~ 911~ Conspiracies.

[Fubar]

Tell us your versions of the events that day.. we will compare it to the 911 commission report and see what sounds more logical. or are you incapable of doing so? we're waiting.

commission report omissions. ....just saying.
9-11 Research: The 9-11 Report

9/11 Commission Members Doubt Official Story | Old-Thinker News commission members doubt the official story.

something relevant from the history we forgot to teach.....
Göring spoke about war and extreme nationalism to Captain Gilbert, as recorded in Gilbert's Nuremberg Diary:
Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.[46]


if u decide to be skeptical....be so with all sides.research.watching tv is not research peace.eace

 

[_Markum_]

Ok I am bored and am willing to discuss. So what where is the supporting links to your posts 82/91/95..
Or are you going to contineu to troll. Maybe you can't back up your statements.
Please provide the "experts" posting that stressed concreate cannot fail the way it did,

While, as a rule, I don't experience "boredom", I, too, am willing to discuss. I justified my opening statements with a considered rationale. The discourse never progressed to the point where supporting links were appropriate. I never said anything about "stressed concrete"; I mentioned a "stressed building". Reasonable discussion is going to require of you better attention to detail.

By the way, you never answered my challenge to you on why the Purdue study was wrong. You also have had ample time to respond. But guess you can't be cival when someone does not just take your word.

I haven't been civil? :lamo After 15 minutes of searching and taking links I couldn't find the actual study, just stuff about the study. So, I figure, how important could it be if it has such a low profile! Besides, I noticed someone else debunked your citation, to which you did not reply, so I figured I had missed the original beat down on that, and it was a dead issue. If you would be so kind as to provide a link, I'll address it.

Here is a early paper for you.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112
As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight

I didn't find this quote, or the article, especially relevant: I can stipulate that "one or two" floors gave way; we've already dispatched the "at" free-fall business (indeed, the author of your quote stipulates "near free-fall"); the lack of total solidity of a building does not necessitate implosion; there is no dispute that the impact did not displace the building laterally, which would have predisposed it to toppling; given the speed of the collapse, the idea that there wasn't enough time to overcome the downward intertial is an issue irrelevant to my point that the collapse should not have proceded at speed to the ground.

This was interesting:
"It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich..."

Someone took exception to my characterization of the fire as "oxygen-starved"; here it is said to be "fuel-rich". So, what's the difference?

Also, this:
"It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse."

No! It is sufficient only to explain the collapse of the floors near the impact area. This sort of sloppy, prejudicial reasoning typifies this article.

[URL="http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf"]http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20Did%20&%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It.pdf

These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no
doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects
of fire.

The bias I just allude to shows itself, though more subtly, in this paper. For example:
"Several of the parameters of the present mathematical model have a large range of uncertainty.
However, the solution exhibits small sensitivity to some of them, and the values of others can
be fixed on the basis of observations or physical analysis."

So, they devised a mathematical model which, when its parameters are sufficiently tweaked, supports the official explanation. That's not a bad start, but should investigation of competing models be therefore abandoned? They go on to say:
"At the same time, the alternative allegations of some kind of controlled demolition are
shown to be totally out of range of the present mathematical model, even if the full range of
parameter uncertainties is considered."

Did you catch the significance of the admission in bold? In other words, their model is not capable of evaluating allegations of controlled demolition of any particular kind! So the statement immediately following is hardly justifiable, and demonstrates bias:
"These conclusions show the allegations of controlled demolition to be absurd and leave no
doubt that the towers failed due to gravity-driven progressive collapse triggered by the effects
of fire."

