a trillion times, and you keep ignoring it. How typical. How dishonest. Your bizarre challenges for me to act like a demolition expert do not make the inside job story any more believable. It is absurd.



The sky is orange, fire is water and the Iraq war is peaceful. George Bush is good. The sun is made of ice. Your logical. WTC7 steal melts from fire. And pirates are compassionate. Darkness is light. Deception is truth. And your posts are superior to memeticverb's facts. Absurd is sane, pigs fly, and atheism is correct. The sun will not rise tomorrow and your questions are valid. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is propaganda and the pentagon is your yellow submarine. Fox news is worth something and rain causes drought. Universal mind is unbiased and knows the truth. Did you do a reality check?

----------


## Universal Mind

> The sky is orange, fire is water and the Iraq war is peaceful. George Bush is good. The sun is made of ice. Your logical. WTC7 steal melts from fire. And pirates are compassionate. Darkness is light. Deception is truth. And your posts are superior to memeticverb's facts. Absurd is sane, pigs fly, and atheism is correct. The sun will not rise tomorrow and your questions are valid. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is propaganda and the pentagon is your yellow submarine. Fox news is worth something and rain causes drought. Universal mind is unbiased and knows the truth. Did you do a reality check?



That qualifies as retort, and it clears up everything.  It is more effective than posting looney land videos and quotes of other people.  You have proven me wrong, and you have shown that the inside job concept even begins to make sense.  I agree with you now.

----------


## Mystic7

> That qualifies as retort, and it clears up everything. It is more effective than posting looney land videos and quotes of other people. You have proven me wrong, and you have shown that the inside job concept even begins to make sense. I agree with you now.



Time to get more real and address what memeticverb posted. Otherwise you remain a few chips short of a happy meal.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Time to get more real and address what memeticverb posted. Otherwise you remain a few chips short of a happy meal.



You don't even have an arm of an action figure toy in your happy meal box if you can't notice what I said to address Memeticverb.  I am starting to wonder how many repeats it takes for a point to penetrate your skull.  It's an issue sort of like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.

----------


## Mystic7

> You don't even have an arm of an action figure toy in your happy meal box if you can't notice what I said to address Memeticverb. I am starting to wonder how many repeats it takes for a point to penetrate your skull. It's an issue sort of like the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop.






911
Our leaders War

----------


## Mystic7

The wicked witch is dead

----------


## Universal Mind

And that works as a counterargument to what I said because....?

----------


## Universal Mind



----------


## Mystic7

I just thought I'd throw something random in. Like when you posted munchkin land over the rainbow and such in response to me. While memeticverb and myself still require you to accept the evidence.

----------


## Universal Mind

> I just thought I'd throw something random in. Like when you posted munchkin land over the rainbow and such in response to me. While memeticverb and myself still require you to accept the evidence.



I require you to accept the evidence that quantum superstrings do not fit the theory of relativity, which proves that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created humans fifty years ago by blowing a pile of mashed potatoes.

----------


## Mystic7

Seriously. The laws of nature defy the ability of the two towers to collapse without explosives. That is about 11-12 grade science. You don't even need to be a demolition expert. All you need is to observe the effect and presence of thermate in the building to understand how it cuts through steel. It doesn't take advanced knowledge of science to understand what temperature steel melts or weakens at. It doesn't take a degree to understand the basics of the structure of the buildings and how they were built to withstand such impacts without collapsing to the ground. Please observe the points memeticverb has raised.

----------


## Original Poster

Again Universal Mind I'd like to ask you to apologize to the policemen and firemen that risked their lives for your freedom in 9/11

----------


## Universal Mind

> Again Universal Mind I'd like to ask you to apologize to the policemen and firemen that risked their lives for your freedom in 9/11



Aplogogize?  What did I do against them?

----------


## Mystic7

your a...manipulator

----------


## Original Poster

You showed the dead disrespect by ignoring evidence and not even trying to counter any of the counters to the counters to the conspiracy theories, making figures up and basically lying in order to convince yourself what you unconsciously know to be true, that your government is keeping a lot from you for their benefit, not yours.  You showed the injured living disrespect through support of Rudolf Giuiliani who has doen jack shit for the survivors of the catastrophe or the city health problems that ensued the disaster.  You showed the uninjured living disrespect by letting their courageous efforts be twisted for the purposes of a corrupt government.  Now 'pologize mother fucker.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You showed the dead disrespect by ignoring evidence and not even trying to counter any of the counters to the counters to the conspiracy theories, making figures up and basically lying in order to convince yourself what you unconsciously know to be true, that your government is keeping a lot from you for their benefit, not yours.



You ignored my points about the futility of pretending that we can go into the deep what ifs and but ifs regarding demolition specifics.  I have only expained it about thirty times in this thread alone.  But I did argue the social psychological absurdity of the concept that the vast majority of actual experts would be completely quiet about something that even you can notice regarding severe corruption concerning the tragedy at the center of the biggest news story in history.  Do I need to explain that one more time?  





