9/11 Skeptics, how did it happen?

[BmanMcfly]

By quoting you?

You can't even say you 'quoted' me... I'll demonstrate.

The families of the 140 or so would say it wasn't empty enough.

The families weren't in the pentagon.

(yes... that's almost how retarded your last post was)

Ahh...so where is this world government you promised. I'm guessing the elections in Afghanastan and Iraq to elect governments are just "part of the scheme"?

Afghanistan is not the world.

Steel was brought to the Fresh Kills landfill. No signs of thermite or explosives were found on any of it. No explosive was found there yesterday, no explosive will be found there today, no explosive would be found there tomorrow. No explosives were found at ground zero.

No explosives were LOOKED FOR... Fresh kills landfill was to find remains for proper burial.

Some body found some dust and eight years after the fact it was supposedly tested.

The dust was collected within the week of 9-11... the research papers weren't published and peer-reviewed for 8 years. Glad you know how to get facts straight.

-----

Do your research, get your facts straight, learn how to make an argument, and then you'll be off the ignore list. There's only a small handful of people that have demonstrated a level of ignorance to deserve the honor of being ignored.

 

[usda select]

You can't even say you 'quoted' me... I'll demonstrate.


The families weren't in the pentagon.

(yes... that's almost how retarded your last post was)


Afghanistan is not the world.



No explosives were LOOKED FOR... Fresh kills landfill was to find remains for proper burial.



The dust was collected within the week of 9-11... the research papers weren't published and peer-reviewed for 8 years. Glad you know how to get facts straight.

-----

Do your research, get your facts straight, learn how to make an argument, and then you'll be off the ignore list. There's only a small handful of people that have demonstrated a level of ignorance to deserve the honor of being ignored.

:rofl X3

Wow, there are probably 65,000 things ahead of importance than whether or not you'll read my writings. You have failed to comprehend a single sentence, provide a single shred of evidence, make a cogent arguement, or even break the rathor porous surface of being correct; once.

The only thing you have done is demonstrate what I am hopeful is an acute case of behavior that would be categorized as sophomoric by the kindest of observers. I am not he so I would call you what I am thinking had the TOS not prevented it.

You seem unaware that 140 servicemen died at the Pentagon. I would at least think that you would know that but; of course, you didn't. Their families and the larger family of the military spit at the suggestion that US Marines were behind such attacks. I urge you to expound your views at Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune in the mess. Please speak loudly, ordinance blasts from artillery deafen a man over time.

The families also spit at the suggestion that any Marine would take part in such a deed as what we saw on 9/11. I'm sure you'll have some sleazy comment about orders and nonsense about how the good Marine does what he or she is told at all times; without conscience, without question, and without feeling. Nothing is further from the truth or should I say, that nothing is further from the truth than where ever it is you stand; you simply have no remote idea of what you are talking about on this topic.

I would wager that the same holds true for anything that has transpired from what I am certain is your narrow breadth of experience with other persons.

I hope you place me on ignore. I guarantee you that there is nothing I can learn from you that would be useful in the real world.

 

[BmanMcfly]

:rofl X3

Wow, there are probably 65,000 things ahead of importance than whether or not you'll read my writings. You have failed to comprehend a single sentence, provide a single shred of evidence, make a cogent arguement, or even break the rathor porous surface of being correct; once.

Opinion.

The only thing you have done is demonstrate what I am hopeful is an acute case of behavior that would be categorized as sophomoric by the kindest of observers. I am not he so I would call you what I am thinking had the TOS not prevented it.

Just returning the favor friend. :roll: :rofl: :roll:x3 Rofl X rofl ^2 (Since that was about HALF of the most coherent parts of your arguments... Even calling your arguments sophomoric would be an exaggeration in your favor)

You seem unaware that 140 servicemen died at the Pentagon.

I was actually aware of that... I was making a point about how far removed your comments of what I said was from what was actually said.

I would at least think that you would know that but; of course, you didn't. Their families and the larger family of the military spit at the suggestion that US Marines were behind such attacks. I urge you to expound your views at Camp Pendleton or Camp Lejeune in the mess. Please speak loudly, ordinance blasts from artillery deafen a man over time.

Again, you missed the point... and had misconstrued SO FAR AWAY from what I was saying that I could barely recognize the connection between what was said and the response.

The families also spit at the suggestion that any Marine would take part in such a deed as what we saw on 9/11. I'm sure you'll have some sleazy comment about orders and nonsense about how the good Marine does what he or she is told at all times; without conscience, without question, and without feeling. Nothing is further from the truth or should I say, that nothing is further from the truth than where ever it is you stand; you simply have no remote idea of what you are talking about on this topic.

That's another good tactic of anti-truths... parade the victims family members as though they share your opinions without ever being able to provide one that actually speaks out against truthers.

I would wager that the same holds true for anything that has transpired from what I am certain is your narrow breadth of experience with other persons.

I hope you place me on ignore. I guarantee you that there is nothing I can learn from you that would be useful in the real world.

Whatever you say... if your guarantees are twice as good as your arguments it's still worthless.

As you read through this, take note about how my responses to your comments, you know, actually relate to what you say, and aren't spun and twisted around that you have to check to make sure that the post was addressed to you. Ya... try using that tactic, and you might not make yourself look like such a fool.

 

[BmanMcfly]

I just thought I'd look again at your OP in this thread so that I could ask YOU questions and see if you're even capable of defending your own position.

I once believed there may be a conspiracy but there are too many people that would have to be involved for me to believe a conspiracy with 9/11.

How many people had to have been involved in 9-11 if the government was involved? How do you come to the conclusion of this number?

How many people involved would be 'believeable'?

The report satisfied all of the questions I had. You may recall it came out a few years after the 911 attaks. It makes sense.

Which report?? There's been several :

- NIST's first report where they said it was a 'pancake collapse' (WTC7 not mentioned)
- NIST tries again, once they were called out on rewriting physics, to explain how fires caused the collapse (WTC7 was an 'unknown')
- NIST issues a final report where they explain the WTC7 collapse because fires caused 1 column to fail.
- The 9-11 commission report which was more of a political investigation... where they brought out some gems like because the person that invested most of the money in a way that was clear example of insider trading had "no conceivable ties to alciada" that there was nothing more to look at. Which 6 of the 10 members have spoken out against the conclusiveness of the report to varying degrees.

Now, did you actually READ these reports, or just the cliff notes version?

Finally, what were the original questions that you asked, which were answered to your satisfaction in showing that no elements within the US could have been involved.

Now, take your time.... and if possible, try avoid making emoticon based arguments... or you'll end up :frown face: once school is out of session.

 

[usda select]

I just thought I'd look again at your OP in this thread so that I could ask YOU questions and see if you're even capable of defending your own position.



How many people had to have been involved in 9-11 if the government was involved? How do you come to the conclusion of this number?
How many people involved would be 'believeable'?

Again...as I answered before--this is the last time--it depends on what your particular whacky conspiracy is.