Certain of the assumptions in this paper are clarified or reevaluated in this:
http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Journal_5_PTransferRoss.pdf
"The energy balance of the collapse moves into deficit during the plastic shortening phase of
the first impacted columns showing that there would be insufficient energy available from
the released potential energy of the upper section to satisfy all of the energy demands of the
collision. The analysis shows that despite the assumptions made in favour of collapse
continuation, vertical movement of the falling section would be arrested prior to
completion of the 3% shortening phase of the impacted columns, and within 0.02
secondsafter impact.
A collapse driven only by gravity would not continue to progress beyond that point.
The analysis shows that the energies expended during the time period of the plastic
shortening of the first storey height of the vertical columns is sufficient to exhaust the
energy of the falling section and thereby arrest collapse. This however is not the full extent
of the plastic strain energy demand which exists. The next immediate task for the falling
mass to continue in its descent would be the plastic shortening within the remainder of the
buckle length. As has already been stated a buckling failure mode has a minimum length
over which it can act and in the case of the towers would be several storey lengths.
Each additional storey length involved in the buckle would add a further demand of about
450MJ for a further downward movement of 0.111metres. This also shows that collapse
arrest is not dependent upon an expenditure of energy in concrete pulverisation, since even
if this expenditure were disregarded the input energy would be exhausted during plastic
shortening of the second storeys affected."

This is from the conclusion of the paper. The relevant mathematical analysis is delineated in the body of the paper, for your review. Notably absent from this treatment is biased language. This paper quantifies my qualitative perception of the basic physics I've insisted was violated by the purportedly unaided total collapse scenario witnessed on 9/11.

There are many more links to be found where I found this paper's link in this summarizing article:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/LeggeCDatWTC.pdf

 

[Chenoa]

I have tried so hard not to do this, but.... Over the last several years I have received numerous emails and had total strangers engaging me in conversation about this "conspiracy". I decided to do some research. On one of the 9/11 forums, I saw a response from a military (Ret) guy who has a degree in structural engineering. He was so frustrated that he wrote a hilarious response (on the plane and the Pentagon). I took a part of that and wrote my synopsis on every theory that's been brought to my attention (needless to say, it's in homage to the military guy, whose moniker I can't remember).

Here's my basic understanding of the "conspiracy" as it's been told/written/emailed to me for the last several years:

The Official Story:

1. Nineteen (19) people (allegedly Muslim Extremists) hijacked Four (4) planes.
2. Four (4) planes were intended to hit buildings
3. Three (3) planes did - Two (2) into the World Trade Center (WTC); one (1) with 64 people in it, hit the Pentagon; and one (1) went nose down into a field, because the passengers were about to play kickball with heads of the Muslim Extremists in the cockpit
4. The two (2) planes that hit the WTC caused so much damage the towers fell
5. The one (1) plane that hit the Pentagon blew apart so violently and into so many pieces that the roof fell in

or, The Truther's Story:

1. Three (3) planes were hijacked by suicide pilots from the U.S. Government. Betty Ong, a flight attendant on American Airlines Flight 11 was a plant because she identified the hijackers as "mid-eastern" – that or the government has a cadre of mid-eastern suicide pilots.

2. Two (2) planes flew into the WTC, but they were also carrying missiles and/or bombs that went off in the building right before they hit. And there were already bombs in the basement of the WTC too. People saw them.

3. A secret Government Demolition Crew (GDCs) also put bombs in the WTC and they went off right before each collapse. These were either put in before 9/11 – or they snuck in the buildings during the insanity of the moment and did it (when remains unclear).

4. The government shot down the government suicide pilot flying Flight 93. And this is a crying shame because he was a really good actor. He was doing all that praying to Allah and stuff in the cockpit while those passengers (who had obviously lied about how strong their will to live was), and who were hand-selected by the US Government to die for BushCo tried to tear down the cockpit door.

5. Wait, I forgot - the passengers on Flight 93 did not try to tear down the cockpit door. Those voice recorder sounds were a plant — from a sound studio.

6. A fourth plane, Flight 77, was just plain kidnapped by the government. All the people on that flight either were put in the Witness Protection Program (WPP), duck-walked out to a cornfield and shot, or are being held in Gitmo— right now.

7. The government kidnappers allowed the kidnapped people to talk on their cell phones (and in some cases Airfones©, but it took a few years to figure out that the planes still had Airfones©) before they took them away forever. And don’t be fooled by DNA – it was all burnt up in the towers and in the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania!

8. Then the government sent the surviving suicide pilots off to the Mideast to live with their promised 72 virgins, but they’re still hunting for those virgins, so those guys are kinda mad and are starting to talk. NO VIRGINS GO TO THE MIDEAST TO BE WITH THESE GUYS and they'll really start talking!