> You showed the injured living disrespect through support of Rudolf Giuiliani who has doen jack shit for the survivors of the catastrophe or the city health problems that ensued the disaster. You showed the uninjured living disrespect by letting their courageous efforts be twisted for the purposes of a corrupt government. Now 'pologize mother fucker.



Guiliani's government did a lot for the survivors, and now Giuliani wants to lead the fight against the Islamofascism that caused the attacks.  I have no idea what you are talking about regarding courageous efforts being twisted. 





> Now 'pologize mother fucker.



Wow, look at how personally insulting you get when you keep losing arguments.  My best suggestion on that insult is for you to get your mother off the streets.  Then apologize to the 9/11 victims and rescue workers for being so incredibly dishonest about what it is that happened to them.  Man, you are seriously disturbed.  I know why.  Would you like for me to send you a PM and explain it to you?  Chill out with this personal maliciousness.  The site has rules on how far that can go, and if you want to keep pushing it, I will just see about getting you banned.  Got it?

----------


## memeticverb

> You ignored my points about the futility of pretending that we can go into the deep what ifs and but ifs regarding demolition specifics.  I have only expained it about thirty times in this thread alone.  But I did argue the social psychological absurdity of the concept that the vast majority of actual experts would be completely quiet about something that even you can notice regarding severe corruption concerning the tragedy at the center of the biggest news story in history.  Do I need to explain that one more time?



No one ignored your points, for the millionth and a half time.  Its obvious we dont need demolition "specifics" which you claim not to know (so how do you know they are even specifics?) to conclude that WTC7 was a controlled demolition. Proven here, through analogy to a controlled demolition. How about you answer the challenge from others to specify how the side-by-side comparison in some way doesnt show that WTC7 was a CD?

You have absolutely NO source, reference, or substance for your claim that the majority of any field must adhere to a theory before it becomes plausible.  This is in fact a fallacy, a fairly simple one at that you should be embarrassed to commit. 





> Guiliani's government did a lot for the survivors, and now Giuliani wants to lead the fight against the Islamofascism that caused the attacks.  I have no idea what you are talking about regarding courageous efforts being twisted.



*9/11 Firefighters slam Rudy Guiliani*


*Giuliani Gets Exposed As Fraud by Firefighters*






> Wow, look at how personally insulting you get when you keep losing arguments.  My best suggestion on that insult is for you to get your mother off the streets.  Then apologize to the 9/11 victims and rescue workers for being so incredibly dishonest about what it is that happened to them.  Man, you are seriously disturbed.  I know why.  Would you like for me to send you a PM and explain it to you?  Chill out with this personal maliciousness.  The site has rules on how far that can go, and if you want to keep pushing it, I will just see about getting you banned.  Got it?



blah blah blah....troll.  

My new theory is that Universal Mind is secretly a 911 Truth person who is trying to make the official gov't theory seem to have as little merit as possible.  If he keeps insisting on using outright fallacies as substantive arguments he will fulfill his goal effortlessly.  Bravo troll King.

----------


## Universal Mind

Memeticverb, I have addressed that garbage trillions of times.  You are not a demolition expert, those who are think you are a joke, and you have no basis for jumping from your pseudodemolition delusions of grandeur to the land over the rainbow.  

That is not the same as saying that the majority is automatically right.  It is a matter of saying that YOU are not noticing things that they are not noticing.  And, as I have illustrated, an inside job in the situation as it happened would be impossible.  You are welcome to answer my questions on that or even just tell a story that is the least bit plausible whenever you are delusional enough to think you can.  Do I need to explain that again?

----------


## Mystic7

Universal Mind,
No facts to back yourself up?

Memeticverb makes a much more convincing case. And you just ignore it all and pretend that you said something in the past which makes it ok. You can always pretend you have questions. You can always pretend that they are questions. You can pretend you have answers. And then you can destroy the character of anyone that doesn't go along with whatever you want to think.

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, yeah.  I initiate the personal attacks in this thread.  And my points keep getting countered.  And I haven't been clear enough on the issue of demolition expertise.  Thank you for your honesty.  That is a common trait among 9/11 conspiracy theorists.   ::roll:: 

CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????  

YOU claim that such a thing happened.  Now tell me how it could have happened even in theory.  The concept is profoundly absurd.  Explain otherwise.  If you can't tell me that, you are just barking like a chihuahua.  This is the last call.

----------


## Mystic7

Your the one that keeps barking nonsense and we try to constantly drum some sense into you. Your claiming something happened that is impossible. That's why you don't look at our evidence. Because your the religious one. Face it you are totally hammered and save yourself some dignity by apologizing to these people for your disrespectful conduct in regards to ignoring their information and claiming otherwise and then giving them nothing but defamation and irrelevance in return.