One thing I love about you truthers is that you say the evidence doesn't match the findings. That is an opinion but, for the sake of argument, lets call it valid.

The evidence would then point away from what was found and toward something or somebody else; not 20 somethings or 20 somebody elses.

The only way I can answer your question is for you to give me one of the various kookie conspiracy theories and let me perform an autopsy. We both know you won't come out and state anything and that you're "just asking questions" :rofl . So coming up with alternate theories I'll leave to the more imaginative among us; I prefer to deal with real-world events such as 19 guys from the middle east hijacking four planes.

But if you give me a theory, I will be happy to give you a rough figure of how many were involved

Which report?? There's been several :

The 9/11 Commission Report.

Finally, what were the original questions that you asked, which were answered to your satisfaction in showing that no elements within the US could have been involved.

Now, take your time.... and if possible, try avoid making emoticon based arguments... or you'll end up :frown face: once school is out of session.

You couldn't take anybody to school if you were driving the bus junior. Its funny how little you know compared to how much you think you know.

 

[usda select]

Opinion.



Just returning the favor friend. :roll: :rofl: :roll:x3 Rofl X rofl ^2 (Since that was about HALF of the most coherent parts of your arguments... Even calling your arguments sophomoric would be an exaggeration in your favor)



I was actually aware of that... I was making a point about how far removed your comments of what I said was from what was actually said.



Again, you missed the point... and had misconstrued SO FAR AWAY from what I was saying that I could barely recognize the connection between what was said and the response.



That's another good tactic of anti-truths... parade the victims family members as though they share your opinions without ever being able to provide one that actually speaks out against truthers.



Whatever you say... if your guarantees are twice as good as your arguments it's still worthless.

As you read through this, take note about how my responses to your comments, you know, actually relate to what you say, and aren't spun and twisted around that you have to check to make sure that the post was addressed to you. Ya... try using that tactic, and you might not make yourself look like such a fool.

Feel free to take your opinions about the US Marines destroying the twin towers and voice them to any Marine that you know; preferably a few dozen marines.

Let me be the first to say goodbye.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Again...as I answered before--this is the last time--it depends on what your particular whacky conspiracy is.

I could have labelled this a slip up but with your track record, it seems that you're lying again.

What you said was : "I always chuckle a bit when some truthers take the position that some sort of detante was reached between all of the factions that are constantly at war that allowed 9/11 to take place."

Now, you also said : "I once believed there may be a conspiracy but there are too many people that would have to be involved"

So, I ask you again.. HOW MANY PEOPLE was too many people that HAD TO BE involved? You said you first thought there was a conspiracy but then figured 'too many people'... so what was that threshold you crossed and how did you cross it? What information did you use to make that determination??

Or have I called you on yet another lie here?

One thing I love about you truthers is that you say the evidence doesn't match the findings. That is an opinion but, for the sake of argument, lets call it valid.

That's not an opinion.evidence ALWAYS tells a story and if the official version was true then we would NOT have seen :
- Insider trading
- Bush reading to children / posing for cameras for nearly an HOUR of america being attacked
- The secret service ALLOWING the above
- We would not have went to war with afghanistan 280 days BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION was started.
- The investigation would have been started within 5 days (Pearl harbour - 5 days before investigation, Kennedy's assassination - 4 days, etc) NOT 400 days
- Israelis would not have been ARRESTED 'documenting' the event while dancing on rooftops on 9-11
- The millitary wouldn't have been staging multiple war games INCLUDING : an operations base to handle bio attacks within blocks of the WTC, and a seperate one involving hijacked airplanes being flown into hard targets (without mentioning ALL of these 'drills')

NONE of these things is 'opinion' except for your OPINION that it's all nonsense, for the sake of argument let's pretend you're not BSing again.

The evidence would then point away from what was found and toward something or somebody else; not 20 somethings or 20 somebody elses.

Unless there WAS some level of complicity going on, like I said before with ALL the evidence you can see that 9-11 was the result of a multi-national operation with a multi-national agenda that will act as the bridge towards a one world government. (You haven't shown the honesty for me to elaborate further, I'm mostly just responding to show everyone else just how dishonest you're being)

The only way I can answer your question is for you to give me one of the various kookie conspiracy theories and let me perform an autopsy.

Another lie, you once thought there was a conspiracy where you passed some threshold of 'too many people' had to be involved, and you can't even express how many people that would be... not even a range of people to accomodate.

We both know you won't come out and state anything and that you're "just asking questions" :rofl .

Again you're being dishonest... I'm asking YOU questions because YOU are a liar, and so I'm asking YOU to back up your position, because I KNOW that you're being dishonest and would try to squirm out of backing up 2 simple questions : HOW MANY IS TOO MANY? and How did you come to that determination that there was that many people, or more, that were necessary to be in on a conspiracy?

So coming up with alternate theories I'll leave to the more imaginative among us; I prefer to deal with real-world events such as 19 guys from the middle east hijacking four planes.

I've NEVER said that there was NOT 19 afghani hijackers trained by OBL. I have pointed out some rediculous notions like some of their ID's were found that had :
- Flown out of one of their pockets
- through the fireball
- through the building and
- landed on the street for a police officer to find.
But I'm willing to accept that there were these hijackers, because I don't have any proof to say conclusively that they did not exist.

But if you give me a theory, I will be happy to give you a rough figure of how many were involved

Good attempt at passing the buck... with the rest of your dishonesty on display, I asked you specifically how many people was YOUR threshold for 'too many people' that YOU used to determine that it could not be a conspiracy...

The 9/11 Commission Report.

- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ref=opinion (op-ed written by two co-chairs of the commission)
- 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com (NORAD lied to the commission)
- "I think the basic facts here indicate that these attacks occurred as a consequence of a conspiracy," Bob Kerrey, The 9/11 deniers - Documentaries - Salon.com
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting” CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006
- "The president ought to be ashamed" - Salon.com
- John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news: “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest"
- John Farmer : “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com

You couldn't take anybody to school if you were driving the bus junior. Its funny how little you know compared to how much you think you know.

The only funny part is how you actually seem to believe your own lies.

So, what's the word you would use when everything you say gets shown to be nonsense?? I mean, I call it school, and by the look of things some bullies got to you on the first day.

Feel free to take your opinions about the US Marines destroying the twin towers and voice them to any Marine that you know; preferably a few dozen marines.

Let me be the first to say goodbye.

Is this some sort of veiled threat??

More likely though it's just another example of you demonstrating your lack of an ability to keep a story straight (including your own), so it's not so shocking that you would get my words SO WRONG that you would think that I was accusing marines of perpetrating 9-11...

I almost don't even want to try to correct what you said I'm saying because you'll just get it wrong again... and with your demonstrated lack of honesty, the evidence now points to this being deliberate and intentional dishonesty.

 

[usda select]

I could have labelled this a slip up but with your track record, it seems that you're lying again.

What you said was : "I always chuckle a bit when some truthers take the position that some sort of detante was reached between all of the factions that are constantly at war that allowed 9/11 to take place."

