World Trade Centers were demolished on 9/11? Government Cover-up, Proof inside!

[Bladers]

How much money would it take to get you to kill 3,000 random, innocent Americans? Or, say you stumbled upon somebody else's plan to kill 3,000 innocent Americans. How much would it take to get you to stay silent afterward? A hundred dollars? Two hundred? Two hundred fifty? Well if the conspiracy guys are right, there are people reading this right now who took that deal. No kidding.

Now, maybe you could keep the plan itself a secret. A few dozen murderous black ops guys, demolitions experts with a grudge against the USA, maybe they've been brainwashed. Who knows. Maybe it could be done. People point out that the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb was kept a secret, so why not this?

But the cover-up. Holy shit, guys. Covering this thing up after the fact would be like trying to keep the atomic bomb a secret after Hiroshima. Just wait 'till you hear this.

First, picture the demolitions teams wiring up the World Trade Center towers with explosives prior to the attack. Obviously you couldn't do it during business hours, since it'd be kind of hard to explain to the 100,000 people who worked at or visited the WTC towers on any given day why you had a huge chunk of wall torn out and were wiring up a bomb on the steel beams there.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/insidewtc.jpg

I mean, keep in mind, I don't know how big of a job that would be (no one has ever demolished a building that size before) but a building just half the size of one WTC tower took 4,000 separate charges to bring down. (http://www.controlled-demolition.com/jl-hudson-department-store) Four thousand.
That job took seven months of prep work... and they had the run of an abandoned building, without having to hide their work from 100,000 people every day.

Our demolition crew, on the other hand, can work only at night and has to spend the last bit of every shift carefully repairing the wall and hiding any evidence of charges or detonators as not to be discovered during the day.

Huge teams of demolitions experts, who had no problem wiring a building full of innocent New Yorkers to explode, hired in secret, worked every night for what had to be a year (and that's only if they had a big enough crew) placing maybe 10,000 separate charges in each tower and another few thousand in WTC 7 (the smaller WTC tower that also collapsed, later in the day on 9/11).

And nobody notices.

That's right. That's the theory they're putting out there. 100,000 DVDs they've sold with this.

Truckloads of bombs, dozens of mysterious workers, going in and out of the building, night after night. Security at the building doesn't catch them, Port Authority Police don't catch them, random eyewitnesses who stumble across the operation and call the cops don't catch them, maintenance workers who stumble across wet paint and repaired walls and bits of strange wire don't catch them, security cameras don't catch them.

The bomb-sniffing dogs who were brought in from time to time (remember, these buildings were bombed by terrorists in 1993) who are trained to find even one bomb, fail to notice the 10,000 bombs lining their building.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/bombsniffer.jpg

If you're saying that nothing could possibly be more retarded than that, you're wrong.

No, they're just getting started. It's at this stage of the hypothetical plot when the 9/11 conspiracy guys say the real cover-up began. This is when all of the many, many people who could have blown the lid off the whole thing chose to stay silent because they were paid off by the government.

That includes hundreds of private researchers and government employees who prepared gigantic reports about the collapse of the towers from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

Also, officials in the New York City Fire Department.

All were written fat checks, say the conspiracy guys, to cover up the murder of 3,000 New Yorkers. Keep in mind, some of them were New Yorkers themselves - all of the FDNY guys were - and some of them had friends who died in the towers. The theory even says it was the commander of the FDNY itself who detonated one of the buildings, and therefore he was in on the decision to kill 343 of his own firefighters and 60 police officers.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/fdny.jpg

For money. If that were you... how big would that check have to be? These are people he saw every day, worked with every day. He went to weddings, birthday parties, to baseball games with these guys. In the mind of the 9/11 conspiracy, he'd kill them all for a big enough pile of cash.

Would you?

There's more. We have hundreds, if not thousands, of reporters and writers who researched the collapse, including the nine reporters and dozens of experts for the huge Popular Mechanics article on the subject.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/popularmechanics.jpg

They were paid off, too. And paid enough to walk away from the story of a lifetime, a chance to blow the lid off the conspiracy. Paid enough to refuse a sure Pulitzer and a lifetime of fame and riches as one of history's greatest heroes. And paid in such a way that no other reporters would notice and get jealous or ask questions. These people do tend to be the curious type, you know.

We're getting a nice sized payroll here. Now let's add in the hundreds of people from a dozen different agencies and police departments who claim to have helped clean up flight 93 wreckage, including 300 volunteers. The conspiracy guys say there was no plane, therefore they were paid to lie, along with all of the witnesses in Pennsylvania who claim to have seen the plane go down.

But wait, there's more. Because there are hundreds of thousands of civil engineers and structural engineers in the world (people who are experts in what makes buildings fall down) and lots of demolitions experts. Approximately zero of them say the 9/11 attacks looked like bombed buildings. All of them either say outright that the demolition theory is asinine, or are silent in the face of what the Loose Changers say is video proof of mass murder so obvious even an uneducated jackass off the street can spot it.

The conspiracy guys' explanation?

You guessed it. They were paid to stay silent. Hey, why not? Probably half a million people there, but, you know. Since we've got the checkbook out anyway...

Also, think of all of the friends and family of these paid conspirators, who suddenly see all this mysterious wealth...


http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/bling.jpg

...Wouldn't some rumors get started?

You've got some hypothetical professor who was about to write a paper proving the towers were demolished, suddenly coming into Powerball-sized wealth and abandoning the paper at the same time... his wife never let it slip? His kids didn't object? All his jealous colleagues who noticed the sudden new cars and new home and elaborate vacations, nobody asked questions?

Nobody made an anonymous call to the IRS, just out of spite? All the bank employees who noticed thousands of mysterious deposits, all of which have to be reported to the IRS, that didn't leave a trail?

I mean, we're up to a sizeable portion of the US population here. Odds are you've passed some of these people on the street.
Today.

And keep in mind, this can't be chump change. Even in a world where every structural engineering desk jockey is okay with mass murder, they're still not going to risk jail and career ruin and walk away from a huge book deal for ten grand. Oh, no, it's got to be millions, per person, just to make it worth it. Even a dedicated conspirator would need to know he or she was set for life.

Let's say they wrote 500,000 checks (hell, you've got more than 120,000 people in the American Society of Civil Engineers alone, and they'd be the first ones to speak out). Say the average payout was ten million (barely enough to live rich the rest of your life, but let's just say). So that's 500,000 times ten million which is...


...Five TRILLION dollars.

That's about half of the value of all goods and services produced in the United States last year. Therefore the 9/11 conspiracy was, in terms of payroll, the single largest employer in the history of the world.

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/conspiracycrowd.jpg

[Bladers]

And here's the kicker...

100% of the people who were offered the deal, took it.

After all, we don't have a single person who has come running into the offices of the New York Times, waving a check and saying, "look! Here's a check for ten million smackers that the government gave me to be silent about 9/11! Can you believe these assholes? Now give me my book deal!"

Not one. Even with the lure of fame and fortune and a chance to go down in history as The Guy Who Saved American Democracy, even with the crushing guilt of seeing thousands of bodies hauled out of the rubble, even seeing the horrors of a nation turned inside out by war and paranoia that was completely manufactured as a gruesome hoax, some of these people having their own friends and families and colleagues die in the attacks, not one turned down the money... or took the money and came forward anyway.

And that, is the conspiracy mindset.

It's not a belief in corrupt leaders. Hell, we all believe in corrupt leaders. It's a belief in a corrupt everybody. It's driving around in a world where every single person you see out of your windshield is utterly bloodthirsty and amoral, all except for you and a few, brave friends. What could make you feel more important than that?

http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/alexjonesbullhorn.jpg

You can see the attraction right away. Most people, to feel special, have to actually do something special. But why not do what these guys do, and just make the rest of the world out to be wretched? Hell, once we've painted everyone else as mindless or murderous, all we have to do to feel superior to them is roll out of bed.

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job_p2.html#ixzz1XzEZzOPW

[Styles p]

Tl/dr

[Sarcastic]

Am I sensing some sarcasm here?

[Maniak]

http://i53.tinypic.com/hs9cax.gif

[Bladers]

Am I sensing some sarcasm here?

Nope, that's an accurate description of how 9/11 went down by conspiracists.
I'm sure you bought the DVD 'Loose Change' right?

[nathanjizzle]

i barely read this shit and u offered no proof. Why would the gov risk getting caught planting bombs for 6 months when they could have just ran 4 747s at each building to destroy it?


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm im starting to feel sorry for you, you must or will probably going to live a terrible life at the bottom of the society. sharpen up.

[d.bball.guy]

Tb;dr

[nathanjizzle]

also let me drop some facts for your made up world.
747 weighs 900,000 pounds max
it hit the wtc at 550-600 mph.
the wtc abosorbed the total impact since the plane did not go through the other side
there were 3 explosions after impact 2 from the jets and 1 from the fuel tank

and you dont think thats not enough to bring down a sky scraper?


eliminate urself from the human gene pool please.

[Patrick Chewing]

also let me drop some facts for your made up world.
747 weighs 900,000 pounds max
it hit the wtc at 550-600 mph.
the wtc abosorbed the total impact since the plane did not go through the other side
there were 3 explosions after impact 2 from the jets and 1 from the fuel tank

and you dont think thats not enough to bring down a sky scraper?


eliminate urself from the human gene pool please.

:applause:


These clowns are more interested in WTC 7 since they obviously can't argue against towers 1 & 2

[Kungfro]

i barely read this shit and u offered no proof. Why would the gov risk getting caught planting bombs for 6 months when they could have just ran 4 747s at each building to destroy it?


:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm im starting to feel sorry for you, you must or will probably going to live a terrible life at the bottom of the society. sharpen up.

Well that much is clear. If you had you would realize it was a cracked article pointing out how crazy the 911 conspiracy theories are.

[Bladers]

also let me drop some facts for your made up world.
747 weighs 900,000 pounds max
it hit the wtc at 550-600 mph.
the wtc abosorbed the total impact since the plane did not go through the other side
there were 3 explosions after impact 2 from the jets and 1 from the fuel tank

and you dont think thats not enough to bring down a sky scraper?


eliminate urself from the human gene pool please.

No, I don't believe so. Alex Jones says it won't be enough, so no. Its not enough. They needed to strap each tower with 10,000 bombs over the period of a year and have the fire chief set it off at an approximate time they beforehand had planned.

[andgar923]

A. For those that may not be aware, Bladers is mocking the 'truthers'.

B. There are various conspiracies out there, not all are in the same camp. Some are very bizarre and have little to no validity, while others have plenty of weight behind them.

C. Most of the people that believe that the towers were brought down by explosives, don't believe that explosives were the sole reason. Most of them believe that it was a combination of things, and explosives were used to aid the collapse.

D. This piece makes the mistake of assuming that truthers believe all of the setup was done in a weekend, and that explosives were the only thing truthers believe brought it down.

E. Also.... the article is missing something very critical. In their attempt to mock truthers, they mention that the demolition team would've been caught by somebody. Fair enough, but it omits some key factors:

*If the gov was behind this, wouldn't they obtain all of the permissions and clearances necessary to not get caught?