We are not interested in fantasy stories we are discussing evidence.

The 9/11 conspiracy alarmist is yourself. We are merely upholding our responsibility to find those accountable for the crimes. This has not happened and we need to investigate without childishness.

Your in a deep sleep and it's time to look at the facts. To put the criminals away so leave your ego out of it.

----------


## Universal Mind

> CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????



Answer:  No.

----------


## Mystic7

The idea is to look at our evidence. Not to make up stories which suit your needs. Still waiting for an apology and I'm not the only one waiting for that from you.

----------


## Universal Mind

> The idea is to look at our evidence. Not to make up stories which suit your needs. Still waiting for an apology and I'm not the only one waiting for that from you.



I did not initiate personal attacks, and you are in no position to bitch about such a thing.  Stop pretending you give a damn about manners.  You are not fooling anybody.  

The idea on the 9/11 conspiracy is for you to give an even plausible form of a story YOU claim happened.  The burden of proof is on YOU.  YOU failed.

----------


## Mystic7

Just because you say a burden is on me, means nothing. Let us know when you can have a look at the evidence and reply in a responsible way.

----------


## memeticverb

> Your the one that keeps barking nonsense and we try to constantly drum some sense into you. Your claiming something happened that is impossible. That's why you don't look at our evidence. Because your the religious one. Face it you are totally hammered and save yourself some dignity by apologizing to these people for your disrespectful conduct in regards to ignoring their information and claiming otherwise and then giving them nothing but defamation and irrelevance in return.
> 
> We are not interested in fantasy stories we are discussing evidence.
> 
> The 9/11 conspiracy alarmist is yourself. We are merely upholding our responsibility to find those accountable for the crimes. This has not happened and we need to investigate without childishness.
> 
> Your in a deep sleep and it's time to look at the facts. To put the criminals away so leave your ego out of it.



Indeed.  UM has basically been completely exposed as unbelievably dishonest.  And I say unbelievably because I dont think for a second that even he actually believes anything he says. His only purpose in all of his posts has been to divert attention to the facts, and more despicably, to invent wild strawmen to knock down.  There are people exactly like UM in nearly every forum currently discussing 9/11 inside job theories (and there are tons of them, I remember seeing one on the Cheiftans football forum of all places)  

This article explains the disinformation tactics used by dishonest contributers to forums, magazines, and newspapers.  Universal Mind, Dream Sailor, and several others Ive seen in this forum use almost every single tactic.

----------


## memeticverb

> Oh, yeah.  I initiate the personal attacks in this thread.  And my points keep getting countered.  And I haven't been clear enough on the issue of demolition expertise.  Thank you for your honesty.  That is a common trait among 9/11 conspiracy theorists.  
> 
> CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????  
> 
> YOU claim that such a thing happened.  Now tell me how it could have happened even in theory.  The concept is profoundly absurd.  Explain otherwise.  If you can't tell me that, you are just barking like a chihuahua.  This is the last call.



As your cries become more shrill, your vacuous attempts to disengage the facts becomes more obvious.


__________________________________________________  ____

Articles:

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center?
*Government Refused to Examine Trade Center Collapses*

More Proof 911 Inside Job - Witnesses To WTC Explosives

* 	  	 Introduction to 9/11 for Those Who Still Believe the Official Story*


Video Evidence:

Video and Photographic evidence of basement explosions (necessary for a controlled demolition) with eye witness testimony.

Demolition Waves clearly visible in "collapse".

WTC7

----------


## Mystic7

> CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????




I THINK YOUR GETTING A BIT DESPERATE LOOK AT OUR EVIDENCE YOUR NOT GOING TO GET PAID THIS WEEK??????????

----------


## Universal Mind

::yawnorama::

----------


## Mystic7

UM have you considered talking to a psychiatrist?

----------


## Universal Mind

> UM have you considered talking to a psychiatrist?



About you?  No, I have only worked with American mental patients.  If you move here, I can get you access to help.  I suggest using the phone book.

----------


## Mystic7

> I have only worked with American mental patients



You mean you've only been locked up with American mental patients...And I didn't ask you that. I asked you about seeing a psychiatrist. I know your not one.

----------


## Universal Mind

> You mean you've only been locked up with American mental patients...And I didn't ask you that. I asked you about seeing a psychiatrist. I know your not one.



No, I worked with outpatient people like you for a job.  But your response does explain a plausible 9/11 conspiracy scenario.  Now it all finally makes sense.  Thanks.   ::goodjob2::

----------


## Mystic7

I'm sure you did....

----------


## Universal Mind

> I'm sure you did....



Oh, so that's a plausible 9/11 conspiracy scenario, and not the other thing you just said?  Oh, yeah.  Good answer.