Now, you also said : "I once believed there may be a conspiracy but there are too many people that would have to be involved"

So, I ask you again.. HOW MANY PEOPLE was too many people that HAD TO BE involved? You said you first thought there was a conspiracy but then figured 'too many people'... so what was that threshold you crossed and how did you cross it? What information did you use to make that determination??

Or have I called you on yet another lie here?



That's not an opinion.evidence ALWAYS tells a story and if the official version was true then we would NOT have seen :
- Insider trading
- Bush reading to children / posing for cameras for nearly an HOUR of america being attacked
- The secret service ALLOWING the above
- We would not have went to war with afghanistan 280 days BEFORE ANY INVESTIGATION was started.
- The investigation would have been started within 5 days (Pearl harbour - 5 days before investigation, Kennedy's assassination - 4 days, etc) NOT 400 days
- Israelis would not have been ARRESTED 'documenting' the event while dancing on rooftops on 9-11
- The millitary wouldn't have been staging multiple war games INCLUDING : an operations base to handle bio attacks within blocks of the WTC, and a seperate one involving hijacked airplanes being flown into hard targets (without mentioning ALL of these 'drills')

NONE of these things is 'opinion' except for your OPINION that it's all nonsense, for the sake of argument let's pretend you're not BSing again.



Unless there WAS some level of complicity going on, like I said before with ALL the evidence you can see that 9-11 was the result of a multi-national operation with a multi-national agenda that will act as the bridge towards a one world government. (You haven't shown the honesty for me to elaborate further, I'm mostly just responding to show everyone else just how dishonest you're being)



Another lie, you once thought there was a conspiracy where you passed some threshold of 'too many people' had to be involved, and you can't even express how many people that would be... not even a range of people to accomodate.



Again you're being dishonest... I'm asking YOU questions because YOU are a liar, and so I'm asking YOU to back up your position, because I KNOW that you're being dishonest and would try to squirm out of backing up 2 simple questions : HOW MANY IS TOO MANY? and How did you come to that determination that there was that many people, or more, that were necessary to be in on a conspiracy?



I've NEVER said that there was NOT 19 afghani hijackers trained by OBL. I have pointed out some rediculous notions like some of their ID's were found that had :
- Flown out of one of their pockets
- through the fireball
- through the building and
- landed on the street for a police officer to find.
But I'm willing to accept that there were these hijackers, because I don't have any proof to say conclusively that they did not exist.



Good attempt at passing the buck... with the rest of your dishonesty on display, I asked you specifically how many people was YOUR threshold for 'too many people' that YOU used to determine that it could not be a conspiracy...



- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?_r=1&ref=opinion (op-ed written by two co-chairs of the commission)
- 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com (NORAD lied to the commission)
- "I think the basic facts here indicate that these attacks occurred as a consequence of a conspiracy," Bob Kerrey, The 9/11 deniers - Documentaries - Salon.com
- 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting” CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006
- "The president ought to be ashamed" - Salon.com
- John Lehman just said on NBC Nightly news: “We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest"
- John Farmer : “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.” 9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon - washingtonpost.com



The only funny part is how you actually seem to believe your own lies.

So, what's the word you would use when everything you say gets shown to be nonsense?? I mean, I call it school, and by the look of things some bullies got to you on the first day.



Is this some sort of veiled threat??

More likely though it's just another example of you demonstrating your lack of an ability to keep a story straight (including your own), so it's not so shocking that you would get my words SO WRONG that you would think that I was accusing marines of perpetrating 9-11...

I almost don't even want to try to correct what you said I'm saying because you'll just get it wrong again... and with your demonstrated lack of honesty, the evidence now points to this being deliberate and intentional dishonesty.

That was sad :roll:

 

[BmanMcfly]

That was sad :roll:

Damn, even I didn't expect to school you so hard you'd be speechless.

 

[usda select]

Damn, even I didn't expect to school you so hard you'd be speechless.

It was sad that your argument is so hard to articulate that what I am assuming is a grown man cannot make sense.

I have no idea what is being asked of me or what your theory on 9/11 is or, gee, any point you are trying to make.

:roll:

 

[BmanMcfly]

It was sad that your argument is so hard to articulate that what I am assuming is a grown man cannot make sense.

Sorry that you're not so good at reading...

I have no idea what is being asked of me

First you see the letters, then you combine those letters into words, and words into sentances, the symbol at the end of the sentance shows if it was a statement or an interrogative.

You said : "I first thought there was a conspiracy"... meaning you had the thought process that it might be the result of a conspiracy...

Then you said : "then I realized that it would require too many people"

So, I'm asking you, based on your thoughts that it "might be a conspiracy", how many people became "too many people", and how did you reach that conclusion?

I cannot possibly simplify this any further, I've asked it in 3 seperate ways and you still have no clue.

or what your theory on 9/11 is

Forget MY theory... that's irrellevant at the moment... I'm trying to get you to expand on your belief that 'too many people' were required for the 'conspiracy' that YOU determined could not be the case.

or, gee, any point you are trying to make.

:roll:

I'll simplify my points further :
1 - I want to figure out how many people had to have been involved in the 'conspiracy' as YOU thought about it... and HOW MANY PEOPLE became TOO MANY for that to be possible... was it 21 people? 30? 100000? How many people appeared in your mind that flipped the switch to where you said 'no it can't be a conspiracy'?

2 - That you are thoroughly dishonest in this debate.

3 - I also asked which report added to this conviction (this is the 1 question you managed to answer, though you didn't elaborate), you mentioned the 9-11 commission report, so I showed you the links of the 6 of the 10 members of THAT COMMISSION that have spoken out against that report. Now, if the authors of the report have problems with the report that they wrote and signed off on, then why do you still have so much faith placed in this report?

Look... you're making statements and I'm challenging those statements to see if those beliefs actually have a leg to stand on. Suddenly you forget how to read and just :roll: and :rofl: as though it makes your case stronger...

I could go further with my statements, but I'm trying to determine what your position actually is... because well... so far the only thing I can determine is that you think the murder of 3000 americans is a laughing matter.

 

[usda select]

Sorry that you're not so good at reading...

:roll: Whatever. And you wonder why people point at truthers and snicker.

You said : "I first thought there was a conspiracy"... meaning you had the thought process that it might be the result of a conspiracy...

Then you said : "then I realized that it would require too many people"

So, I'm asking you, based on your thoughts that it "might be a conspiracy", how many people became "too many people", and how did you reach that conclusion?

Ahh...It would have required hundreds in my first theory which involved military stand-downs and the planting of evidence.

I deduced that anything more than ten people would likely be a deal breaker.

Likely more than five would mean the end of it. Five to ten highly placed powerful individuals.

However, context plays a critical role too.

The 19 hijackers that did it were radicalized; we have no such radicals in the highest levels of our government.