9. The government launched a missile at the Pentagon, and of course blew it up.

10. The government planted eyewitnesses all along the highway by the Pentagon who would say they saw a plane fly into the building.

11. Or, the government used mind-control and made all the witnesses think they saw a plane (really should have numbered this 10a).

12. Or, the government used their Super-Secret Holographic Daytime Imager (SSHDI) to convince witnesses that they were actually seeing a plane (really, this should be 10b) - either way, we‘ll get to the bottom of this little puzzle eventually! Although I personally know that George Lucas owns a CGI company that can make these Holograph images – and he’s JEWISH – even though he’s says he’s Methodist, it’s obvious that he’s Jewish – so he’s conspiring with the Government!). [These soulless murderers will stop at nothing! The terrifying cabals and connections (which luckily I am able to put together for you Sheeple) just never ends!]

13. The National Guard pilot of the C-130 Hercules that was requested by Reagan International to track the plane that the government kidnapped (and who was heard over Air Traffic Control channels) reported to the tower that the kidnapped plane had flown into the Pentagon; he is, of course, lying — because he's attached to the military.

14. The Government Plant and Cover-Up Crew (GPCUC) showed up in front of all the Pentagon employees (who can't be trusted in the first place because they work at the Pentagon, and everybody that works at the Pentagon is a liar and part of the conspiracy) and in front of all the Firemen & EMT workers & police, & the mainstream media, (all firefighters in NYC and Washington DC, and all ambulance drivers and all cops and the mainstream media all work for the GPCUC), and started driving through the hole in the Pentagon and all over the lawn, dropping plane pieces and body parts like Easter eggs... only they were really stupid and sometimes they dropped the wrong kind of airplane parts. So it would be assumed they must have blown up all the passengers on the kidnapped plane so that they would have some body parts to spread around. This must have happened at the Secret Government Slaughter Facility (SGSF) where the plane was flown to be destroyed and hidden from sight forever or blown up to make plane pieces to spread around. I’ll get back to you on this pesky little plane problem just as soon as Wikileaks clears this up. Don’t despair, that should happen soon; sooner if the stupid Government would just release all of the security tapes from… somewhere; ah, yes, the Pentagon tapes of the missile hitting the building.

15. Then the stealthy Government Demolition Crew (GDC-S[tealth]) from the WTC arrived at the Pentagon and blew up the roof and wall, so that it would fall in on the hole that does not match the plane that was kidnapped by the government.

16. Then the stealthy Government Demolition Crew (GDC_S[leath]) flew back to the WTC in time to blow up Building 7! They were lucky that Silverstein made the fire department guys keep fighting that pesky fake fire until they could get back. That was a close one! It’s hard to fight a fake fire for that long!

17. Then the stealthy Government Clean-Up Crew (GCUC-S[tealth]) snuck into the WTC debris pile and stole all the steel. [I'm still not clear on why this is so important.]

18. Then the stealthy GCUC-S[tealth] crew flew to the Pentagon and stole all the missile evidence.

19. Then Michael Moore made a lot of money.

20. Then Alex Jones made a lot of money.

21. Then Dylan Avery and a whole lot of other people made a lot of money; making documentaries and writing books and starting cool conspiracy theory websites — and, they got interviewed on TV and started up a really huge argument — worldwide!

22. The government only wanted to attack the Pentagon with a missile, disguised as a plane, to start a war for oil (see BushCo and Blood for Oil), and take over the middle-east (especially lovely, super oil-rich Afghanistan), but Silverstein wanted to collect insurance money and because he's Jewish, he made the government include the World Trade Center complex in the attacks as well. (But, the main reason is Bush is part of the ancient order of freemasons/illuminati that has been in control of all world events since the time of the cavemen. And they’re trying to take over the world by scaring us all, and of course we needed the oil and it would make him rich and he'd get to stay President forever!).