*The bombs wouldn't be planted in the lobby were thousands of people work. They'd be planted inside the tower's infrastructure where very few people even have access, let alone venture into.

*That the thousands of people working in the towers would report construction, electrical, plumbing, etc.etc workers. Because as we all know, we all do that when we go somewhere or in our jobs. if we see a man that looks like an electrician we automatically assume that he's planting bombs, specially pre-9/11.

*This article assumes that the avg worker will even have the capability to identify a f*ckin bomb being planted. Cause as we all know, they look exactly like this:

http://www.mariowiki.com/images/2/26/SMB2_Bomb.jpg

*Oh... and then there's this FACT..... Bush's brother was in charge of the company that did security for the towers. Even if they didn't, like it was mentioned, I doubt that the gov would have little problem getting around rent-a cops and obtaining the proper (fake) permits.

F. This article keeps mentioning that many people looked into it and came away with no conclusion but to believe the official report. But overlooks the fact that many other experts don't agree with it either.

There's other shit one can dissect and address, but meh...

I know I'm already painted as a loony truther, but I'm not. I simply don't buy the official story, and believe that the gov does and did have the means and motives to pull this type of shit. I believe that if the gov is indeed involved, it was a multi faceted plan that took years to plan and orchestrate at very high levels.

Chances are, it wasn't solely explosives, but a combination of various components.

We may never find out the exact truth.

Truthers do jump to conclusions and even manufacture shit to justify their theories.

But I'm still more willing to believe that a multi billion dollar organization with the connections and motives is more responsible, than a ragtag group of bad pilots pulling off the greatest attack in US soil history. Not just attacking and embarrassing the US defense one time, but several times in the same day. And achieving feats that they've never came close to in simulators.

And.... why did Russo get a warning by a Rockefeller and proceeded to get a description of the events that would follow, even years after this "event"?

[bagelred]

Andgar laying the smackdown on Bladers.

[andgar923]

Another mistake that the article keeps making.

It assumes that the gov had to bribe thousands of people.

Why?

If the gov was gonna do something of this nature, those with the knowledge would be cherry picked. The people carrying out the missions would be cherry picked. And even then, not everybody doing everything knows everything that they're tasked to do. Now... let us suppose that everybody is keenly aware of what will transpire, not only were they selected for this project because they could be trusted, there's also contracts that they must oblige too. Forget bribing somebody, how about they just get executed for treason? You're not afraid? how about the gov goes after your family instead... how's that for keeping your mouth shut? And of course, they'll also get a nice lump of change for their loyalty. The amount of money they'd have to pay out is NOTHING compared to the amount of revenue that the planners will gain after the attacks are done.

Officials, contract soldiers/experts do shit that is as bad and worse often.

These people are already cold blooded, and really don't give a **** as it is. The same reason why US Soldiers can follow orders and kill their own civilians. The same reason why officials sign laws that hurt Americans and put money in their pockets. The same reason why companies do shit knowing damn well will hurt people.

People act as tho evil shit isn't done to us every day, by ordinary and evil people.

Our government, and governments around the world have always lied, killed, imprisoned, covered-up, exploited its own citizens. This is nothing new, and it will never end. Our government has systematically done shit to us for years that's 100X worse than 9/11 and they feel no pity.

[IcanzIIravor]

Another mistake that the article keeps making.

It assumes that the gov had to bribe thousands of people.

Why?

If the gov was gonna do something of this nature, those with the knowledge would be cherry picked. The people carrying out the missions would be cherry picked. And even then, not everybody doing everything knows everything that they're tasked to do. Now... let us suppose that everybody is keenly aware of what will transpire, not only were they selected for this project because they could be trusted, there's also contracts that they must oblige too. Forget bribing somebody, how about they just get executed for treason? You're not afraid? how about the gov goes after your family instead... how's that for keeping your mouth shut? And of course, they'll also get a nice lump of change for their loyalty. The amount of money they'd have to pay out is NOTHING compared to the amount of revenue that the planners will gain after the attacks are done.

Officials, contract soldiers/experts do shit that is as bad and worse often.

These people are already cold blooded, and really don't give a **** as it is. The same reason why US Soldiers can follow orders and kill their own civilians. The same reason why officials sign laws that hurt Americans and put money in their pockets. The same reason why companies do shit knowing damn well will hurt people.

People act as tho evil shit isn't done to us every day, by ordinary and evil people.

Our government, and governments around the world have always lied, killed, imprisoned, covered-up, exploited its own citizens. This is nothing new, and it will never end. Our government has systematically done shit to us for years that's 100X worse than 9/11 and they feel no pity.

I think you have watched one too many movies.

[bballer]

tl;dr

[IcanzIIravor]

Gulf of Tonkin incident was a lie

That was in the 60's when it was a helluva lot easier for the government to cover things up. We live in a more paranoid society when it comes to government and the 24/7 media. Do people really think that the government could sneak that amount of explosives into a known terrorist target and the security that worked their as well as the people who worked there wouldn't have noticed something amiss? The intel agencies had no love of the Bush administration during that time period either, so I can't see the entire intel community being co-conspirators in this nor those high up the chain. It's one thing to talk about something in another country, but the sheer logistics needed to carry off such a conspiracy with regards to something with so much intel trained on it, while also in league with AQ? Mind boggling people believe it. The AQ portion alone doesn't pass the common sense test or is it in this scenario AQ unknowingly helped the government?

[Meticode]

I read the whole thing, but it's not even worth my time to make a comment on it because of the ridiculousness of it.

[andgar923]

I think you have watched one too many movies.

So there's no top secret missions? hate to tell you this, but you're not everybody is privileged to everything. And even then, would you tell us about them? There's documents that don't get revealed until decades later, cover ups that see the light until years later even tho some have theorized of their existence.

Are you also telling us that the government 'our' government hasn't acted against its own citizens? do you seriously want to go there?

And do you really want us to start showing how our government does shit that's only in their self interests? how tons of pork barrel projects take priority over what's best for us the citizens? how the government makes decisions knowing will also hurt their soldiers?

Shit... almost every war we've gone too was based on a LIE. Yeah I said it, you guys are dying for greedy bastards.

It isn't even a theory anymore, that our government (the government you work for) has been smuggling drugs and weapons, killing and imprisoning innocent people, infecting us with man made diseases (using us as lab rats), yeah.... all this shit is documented... not a movie dude.

But of course, what do I know?

Who am I to question the official report/story?

But what about them:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

[Bladers]

I read the whole thing, but it's not even worth my time to make a comment on it because of the ridiculousness of it.

the theory or the article?

If you mean the theory then I wholely agree.

[andgar923]

Btw.... I'm sorry of accusing our government of lying and covering up some of its evil deeds. They've never done and will never do anything to hurt us in any way.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

Btw... I'm just warming up.

[Lebron23]

http://i53.tinypic.com/hs9cax.gif


Holy $hit.

[Meticode]

Btw.... I'm sorry of accusing our government of lying and covering up some of its evil deeds. They've never done and will never do anything to hurt us in any way.

Nope.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_experimentation_in_the_United_States

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/native-americans.html

Btw... I'm just warming up.
There's a big difference. Those things actually happened. A 9/11 conspiracy cover-up didn't. End of story.

[andgar923]

There's a big difference. Those things actually happened. A 9/11 conspiracy cover-up didn't. End of story.

You're missing my main point.

But you're also wrong, since even those involved in the 9/11 commission have mentioned that there has been a cover up of sorts.

[QUOTE]Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission

[Dwade305]

Bladers, 9/11 topic was not a good trolling topic for you, cause andgar gave it to you so deep you were screaming "Godbe help me". Back to Kobe or religion trolling, is my adivce to you my brotha.

[bagelred]

There's a big difference. Those things actually happened. A 9/11 conspiracy cover-up didn't. End of story.

Great analysis. :rolleyes:

[tontoz]

but a building just half the size of one WTC tower took 4,000 separate charges to bring down. Four thousand.
That job took seven months of prep work... and they had the run of an abandoned building, without having to hide their work from 100,000 people every day.


That won't sway any of the trufers though. Common sense doesn't come into play with them.

[bagelred]

That won't sway any of the trufers though. Common sense doesn't come into play with them.

That's right. When you have all the evidence on your side, you aren't convinced by lame and weak arguments.

You would try to use your logic to claim "the world is flat", and then you'd state, "you can't sway these 'earth is round' nutjobs. common sense doesn't come into play with them."

Tontoz, king of stupidity.

[Doranku]

andgar. :bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown:

[RaininThrees]

That's right. When you have all the evidence on your side, you aren't convinced by lame and weak arguments.

You would try to use your logic to claim "the world is flat", and then you'd state, "you can't sway these 'earth is round' nutjobs. common sense doesn't come into play with them."

Tontoz, king of stupidity.

That's some faulty logic.

You're making a big assumption that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. The burden is on conspiracy theorists to prove that planes did not bring the buildings down, not the other way around. That burden hasn't even come close to being met with cold, hard evidence.

[tontoz]

That's right. When you have all the evidence on your side, you aren't convinced by lame and weak arguments.

You would try to use your logic to claim "the world is flat", and then you'd state, "you can't sway these 'earth is round' nutjobs. common sense doesn't come into play with them."

Tontoz, king of stupidity.


and what evidence is that? :roll:

This from a guy whose idea of a reasoned argument is ...... "BOOM".

[bagelred]

You're making a big assumption that you are correct and everyone else is wrong. The burden is on conspiracy theorists to prove that planes did not bring the buildings down, not the other way around. That burden hasn't even come close to being met with cold, hard evidence.

The burden of proof is on you to say it wasn't controlled demolition, since all the evidence points to a CD. The burden of proof is on you to prove it was Osama Bin Laden, 19 guys from a cave that did 9/11 without any help from anyone else in the U.S. Since its completely implausible, why don't you come back with all that proof first and then we'll talk.

Oh wait, there IS no proof of that. That would be impossible.

come back with all the proof, and then we'll talk again.

[OhNoTimNoSho]

I think my favorite part of the conspiracy theorists is how no matter how many logical points are presented against their argument they just ignore them.

and I dunno if the guy above me was serious, but the burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists. If the argument is that planes brought down the building and there is video of a plane crashing into a building, then thats proof... Or your just arguing the wrong points and need to restructure your argument.

[Bigsmoke]

http://i130.photobucket.com/albums/p278/bjg80777/jeru.jpg

[niko]

it was funny, i was pretty far away when plane 2 hit, and you heard, felt the impact. those planes hit HARD. and when the first building fell, the second one was going, because it was literally like a massive earthquake was occuring right next to it. I always felt the logical "conspiracy" theory if there is such a thing is that Bush found out about what was happening, let it occur, and then took advantage. The thought he planned it, with missles shooting down other planes ,building 7 being demolished for a random reason, bombs placed everywhere, etc. is so completely ludicrous it's amazing.

[tontoz]

I think my favorite part of the conspiracy theorists is how no matter how many logical points are presented against their argument they just ignore them.




Cases in point.

No controlled demolition in history has looked like the top down collapse of the twin towers yet the trufers insist the collapses looked like a controlled demolition.

Loose debris falling next to the twin towers fell much faster than the building itself. Pictures and video clearly show this but the trufers still claim the collapses happened at free fall speed.