I'll simplify my points further :
1 - I want to figure out how many people had to have been involved in the 'conspiracy' as YOU thought about it... and HOW MANY PEOPLE became TOO MANY for that to be possible... was it 21 people? 30? 100000? How many people appeared in your mind that flipped the switch to where you said 'no it can't be a conspiracy'?

See above.

2 - That you are thoroughly dishonest in this debate.

:roll: Whatever

3 - I also asked which report added to this conviction (this is the 1 question you managed to answer, though you didn't elaborate), you mentioned the 9-11 commission report, so I showed you the links of the 6 of the 10 members of THAT COMMISSION that have spoken out against that report. Now, if the authors of the report have problems with the report that they wrote and signed off on, then why do you still have so much faith placed in this report?

You took Secretary Lehman's comments out of context; Chairman Kean stands behind the report as does Hamilton and said so as recently as last September. And, oh yeah, no other report makes a lick of sense.

Look... you're making statements and I'm challenging those statements to see if those beliefs actually have a leg to stand on. Suddenly you forget how to read and just :roll: and :rofl: as though it makes your case stronger...

You brought up the Marines. I took you to task on it; you quickly ran away from it. The reason I laugh is because you make me laugh which, frankly, is hard to do. I find your posts to this point to be quite enjoyable in how simplistic your half-formed and ill-conceived arguments seem to be--

they didn't know they were spraying explosives---investigators didn't look for unexploded bombs--the terrorists may have been hypmotized;

all good stuff if you're writing a comedy which I assume you are doing. :rofl

I could go further with my statements, but I'm trying to determine what your position actually is... because well... so far the only thing I can determine is that you think the murder of 3000 americans is a laughing matter.

You've turned one aspect of the fallout into one; the truth movement is a joke because of your ignorance/hypmotism angle.

Forget MY theory... that's irrellevant at the moment...

Okay, I answered your questions; supply us with your theory. I'm sure I'll be entertained yet again.

We both know you're going to go nowhere near explaining your theory because, you are a truther and they never explain anything.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Ahh...It would have required hundreds in my first theory which involved military stand-downs and the planting of evidence.

Ok... let's ask the experts about that one :
- Col. Robert Bowman : "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMYzwf01Z7I"]YouTube- Dr. Robert Bowman, Treason Part 2[/nomedia]

- U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated: “there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’ “
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

- Lt. Col. Steve Butler : “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”

- Maj. Gen. Albert Stubbelbine : http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv

- Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer : “I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government …."
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Razer

I deduced that anything more than ten people would likely be a deal breaker.

Likely more than five would mean the end of it. Five to ten highly placed powerful individuals.

So, I guess mafia's are also a 'conspiracy theory', I mean, mafias do exist and they require more then 5-10 people? How do mafia's stay as secret as they do?

That said, 5-10 highly placed, powerful and influential people is probably all that would be needed to allocate the various compartmentalized tasks that others would accomplish without necessarily understanding how those tasks fit into the greater picture.

However, context plays a critical role too.

The 19 hijackers that did it were radicalized; we have no such radicals in the highest levels of our government.

That depends on which definition of 'radical' you are using... dictionary.com has about 16 different definitions for the term, and most of them would not apply to anyone in government, however, there are two or three that DO.

:roll: Whatever

After displaying nearly ten examples where you've been dishonest... you can 'whatever' it all you want... I call it 'busted'.

You took Secretary Lehman's comments out of context;

Can you explain a context in which that statement that he said that makes it acceptable that he knew of conflicts of interest?? Accusations of out of context arguments require you to at the very least explain the proper context.

Chairman Kean stands behind the report as does Hamilton and said so as recently as last September.

That DOES NOT negate the fact that they said that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA and whitehouse. They stand by the report that they wrote in spite of the obstructions. So, you're actually the one changing the context of their statements. They justified these obstructions by saying that the information that would have been provided would have simply 'padded' the length of the report.

And, oh yeah, no other report makes a lick of sense.

I agree... so you have a report that is at best incomplete, and then the NIST reports that don't make a lick of sense... yet, you see no problems with the official version?

You brought up the Marines. I took you to task on it; you quickly ran away from it.

You 'put me to task' by COMPLETELY changing what I said to the point that it was barely recognizeable as a remark on what I said.... I didn't 'run away' from it... I called you on that dishonesty.

We both know you're going to go nowhere near explaining your theory because, you are a truther and they never explain anything.

I've never encountered someone that is SO THOROUGHLY dishonest in a debate as this one... I'm litterally amazed that you laugh at the murder of thousands of americans, spitting in the face of all the people that lost loved ones that day, while trumpeting them around as though they don't mostly all support a new investigation...

Okay, I answered your questions; supply us with your theory. I'm sure I'll be entertained yet again.

Now... I doubt you'll be able to honestly disseminate this... but :

OBL as a CIA asset through the pakistani ISI as a proxy recruited a group of afghans to be martyrs for a cause, which these individuals would join up, likely under the prospect of having their families taken care of after they are gone, and motivated by the chance to lash out against what they view as the root of the oppression they suffer through.

Israel had a part to play, as evidenced by the mossad agents that were caught "documenting the event" while they were dancing on rooftops while the buildings burned.

The writers of the PNAC "rebuilding america's defenses", knew the details of the attacks, and wrote about the need for this to happen in order to accomplish their national security objectives. Essentially the 'script' of the bush administration.... it's not a coincidence that the PNAC members ALL took jobs in the Bush whitehouse.

So, to make sure that NORAD and the defense elements of the country would not react properly and put an end to the attacks, a series of drills and wargames were setup on and around 9-11 with the intention of confusing the reaction to the attacks. So, any good people that would question the situation would be told 'oh no, stand down, that's just a drill'.

Then, because this is like a mafia operation determining who is 'with us' and who is 'against us', there's a series of examples of bizarre, yet seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination, which would serve as a 'trust' issue between criminals, that is trust through mutual complicity
- Bush and his non-reaction
- The secret service and their non-reaction
- the investment group that did the majority of the insider trades
- silversteins 'pull it and watched the building come down' comments
- the mossad agents getting themselves caught 'documenting the event'
- News agencies reporting the collapse of WTC7 5-15 minutes BEFORE it had collapsed (it was about 5 years before anyone even noticed the discrepency)

That's without mentioning anything of explosives... which, I feel is quite likely in the WTC towers because of how quickly and completely the towers collapsed, the level of debris projected outward, the assymetrical damage that caused total failure of the structure.

How did those explosives get there? Well, the dust samples showed signs of nano-aluminum sol-gel incendiaries (of which nano-thermite is but one example)... this type of incendiary can be sprayed on, can't be ignited until it's dried, and could legitimately pass as a 'fireproofing' agent to an unsuspecting individual that installed the stuff... This may also have been accomplished with some black ops group who was explained how this was a necessary task for the greater good of the country. Which is NOT a statement of ALL millitary, but that simply there ARE individuals that would do something like that if ordered to (or paid to) and have already proven their capacity to keep secrets.