----------


## Mystic7

THE DAY ITSELF - EVIDENCE OF COMPLICITY

   1. AWOL Chain of Command

         1. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
         2. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

   2. Air Defense Failures

         1. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
         2. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
         3. Was there an air defense standdown?

   3. Pentagon Strike

      How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation's capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

   4. Wargames

         1. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
         2. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

   5. Flight 93

      Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why? Was Flight 93 shot down, as indicated by the scattering of debris over a trail of several miles?
      THE DAY - POSSIBLE SMOKING GUNS
   6. Did cell phones work at 30,000 feet in 2001? How many hijackings were attempted? How many flights were diverted?

   7. Demolition Hypothesis

      What caused the collapse of a third skyscraper, WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane? Were the Twin Towers and WTC 7 brought down by explosives? (See "The Case for Demolitions," the websites wtc7.net and 911research.wtc7.net, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones. See also items no. 16 and 24, below.)
      FOREKNOWLEDGE & THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS
   8. What did officials know? How did they know it?

         1. Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail, including the manner and likely targets of the attack, the name of the operation (the "Big Wedding"), and the names of certain men later identified as being among the perpetrators.
         2. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
         3. Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

   9. Able Danger, Plus - Surveillance of Alleged Hijackers

         1. The men identified as the 9/11 ringleaders were under surveillance for years beforehand, on the suspicion they were terrorists, by a variety of US and allied authorities - including the CIA, the US military's "Able Danger" program, the German authorities, Israeli intelligence and others.
         2. Two of the alleged ringleaders who were known to be under surveillance by the CIA also lived with an FBI asset in San Diego, but this is supposed to be yet another a coincidence.

  10. Obstruction of FBI Investigations prior to 9/11

      A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers - as the Moussaoui case once again showed. The stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration's order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O'Neil do not, when considered in sum, indicate mere incompetence, but high-level corruption and protection of criminal networks, including the network of the alleged 9/11 conspirators. (Nearly all of these examples were omitted from or relegated to fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report.)

  11. Insider Trading

         1. Unknown speculators allegedly used foreknowledge of the Sept. 11th events to profiteer on many markets internationally - including but not limited to "put options" placed to short-sell the two airlines, WTC tenants, and WTC re-insurance companies in Chicago and London.
         2. In addition, suspicious monetary transactions worth hundreds of millions were conducted through offices at the Twin Towers during the actual attacks.
         3. Initial reports on these trades were suppressed and forgotten, and only years later did the 9/11 Commission and SEC provide a partial, but untenable explanation for only a small number of transactions (covering only the airline put options through the Chicago Board of Exchange).

  12. Who were the perpetrators?

         1. Much of the evidence establishing who did the crime is dubious and miraculous: bags full of incriminating material that happened to miss the flight or were left in a van; the "magic passport" of an alleged hijacker, found at Ground Zero; documents found at motels where the alleged perpetrators had stayed days and weeks before 9/11.
         2. The identities of the alleged hijackers remain unresolved, there are contradictions in official accounts of their actions and travels, and there is evidence several of them had "doubles," all of which is omitted from official investigations.
         3. What happened to initial claims by the government that 50 people involved in the attacks had been identified, including the 19 alleged hijackers, with 10 still at large (suggesting that 20 had been apprehended)?
      THE 9/11 COVER-UP, 2001-2006
  13. Who Is Osama Bin Ladin?

         1. Who judges which of the many conflicting and dubious statements and videos attributed to Osama Bin Ladin are genuine, and which are fake? The most important Osama Bin Ladin video (Nov. 2001), in which he supposedly confesses to masterminding 9/11, appears to be a fake. In any event, the State Department's translation of it is fraudulent.
         2. Did Osama Bin Ladin visit Dubai and meet a CIA agent in July 2001 (Le Figaro)? Was he receiving dyalisis in a Pakistani military hospital on the night of September 10, 2001 (CBS)?
         3. Whether by Bush or Clinton: Why is Osama always allowed to escape?
         4. The terror network associated with Osama, known as the "data base" (al-Qaeda), originated in the CIA-sponsored 1980s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. When did this network stop serving as an asset to covert operations by US intelligence and allied agencies? What were its operatives doing in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya in the years prior to 9/11?

  14. All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up

         1. Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
         2. US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
         3. Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
         4. Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

  15. Poisoning New York

      The White House deliberately pressured the EPA into giving false public assurances that the toxic air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe. This knowingly contributed to an as-yet unknown number of health cases and fatalities, and demonstrates that the administration does consider the lives of American citizens to be expendable on behalf of certain interests.

  16. Disposing of the Crime Scene

      The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. (See also item no. 23, below.)

  17. Anthrax

      Mailings of weapons-grade anthrax - which caused a practical suspension of the 9/11 investigations - were traced back to US military stock. Soon after the attacks began in October 2001, the FBI approved the destruction of the original samples of the Ames strain, disposing of perhaps the most important evidence in identifying the source of the pathogens used in the mailings. Were the anthrax attacks timed to coincide with the Afghanistan invasion? Why were the letters sent only to media figures and to the leaders of the opposition in the Senate (who had just raised objections to the USA PATRIOT Act)?