:facepalm

[niko]

The burden of proof is on you to say it wasn't controlled demolition, since all the evidence points to a CD. The burden of proof is on you to prove it was Osama Bin Laden, 19 guys from a cave that did 9/11 without any help from anyone else in the U.S. Since its completely implausible, why don't you come back with all that proof first and then we'll talk.

Oh wait, there IS no proof of that. That would be impossible.

come back with all the proof, and then we'll talk again.
no, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the non-accepted, more extraordinary accusation. You can't do what you did. It's like me saying aliens exist and telling you to disprove it.

What i don't get is people lay out all these "facts" (which have no real backup except being listed out) but ignore the fact it's illogical. Murder plots, etc. have logical reasons for occuring. You need "logic". Bush creating a plan which was 10 bazillion times more difficult than needed to accomplish what he wanted makes no sense.

Case in point: planes flew into buildings. People were ****ing FREAKED out. Why the pressing need to knock down the buildings? Especially building 7? Who none of you knew existed prior to it falling?

[bagelred]

I like this video. This guy is some hillbilly in the South and even HE understands this. I wouldn't let this guy represent the 9/11 Truth Movement (:lol ), but he is essentially summing up what others more intelligently and using basics physics properties prove. Even a guy with a 7th grade education gets it. Just watch (it's only 3 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M

If you feel there is a flaw in his logic, explain what the flaw is. Don't just call him a "troofer" and say you debunked it. Explain the flaw if you think he's wrong.

[niko]

YOu want the truth?

Terrorists attacked out country. Terrorist attacks happen all the time. Our airline security pre 9-11 was shit.

Then, our president used the feelings afterwards to push through an agenda i think not only didn't accomplish what it should have (making us safer) but even attacked countries we couldn't really prove were involved (like Iraq).

I always thought the interesting thing was "did he know prior?" But we will never discuss that, because dumbasses want this all to be a James Bond movie plot based on youtube scientists claims.

:facepalm

[bagelred]

no, the burden of proof is on the person presenting the non-accepted, more extraordinary accusation. You can't do what you did. It's like me saying aliens exist and telling you to disprove it.


Wrong. The conspiracy theory is thinking 19 guys, with no inside help, with no real motive, with no real means, can outsmart and outthink the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, The entire military establishment, local law enforcement...somehow managed miraculously to highjack 4 planes simultaenously, successful hijack them with no guns, explosives, or even knives, just box cutters, without any resistance from passengers, and trained flight personnel, manage to successful take control of the planes, with limited flight experience........then miraculously hit 3 of their 4 targets absolutely perfectly without any resistance from the military, even hitting the most protected building in the world known as the pentagon.

If this wasn't all mathematically improbable to say the least, the two plane crashes just happen to cause the absolute complete and total collapse of two architecturally sound buildings that have absolutely no damage below the 80 floors or so underneath it, causing the entire strucure to dissintegrate into absolute rubble without any resistance from the structure whatsoever.......collapsing and dissintegrating at "freefall speed".

Oh, and another building not hit by a plane, with minimal fires, just happen to also completely dissintegrate entirely in which had every single property of a controlled demolition. Miraculously again.

Wait......and WE are the ones with the burden of proof. :lol

[tontoz]

Wrong. The conspiracy theory is thinking 19 guys, with no inside help, with no real motive, with no real means,


Typical. Just make stuff up and pretend it is true. Osama was rich. Their organization did not lack for funding and they absolutely hated the United States. They were celebrating when the towers fell AND claimed responsibilty for it.

That world inside your head bears no resemblence to reality.

[niko]

Wrong. The conspiracy theory is thinking 19 guys, with no inside help, with no real motive, with no real means, can outsmart and outthink the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, The entire military establishment, local law enforcement...somehow managed miraculously to highjack 4 planes simultaenously, successful hijack them with no guns, explosives, or even knives, just box cutters, without any resistance from passengers, and trained flight personnel, manage to successful take control of the planes, with limited flight experience........then miraculously hit 3 of their 4 targets absolutely perfectly without any resistance from the military, even hitting the most protected building in the world known as the pentagon.

If this wasn't all mathematically improbable to say the least, the two plane crashes just happen to cause the absolute complete and total collapse of two architecturally sound buildings that have absolutely no damage below the 80 floors or so underneath it, causing the entire strucure to dissintegrate into absolute rubble without any resistance from the structure whatsoever.......collapsing and dissintegrating at "freefall speed".

Oh, and another building not hit by a plane, with minimal fires, just happen to also completely dissintegrate entirely in which had every single property of a controlled demolition. Miraculously again.

Wait......and WE are the ones with the burden of proof. :lol

Your theory includes a shitload more than 19 people. and yes, the burden of proof is on you because YOU are the one with the non accepted theory. That is how, historically these type of discussions work, how they need to work. Sorry...

are you going to start talking about building 7 again? I love those discussions. i always say "why building 7" and get either a) ignored or b) told it's a side conspiracy about insurance dollars. :facepalm

i'm glad i'm 40 because in another 40 years with everyone thinking they are a genius due to the internet this world is goign to be shit and ill be too senile to know.

[GOBB]

So what was the purpose to bring down WTC 7 with controlled demolition? Why werent other buildings rigged to be brought down? Why not the Empire state building?

[GOBB]

are you going to start talking about building 7 again? I love those discussions. i always say "why building 7" and get either a) ignored or b) told it's a side conspiracy about insurance dollars. :facepalm

He's probably searching youtube for a video to answer that.

[RaininThrees]

Your theory includes a shitload more than 19 people. and yes, the burden of proof is on you because YOU are the one with the non accepted theory. That is how, historically these type of discussions work, how they need to work. Sorry...

are you going to start talking about building 7 again? I love those discussions. i always say "why building 7" and get either a) ignored or b) told it's a side conspiracy about insurance dollars. :facepalm

i'm glad i'm 40 because in another 40 years with everyone thinking they are a genius due to the internet this world is goign to be shit and ill be too senile to know.

He simply doesn't understand what the concept of 'burden of proof' is.

[tontoz]

are you going to start talking about building 7 again? I love those discussions. i always say "why building 7" and get either a) ignored or b) told it's a side conspiracy about insurance dollars. :facepalm



And insurance would have paid the exact same amount if the building didn't fall, just like it did with the other WTC buildings that were heavily damaged by didn't actually fall.

[bagelred]

So the "accepted" answer doesn't have any burden of proof? Is that the way it works?

I guess Christianity is the "accepted" answer and we all have to prove Jesus DIDN'T exist and DIDN'T perform those miracles. I guess that would make sense too.

So did anyone watch the hillbilly's video on the previous page? Comment on it.

[tontoz]

So the "accepted" answer doesn't have any burden of proof?


If you say Bigfoot exists the burden of proof is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove it.


So did anyone watch the hillbilly's video on the previous page? Comment on it.[/

I can't watch vids at work but when i go home and point out the obvious flaws in this one you will just post another one. That is how you clowns operate.

[bagelred]

If you say Bigfoot exists the burden of proof is on you to prove it. The burden of proof is not on us to disprove it.



YOUR the one saying Bigfoot exists. Bigfoot is Osama Bin Laden.

[tontoz]

YOUR the one saying Bigfoot exists. Bigfoot is Osama Bin Laden.


Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibity for the attacks and his organization had a long history of terrorist attacks before 9-11. They had attacked the WTC before.

you might as well say the sky is purple.

[tontoz]

Bin Laden quotes before 9-11.


In this section of his statement, Tenet refers to the February 1998 fatwa. Tenet quotes from that fatwa, BUT HE LEAVES OUT THE WHY BY NOT QUOTING THIS FULL SENTENCE: "The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim."






"In February 1998, six months prior to the US Embassy bombings in East Africa, al-Qa'ida-under the banner of the "World Islamic Front for Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders"-issued another fatwa stating that all Muslims have a religious duty "to kill Americans and their allies, both civilian and military" worldwide."




Osama bin Ladin: The call to wage war against America was made because America has spear-headed the crusade against the Islamic nation, sending tens of thousands of its troops to the land of the two Holy Mosques over and above its meddling in its affairs and its politics, and its support of the oppressive, corrupt and tyrannical regime that is in control. These are the reasons behind the singling out of America as a target.


http://www.representativepress.org/Intelligence.html


This is the guy bagelred says had no motive for the 9-11 attacks. :roll:

[FatComputerNerd]

If you want the truth just go here: NOT SAFE FOR WORK (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Jews_did_911)

[OhNoTimNoSho]

Wrong. The conspiracy theory is thinking 19 guys, with no inside help, with no real motive, with no real means, can outsmart and outthink the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, The entire military establishment, local law enforcement...somehow managed miraculously to highjack 4 planes simultaenously, successful hijack them with no guns, explosives, or even knives, just box cutters, without any resistance from passengers, and trained flight personnel, manage to successful take control of the planes, with limited flight experience........then miraculously hit 3 of their 4 targets absolutely perfectly without any resistance from the military, even hitting the most protected building in the world known as the pentagon.

If this wasn't all mathematically improbable to say the least, the two plane crashes just happen to cause the absolute complete and total collapse of two architecturally sound buildings that have absolutely no damage below the 80 floors or so underneath it, causing the entire strucure to dissintegrate into absolute rubble without any resistance from the structure whatsoever.......collapsing and dissintegrating at "freefall speed".

Oh, and another building not hit by a plane, with minimal fires, just happen to also completely dissintegrate entirely in which had every single property of a controlled demolition. Miraculously again.

Wait......and WE are the ones with the burden of proof. :lol

The burden of proof is on you to prove that all those things didn't happen like that... You are the one challenging the viewpoints which have plenty of facts and logic backing them up. While improbable, its not impossible for terrorists to take over planes and fly them into buildings causing them to collapse. OTOH it is EXTREMELY improbable for the government to carry out a highly complex plan involving hundreds if not thousands of people, working in such a meticulous way where not even a single detail or factor is missed to the point where not a single trace of this amazingly diabolical plan exists. Not to mention that all the people carrying out the plan all swore to secrecy, all don't mind being murderers, all are incredibly loyal to the cause, and also so smart that they wouldnt mess up at any point. sooo.... u tell me where u think the burden of proof lies

[thatoneblackguy]

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw



I have yet to hear an opposition to this evidence.

[GOBB]

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw



I have yet to hear an opposition to this evidence.

I love conspiracy theorists who want their questions answered when they havent picked up a pencil and starting answering their own. :rolleyes:

Many big buildings in NYC, what made WTC 7 more special than the other WTC buildings that werent brought down through this controlled demolition? Both WTC towers and WTC had crews rigging it with explosives and no one noticed them or a thing?

When the planes struck why didnt they just detonate the buildings as opposed to waiting and hour or so? They could have killed way more people this way than they did. Was their a death limit?

[thatoneblackguy]

I love conspiracy theorists who want their questions answered when they havent picked up a pencil and starting answering their own. :rolleyes:

Many big buildings in NYC, what made WTC 7 more special than the other WTC buildings that werent brought down through this controlled demolition? Both WTC towers and WTC had crews rigging it with explosives and no one noticed them or a thing?