The PURPOSE of the attacks was to :
- Turn america into a security state
- justify wars with the few 'rogue' nations that are not in line with the agenda for a one world government
- demonize those with a capacity to form independant political thoughts (determine who is with 'us' or against 'us' (where 'us' is not US, but 'us' as in the masterminds behind the growing world government system))
- Show the world that the US could sustain two simultaneous large scale conflicts around the world and be winning them both
- finally, to prevent a 'long and drawn out' justification for 'regime change' in Iraq.

Let's look at how many people around the world 'NEEDED' to be on the 'inside' of such a conspiracy :
- Bin Laden
- a high ranking member of the pakistani ISI
- a high ranking member of the israeli mossad
- a high ranking member of PNAC
- a high ranking member of the CIA
- a high ranking member of the secret service
- Dick Cheney (for the drills / wargames)
- A high level banker (for funding purposes)
- (Potentially) the head of a demolitions company

Anyone else did not need to be IN on the conspiracy, they just needed to keep the secret, follow orders and delegate smaller tasks to individuals with less and less information about how that task fits into the whole event. Even Bush himself did NOT need to be directly involved in the conspiracy... beyond a complicity after the fact.

 

[usda select]

Later on...I'll addres some of the stuff below. Some is so blatantly silly its just astounding you guys keep bringing it up. But let me ask you this.

1. What is your opinion of that Dutch scientist who works with Steven Jones and said he found thermite at the site (chain of custody is really out of whack but thats a matter for later)? :mrgreen:

2. He said you'd need 10-100 tonnes of this stuff. I'm curious, how many plants make this super deluxe nano thermite? If so, why are there no records of shipping 1,000 to 100,000 kilograms of this stuff? Surely someone would notice there are 1,000 to 100,000 kg of this stuff missing or, better yet...a paper trail of it being sold to company X or company Y or company X & Y but then again, the circle can't get too big now can it? :rofl I'm guessing you're going to say that they were mixing it in the White House basement but why worry about losing your credibility when, after all; you have zilch to start with.:mrgreen:

3. You method of dispersal of this stuff relies on someone who doesn't know he's spraying the buidling with this stuff (incredibly unlikely that they would be working in the WTC complex and not know what they are doing but hell it's your fantasy).:lol: Spraying 1,000 to 100,000 kilograms through a sprayer is going to take...well let me let you explain how long it would take given you're doing something like maybe a gallon in 20-30 minutes if you're not aiming it at any particular spot (ever try filling a pool with a garden hose?

4. Why aren't doctors finding persons who inhaled this super deluxe nano thermite? Why aren't ME's finding persons with it in their system when they cut open a corpse? I guess it was so microscopic, nobody inhaled it?

5. Fires that burned for over an hour didn't set off any of this stuff? Strange; it caused steel to bend but it didn't set off thermite?

6. Why do you need to hijack planes if you have bombs in buildings?

7. For another time.

Enough for now; you've got some homework.

Ok... let's ask the experts about that one :
- Col. Robert Bowman : "If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an old interceptor pilot-I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were, and I know what they’ve changed them to-if our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
YouTube- Dr. Robert Bowman, Treason Part 2

- U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel Davis) stated: “there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control … Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a ‘conspiracy Theory’ does not change the truth. It seems, ‘Something is rotten in the State.’ “
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

- Lt. Col. Steve Butler : “Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed this war on terrorism.”

- Maj. Gen. Albert Stubbelbine : http://www.undersiegemovie.com/media/stubblebine.wmv

- Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer : “I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government …."
Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report



So, I guess mafia's are also a 'conspiracy theory', I mean, mafias do exist and they require more then 5-10 people? How do mafia's stay as secret as they do?

That said, 5-10 highly placed, powerful and influential people is probably all that would be needed to allocate the various compartmentalized tasks that others would accomplish without necessarily understanding how those tasks fit into the greater picture.



That depends on which definition of 'radical' you are using... dictionary.com has about 16 different definitions for the term, and most of them would not apply to anyone in government, however, there are two or three that DO.



After displaying nearly ten examples where you've been dishonest... you can 'whatever' it all you want... I call it 'busted'.



Can you explain a context in which that statement that he said that makes it acceptable that he knew of conflicts of interest?? Accusations of out of context arguments require you to at the very least explain the proper context.



That DOES NOT negate the fact that they said that their investigation was obstructed by the CIA and whitehouse. They stand by the report that they wrote in spite of the obstructions. So, you're actually the one changing the context of their statements. They justified these obstructions by saying that the information that would have been provided would have simply 'padded' the length of the report.



I agree... so you have a report that is at best incomplete, and then the NIST reports that don't make a lick of sense... yet, you see no problems with the official version?



You 'put me to task' by COMPLETELY changing what I said to the point that it was barely recognizeable as a remark on what I said.... I didn't 'run away' from it... I called you on that dishonesty.



I've never encountered someone that is SO THOROUGHLY dishonest in a debate as this one... I'm litterally amazed that you laugh at the murder of thousands of americans, spitting in the face of all the people that lost loved ones that day, while trumpeting them around as though they don't mostly all support a new investigation...



Now... I doubt you'll be able to honestly disseminate this... but :

OBL as a CIA asset through the pakistani ISI as a proxy recruited a group of afghans to be martyrs for a cause, which these individuals would join up, likely under the prospect of having their families taken care of after they are gone, and motivated by the chance to lash out against what they view as the root of the oppression they suffer through.

Israel had a part to play, as evidenced by the mossad agents that were caught "documenting the event" while they were dancing on rooftops while the buildings burned.

The writers of the PNAC "rebuilding america's defenses", knew the details of the attacks, and wrote about the need for this to happen in order to accomplish their national security objectives. Essentially the 'script' of the bush administration.... it's not a coincidence that the PNAC members ALL took jobs in the Bush whitehouse.

So, to make sure that NORAD and the defense elements of the country would not react properly and put an end to the attacks, a series of drills and wargames were setup on and around 9-11 with the intention of confusing the reaction to the attacks. So, any good people that would question the situation would be told 'oh no, stand down, that's just a drill'.

Then, because this is like a mafia operation determining who is 'with us' and who is 'against us', there's a series of examples of bizarre, yet seemingly deliberate cases of self-incrimination, which would serve as a 'trust' issue between criminals, that is trust through mutual complicity
- Bush and his non-reaction
- The secret service and their non-reaction
- the investment group that did the majority of the insider trades
- silversteins 'pull it and watched the building come down' comments
- the mossad agents getting themselves caught 'documenting the event'
- News agencies reporting the collapse of WTC7 5-15 minutes BEFORE it had collapsed (it was about 5 years before anyone even noticed the discrepency)

That's without mentioning anything of explosives... which, I feel is quite likely in the WTC towers because of how quickly and completely the towers collapsed, the level of debris projected outward, the assymetrical damage that caused total failure of the structure.