  18. The Stonewall

         1. Colin Powell promised a "white paper" from the State Department to establish the authorship of the attacks by al-Qaeda. This was never forthcoming, and was instead replaced by a paper from Tony Blair, which presented only circumstantial evidence, with very few points actually relating to September 11th.
         2. Bush and Cheney pressured the (freshly-anthraxed) leadership of the Congressional opposition into delaying the 9/11 investigation for months. The administration fought against the creation of an independent investigation for more than a
         3. The White House thereupon attempted to appoint Henry Kissinger as the chief investigator, and acted to underfund and obstruct the 9/11 Commission.

  19. A Record of Official Lies

         1. "No one could have imagined planes into buildings" - a transparent falsehood upheld repeatedly by Rice, Rumsfeld and Bush.
         2. "Iraq was connected to 9/11" - The most "outrageous conspiracy theory" of all, with the most disastrous impact.

  20. Pakistani Connection - Congressional Connection

         1. The Pakistani intelligence agency ISI, creator of the Taliban and close ally to both the CIA and "al-Qaeda," allegedly wired $100,000 to Mohamed Atta just prior to September 11th, reportedly through the ISI asset Omar Saeed Sheikh (later arrested for the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, who was investigating ISI connections to "al-Qaeda.")
         2. This was ignored by the congressional 9/11 investigation, although the senator and congressman who ran the probe (Bob Graham and Porter Goss) were meeting with the ISI chief, Mahmud Ahmed, on Capitol Hill on the morning of September 11th.
         3. About 25 percent of the report of the Congressional Joint Inquiry was redacted, including long passages regarding how the attack (or the network allegedly behind it) was financed. Graham later said foreign allies were involved in financing the alleged terror network, but that this would only come out in 30 years.

  21. Unanswered Questions and the "Final Fraud" of the 9/11 Commission:

         1. The September 11th families who fought for and gained an independent investigation (the 9/11 Commission) posed 400-plus questions, which the 9/11 Commission adopted as its roadmap. The vast majority of these questions were completely ignored in the Commission hearings and the final report.
         2. The membership and staff of the 9/11 Commission displayed awesome conflicts of interest. The families called for the resignation of Executive Director Philip Zelikow, a Bush administration member and close associate of "star witness" Condoleezza Rice, and were snubbed. Commission member Max Cleland resigned, condemning the entire exercise as a "scam" and "whitewash."
         3. The 9/11 Commission Report is notable mainly for its obvious omissions, distortions and outright falsehoods - ignoring anything incompatible with the official story, banishing the issues to footnotes, and even dismissing the still-unresolved question of who financed 9/11 as being "of little practical significance."

  22. Crown Witnesses Held at Undisclosed Locations

      The alleged masterminds of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohamed (KSM) and Ramzi Binalshibh, are reported to have been captured in 2002 and 2003, although one Pakistani newspaper said KSM was killed in an attempted capture. They have been held at undisclosed locations and their supposed testimonies, as provided in transcript form by the government, form much of the basis for The 9/11 Commission Report (although the Commission's request to see them in person was denied). After holding them for years, why doesn't the government produce these men and put them to trial?

  23. Spitzer Redux

         1. Eliot Spitzer, attorney general of New York State, snubbed pleas by New York citizens to open 9/11 as a criminal case (Justicefor911.org).
         2. Spitzer also refused to allow his employee, former 9/11 Commission staff member Dietrich Snell, to testify to the Congress about his (Snell's) role in keeping "Able Danger" entirely out of The 9/11 Commission Report.

  24. NIST Omissions

      After the destruction of the WTC structural steel, the official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately unprovable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives. (Why not clear this up?)

  25. Radio Silence

      The 9/11 Commission and NIST both allowed the continuing cover-up of how Motorola's faulty radios, purchased by the Giuliani administration, caused firefighter deaths at the WTC - once again showing the expendability, even of the first responders.

  26. The Legal Catch-22

         1. Hush Money - Accepting victims' compensation barred September 11th families from pursuing discovery through litigation.
         2. Judge Hallerstein - Those who refused compensation to pursue litigation and discovery had their cases consolidated under the same judge (and as a rule dismissed).

  27. Saudi Connections

         1. The 9/11 investigations made light of the "Bin Ladin Airlift" during the no-fly period, and ignored the long-standing Bush family business ties to the Bin Ladin family fortune. (A company in which both families held interests, the Carlyle Group, was holding its annual meeting on September 11th, with George Bush Sr., James Baker, and two brothers of Osama Bin Ladin in attendance.)
         2. The issue of Ptech.