23. Silverstein contacted every single Jew that works in the WTC towers via his stealthy Zionist-shoe-phone and made sure they were on vacation that day. So, there’s your PROOF that all Jews are part of the cover-up, and nearly completely responsible for the WTC attack and collapse (except for Bush & Chaney & Rumsfeld who are also partly responsible – all of this was foretold and setup by the Illuminati and Free Masons years ago and remind me to show you how to fold a dollar bill so that you can see how Benjamin Franklin knew about this as well).

24. To cover all this up the government got their trusty mid-eastern agent, Osama bin Laden (OBL), to confess to it all in a news interview. And we all know he has been on the government payroll in the job description of: "Bad Arab Guy Who Wants To Attack America (BAGWWTAA)" all through the Clinton administration.

So as you can see, The Official Story is just excessively complicated. If you apply Ocaam’s Razor to the two theories, it’s obvious which conclusion you will have to reach! If you don't do this you will remain confused (as I trust you are now, but luckily I sorted this out for you above).

 

[sephiroth2009]

Tell us your versions of the events that day.. we will compare it to the 911 commission report and see what sounds more logical. or are you incapable of doing so? we're waiting.

Well to be honest, I haven't read the report, but one commissioner said it was rushed, or rather they didn't have the time and that Government withheld information from them. So if all the information isn't presented, I don't think I'd even bother to read it.

As for the fact that Government is capable of staging attacks on it's citizens, I think it's very possible. I find it funny how you ignore that side of the question and go straight to what you want to ask. So to save time, I'll just tell you to look at Operation Northwoods. Reading this, I'd say Truthers have credibility as to why they think Government would stage 9/11.

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good thing Wiki isn't biased.

And for the sake of being awesome. Take a look. This article explains just about everything with crdible sources.

http://www.infowars.com/highly-credible-people-question-911/

 

[mike2810]

This can go on forever. It all ends up to what you believe. For every site that says X, their is a site that will say Y.
It is just a matter of what sites you believe to be creditable and ones you don't.

Journal Of Debunking  9/11 Conspiracy Theories

 

[Fubar]

the best way to discredit something is to put out so many blatantly wrong theories about it ,that people will just grow tired.the thing we know for sure is that we need a real investigation that will adress all aspects.we owe it to the 3000 murdered people.looking for truth means hard work.done on your own. i will take the liberty to sugest richard's gage presentation at architects and engineers for 9 11 truth.it's long but is the thing that woke me up.also see my above's post links.
peace

 

[sephiroth2009]

the best way to discredit something is to put out so many blatantly wrong theories about it ,that people will just grow tired.the thing we know for sure is that we need a real investigation that will adress all aspects.we owe it to the 3000 murdered people.looking for truth means hard work.done on your own. i will take the liberty to sugest richard's gage presentation at architects and engineers for 9 11 truth.it's long but is the thing that woke me up.also see my above's post links.
peace

I agree. I've seen some of that video he did. But I already knew the scoop ahead of time so it wasn't anything new. However, I think it's something the zombies should look into.

 

[_Markum_]

So as you can see, The Official Story is just excessively complicated. If you apply Ocaam’s Razor to the two theories, it’s obvious which conclusion you will have to reach! If you don't do this you will remain confused (as I trust you are now, but luckily I sorted this out for you above).

If the prospect of confusion is so painful to you that you would prefer a comfortable falsehood to an inconvenient truth (apologies to ManBearPig) perhaps it would be just as well that you handle any razor as clumsily as you have Ocaam's! :lamo

The short of it is that, in order to compare two models, they both have to account for the same reality. As I illustrated above, the official explanation does not account for the apparent violation of the laws of physics. This is NOT a minor defect of the official theory.

 

[Fubar]

. Wait, I forgot - the passengers on Flight 93 did not try to tear down the cockpit door. Those voice recorder sounds were a plant — from a sound studio.

you do not think is possible for our own media to do that? please watch this link.may i add that in 1991 i have seen this clip live on air.CNN Fake Newscast Best Quality - YouTube

 

[usda select]

Well to be honest, I haven't read the report, but one commissioner said it was rushed, or rather they didn't have the time and that Government withheld information from them. So if all the information isn't presented, I don't think I'd even bother to read it.