How did those explosives get there? Well, the dust samples showed signs of nano-aluminum sol-gel incendiaries (of which nano-thermite is but one example)... this type of incendiary can be sprayed on, can't be ignited until it's dried, and could legitimately pass as a 'fireproofing' agent to an unsuspecting individual that installed the stuff... This may also have been accomplished with some black ops group who was explained how this was a necessary task for the greater good of the country. Which is NOT a statement of ALL millitary, but that simply there ARE individuals that would do something like that if ordered to (or paid to) and have already proven their capacity to keep secrets.

The PURPOSE of the attacks was to :
- Turn america into a security state
- justify wars with the few 'rogue' nations that are not in line with the agenda for a one world government
- demonize those with a capacity to form independant political thoughts (determine who is with 'us' or against 'us' (where 'us' is not US, but 'us' as in the masterminds behind the growing world government system))
- Show the world that the US could sustain two simultaneous large scale conflicts around the world and be winning them both
- finally, to prevent a 'long and drawn out' justification for 'regime change' in Iraq.

Let's look at how many people around the world 'NEEDED' to be on the 'inside' of such a conspiracy :
- Bin Laden
- a high ranking member of the pakistani ISI
- a high ranking member of the israeli mossad
- a high ranking member of PNAC
- a high ranking member of the CIA
- a high ranking member of the secret service
- Dick Cheney (for the drills / wargames)
- A high level banker (for funding purposes)
- (Potentially) the head of a demolitions company

Anyone else did not need to be IN on the conspiracy, they just needed to keep the secret, follow orders and delegate smaller tasks to individuals with less and less information about how that task fits into the whole event. Even Bush himself did NOT need to be directly involved in the conspiracy... beyond a complicity after the fact.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Later on...I'll addres some of the stuff below. Some is so blatantly silly its just astounding you guys keep bringing it up. But let me ask you this.

1. What is your opinion of that Dutch scientist who works with Steven Jones and said he found thermite at the site (chain of custody is really out of whack but thats a matter for later)? :mrgreen:

The chain of custody wasn't standard practice, but under the circumstance it was as best as could be done, and in his papers he is quite clear about where and how the samples were collected...

I do have a couple issues that I'm not 100% about beyond that, but my leaning is that he was wrong about it being 'thermitic' material, but something energetic none the less. I think he just pushed so hard saying it was thermite that he dug himself into a position where he can't change. If you really study the sol-gel incendiaries, by reading the various product analysis papers there are many types of these incendiaries that are NOT thermite, but are of comparable properties.

2. He said you'd need 10-100 tonnes of this stuff. I'm curious, how many plants make this super deluxe nano thermite?

NOT VERY MANY... I know that much for sure. Also, only the US (NASA, etc), and maybe China and Russia even have the technical capacity to even make the stuff (as far as I've been able to find in researching).

If so, why are there no records of shipping 1,000 to 100,000 kilograms of this stuff?

Actually, there are records of Turner construction being tasked with 'repairing deficiencies' of the fireproofing around steel columns and elevator shafts... the work started in 2006. This is the IDEAL situation for rigging this stuff, where Turner construction would have brought in this 'fireproofing' that was actually a highly effective incendiary. Buckets of spray on fireproofing are about 60-70 lbs per bucket as it is... and if marked as the fireproofing material, the installers would never even know what they were applying.

Surely someone would notice there are 1,000 to 100,000 kg of this stuff missing or, better yet...a paper trail of it being sold to company X or company Y or company X & Y but then again, the circle can't get too big now can it? :rofl I'm guessing you're going to say that they were mixing it in the White House basement but why worry about losing your credibility when, after all; you have zilch to start with.:mrgreen:

http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH2-1.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH1.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH2.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/TC1.jpg

3. You method of dispersal of this stuff relies on someone who doesn't know he's spraying the buidling with this stuff (incredibly unlikely that they would be working in the WTC complex and not know what they are doing but hell it's your fantasy).:lol: Spraying 1,000 to 100,000 kilograms through a sprayer is going to take...well let me let you explain how long it would take given you're doing something like maybe a gallon in 20-30 minutes if you're not aiming it at any particular spot (ever try filling a pool with a garden hose?

When I was doing fireproofing in some condo buildings we would take about 4 buckets of spray on fireproofing per floor (smaller area then the WTC), and we would do about one floor every 2 days with 2 people working. So, I would figure, if drywall walls needed to be opened, then I would figure probably about a week per floor, and working in the elevator shafts would probably be about 1 day per shaft.

So, what areas would be hit with 'fireproofing' to not raise questions :
- Around core columns
- The top and bottoms of window walls
- worst case would be to move the panels to spray above the t-bar (if this was the case, up it to a week and a half per floor assuming 1-2 workers)

4. Why aren't doctors finding persons who inhaled this super deluxe nano thermite? Why aren't ME's finding persons with it in their system when they cut open a corpse? I guess it was so microscopic, nobody inhaled it?

Is that even something that would be tested for?? There ARE a good number of the first responders that are sick and dying (or dead) because of the dust they had inhaled on 9-11... I'm not actually certain if

5. Fires that burned for over an hour didn't set off any of this stuff? Strange; it caused steel to bend but it didn't set off thermite?

That depends where the stuff was actually sprayed, and assuming that was what actually caused the demolition... NEITHER of the buildings were impacted in the core area... and whose to say that it wasn't only after an hour (or two hours in the building hit more to the side) for the flames to actually reach the explosive material. I mean, ceiling tiles that were NOT shaken down would hold back flames for nearly an hour.

The actual invoices are for the core areas, columns and elevator shafts... the fires burning in the tours after the plane hit may have been the 'fuse'.

Again, on the assumption that this type of material was integral to the collapse of the structure.

6. Why do you need to hijack planes if you have bombs in buildings?

In short for the symbolism. If the planes didn't crash into the buildings the security state in the homeland wouldn't be justified, and a standard investigative practise could have been used. If the planes crashed in the building and it didn't collapse, then Silverstein would have had to pay for the demolition out of pocket (after his insurance money)... the building was full of asbestos, not sure about where you live, but certified asbestos remouval people where I live goes about 50$/ manhour + materials (I happen to have an old highschool friend in that trade).

 

[usda select]

The chain of custody wasn't standard practice, but under the circumstance it was as best as could be done, and in his papers he is quite clear about where and how the samples were collected...

Who collected them? Some were not at ground zero...true or false?

I do have a couple issues that I'm not 100% about beyond that, but my leaning is that he was wrong about it being 'thermitic' material, but something energetic none the less. I think he just pushed so hard saying it was thermite that he dug himself into a position where he can't change. If you really study the sol-gel incendiaries, by reading the various product analysis papers there are many types of these incendiaries that are NOT thermite, but are of comparable properties.



NOT VERY MANY... I know that much for sure. Also, only the US (NASA, etc), and maybe China and Russia even have the technical capacity to even make the stuff (as far as I've been able to find in researching).

So nobody is going to notice an order for a literal ton of the stuff, much less 100 tons? There would be a paper trail and with very few suppliers, the trail would be quite easy to spot; if it existed. Oh wait...let me guess, the plants are in on it too?