  28. Media Blackout of Prominent Doubters

      The official story has been questioned and many of the above points were raised by members of the US Congress, retired high-ranking officers of the US military, the three leading third-party candidates for President in the 2004 election, a member of the 9/11 Commission who resigned in protest, a former high-ranking adviser to the George W. Bush administration, former ministers to the German, British and Canadian governments, the commander-in-chief of the Russian air force, 100 luminaries who signed the "9/11 Truth Statement," and the presidents of Iran and Venezuela. Not all of these people agree fully with each other, but all would normally be considered newsworthy. Why has the corporate-owned US mass media remained silent about these statements, granting due coverage only to the comments of actor Charlie Sheen?
      GEOPOLITICS, TIMING AND POSSIBLE MOTIVES
  29. "The Great Game"

      The Afghanistan invasion was ready for Bush's go-ahead on September 9, 2001, with US and UK force deployments to the region already in place or underway. This followed the failure earlier that year of backdoor diplomacy with the Taliban (including payments of $125 million in US government aid to Afghanistan), in an attempt to secure a unity government for that country as a prerequisite to a Central Asian pipeline deal.

  30. The Need for a "New Pearl Harbor"

      Principals in US foreign policy under the current Bush administration (including Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and others) have been instrumental in developing long-running plans for worldwide military hegemony, including an invasion of the Middle East, dating back to the Ford, Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. They reiterated these plans in the late 1990s as members of the "Project for a New American Century," and stated a clear intent to invade Iraq for the purpose of "regime change." After 9/11, they lost no time in their attempt to tie Iraq to the attacks.

  31. Perpetual "War on Terror"

      9/11 is supposed to provide carte-blanche for an open-ended, global and perpetual "War on Terror," against any enemy, foreign or domestic, that the executive branch chooses to designate, and regardless of whether evidence exists to actually connect these enemies to 9/11.

  32. Attacking the Constitution

         1. The USA PATRIOT Act was written before 9/11, Homeland Security and the "Shadow Government" were developed long before 9/11, and plans for rounding up dissidents as a means for suppressing civil disturbance have been in the works for decades.
         2. 9/11 was used as the pretext to create a new, extra-constitutional executive authority to declare anyone an "enemy combatant" (including American citizens), to detain persons indefinitely without habeas corpus, and to "render" such persons to secret prisons where torture is practiced.

  33. Legal Trillions

      9/11 triggers a predictable shift of public spending to war, and boosts public and private spending in the "new" New Economy of "Homeland Security," biometrics, universal surveillance, prisons, civil defense, secured enclaves, security, etc.

  34. Plundered Trillions?

      On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced a "war on waste" after an internal audit found that the Pentagon was "missing" 2.3 trillion dollars in unaccounted assets. On September 11th, this was as good as forgotten.

  35. Did 9/11 prevent a stock market crash?

      Did anyone benefit from the destruction of the Securities and Exchange Commission offices at WTC 7, and the resultant crippling of hundreds of fraud investigations?

  36. Resource Wars

         1. What was discussed in the Energy Task Force meetings under Dick Cheney in 2001? Why is the documentation of these meetings still being suppressed?
         2. Is Peak Oil a motive for 9/11 as inside job?

  37. The "Little Game"

      Why was the WTC privatized just before its destruction?
      HISTORY
  38. "Al-CIA-da?"

      The longstanding relationship between US intelligence networks and radical Islamists, including the network surrounding Osama Bin Ladin. (See also point 13d.)

  39. Historical Precedents for "Synthetic Terror"

         1. In the past many states, including the US government, have sponsored attacks on their own people, fabricated the "cause for war," created (and armed) their own enemies of convenience, and sacrificed their own citizens for "reasons of state."
         2. Was 9/11 an update of the Pentagon-approved "Project Northwoods" plan for conducting self-inflicted, false-flag terror attacks in the United States, and blaming them on a foreign enemy?

  40. Secret Government

         1. The record of criminality and sponsorship of coups around the world by the covert networks based within the US intelligence complex.
         2. Specifically also: The evidence of crime by Bush administration principals and their associates, from October Surprise to Iran-Contra and the S&L plunder to PNAC, Enron/Halliburton and beyond.

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, so now THAT is a plausible 9/11 conspiracy story.  Yeah, I guess it is, if you think about it.

----------


## Mystic7

I wonder why you would be so desperate to suppress this. It's not half obvious.

----------


## Universal Mind

Oh, so that's how it could have happened.

----------


## Mystic7

Scholars for 911 truth





> The attack of 9/11/01 was a vast crime that left vast bodies of evidence. A great deal of that evidence was destroyed in the government's response to the crime. The quantity and quality of evidence available to the public varies greatly between different aspects of the crime. For example, whereas a large public body of visual records documents the destruction of the World Trade Center, there exist only a handful of photographs showing the immediate aftermath of the Pentagon attack, and none showing the attack itself.



Content.