As for the fact that Government is capable of staging attacks on it's citizens, I think it's very possible. I find it funny how you ignore that side of the question and go straight to what you want to ask. So to save time, I'll just tell you to look at Operation Northwoods. Reading this, I'd say Truthers have credibility as to why they think Government would stage 9/11.

Operation Northwoods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good thing Wiki isn't biased.

And for the sake of being awesome. Take a look. This article explains just about everything with crdible sources.

» Highly Credible People Question 9/11 Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

So you don't know what is in the report you claim is wrong?

if u decide to be skeptical....be so with all sides.research.watching tv is not research

And you won't give us your version of events either.

So you basically have...nothing other than someone else's opinions and none of your own. You have just admitted that.

 

[sephiroth2009]

So you don't know what is in the report you claim is wrong?



And you won't give us your version of events either.

So you basically have...nothing other than someone else's opinions and none of your own. You have just admitted that.

I know that for the most part, that jet fuel doesn't heat up high enough to melt steel towers, I know that for certain. I never claimed the Commission report was ever wrong though, do you? Unless you're a reptoid(lol) and are able to see things I can't, than correct me if I'm wrong. I do also know that critical information was withheld from the Government, the same with the Warren commission. Odd, how the most important events in US history, that Government decides to withheld important information. That's just absurd.

I really wonder what you believe though. From what I gather by reading all of your posts, I'd say that you're one of the clueless folk who relies on nothing more than mainstream disinfo who rather goes over American Idol and NFL players wifes, and not important events. You seem like the type to do whatever Government tells you, no matter the consequence because you know you'll get a big reward in the end. I fail to understand how people believe the garbage that Government has told them. Like BinLaden dying in May. How asinine. When everyone knows that Bin Laden had kidney transplants and was on dialysus, not to mention he was brought to an American hospital after 9/11, and that CNN reported in 02 that he died. Somehow a man with kidney failure living in a cave thats in the desert defied the normal by surviving 10 years, :lamo just like on 9/11, the towers collapse defied the law of physics!!!

 

[Fubar]

I agree. I've seen some of that video he did. But I already knew the scoop ahead of time so it wasn't anything new. However, I think it's something the zombies should look into.

they are not zombies.just people that did not wake up yet.u must agree that it's a hard thing to do while beeing bombarded with psyops.one thing more:the so called truth movement is non partisan and has nothing to gain by exposing this.if the gov. or some shadow part of it had any hand in this they have EVERY reason to keep it in the dark.

i am happy that u are awake to the real world.90% of writing history is....hiding the truth.
peace.

 

[Demon of Light]

I read in a magazine called Slate a wonderful article about persons such as yourself. I'll copy and paste the relevant portion:



I think that is an accurate description of 98% of truthers. 1 percent are just silly. Another 1 percent are true believers who don't care about stroking their ego and don't post on message boards.

You can read a further and I'm sure accurate description of your ilk here:

9/11 Truth: Why Osama Bin Laden's death won't kill the conspiracy theories. - By Jeremy Stahl - Slate Magazine

Attempts to generalize "conspiracy theories" as a psychological phenomena only serve as hit pieces by establishment shills. The core foundation is a distrust of the establishment and refusal to blindly believe what is disseminated by the establishment. So there should be no real surprise when people enmeshed in the establishment make a point of trying to delegitimize such thinking.

In reality the conspiracist mindset is one of dissent and efforts to exterminate or disrupt it are motivated by an intolerance of dissent.

 

[_Markum_]

This can go on forever. It all ends up to what you believe. For every site that says X, their is a site that will say Y.
It is just a matter of what sites you believe to be creditable and ones you don't.

Journal Of Debunking* 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Which is precisely why I've resisted a battle of citations, instead preferring a discussion on the basis of principle. I agree with you about the overriding importance of "belief". What beliefs do you bring to these considerations? A belief in the integrity of government, for instance, disinclines you even to consideration of government complicity. If you can accept the possibility of government incompetence we've arrived at an agreement of accidental complicity. Along the way we will have broached matters of FAA regulations and chain-of-command involving a variety of curiously suggestive details that seldom get much attention, with which we can do valid original thinking. The exercise alone promises benefits not otherwise to be had.