When the planes struck why didnt they just detonate the buildings as opposed to waiting and hour or so? They could have killed way more people this way than they did. Was their a death limit?
:rolleyes: You clearly haven't even watched the video. This man conducts his own experiment, no conspiracy bullshit. Experimentation.

Come back once you've watched the video, if you're too scared I understand.

[thatoneblackguy]

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

[GOBB]

:rolleyes: You clearly haven't even watched the video. This man conducts his own experiment, no conspiracy bullshit. Experimentation.

Come back once you've watched the video, if you're too scared I understand.

I love conspiracy theorists who want their questions answered when they havent picked up a pencil and starting answering their own.

As predicted. :roll:

[thatoneblackguy]

I love conspiracy theorists who want their questions answered when they havent picked up a pencil and starting answering their own.

As predicted. :roll:
Still haven't watched the video. Typical scared idiot that is blind and doesn't want to see experimentation that will destroy his argument. :oldlol: You really don't have a counter to the evidence provided in that video and it's funny watching you copy and paste the same thing over like a robot.

Too easy. :rolleyes:

[Manslavedave11]

New video by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. In this video there are over 43 highly credentialed experts. Most importantly none of them are getting paid by the government! I know that the handful of morons led by Tontoz will never watch



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

[GOBB]

Still haven't watched the video. Typical scared idiot that is blind and doesn't want to see experimentation that will destroy his argument. :oldlol: You really don't have a counter to the evidence provided in that video and it's funny watching you copy and paste the same thing over like a robot.

Too easy. :rolleyes:

I watched the video the first time you posted in which you made your own thread.

Keep failing tho kid and like a conspiracy theorists avoid questions thrown at them.

[thatoneblackguy]

I watched the video the first time you posted in which you made your own thread.

Keep failing tho kid and like a conspiracy theorists avoid questions thrown at them.
You have nothing to say about the evidence provided then? Anything about the video directly? :confusedshrug:
You do a good job at avoiding the evidence.

Oh, and if you're going to call me a kid then please don't spell like a kid. How old are you again?

[B]

9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw



I have yet to hear an opposition to this evidence.Instead of posting youtube videos why don't you explain to everyone exactly what you want to discuss without links or using other peoples words so we can see you actually have a small grasp on the topic.

That way people who might be interested in discussing it with you will know they won't be wasting their time trying to discuss this with a moron who only knows how to post links to youtube ala Bagelred

[thatoneblackguy]

[QUOTE=B

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=B

[KevinNYC]

The burden of proof is on you to say it wasn't controlled demolition, since all the evidence points to a CD. The burden of proof is on you to prove it was Osama Bin Laden, 19 guys from a cave that did 9/11 without any help from anyone else in the U.S. Since its completely implausible, why don't you come back with all that proof first and then we'll talk.

Oh wait, there IS no proof of that. That would be impossible.

come back with all the proof, and then we'll talk again.

The guy we thought was living in a cave was actually living in a fairly nice compound when we got him. Also he wasn't he a cave prior to 9/11. So what you actually mean is visiting a cave. The 19 guys who executed the plan were in caves either, they were in Germany and Florida and California and attending flight school. The lead guy who executed the plan, study architecture in Cairo and then learned German and went to Grad School in a German technical school. So your point is stupid than wrong.

Your idea that it was a control demolition is ridiculous as well, considering you mistake the crashing of the tops floors into the lower floors and pulverizing them into dust as the building pancaked to be "explosions." Explosions that didn't generate any heat or light or noise like you would see in a controlled demolition.

You ought to be forced to changed your name. You're not worthy of bagel.

[thatoneblackguy]

Because they can't make a coherent argument on their own. There argument is always "watch this vid" and then when that vid gets punk'd its "watch this vid". It is an endless cycle.

Meanwhile they ignore the elephant in the room.
I'm not here to argue preschool shit with words, I'm here to provide experimentation and proof. Watch the video and then try to "punk" it. The man does his own experimentation, it's all explained in the video. C'mon people, this isn't brain surgery.

[tontoz]

Alright, watch the video and then try to "punk" it. The man does his own experimentation, it's all explained in the video. C'mon people, this isn't brain surgery.


Some of us can't watch vids at work.

If it is so simple then why can't you explain what happens? I guess you are to simple to explain a simple vid.

[B]

Is that really all you have to say? Directly insulting me yet ignoring the video. I'm here to discuss the video, that's why I posted the link. Those who watch it I will have a discussion with them. It's not that hard to understand, maybe for you it is. I'm here to discuss PROOF, and EXPERIMENTATION, and EVIDENCE. None of your preschool crap.
I rest my case, you have no grasp on the topic other than what you can find on youtube. I asked you to share YOUR thoughts not someone else's and that's your reply. watch the movie. I've seen that clip it's not new. I've read that theory and researched it and it has never been proven because the very foundation of it is not rooted in fact. Alex Jones have been beating this drum since 2006 or earlier

[thatoneblackguy]

Some of us can't watch vids at work.

If it is so simple then why can't you explain what happens? I guess you are to simple to explain a simple vid.
Because that's the thing, it's not SIMPLE.

There is countless amounts of sources and information provided with actual experimentation and proof in the video. Once you're off work, if you have free time, check it out. That's all I ask.

[thatoneblackguy]

[QUOTE=B

[RaininThrees]

I'm not here to argue preschool shit with words, I'm here to provide experimentation and proof. Watch the video and then try to "punk" it. The man does his own experimentation, it's all explained in the video. C'mon people, this isn't brain surgery.

Can you explain the experiments? Can you personally verify that what he's doing isn't scientifically inaccurate? Have you done any research on the people in the video, what their backgrounds are, what their level of education is?

Or have you simply watched the video, and taken what they've said at face value? Are YOU a conspiracy 'sheep'.

[tontoz]

Because that's the thing, it's not SIMPLE.

There is countless amounts of sources and information provided with actual experimentation and proof in the video. Once you're off work, if you have free time, check it out. That's all I ask.


So how many vids is that so far? That is at least 3 vids in this thread that i can remember people telling me to watch.

I have seen these dumbass "watch this vid" argument before and in every case the vids have been a joke and a waste of time.

[thatoneblackguy]

Can you explain the experiments? Can you personally verify that what he's doing isn't scientifically inaccurate? Have you done any research on the people in the video, what their backgrounds are, what their level of education is?

Or have you simply watched the video, and taken what they've said at face value? Are YOU a conspiracy 'sheep'.
Yes, I've done loads of research on the background of this man and I even went to the college this man attended and spoke to his professors! :facepalm

[thatoneblackguy]

So how many vids is that so far? That is at least 3 vids in this thread that i can remember people telling me to watch.

I have seen these dumbass "watch this vid" argument before and in every case the vids have been a joke and a waste of time.
None of those videos are related to this one because this one has actual experimentation and proof. If you don't want to watch, I understand. I would be scared too.

I have not yet heard one counter to the evidence provided in this video.

[tontoz]

My thoughts? My thoughts are nobody can find out how this mysterious piece of eutectic steel formed, and there is only one answer to that. If you're smart, you would know.

I rest my case.


So you can't be bothered to explain what this eutectic steel is and why it is significant but you expect us to take the time to watch the vid. Typical.

[bagelred]

Even tontoz can understand this guy. He talks on your level, but its as simple as your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M

[thatoneblackguy]

So you can't be bothered to explain what this eutectic steel is and why it is significant but you expect us to take the time to watch the vid. Typical.
This eutectic steel was found in the rubble of WTC 7 and has a "swiss cheese" appearance to it. No scientists or experts can figure out how this "swiss cheese" appearance formed because every other piece of steel has been smashed and/or bent but this one has holes in it. It's significant because nobody can explain how holes were implemented into the steel and he conducts his own experiments proving that the steel can't experience holes from just burning. He burns the steel and the same temperatures provided and lets it burn over night. Which leads to a scary conclusion.

And there's your VERY simple breakdown.

[tontoz]

This eutectic steel was found in the rubble of WTC 7 and has a "swiss cheese" appearance to it. No scientists or experts can figure out how this "swiss cheese" appearance formed because every other piece of steel has been smashed and/or bent but this one has holes in it. It's significant because nobody can explain how holes were implemented into the steel and he conducts his own experiments proving that the steel can't experience holes from just burning. He burns the steel and the same temperatures provided and lets it burn over night. Which leads to a scary conclusion.

And there's your VERY simple breakdown.



And this is proof of what?

Funny that this is about WTC7. Why was that building brought down at all? Why not just leave it standing? What did bringing it down accomplish?

[tontoz]

Even tontoz can understand this guy. He talks on your level, but its as simple as your mind:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M


So that makes a least 4 vids i am supposed to watch when i get home, and of course there is no explanation here either. :rolleyes:

[thatoneblackguy]

And this is proof of what?


Proof that steel collapsed and burned doesn't create a "swiss cheese" appearance and that there had to be another source that created these holes.

[thatoneblackguy]

So that makes a least 4 vids i am supposed to watch when i get home, and of course there is no explanation here either. :rolleyes:
Don't get trolled tontoz. The only one you should watch is 9/11 Experiments: The Mysterious Eutectic Steel.

[tontoz]

Proof that steel collapsed and burned doesn't create a "swiss cheese" appearance and that there had to be another source that created these holes.

So what did cause the holes?

I say again what is this proof of? And why did these so called conspirators bring down WTC7 at all?

If you can't explain the motive for the demolition of WTC7 that leaves a hole in your argument that is a lot bigger than the holes in swiss cheese.

[B]

This eutectic steel was found in the rubble of WTC 7 and has a "swiss cheese" appearance to it. No scientists or experts can figure out how this "swiss cheese" appearance formed because every other piece of steel has been smashed and/or bent but this one has holes in it. It's significant because nobody can explain how holes were implemented into the steel and he conducts his own experiments proving that the steel can't experience holes from just burning. He burns the steel and the same temperatures provided and lets it burn over night. Which leads to a scary conclusion.

And there's your VERY simple breakdown.
So what caused it? How does this lead to proof of a conspiracy

[thatoneblackguy]

So what did cause the holes?


That's exactly it, nobody knows. But it's pretty suspicious. It's proof that there had to be another source that made the steel form that way.

I'm not here to discuss why, because that's pointless and obvious and goes nowhere. I'm here to talk facts, and the man that conducted the experiment showed facts that steel is not suppose to have a "swiss cheese" appearance after falling and burning.

[thatoneblackguy]

[QUOTE=B

[tontoz]

Nobody knows what caused it, that's the mystery. There's obviously suspicion, but the steel was not formed that way just because of falling and burning. There was another source that caused it.


So it doesn't prove anything. That's really special.

I do have a question though. When exactly was this steel first discovered?

[OhNoTimNoSho]

[QUOTE=B

[thatoneblackguy]

So it doesn't prove anything. That's really special.

I do have a question though. When exactly was this steel first discovered?
It's proves that steel falling and burning doesn't cause a swiss cheese appearance. How many times do I need to tell you that? There was ANOTHER SOURCE. That's the proof. "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the samples... are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." - FEMA Report Appendix 'C'."