The World Trade Center destruction
The Pentagon attack
The crash of Flight 93
Immediate military response
Attack foreknowledge

----------


## R.D.735

Much of the evidence seems pretty circumstantial, especially the lack-of-evidence evidence. What's the strongest piece of evidence? If that stands up to scrutiny, what's the next strongest?

----------


## Mystic7

R.D.735

There is no evidence for the varies debunked fraudulent bias reports that keep changing their theory about what happened. They currently have no explanation. None. If you have read what I posted. All of it simply ISN'T circumstantial. But circumstantial evidence does play a part obviously. If you do a bit more reading then you can ask a more precise question ok? Look foward to it and good luck. My response to your question is in the other Thread  Here

----------


## Mystic7

> Oh, so that's a plausible 9/11 conspiracy scenario







> CAN ANYBODY EXPLAIN A PLAUSIBLE STORY CONCERNING HOW THE SUPPOSED 9/11 INSIDE JOB COULD HAVE EVEN POSSIBLY HAPPENED?????????







> just tell a story that is the least bit plausible whenever you are delusional enough to think you can. Do I need to explain that again?







> The idea on the 9/11 conspiracy is for you to give an even plausible form of a story YOU claim happened







> It looks like you can't even tell a possible version of an inside job story.







> Now you tell me what could have even possibly happened. Nothing could have. It is impossible. Give me some retort, if you have any.







> Are you ready to correct it and write the "real" or even possible in theory version of the story yet?







> Tell me a version of the story that could have possibly happened.




Universal mind. I noticed this is your most recent debunking technique. To just no matter what keep saying it over and over. You should know that your going to find it pretty difficult from here because atleast 2 people, myself included. Know for certain that your specifically and purposefully spreading disinfo. And a bunch of other people have mentioned your inconsistently distracting repetitiveness. And refusal to face facts. Your weaving and dodging will continue to wake others up.

----------


## Universal Mind

> Universal mind. I noticed this is your most recent debunking technique. To just no matter what keep saying it over and over. You should know that your going to find it pretty difficult from here because atleast 2 people, myself included. Know for certain that your specifically and purposefully spreading disinfo. And a bunch of other people have mentioned your inconsistently distracting repetitiveness. And refusal to face facts. Your weaving and dodging will continue to wake others up.



That does not tell me a plausible version of a story you claim happened.  

And I said I wasn't even going to ask that any more because you obviously have nothing to answer with.  So the new issue is the one R.D. raised.  What supposed evidence do you have that is not circumstantial?  Posting a link to a thread does not answer that particular question.  All of your points in that thread are bizarrely circumstantial.  

What is your best piece of evidence?  

You are so evasive.

----------


## Mystic7

> so I now have a different approach. I too want to ask if you have any evidence that is not circumstantial. Do you?



This approach will also fail. As circumstantial only makes up part of the evidence. Meanwhile I have evidence against what you claim. Always have from the beginning and always will. The truth doesn't change. Only disinfo and false theories change to stop the river of evidence becoming known. You can place a few stones in the way but your not going to stop it all. This is one thing we aren't just going to forget easily and let pass. The dam has broken and there is no way to contain what is essentially overthrowing the entire illusion of this manipulation. See the other thread for the evidence. You have already started to violate the other thread requirements if you continue I will report you to the administrators. I already said no defamation, straw man distracting or subversive irrelevant arguments. None of what you do.

----------


## Universal Mind

> This approach will also fail. As circumstantial only makes up part of the evidence. Meanwhile I have evidence against what you claim. Always have from the beginning and always will. The truth doesn't change. Only disinfo and false theories change to stop the river of evidence becoming known. You can place a few stones in the way but your not going to stop it all. This is one thing we aren't just going to forget easily and let pass. The dam has broken and there is no way to contain what is essentially overthrowing the entire illusion of this manipulation. See the other thread for the evidence. You have already started to violate the other thread requirements if you continue I will report you to the administrators. I already said no defamation, straw man distracting or subversive irrelevant arguments. None of what you do.



Go tattle, and I will point to your endless stream of personal insults, such as your calling me a liar. 





> Universal Mind your response is dishonest and more lies.







> You keep avoiding it all and trying to distract with your evasive measures because there is nothing else you can possibly do to face it.







> Universal mind you broken record



Stop breaking your own rules you decided you could make.  

Now back to the question you keep refusing to answer...  What "evidence" do you have that is not circumstantial?  Be specific.

----------


## Mystic7

Now lets look at Universal Mind and his latest set of evasive responses. With his degree in law, combined with his degree in psychology. Repetition and word games are his only strategy for success rather than using the truth. So now I will repeat his repetitiveness and failure to respond to any material relating to 911.

Common questions asked by Universal Mind in response to 911 material.





> Tell us specifically one piece of evidence



(no matter how much evidence)




> Tell a plausible 9/11 inside job story.