Actually, there are records of Turner construction being tasked with 'repairing deficiencies' of the fireproofing around steel columns and elevator shafts... the work started in 2006. This is the IDEAL situation for rigging this stuff, where Turner construction would have brought in this 'fireproofing' that was actually a highly effective incendiary. Buckets of spray on fireproofing are about 60-70 lbs per bucket as it is... and if marked as the fireproofing material, the installers would never even know what they were applying.



http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH2-1.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH1.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/MH2.jpg
http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/88Badmachine88/TC1.jpg



When I was doing fireproofing in some condo buildings we would take about 4 buckets of spray on fireproofing per floor (smaller area then the WTC), and we would do about one floor every 2 days with 2 people working. So, I would figure, if drywall walls needed to be opened, then I would figure probably about a week per floor, and working in the elevator shafts would probably be about 1 day per shaft.

Drywall being opened.
People would never know they are spraying thermite instead of fireproofing.
:roll: You earned that one.

So, what areas would be hit with 'fireproofing' to not raise questions :
- Around core columns
- The top and bottoms of window walls
- worst case would be to move the panels to spray above the t-bar (if this was the case, up it to a week and a half per floor assuming 1-2 workers)

Wow...top and bottom of window walls?

Is that even something that would be tested for?? There ARE a good number of the first responders that are sick and dying (or dead) because of the dust they had inhaled on 9-11... I'm not actually certain if

Cause of death? Uhhh YEAH.

That depends where the stuff was actually sprayed, and assuming that was what actually caused the demolition... NEITHER of the buildings were impacted in the core area... and whose to say that it wasn't only after an hour (or two hours in the building hit more to the side) for the flames to actually reach the explosive material. I mean, ceiling tiles that were NOT shaken down would hold back flames for nearly an hour.

The actual invoices are for the core areas, columns and elevator shafts... the fires burning in the tours after the plane hit may have been the 'fuse'.

:roll: So a plane hitting would have been the fuse. :rofl

Again, on the assumption that this type of material was integral to the collapse of the structure.

According to the "expert" whose own editor resigned when her publication printed that tripe, it was. Perhaps you could debate him.

In short for the symbolism. If the planes didn't crash into the buildings the security state in the homeland wouldn't be justified, and a standard investigative practise could have been used. If the planes crashed in the building and it didn't collapse, then Silverstein would have had to pay for the demolition out of pocket (after his insurance money)... the building was full of asbestos, not sure about where you live, but certified asbestos remouval people where I live goes about 50$/ manhour + materials (I happen to have an old highschool friend in that trade).

:roll: Symbolism? One of the attacks had exactly one camera pointed at it. Had that plane not taken off, missed, was compromised, hijackers got cold feet, etc...nobody would have filmed the 2nd plane hitting. There are no films of 77 or 93. So we have the image of one plane hitting a building and one video of a plane hitting the North tower. As symbols go, they failed. Which is something really strange because you believe it was state--US State--sponsored terrorism. If the Feds were involved, they would have hit an event to be televised.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Who collected them? Some were not at ground zero...true or false?

Imageshack - picture1q.jpg

So nobody is going to notice an order for a literal ton of the stuff, much less 100 tons? There would be a paper trail and with very few suppliers, the trail would be quite easy to spot; if it existed. Oh wait...let me guess, the plants are in on it too?

Why would the plants have to be in on anything?? I mean, all they would be doing is making the stuff and processing the orders... (which only gets sold to 'authorized' clients, that's why that NATGEO special most recently opted out of testing actual nano-thermite because they were not able to get their hands on it)

Drywall being opened.

I mean, cutting a hole in the drywall to expose the framing behind it so it would be patched up later.

People would never know they are spraying thermite instead of fireproofing.
:roll: You earned that one.

Ok, how WOULD YOU KNOW?? An important ingredient in the mix is RUST powder. Spray-on fireproofing gel comes in grey and a deep red color, and it gets sprayed on with an airless compressor, and unless someone was screwing around and playing with the stuff instead of working... I really don't see how they would determine that it wasn't actually fireproofing (which would be the opposite of a sol-gel, flammable when wet and dries fireproof)

Wow...top and bottom of window walls?

It creats a smoke barrier between floors.

Cause of death? Uhhh YEAH.

Ya, cause of death : lung cancer. Coronors happy, the lungs are bad so won't be used for organ donations... I'm not sure how much deeper of testing you're expecting?? Now, even IF the dust was still like a layer in their lungs, would the drs say 'oh there's dust', or would they actually go and test to figure out what it is??

:roll: So a plane hitting would have been the fuse. :rofl

It's not impossible for it to have been, but look, this is already 3 layers deep into the speculation you've forced me into... the actual paperwork only shows that it was the core and inside the elevator shafts that were getting this 'fireproofing' installed... so, it may not even have been necessary... We're talking about people in very powerful positions that had to work together in order to allow 9-11 to happen... there's probably a scientist out there that worked out every detail to determine what was NECESSARY to take down the whole building and make it AMBIGUOUSLY look like they just collapsed due to fire.

According to the "expert" whose own editor resigned when her publication printed that tripe, it was. Perhaps you could debate him.

Can you source that one?

:roll: Symbolism?

Yes, the twin towers were the symbol of american economic supremacy.

One of the attacks had exactly one camera pointed at it.

There was still thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers that saw it happen.

Had that plane not taken off, missed, was compromised, hijackers got cold feet, etc...nobody would have filmed the 2nd plane hitting. There are no films of 77 or 93.

Or if america's air defenses had been allowed their standard response.

So we have the image of one plane hitting a building and one video of a plane hitting the North tower. As symbols go, they failed.

I disagree... by the time the second plane hit, in america there was not 1 channel (except maybe some kids channels) that wasn't focused on the towers as they collapsed... people the world over saw the towers collapse.

The building collapsing on their own holds no particular meaning, but with enough people watching, the destruction of a building can change the world... and it DID change the world.

[quoteWhich is something really strange because you believe it was state--US State--sponsored terrorism. If the Feds were involved, they would have hit an event to be televised.[/QUOTE]

Why? That takes away from plausible deniability telling people to focus their cameras on the area about to be hit.... and I'd say that the destruction that day was more then adequately televised to produce the wanted effect.

That being : the justification of the security state (re: patriot act), the justification for the invasion of afghanistan and regime change in Iraq, to show the world that the US could sustain two large scale conflicts around the world simultaneously and be winning them both.

 

[Pull My Finger]

I once believed there may be a conspiracy but there are too many people that would have to be involved for me to believe a conspiracy with 9/11.