Prof. Jonathan Barnett (Fire Protection Engineer) Found 1" thick column from WTC 7 reduced to half-inch thichkness with gaping holes, curled like a paper scroll, thinned to almost razor sharpness with a "Swiss cheese" appearance.

Materials Science Professors at Worchester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations on the steel.


No date on exactly when.

[B]

Nobody knows what caused it, that's the mystery. There's obviously suspicion, but the steel was not formed that way just because of falling and burning. There was another source that caused it.
So that somehow means a conspiracy took place because nobody knows how it happened. Just because something is a mystery doesn't mean it's a conspiracy. Things happen sometimes that can't be explained easily BUT somehow conspiracy people have decided that if it can't be explained easily then that easily means it's part of the conspiracy




Here's a read by somebody that watched that video and gives reasons why the experiment is off, you'll have to read, sorry no video link. It's from another forum i follow on this subject.

[QUOTE]There are quite a few errors.

1:36 - "they mentioned the mysterious eutectic mixture that attacked the steel"


Basically this guy doesn't know what a eutectic is. It's not surprising because unless you've done a degree course where physical chemistry has been taught then you are not going to know.

A eutectic point is simply the point of solidification of a (single phase) liquid to a two phase solid at a specific composition and temperature in the binary phase diagram. (Obviously eutectics occur with more than two phases but this is the simplest). Yes this point is lower than the melting point of any other composition on the phase equilibrium diagram, but there is nothing mysterious about eutectics or eutectoids nor the Fe-S-O point at around 940

[tontoz]

It's proves that steel falling and burning doesn't cause a swiss cheese appearance. How many times do I need to tell you that? There was ANOTHER SOURCE. That's the proof. "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of the samples... are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified." - FEMA Report Appendix 'C'."



Prof. Jonathan Barnett (Fire Protection Engineer) Found 1" thick column from WTC 7 reduced to half-inch thichkness with gaping holes, curled like a paper scroll, thinned to almost razor sharpness with a "Swiss cheese" appearance.

Materials Science Professors at Worchester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations on the steel.


No date on exactly when.


Like i said it doesn't prove anything. FYI steel does melt in heat. Therefore of part of the steel is exposed to move heat that neighboring steel then that would mean only part of the steel would melt.

I would bet that this guy did his "experiment" with a constant temperature.

Also the cleanup process has to be taken into account. Since you dont provide a time frame it is a safe bet this steel wasn't discovered until weeks after the collapse. That means that the steel could have been caused by something that happened after the collapse.

It looks like some people with some experience in metalurgy had some fun with your vid. I am assuming it is the same one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6744872


So in summary my resonse to this is.....


*yawn*


Edit: lol bobo you were quicker than me :)

[GOBB]

Like i said it doesn't prove anything. FYI steel does melt in heat. Therefore of part of the steel is exposed to move heat that neighboring steel then that would mean only part of the steel would melt.

I would bet that this guy did his "experiment" with a constant temperature.

Also the cleanup process has to be taken into account. Since you dont provide a time frame it is a safe bet this steel wasn't discovered until weeks after the collapse. That means that the steel could have been caused by something that happened after the collapse.

It looks like some people with some experience in metalurgy had some fun with your vid. I am assuming it is the same one.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6744872


So in summary my resonse to this is.....


*yawn*

Yup thats the video he posted they are discussing.

Also found this funny, 2nd reply...


meh. Just another grade-school-level inntellect playing with fire. Big doofus forgot to add things that we know were in the pile, like water, sulphuric acid and copper.

Another waste of bandwidth.

:roll:

[thatoneblackguy]

LOL @ everyone believing a bum on the internet, when this man conducted his own experiments. It's like screaming at a wall. :facepalm

[GOBB]

LOL @ everyone believing a bum on the internet, when this man conducted his own experiments. It's like screaming at a wall. :facepalm

Are you going to answer my questions or no?

[thatoneblackguy]

Are you going to answer my questions or no?
I have the same questions as you brother.

[tontoz]

LOL @ everyone believing a bum on the internet, when this man conducted his own experiments. It's like screaming at a wall. :facepalm


Let's see if i got this straight.

-You do not have a motive for bringing down WTC7.

-Your link showed an experiment which was not representative of the conditions under WTC7 and which by your own admission does not prove that there was a controlled demolition.

So what exactly did you expect to accomplish by posting this vid? :confusedshrug:

[thatoneblackguy]

-You do not have a motive for bringing down WTC7.


The motives for bringing down WTC7 are obvious and you are dumb if you really don't know, plus it goes nowhere. It doesn't matter.

The funniest part is you haven't even watched the video yet you are criticizing it.

[Bladers]

blackone, what exactly do you believe? there are so many variants of conspiracy theories out there its insane. Each having almost the same number of people who believe them.

A) There were no planes. The government used a hologram to simulate the planes. There were no civilian deaths, everyone got out of the building before it fell. And the videos of people standing on the edge of the building and those who jumped are all fakes.

B) There were planes. But they were government remote controlled plane that hit the towers. There were no passengers or hijackers. There were no civilian casualties, all building personnel was out before they demolished it and the jumpers were fake.

C) There were planes, and it were hijacked commercial plane. But both towers were rigged with 10,000 bombs each and blew up at the appointed time. The pentagon was also hit by a missile or some sort of bomb.


So which camp are you in?

By the way, here's a video of several jumpers (about 10) A total of 200 jumped that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKCigrktlTE
Don't watch if you have a weak stomach. :(

[tontoz]

The motives for bringing down WTC7 are obvious and you are dumb if you really don't know, plus it goes nowhere. It doesn't matter.

The funniest part is you haven't even watched the video yet you are criticizing it.


If the motives for bringing down WTC7 are so obvious then why don't you share them with us? :confusedshrug:

You said yourself that the vid doesn't prove any conspiracy so why should i care about it, especially since this steel could have formed long after the collapse?

[thatoneblackguy]

You said yourself that the vid doesn't prove any conspiracy so why should i care about it, especially since this steel could have formed long after the collapse?
Don't watch it then, I don't care. I'll just discuss it with people that want to.

[B]

BTW that video starts off with the classic statement no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.

There's two things wrong with that comment it's misleading as hell.
It should be

No steel building has ever suffered cataclysmic structural damage from debris from the skyscraper falling right next to it and igniting a fire that was fed by an undergorund fuel storage tanker that engulfed the entire building in flames for several hours.

Anytime I hear that "no steel building" line I know right off the bat we are dealing with somebody trying to force an agenda down out throats

btw here's a video of a steel building that's upper floors collapsed due to fire and fire alone

http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/105731/46ccb8cd/bouwkunde_gebouw_delft_stort_in_topic.html

[tontoz]

Don't watch it then, I don't care. I'll just discuss it with people that want to.

So you'll just be talking to yourself then. :lol

[thatoneblackguy]

So you'll just be talking to yourself then. :lol
More like 63,514 people :pimp:

[thatoneblackguy]

[QUOTE=B

[tontoz]

More like 63,514 people :pimp:


Fine you can go talk to them. Bye


I have to say being on the same side of an argument as Bladers makes me uncomfortable. I took a shower this morning but now i feel like i need another one. :oldlol:

[B]

That building fell naturally, now watch WTC 7 fall.That building had a fire on the JUST upper floors. WTC fires began on the lower floors with it's hottest ignition below ground level. That's why they fell differently. :facepalm you ****ing people

Just keep ignoring the fact you just watched a steel structure burn and fall apart due to fire and fire alone.

[thatoneblackguy]

[QUOTE=B

[bagelred]

Just keep ignoring the fact you just watched WTC 7 fall at free fall speed right on its own feet because of fires.:facepalm

They can't "see" what's happening because their mind won't let them. They were told the official explanation and they are retrofitting "what their seeing" to fit what they were told....instead of just LOOKING AT THE BUILDING. :lol :hammerhead:

Anyway, they keep asking "Why was WTC7 destroyed? What's the motive?". Well, we don't really need to know that do we? We just know it was. How are we supposed to know that unless the criminals tell us?

I mean, we can SPECULATE why......take an educated guess.....but it would only be a guess. We just know it was a controlled demolition because all the evidence points to it.

If I go am walking down the street and decide to shoot Bladers in the face and kill him, you don't really need to know why...do you? You just need the evidence to prove I did...and that I'm guilty.....and that's it. You can SPECULATE why.....but unless I tell you, you'll never really know.

[B]

Just keep ignoring the fact you just watched WTC 7 fall at free fall speed right on its own feet because of fires.:facepalmIt didn't fall at free fall speed, stop believing things because people said it's so. go get educated

[bagelred]

[QUOTE=B

[Bladers]

That building fell naturally, now watch WTC 7 fall.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI

Here, watch it and tell me.

[lilbill]

http://i53.tinypic.com/hs9cax.gif

:oldlol:

[tontoz]

It didnt fall into it's own footprint or at free fall speed. It damaged nearby buildings as it fell and the collapse was happening internally before we could even see the collapse on video.

:oldlol: "we dont know why it was brought down, we just know that it was."

The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me.

[iamgine]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI


Well, there we go. Isn't this a pretty logical answer to why building 7 collapse?

[thatoneblackguy]

The stupidity of these people never ceases to amaze me.
Oh, the irony.

[bagelred]

It didnt fall into it's own footprint or at free fall speed. It damaged nearby buildings as it fell and the collapse was happening internally before we could even see the collapse on video.

:oldlol: "we dont know why it was brought down, we just know that it was."

.

What is your education level? did you go to college? SAT scores? occupation? you sound like a f-cking retard....i just want to confirm that.

[B]

Yes it did....or at least VERY VERY close to freefall. That is undeniable. to say otherwise is simply false.oh oh now it's "VERY close" to fee fall speeds.

seismic data shows it took a full 18 seconds to collapse Video says it took 16 seconds. A true free fall would have been in the 9 second range. It appears to fall at free fall speeds for 2 and a quarter seconds when roughly 7 floors blew out at the same time during the collapse but troothers have decided that two seconds is good enough to say it fell at free fall speeds. The facts are it did not fall at free fall speeds.

Now all that being said what does free fall speed have to do with a conspiracy? How does that prove the building was brought down on purpose and secondly and more importantly why? The damage from the WTC collapse right next to it and the resulting fires inside WTC7 for several hours guarantee it was going to be razed one day anyway.

[tontoz]

What is your education level? did you go to college? SAT scores? occupation? you sound like a f-cking retard....i just want to confirm that.


You ARE a retard.

"BOOM"

You say Bin Laden is like Bigfoot and had no motive to attack the US even though he declared a religous war on the US. It doesn't get much dumber than that.

[thatoneblackguy]

:facepalm

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=B

[winwin]

- amazing that a terrorist's passport survived that day, and a black box didn't

- I love the fact that NORAD couldn't scramble a dozen jets within 80 minutes but they could articulate the exact a names of the hijackers within hours. If stupidity could be smart this is brilliance.

- how does so called terrorists hijack planes with box cutters? I would have laughed at them if they displayed box cutters as weapons.


- If you still believe the official 9/11 story you are brainwashed beyond hope.

[Kungfro]

- how does so called terrorists hijack planes with box cutters? I would have laughed at them if they displayed box cutters as weapons.