(no matter how plausible)




> he burden of proof is on you



(no matter how much the burden of proof is on him)




> What is your credible source for that information any way?



Even when all his sources are not credible and our sources debunk them.




> It is the accuser's job to explain the things



(No matter how much he accuser's without explanation)




> The burden is on them







> does not qualify as an argument



(no matter how much it qualifies)




> You won't make the connection between your "evidence" and your conclusion



No matter how obvious the connection.




> Burden of proof is on the maker of a claim







> That was a dodge.



No matter how much he dodges, It's the other person he accusers.




> That does not qualify as an answer.



No matter how much it qualifies.

----------


## Universal Mind

Please quote your answers to those questions.  I never saw them.  And make sure you are actually answering the full questions I asked.

----------


## Mystic7

you never ask any proper questions relating to 911 evidence. You never explain anything. You fail to discuss anything significant. You repeat  nonsense endlessly and I can never get you to give me anything that debunks all the information I give you that you refuse to read. That's because it's proven beyond a doubt and you have no choice but to ignore it. Not even one issue have you explained from my other thread. Don't pretend you have anything to base your lies and repetitiveness on. Any intelligent person can read the information I posted for themself.

----------


## Universal Mind

> you never ask any proper questions relating to 911 evidence.



Like, "How did it happen or even could it have happened?" and, "How exactly is that information 'evidence'?"  and, "What credible sources do you have?" and, "What is your argument?"   ::lol::    Oh, okay.




> You fail to discuss anything significant.



Such as the multitude of holes in your conclusion and the fact that you have not even made a connection between your premises and your conclusion?  Yeah, those issues are not significant.   ::rolllaugh:: 

P.S.-  This conversation was fun, but I think at this point you are just being stubborn and I am just torturing you.  You don't have an argument or explanations for the holes in your conclusion that you never connected to your premises, and I am not going to get you to admit that, so I am going to get off the bus here.  Good luck to you.

----------


## Mystic7

> Like, "How did it happen or even could it have happened?" and, "How exactly is that information 'evidence'?" and, "What credible sources do you have?" and, "What is your argument?"



We know how it happened. The buildings fell down because of explosives. If you ask why. Because science tells us steel metal grids don't give way like a pack of cards because of a fire.

The information is evidence because it reveals that the building doesn't fall down by itself. The sources are credible because they involve truthful and objective observations that can be verified and backed up by history. My argument is that the buildings didn't fall down without the use of explosives.

----------


## Universal Mind

> We know how it happened. The buildings fell down because of explosives. If you ask why. Because science tells us steel metal grids don't give way like a pack of cards because of a fire.
> 
> The information is evidence because it reveals that the building doesn't fall down by itself. The sources are credible because they involve truthful and objective observations that can be verified and backed up by history. My argument is that the buildings didn't fall down without the use of explosives.



Okay, you sucked me back in for one more moment, but I am through trying to debate you on this.  It is something I never could make happen, and I've put enough energy into the attempt.  But since you suddenly want to act like you want to answer questions after you thought I was finished, I want to tell you that you did not answer the right questions.  

When I asked how it happened, I was not talking about just the use of explosives.  I said that would be easy to explain.  That alone is not so far fetched.  I am asking how the whole conspiracy stunt was pulled off, not just one event in it.  Remember the questions I used to ask about how the airplanes were flown and how hijackings were faked?  The questions about why Al Qaeda confessed and engages in such acts of such terrorism now, and how so many people were rounded up without any of them leaking what happened?  Why none of the people who turned down the offer to join the conspiracy leaked?  Why demolition experts everywhere were fooled into being so silent while people like you and Memeticverb notice things they don't?  All of that stuff.  I was asking how the conspiracy was pulled off or even possibly could have been pulled off.  I was asking you to tell the story or even a plausible story, Mr. Prosecutor.  See my first post in the 9/11 Truth thread. 

When I asked how the information was evidence, I was not asking how it was merely evidence of explosives going off in the WTC.  I was asking how it was evidence of the supposed conspiracy.  How does it prove that the bizarre story happened?  Why not terrorists planting bombs?  Why not government incompetence in the areas you mentioned?  How do you get from A to Q?  That is what I was asking. 

I asked what the credible sources of your claims are.  Not "history".  That's too vague.  I am asking about information sources that have something to lose by lying.  What makes you so sure the reports are true?  I know right off some of them are false.  Telling people not to fly that day?  What?  There was nothing abnormal about air traffic numbers that morning.  Any way, I was asking specifically where you got such stuff.  

When I asked for your argument, I was asking for a syllogism style case.  An argument that starts with some premises that are verified and uses a logical step by step progression to your conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job.  You have not stated that case yet.  

I will leave it to you to answer that.  If you don't want to, I won't ask any more.  I just wanted to make sure you knew the right questions since you answered the wrong ones.

----------