I’m personally not so sure…


The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

A 40 year experiment on 600 black men studied the effects of syphilis. If you include the 600 duped patients, at least 600 participated without telling anyone... for 40 years…

It’s also an excellent example of how ‘compartmentalization’ works. Those 600 men WERE part of the conspiracy – even if they didn’t know what their role was.

cdc.gov – Tuskegee Syphilis Study


Secret CIA Prisons

Denied, considered conspiracy theory, but then…

washingtonpost.com – CIA holds suspects in secret prisons
guardian.co.uk – poland admits role in cia rendition programme


Weather Warfare

Sounds far out even for today’s technology… Go back to the 60’s… Was considered conspiracy theory…

nytimes.com – rainmaking is used as weapon by US
books.google.ca – weather modification: prospects & problems
state.gov – Prohibition of Environmental Modification Techniques


Operation Northwoods

Military plans, supported by top brass, included hijacking planes, blowing up a US ship, and acts of terrorism in US cities, to blame on the Cubans, to draw support for a war with Castro’s Cuba.

George Washington University.edu – Northwoods document.pdf
abcnews.com – US military wanted to provoke war with Cuba


Area 51

Denied, laughed off with the UFO crowd as conspiracy theory, then:

independent.co.uk – US acknowledges Area 51
bbc.co.uk – US acknowledges Area 51


The Manhattan Project

Three countries, over 100,000 people across multiple organizations/agencies, $2 billion (in the 40’s) spent, multiple production, research, and test sites hidden in plain view… All secret, ‘cept for conspiracy theories...

doe.gov – people of the manhattan project
nytimes.com – the manhattan project
ornl.gov – wartime laboratory


IMO, 9/11 could be kept secret enough to just be considered ‘conspiracy theories’…

Peace

 

[usda select]

I’m personally not so sure…


The Tuskegee Syphilis Study

A 40 year experiment on 600 black men studied the effects of syphilis. If you include the 600 duped patients, at least 600 participated without telling anyone... for 40 years…


It’s also an excellent example of how ‘compartmentalization’ works. Those 600 men WERE part of the conspiracy – even if they didn’t know what their role was.

cdc.gov – Tuskegee Syphilis Study

Secret CIA Prisons

Denied, considered conspiracy theory, but then…

washingtonpost.com – CIA holds suspects in secret prisons
guardian.co.uk – poland admits role in cia rendition programme

Who was denying it besides the CIA and other government officials?

Weather Warfare

Sounds far out even for today’s technology… Go back to the 60’s… Was considered conspiracy theory…

nytimes.com – rainmaking is used as weapon by US
books.google.ca – weather modification: prospects & problems
state.gov – Prohibition of Environmental Modification Techniques

Barely effective in the best of circumstances.

Operation Northwoods

Military plans, supported by top brass, included hijacking planes, blowing up a US ship, and acts of terrorism in US cities, to blame on the Cubans, to draw support for a war with Castro’s Cuba.

George Washington University.edu – Northwoods document.pdf
abcnews.com – US military wanted to provoke war with Cuba

Such a silly plan the person who thought of it was fired.

Area 51

Denied, laughed off with the UFO crowd as conspiracy theory, then:

independent.co.uk – US acknowledges Area 51
bbc.co.uk – US acknowledges Area 51

Few outside of the government ever worried about whether or not it was real...I always assumed it was in fact. If we didn't have an "area 51" type of place, I would think that our military isn't doing their job.

The Manhattan Project

Three countries, over 100,000 people across multiple organizations/agencies, $2 billion (in the 40’s) spent, multiple production, research, and test sites hidden in plain view… All secret, ‘cept for conspiracy theories...

doe.gov – people of the manhattan project
nytimes.com – the manhattan project
ornl.gov – wartime laboratory

And Stalin knew the entire time; some secret.

IMO, 9/11 could be kept secret enough to just be considered ‘conspiracy theories’…

Peace

In all of the above examples, none of them involved the slaughter of children. Several children died in 9/11. None of them that took place involved attacks on the national military headquarters. Such an attack took place on 9/11.

IMO the only way you can believe 9/11 was some sort of conspiracy is to take a vacation from being a grown up and allow yourself to believe total malarkey.

 

[Pull My Finger]

Who was denying it besides the CIA and other government officials?

Barely effective in the best of circumstances.

Such a silly plan the person who thought of it was fired.

If we didn't have an "area 51" type of place...

And Stalin knew the entire time; some secret.

In all of the above examples, none of them involved the slaughter of children.

Several children died in 9/11.

None of them that took place involved attacks on the national military headquarters.

Here that whooshing noise? It's the sound of my last post going right over your head...

IMO the only way you can believe 9/11 wasn't some sort of conspiracy is to take a vacation from being a grown up and allow yourself to believe total malarkey.

Fixed it for you...

Peace

 

[usda select]

Here that whooshing noise? It's the sound of my last post going right over your head...

Fixed it for you...

Peace

That whooshing noise was the sound makes when it enters one of your ears and passes through unobstructed and out the other ear.

I saw the point you were attempting lamely to make and found it quite funny...that large projects can be orchestrated with little or no fanfare and involve lots of people. I totally agree. But the nature of the 9/11 attacks is a category killer because of the nature of the attacks on civilian and military targets, the nature of the victims involving children, the scope of the attacks across three states and, dependent upon what whacko theory you want to toss out about how it "could" happen involve thousands if not tens of thousands of people.

 

[ricksfolly]

I was hoping to hear some stories about how the skeptics became skeptics.

Skeptics are much more attuned to life than most. They want answers, not conventional wisdom, status quo, or samo samo.

ricksfolly

 

[Skateguy]

If we were given the truth from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When has gubment ever told us the truth about anything? they tell us what they want us to know. Just enough to keep us quiet.

 

[ricksfolly]

If we were given the truth from the beginning, we wouldn't be having this conversation. When has gubment ever told us the truth about anything? they tell us what they want us to know. Just enough to keep us quiet.

As Nicholson said in A Few Good Men, "You can't stand the Truth..."

It could shatter all your illusions.

ricksfolly

 

[BmanMcfly]

You forgot to mention tuskegee... I suppose that one was kept secret enough?

Who was denying it besides the CIA and other government officials?

The same groups that would be tasked to keeping 9-11 a secret/

Barely effective in the best of circumstances.

Doesn't mean it wasn't kept a secret.... although, the cloud seeding programs WERE effective, it's actually the same techniques of cloud seeding that is used in many localities around the world.

Such a silly plan the person who thought of it was fired.

Do you have a source for this??? I've had difficulty originally even finding an actual copy of operation Northwoods, yet you seem to know who wrote it and the consequences for those that did.

Few outside of the government ever worried about whether or not it was real...I always assumed it was in fact. If we didn't have an "area 51" type of place, I would think that our military isn't doing their job.

Does that mean that you believe that there is some sort of alien presence located on the base?

And Stalin knew the entire time; some secret.

I would still wager that for the vast majority of people had no clue what a nuclear bomb was before the world witnessed one exploding.

In all of the above examples, none of them involved the slaughter of children. Several children died in 9/11. None of them that took place involved attacks on the national military headquarters. Such an attack took place on 9/11.

So none of those count cause they didn't kill children?? You should look a little deeper into Tuskegee?? I'm pretty sure that the japanese were not given the chance to evacuate children, and there are also children held in secret prison facilities.