It's a sharp knife, how is that not a threatening weapon? Hold it up to one hostages neck and people tend to comply.

[tontoz]

It's a sharp knife, how is that not a threatning weapon? Hold it up to one hostages neck and people tend to comply.


Especially since the passengers didn't know they were about to fly the plane into a building. If the passengers had known they were about to die then sure they would have fought back.

[B]

What is your education level? did you go to college? SAT scores? occupation?
Where do you get off asking things like that? Nobody asked for your qualifications to be an idiot. We just assumed that since you were so good at it you were qualified.

[GOBB]

- how does so called terrorists hijack planes with box cutters? I would have laughed at them if they displayed box cutters as weapons.

Laughed at them? Box cutters are sharp. Pretty much could be used as knives. Besides all one has to say is they are strapped with bombs and if anyone attempts to play hero (like you are claiming) the plane will be blown up. I doubt you would be laughing or playing Jack Bauer in that instance. Keep in mind prior to 9/11, when you think of airplane hijackers? You think of hostages. You think of a plane being landed and a ransom of demands being asked for in exchange for lives. No one is sitting there thinking this plane will be flown into a building on a suicide mission.

After 9/11? The attitudes of people are changed. Prior to that? The only people to my knowledge who knew that plane was going to be flown into something was the one that crashed. You listen to phone calls from the first airplane to hit WTC and one passenger has no clue what will happen until he notices the path of a big ass building getting close. Leads me to believe no one had a clue where they were taking the plane.

[bagelred]

[QUOTE=B

[tontoz]

"Where do you get off" :lol relax dude, I'm calling out the retards.....


Then you should look in the mirror. You are the one trying to compare Bin Laden to Bigfoot.

:facepalm

[Bladers]

- amazing that a terrorist's passport survived that day, and a black box didn't

- I love the fact that NORAD couldn't scramble a dozen jets within 80 minutes but they could articulate the exact a names of the hijackers within hours. If stupidity could be smart this is brilliance.

- how does so called terrorists hijack planes with box cutters? I would have laughed at them if they displayed box cutters as weapons.


- If you still believe the official 9/11 story you are brainwashed beyond hope.

Why don't you listen to the released NORAD tape of that day (including the first 80 mins)? Maybe you can actually learn something instead of continuing to live in your ignorance.

[Droid101]

- If you still believe the official 9/11 story you are brainwashed beyond hope.
- If you still believe in nutty whackjob conspiracy theories, you are brainwashed beyond hope.

[bagelred]

- If you still believe in nutty whackjob conspiracy theories, you are brainwashed beyond hope.

Wouldn't that be you? You still believe the official conspiracy theory of a man in a cave orchestrating 9/11? That's a little wacky isn't it?

Coo koo!!!!:hammerhead:

[Bladers]

- how does so called terrorists hijack planes with box cutters? I would have laughed at them if they displayed box cutters as weapons.

- If you still believe the official 9/11 story you are brainwashed beyond hope.

They stabbed the pilots you idiot. Airplane security back then was almost non-existent, You could easily get into the cockpit.

For example there were only 20 federal air marshals pre-911, now there are more than 3,000.

Secondly They said they had a bomb and if anyone moved they would blow up the plane and that they were going back to the airport to make their demands.

[IcanzIIravor]

Wouldn't that be you? You still believe the official conspiracy theory of a man in a cave orchestrating 9/11? That's a little wacky isn't it?

Coo koo!!!!:hammerhead:

I think that is the disconnect going on. Can we all agree that during this time period the various agencies had a fierce competition going on and did not willingly share the info they had? I mean everyone knows about that right? Is it not possible then that the coverup is that Agency A had information that they did not share with Agency B,C and D and that if they had shared such information and vice versa then this attack could have possibility been prevented? Having been on the inside and the outside that seems a hell of a lot more plausible that you had various officials trying to mitigate and hide this type of stupidity than the government planting explosives and working hand in hand with AQ to bring down the towers.

[winwin]

i'm glad we all agree about how amazing that a terrorist's passport survived that day, and a black box didn't

[IcanzIIravor]

i'm glad we all agree about how amazing that a terrorist's passport survived that day, and a black box didn't

Think the government swooped in and is hiding the black box? Are you aware of the other things that survived the explosions too or do you just focus on the terrorist passport?

[tontoz]

Wouldn't that be you? You still believe the official conspiracy theory of a man in a cave orchestrating 9/11? That's a little wacky isn't it?

Coo koo!!!!:hammerhead:


So millionaire Osama was living in a cave before the 911 attacks? ok

Just when i think you couldn't say anything dumber you manage to outdo yourself. Congrats.

FYI when he was killed he was living in a large, luxurious house.

[tontoz]

I like this video. This guy is some hillbilly in the South and even HE understands this. I wouldn't let this guy represent the 9/11 Truth Movement (:lol ), but he is essentially summing up what others more intelligently and using basics physics properties prove. Even a guy with a 7th grade education gets it. Just watch (it's only 3 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDHN1gBkx0M

If you feel there is a flaw in his logic, explain what the flaw is. Don't just call him a "troofer" and say you debunked it. Explain the flaw if you think he's wrong.



OMG this clown is comparing vehicles colliding to a building collapse? News flash hillbilly: the vehicles aren't connected. He is also ignoring the enormous weight difference.

Wow this is even dumber than the videos i watched years ago and that is saying something.

[winwin]

Think the government swooped in and is hiding the black box? Are you aware of the other things that survived the explosions too or do you just focus on the terrorist passport?
i don't know
i don't believe 9 11 conspiracy theories
i don't believe the official 9/11 story

i don't think it was an inside job

but there are qustions

-the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world and in 2001, that would mean hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon yet NOT one video of a plane flying extremely low and hitting the building, not one! Really?

All we have is an explosion and hole with no evidence of a plane hitting the building. These are the facts.

Worse, professional pilots including ex-Air Force pilots report that there is no way they could have flown that plane that low at that alleged speed and hit the building. No way! Yet the 9/11 commission says it was an Arab pilot who could hardly fly a Cessna who did the deed.

- the only evidence that we do have of a plane that was hijacked comes from a phone call from Barbara Olson to her husband Theodore Olson. Yet, when we take a look at who these people are, it's clear that they are NOT average Americans.

Barbara Olson was a Republican Conservative employee of Fox News and her husband, Theodore (Ted), was a member of the Bush Administration as United States Solicitor General from 2001-2004


again
i don't know
i don't believe 9 11 conspiracy theories
i don't believe the official 9/11 story

i don't think it was an inside job

but there are qustions

[tontoz]

winwin

If you are saying that the govt could have and should have prevented the attacks then i agree. If you are saying that they aren't telling the entire truth after the attacks to hide their fukups then again i agree.

[tontoz]

i don't know


All we have is an explosion and hole with no evidence of a plane hitting the building. These are the facts.




That is just nonsense. There was plenty of evidence from the plane. Just because you haven't bothered to look for it doesn't mean it wasn't there.

http://www.firetown.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/911-flight77-debris.jpg

[tontoz]

Some more info on the plane that hit the pentagon, along with plenty of pictures of the plane's wreckage. I can't believe that 10 years later people are still ignorant about this.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1


My aunt was actually in the building when it was hit.

[B]

but there are qustions

-the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world and in 2001, that would mean hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon yet NOT one video of a plane flying extremely low and hitting the building, not one! Really?

All we have is an explosion and hole with no evidence of a plane hitting the building. These are the facts.

First off there is plenty of evidence a plane hit the Pentagon there's airplane bits and pieces all over the place. so in that part you're just being ignorant. Unless you're thinking the people sitting in their cars on the highway are lying about seeing a plane or that the Government decided flying a couple planes into the WTC was good but a missile would be better for the Pentagon, maybe they couldn't afford a 3rd plane and since they have so many cruise missiles laying around they'd dip into that supply?

As for the cameras it's three fold. The footage they do have comes from a refreshing camera that takes stills not streaming. Streaming wasn't being used as much in 2001 as it is today and most security setups still use the refreshing type of setup because the captured stills are easier to study.

Secondly the Cameras at the Pentagon are for security against ground based threats or incursions, cars, ninjas, people on foot and the like not planes coiming in from the wildblue yonder

And lastly a refreshing type cam takes a pic and waits, refreshes then takes another pic. A plane traveling at 500 mph is covering 734 feet per second so a camera covering even the area the size of a football field could take a picture of nothing one moment refresh in 3 seconds and missed the event entirely.

[winwin]

tontoz
since you have bothered to look .. show us the plain befor the hit not after..


after all there are hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon

show me one .. just one





-

[GOBB]

since you have bothered to look .. show us the plain befor the hit not after..


after all there are hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon

show me one .. just one

So the people on the plane didnt exist?

[tontoz]

tontoz
since you have bothered to look .. show us the plain befor the hit not after..


after all there are hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon

show me one .. just one





-


The cameras outside the Pentagon weren't taking vids, they were taking pictures.

The plane wreckage is right there for all to see, except for those in denial. They always see what they want to see.

[bagelred]

OMG this clown is comparing vehicles colliding to a building collapse? News flash hillbilly: the vehicles aren't connected. He is also ignoring the enormous weight difference.
.

I don't know what to say. This is some really really stupid comments. REALLY stupid.

[tontoz]

I don't know what to say. This is some really really stupid comments. REALLY stupid.


The top half and bottom half of the building are actually connected. The vehicles aren't. i can certainly understand how this would escape your attention though given that you are one of the dumbest people on this site.


the weight issue is also way over your head obviously. Using the hillbily's example if you dropped a cruise ship on the bus do you think the cruise ship would topple off to the side?

:roll:

[IcanzIIravor]

tontoz
since you have bothered to look .. show us the plain befor the hit not after..


after all there are hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon

show me one .. just one





-

If a plane didn't hit the Pentagon can you explain the wreckage? Please don't say the government had time to plant the wreckage. Thanks.

[winwin]

bagelred: 1
Dummies: 0

[Hazard]

The top half and bottom half of the building are actually connected. The vehicles aren't. i can certainly understand how this would escape your attention though given that you are one of the dumbest people on this site.


the weight issue is also way over your head obviously. Using the hillbily's example of you dropped a cruise ship on the bus do you think the cruise ship would topple off to the side?

:roll:
This is coming from someone who thought paper and cars burn at 100C. You should go take a hike little one. Your dedication to being an idiot is admirable, but its time to let someone else take the throne.

[thatoneblackguy]

This is coming from someone who though paper and cars burn at 100C. You should go take a hike little one. Your dedication to being an idiot is admirable, but its time to let someone else take the throne.
:roll: :applause:

[tontoz]

This is coming from someone who though paper and cars burn at 100C. You should go take a hike little one. Your dedication to being an idiot is admirable, but its time to let someone else take the throne.


So where are the people who got burned by that pyrocrastic flow? :oldlol:

Yeah like I really said cars burned at 100C. :rolleyes:

the only reason you caught me with the paper comment is that you quoted me before my edit.

[thatoneblackguy]

the only reason you caught me with the paper comment is that you quoted me before my edit.
Suuuurrreee... :rolleyes:

[tontoz]

bagelred: 1
Dummies: 0


What because he thinks dropping a car on a bus is comparable to the twin tower collapse?

:oldlol:

[tontoz]

Suuuurrreee... :rolleyes:


did you know that pyrocrastic flows have temperatures as low as 100C?

[Hazard]

So where are the people who got burned by that pyrocrastic flow? :oldlol:

Yeah like I really said cars burned at 100C. :rolleyes:

the only reason you caught me with the paper comment is that you quoted me before my edit.
You said it, I didn't. Maybe you should think before calling someone an idiot, considering you don't know the most common knowledge. And unless you were there at ground zero and saw everything that went down, please stop pulling shit out your ass. CNN and FOX are not credible sources for news.

Yeah they found the ones responsible for 9/11 the day after it happened, no investigation necessary. Then they decided to go to Iraq for a few years and stop looking for Osama for some reason. Oh hell yeah, 10 years later we conveniently got the boogie man while the economy is going to shit and people are starting to get pissed off. Yeaaahhh America!!! Obama!!!
You people cant possibly be that stupid. Or can you?

[tontoz]

You said it, I didn't. Maybe you should think before calling someone an idiot, considering you don't know the most common knowledge. And unless you were there at ground zero and saw everything that went down, please stop pulling shit out your ass. CNN and FOX are not credible sources for news.

Yeah they found the ones responsible for 9/11 the day after it happened, no investigation necessary. Then they decided to go to Iraq for a few years and stop looking for Osama for some reason. Oh hell yeah, 10 years later we conveniently got the boogie man while the economy is going to shit and people are starting to get pissed off. Yeaaahhh America!!! Obama!!!
You people cant possibly be that stupid. Or can you?


First of all the Iraq war is a completely different subject and surely was the height of govt stupidity in recent memory. i don't see the relevance here.

Secondly Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks and all available evidence pointed to him. He had already declared a religious war on the US previously and had attacked US interests before 9-11.

Not sure where you are going with the economy and Obama comments. I don't see how they have any relevance to the 9-11 attacks.

[Hazard]

First of all the Iraq war is a completely different subject and surely was the height of govt stupidity in recent memory. i don't see the relevance here.

Secondly Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks and all available evidence pointed to him. He had already declared a religious war on the US previously and had attacked US interests before 9-11.

Not sure where you are going with the economy and Obama comments. I don't see how they have any relevance to the 9-11 attacks.
Would we have ever gone to Iraq if it wasn't for 9/11?

[tontoz]

Would we have ever gone to Iraq if it wasn't for 9/11?


Bush was predisposed to go into Iraq before he even took office. Their primary reasons for going into Iraq were the WMD's and Iraqs failure to comply with UN resolutions. Of course these reasons were bogus but that is a seperate argument.

So in short yes i believe they would.

[Hazard]

Bush was predisposed to go into Iraq before he even took office. Their primary reasons for going into Iraq were the WMD's and Iraqs failure to comply with UN resolutions. Of course these reasons were bogus but that is a seperate argument.

So in short yes i believe they would.
And you think we would have been able to stay there for as long we did? Keep in mind people were not as paranoid back then as they are now. ****in cowards.

[tontoz]

And you think we would have been able to stay there for as long we did? Keep in mind people were not as paranoid back then as they are now. ****in cowards.


Huh? We have known for years (long before Obama took office) that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that the war was started for no just reason. It wasnt a question of being able to stay it was a question of what would happen if we left.

We started an unjust war and if we pulled out Iraq would wind up in civil war and surely be a haven for future terrorist activity.

[Hazard]

Huh? We have known for years (long before Obama took office) that Iraq didn't have WMDs and that the war was started for no just reason. It wasnt a question of being able to stay it was a question of what would happen if we left.

We started an unjust war and if we pulled out Iraq would wind up in civil war and surely be a haven for future terrorist activity.
I don't think many people knew that. News outlets were definitely not talking about it and for a lot of Americans that is their trusted source of info. This was another way the media controls the population, similar to 9/11. I don't know what happened on 9/11, I want to know, but people don't feel that it even deserves an investigation. This is how brainwashed people are.

[tontoz]

I don't think many people knew that. News outlets were definitely not talking about it and for a lot of Americans that is their trusted source of info. This was another way the media controls the population, similar to 9/11. I don't know what happened on 9/11, I want to know, but people don't feel that it even deserves an investigation. This is how brainwashed people are.



My belief is that if the government had been even remotely competent they could have prevented the attacks. It was known for years that suspected terrorists were taking flight training here and nothing was done to stop it. the fact that intelligence agencies didn't share information didn't help matters.

I have no doubt that the Bush administration has kept a lot of info hushed up so people won't realize how badly they screwed up. After the attacks i remember reading that the govt had a lot of evidence that terrorists were planning to use planes as a means of attack. Nothing was done to prevent it, or at least not enough.

[Hazard]

My belief is that if the government had been even remotely competent they could have prevented the attacks. It was known for years that suspected terrorists were taking flight training here and nothing was done to stop it. the fact that intelligence agencies didn't share information didn't help matters.

I have no doubt that the Bush administration has kept a lot of info hushed up so people won't realize how badly they screwed up. After the attacks i remember reading that the govt had a lot of evidence that terrorists were planning to use planes as a means of attack. Nothing was done to prevent it, or at least not enough.
Do you think that was an accident?

[B]

I I don't know what happened on 9/11, I want to know, but people don't feel that it even deserves an investigation. This is how brainwashed people are.It's been investigated to death. The problem is you don't like the answers so you say things like "deserves an investigation" and use buzzwords like "brainwashed". The big gun tinfoil hat guys have moved on, they are off chasing other projects and new audiences to sell books to on other topics.

The truther movement is dead, even one of the loose change guys said he was a sap and realized how much time he wasted chasing ghosts that were never there.

[tontoz]

Do you think that was an accident?



I think it was incompetence.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bush Administration had attempted a much smaller level conspiracy in relation to the alleged 9-11 plot. Let's say it was only 1/100th as difficult as the 9-11 plot would have been. i don't think for one second they would have been able to pull it off without getting busted.

[Hazard]

[QUOTE=B

[Hazard]

I think it was incompetence.


Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Bush Administration had attempted a much smaller level conspiracy in relation to the alleged 9-11 plot. Let's say it was only 1/100th as difficult as the 9-11 plot would have been. i don't think for one second they would have been able to pull it off without getting busted.
Its very easy and dangerous to blame shit like that on incompetence. I don't claim to know anything, but if we were aware of terrorists on American soil why the hell did we not lock them up and kick them the **** out of here?

[tontoz]

It really hasn't though. The next day we were blaming Al Qaeda, no investigation necessary. They cleaned up ground zero as quick as possible, told everyone to go shopping and that everything is ok. This was widely accepted by everyone and it still is.

I even fell for that shit back then, started talking to a recruiter. Lucky for me I graduated in '03 which is the year they went into Iraq, and at that point I really started questioning things. So I told him to **** off.


The ground zero cleanup took months and the guys cleaning it up were the same guys who lost friends and coworkers in the collapses.

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. All the evidence pointed to Al Qaeda. They had already declared war on the US and had attacked US interests before. They weren't a low profile organization.

When Clinton left office he warned Bush that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat to our national security.


Speaking at a luncheon sponsored by the History Channel yesterday, Clinton said he warned incoming President George W. Bush before he left office in 2001 that the founder of al-Qaida was the biggest security threat the United States faced.

"In his campaign, Bush had said he thought the biggest security issue was Iraq and a national missile defense," Clinton said, according to Reuters. "I told him that in my opinion, the biggest security problem was Osama bin Laden."

Clinton told the audience his inability to convince Bush of the danger posed by al-Qaida represented "one of the two or three of the biggest disappointments that I had."



http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21299

[Hazard]

The ground zero cleanup took months and the guys cleaning it up were the same guys who lost friends and coworkers in the collapses.

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. All the evidence pointed to Al Qaeda. They had already declared war on the US and had attacked US interests before. They weren't a low profile organization.

When Clinton left office he warned Bush that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat to our national security.



http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21299
Did you know that Whitman cleared the air safe to breathe, which resulted in more deaths post 9/11 than on the day of? Meanwhile all the government officials were walking around with gas masks.

[tontoz]

"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"



"The committee managed, 'inadvertently,' it says, to get some contents of a key briefing Bush received in August 2001. It included 'FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin (sic) supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.'"


http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html


"A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'"


"U.S. intelligence overheard al-Qaeda operatives discussing a major pending terrorist attack in the weeks prior to Sept. 11 and had agents inside the terror group, but the intercepts and field reports didn't specify where or when a strike might occur, according to U.S. officials. The disclosures add to a growing body of evidence to be examined in congressional hearings that open today into how the CIA, FBI and other agencies failed to seize on intelligence pointing to the deadliest terror attack in U.S. history."

[GOBB]

Did you know that Whitman cleared the air safe to breathe, which resulted in more deaths post 9/11 than on the day of? Meanwhile all the government officials were walking around with gas masks.

It took 8-9 months to clean up that mess and I guess this is a conspiracy to kill off the cleanup crew right?

[B]

The ground zero cleanup took months and the guys cleaning it up were the same guys who lost friends and coworkers in the collapses.

Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. All the evidence pointed to Al Qaeda. They had already declared war on the US and had attacked US interests before. They weren't a low profile organization.

When Clinton left office he warned Bush that Al Qaeda was the biggest threat to our national security.



http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=21299The problem is a lot of the missed signals go back well into the Clinton administration.

Those guys didn't just set up camp when Bush became president, the planning was in place for years before the event took place. That's why after the attacks the whole intelligence system was torn apart and put back together in a manner that hopefully is more conducive to inter-agency cooperation.

It's also why they knew so quickly where to point the finger. Suddenly when the attacks came pieces of the puzzle fell into place. All of a sudden this little snipit overheard here or there made sense.

[tontoz]

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON

[GOBB]

bagelred: 1
Dummies: 0

We're dummies and you dont think a plane hit the Pentagon. :roll:

http://www.tgdaily.com/sites/default/files/stock/article_images/scifi/generalzod.jpg

^^^^They hit the Pentagon :eek:

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=B

[B]

Clinton at least took Al Qaeda seriously. Bush did not. There were specific warnings from the CIA and FBI of an impending attack using airplanes that went unheeded. And the Arab flight training going on in the months before the attacks went unchecked.The flight training started as far back as 1996 maybe earlier and the FBI knew it. The FBI was paying visits to schools asking about Pakistani

Here's a Washington post article outlining it.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/fbi_knew_terrorists_using_flight_schools.html



If Clinton took it so serious he had more than enough time to act but he did the same thing as he's accusing the Bush administration of doing, not acting on information.

As an intelligence failure nobody is clean in this it goes deep and covers many years and more than one administration

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=B

[Bladers]

-the Pentagon is the most secure building in the world and in 2001, that would mean hundreds of cameras on full time recording events outside the building, not only by the Pentagon itself but by the myriad of buildings around the Pentagon yet NOT one video of a plane flying extremely low and hitting the building, not one! Really?

All we have is an explosion and hole with no evidence of a plane hitting the building. These are the facts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae63iivRHt8&t=4m03s

Your answers are in that video. Watch it and then post a follow up response.

[bagelred]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ae63iivRHt8&t=4m03s

Your answers are in that video. Watch it and then post a follow up response.

Hey Bladers, did you know the official flight path for the plane heading towards the Pentagon is WRONG. The flight flew completely different path as it headed towards Pentagon. So there is no way that flight could hit the lightpoles that supposedly fell to the ground.

Once again, there is a MAJOR discrepancy with the official story.

Uh oh.

Oops.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o#t=00m05


http://www.blatantworld.com/feature_pics/cit_real_flight_path.jpg

[Bladers]

Hey Bladers, did you know the official flight path for the plane heading towards the Pentagon is WRONG. The flight flew completely different path as it headed towards Pentagon. So there is no way that flight could hit the lightpoles that supposedly fell to the ground.



Just because some idiot says the flight took another path doesn't mean it did.
The evidence is right infront of you!

[bagelred]

Just because some idiot says the flight took another path doesn't mean it did.


This is a very telling statement. By saying this, its obvious you didn't even glance at the video or even care to know what the video is talking about. Which means you really have no desire to look at actual evidence or anything contradictory to your thought process.

"The evidence is right in front you" What a meaningless nonsensical statement.

Go pray to jesus now.

[B]

Hey Bladers, did you know the official flight path for the plane heading towards the Pentagon is WRONG. The flight flew completely different path as it headed towards Pentagon. So there is no way that flight could hit the lightpoles that supposedly fell to the ground.

Once again, there is a MAJOR discrepancy with the official story.

Uh oh.

Oops.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc-LJ-o#t=00m05




http://www.blatantworld.com/feature_pics/cit_real_flight_path.jpgYou do realize that that has been completely dismissed. Even the authors threw in the towel when it was realized one of their main witnesses didn't know the difference between north and south, and another was found not to even be at the scene until a couple minutes after the event

I'll add that even the Hard-line Conspiracy nuts think CIT is nothing but a bunch of idiots. Google Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis then quickly delete your post before anyone realizes how foolish you really are.

Here's a longtime truther putting them on full blast
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2010/01/cit-who-cares.html

[bagelred]

[QUOTE=B

[KevinNYC]

While that may be true Bush had information of an impending attack which is far more serious than knowlege of flight training. His administration had everything but the terrorists exact itinerary for the 911 attacks. His administration had everything but the terrorists exact itinerary for the 911 attacks.

The part in bold in utter bullshit and I am not a fan of Bush.

Bush did not have knowledge of an impending attack. Remember the president learns this stuff because it comes up through intelligence channels. The intelligence channels had nothing specific The head of the CIA and the counterterrorism chief of the National Security Council have come forward and said what they knew and were critical of Bush, but there was no prior evidence of a domestic hijacking plot.

What George Tenet and Richard Clarke have said is that they knew something was coming. Something big based on the Al Qaeda traffic we interceped. But they couldn't even say it was going to attack within the US. They thought it might be like the embassy bombings in 1998 in Kenya and Tazania. They went to Bush with "their hair on fire" but they couldn't tell him what was going to happen.:(

We had zero specific evidence of what plan Al Qaeda had and zero evidence it was going to involve planes.

After the attack did involve planes, it was easy to see what clues we had about plans in the mounds and mounds of fragments of intelligence data out there. Prior to the attack, it could have been any of hundreds of targets they were going after.

[KevinNYC]

What Tenet and Clarke criticized Bush for was: they said given the fact that it looks like something is coming, they should have gotten the intelligence agencies "to shake the trees" to make sure something like looking into Zacarias M's laptop was not over looked. They also should have alerted agencies like the FAA to be on alert.

They never said, we knew what was going to happen and the president didn't act.

[KevinNYC]

With regards to the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A10840-2001Sep22). That's exactly the sort of stuff that's easy to find after the fact.

Some of those "flight training" suspects were already arrrested and convicted. That stuff dates back to the Bojinka plot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bojinka_plot) At the time the terrorist who planned that action were not known to be connected to Al Qaeda. Murad was convicted by in 1996.

Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested in August 2001 on an immigraton charge. The FBI never got permission to check his laptop which had incriminating evidence on it. This is an intelligence failure, but it never go up Bush's level, nowhere near it.

The two things that might, MIGHT have led to the 9/11 plot in time to stop it were

1 if we looked at Moussaoui's laptop in time.
2 if we kept adequate surveillance on Nawaf Alhazmi, and Khalid Almihdhar (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2002/06/10/the-hijackers-we-let-escape.html)who the CIA knew were in the US. They wouldn't tell the FBI about them. Arguably, the CIA might have been trying to see what was in the planning and didn't want them arrested for the COLE bombing before they found out. That's the best spin on it.

But even if they caught these guys, it doesn't automatically mean it would have prevented September 11th, unless they could have learned the about the whole plot.

[KevinNYC]

HOWEVER, they interviewed a bunch of witnesses, including two police officers, who ALL said the plane flew on a completely different path than the official flight path. Can YOU explain that? I certaintly can't. Those two things do not reconcile. Which means the downed light poles could not have been hit by the plane. Which means.........well, I don't know WHAT it means, but something is VERY VERY wrong. You can't see that?

You never heard of eyewitness testimony contradicting itself? Two eyewitness who truthfully saw different things? Or saw fragments of an event? or misremember things. This happens every single day. This could go a long way towards understanding why you are succeptible to conspiracy theories.

The point is the witnesses you cite are overruled by the preponderance of evidence coming from the other witnesses and the physical evidence.

[tontoz]

The part in bold in utter bullshit and I am not a fan of Bush.

Bush did not have knowledge of an impending attack. Remember the president learns this stuff because it comes up through intelligence channels. The intelligence channels had nothing specific The head of the CIA and the counterterrorism chief of the National Security Council have come forward and said what they knew and were critical of Bush, but there was no prior evidence of a domestic hijacking plot.





"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"



"The committee managed, 'inadvertently,' it says, to get some contents of a key briefing Bush received in August 2001. It included 'FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin (sic) supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.'"


"A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html

[bagelred]

You never heard of eyewitness testimony contradicting itself? Two eyewitness who truthfully saw different things? Or saw fragments of an event? or misremember things. This happens every single day. This could go a long way towards understanding why you are succeptible to conspiracy theories.

The point is the witnesses you cite are overruled by the preponderance of evidence coming from the other witnesses and the physical evidence.

What other witnesses?

[B]

What other witnesses?The perfect example of how narrow or non existent your research has been on this subject. That alone shows you never travel past the boundaries of the tin foil hat clubhouse

[bagelred]

[QUOTE=B

[tontoz]

[QUOTE=B

[bagelred]

[QUOTE=B

[KevinNYC]

http://www.buzzflash.com/perspectives/911bush.html


"One such CIA briefing, in July 2001, was particularly chilling and prophetic. It predicted that Osama bin Laden was about to launch a terrorist strike 'in the coming weeks,' the congressional investigators found. The intelligence briefing went on to say: 'The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass casualties against U.S. facilities or interests. Attack preparations have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.'"

Right. Nothing about where. Nothing about the exact date. Nothing about the method. Unfortunately, in the counter-terrorism world, this is what happens.


"The committee managed, 'inadvertently,' it says, to get some contents of a key briefing Bush received in August 2001. It included 'FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Ladin (sic) supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives.'"

Note the date. Why quote a newspaper article from 2003 when we now know much, much more about the August 6th, 2001 briefing because it was declassified after in April 2004 after the hearings on 9/11. It does not contain specific information about the 9/11 attacks.
Here read it for yourself (http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html)


Quote:
"A Minnesota FBI agent investigating Zacarias Moussaoui testified yesterday that he notified the Secret Service weeks before Sept. 11 that a terror team might hijack a plane and 'hit the nation's capital.'
Again we don't have to quote a news article from 2002.
We know who the FBI agent is. Harry Samit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Samit)
Note his story. He told the Secret Service. He told the FAA. He believed a hijacking was coming. He had suspicions but no proof. His suspicions were not enough to convince a judge to get a warrant to search Moussaoui's room and computer. Did his suspicions turn out to be correct? Should he have been listened to? Did his superiors screw up? Definitely yes, but this didn't even reach up to the head of the FBI let alone Bush. This is a screwup. It's not a smoking gun.

[tontoz]

The warnings were coming from everywhere, even other countries.


"Britain gave President Bush a categorical warning to expect multiple airline hijackings by the al-Qaeda network a month before the September 11 attacks which killed nearly 3000 people and triggered the international war against terrorism."



"On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns."



"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."



"When the hubbub about what the White House did or didn't know before Sept. 11 dies down, Congressional or other investigators should consider the specific warnings that friendly Arab intelligence services sent to Washington in the summer of 2001."




"A key point in unraveling why the FBI failed to follow up leads on Al Qaeda terrorism now centers on the Bureau's contemptuously brushing aside warnings from French intelligence a few days before 9-11."



"Egyptian intelligence warned American officials about a week before Sept. 11 that Osama bin Laden's network was in the advance stages of executing a significant operation against an American target, President Hosni Mubarak said in an interview on Sunday."

[KevinNYC]

The warnings were coming from everywhere, even other countries.

Can newspaper articles be wrong?
Also cherry-picking just the inflammatory quotes? We should all know better than that. For example, I looked up the quote about the Israelis. Here's some more context



ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent.

The 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre's twin towers and the Pentagon were humiliating blows to the intelligence services, which failed to foresee them, and to the defence forces of the most powerful nation in the world, which failed to deflect them.

The Telegraph has learnt that two senior experts with Mossad, the Israeli military intelligence service, were sent to Washington in August to alert the CIA and FBI to the existence of a cell of as many of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big operation.

"They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement," said a senior Israeli security official.

So what we have here is shortly after 9/11 Israeli intelligence agents planting that idea that Saddam Hussein was behind the attack. Yeah, they would continue doing that right through 2002 and into 2003.

[tontoz]

What is your argument? That Bush has specific knowledge of Al-Qaeda using hijacked plans to attack the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House/Congress?

Or is your argument that Bush should have done more?

Because I agree with the second part. I'm arguing against the first part.

You seem to say since you have evidence for the former, therefore Bush has specific knowledge of Al-Qaeda using hijacked plans to attack the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House/Congress.


I thought i made myself pretty clear.



had everything but the terrorists exact itinerary for the 911 attacks.

[KevinNYC]

I thought i made myself pretty clear.

So they didn't have when.

They didn't have where.

They didn't have how.

They didn't have who.

Yup, almost the itinerary

[tontoz]

So they didn't have when.

They didn't have where.

They didn't have how.

They didn't have who.

Yup, almost the itinerary

With warning coming from everywhere they knew something was coming in the near future. Some of the intel mentioned hijackings as a possibility They knew that the terrorists had taken flight training here for years. They also knew they had attacked the WTC before.

How much else do they need to actually do something? Just because they don't have the flight numbers and the exact targets doesn't mean they can't take preventative measures.

If they knew the exact targets, exact dates and flight numbers then of course it would have been easy to stop.

And what did Bush do? He not only failed to act on these warnings but ignored the advice from his own bi-partison commissions whose specific job was to study the issue. There is a word for this. Negligence.