 

[Fubar]

The short of it is that, in order to compare two models, they both have to account for the same reality. As I illustrated above, the official explanation does not account for the apparent violation of the laws of physics. This is NOT a minor defect of the official theory.

painfully obvlious isn't it?

 

[usda select]

I know that for the most part, that jet fuel doesn't heat up high enough to melt steel towers,

Which is good because it only got hot enough on the higher floors to weaken the steel.

I know that for certain. I never claimed the Commission report was ever wrong though, do you?

So now you agree with the Commission report. :roll:

I really wonder what you believe though. From what I gather by reading all of your posts, I'd say that you're one of the clueless folk who relies on nothing more than mainstream disinfo who rather goes over American Idol and NFL players wifes, and not important events.

I believe the 9/11 Commission Report is right on all of the major points. It was the government's account of what happened that day. You admit that you never read it. You're the one skipping "important events", not me. Which is fine; if you have an alternate version of events that makes more sense, spill it. But we both know you don't have that either; otherwise you'd be publishing it here.

You seem like the type to do whatever Government tells you, no matter the consequence because you know you'll get a big reward in the end.

You seem like the type whose only purpose in life is to provide entertainment for others; mission accomplished there.

I fail to understand how people believe the garbage that Government has told them. Like BinLaden dying in May. How asinine. When everyone knows that Bin Laden had kidney transplants and was on dialysus, not to mention he was brought to an American hospital after 9/11, and that CNN reported in 02 that he died. Somehow a man with kidney failure living in a cave thats in the desert defied the normal by surviving 10 years, :lamo just like on 9/11, the towers collapse defied the law of physics!!!

Don't suppose you'd like to source any of that buffet of nonsense and BS would you?

 

[usda select]

The short of it is that, in order to compare two models, they both have to account for the same reality. As I illustrated above, the official explanation does not account for the apparent violation of the laws of physics. This is NOT a minor defect of the official theory.

painfully obvlious isn't it?

What law of Physics did they violate and how did they do it?

 

[sephiroth2009]

Which is good because it only got hot enough on the higher floors to weaken the steel.


So now you agree with the Commission report. :roll:



I believe the 9/11 Commission Report is right on all of the major points. It was the government's account of what happened that day. You admit that you never read it. You're the one skipping "important events", not me. Which is fine; if you have an alternate version of events that makes more sense, spill it. But we both know you don't have that either; otherwise you'd be publishing it here.



You seem like the type whose only purpose in life is to provide entertainment for others; mission accomplished there.



Don't suppose you'd like to source any of that buffet of nonsense and BS would you?

I'm not your maiden. Take your lazy carcass and search things yourself for once.

And for the record, I don't believe in the report and I've already said why. Fundamental information was withheld, and without it, I have no reason to look at the report. But maybe if you have looked at the source I provided, instead of picking what you want to read, than maybe that brain of yours would stop with the nonsense.

I fin it hilarious when you go out spouting your insane and ridiculous rhetoric to people who question this corrupt system of Government. I realize that with people such as yourself, it doesn't matter what you say or prove, that pathetic state of mind you have would never allow you to see past the biased wall that conceals you from thinking efficiently.

In reality you happen to be a condescending buffoon. And I've enough of your silly remarks. All you have to back up your claims is that false ense of security of this Government. Tell me something.

Do you think the Government has potential to stage an attack on America? Or are you just delusional? Do you really have that much faith in this corrupt system? I somehow have a hunch that you'd totally dismiss Operation Northwwods. You might just be jealous that we'eve shed the "skin" of living in total denile, and that we know it's quite scary when you lose faith in Government.

 

[usda select]

I'm not your maiden. Take your lazy carcass and search things yourself for once.

And for the record, I don't believe in the report and I've already said why. Fundamental information was withheld, and without it, I have no reason to look at the report. But maybe if you have looked at the source I provided, instead of picking what you want to read, than maybe that brain of yours would stop with the nonsense.

What information was withheld? How can you make such a statement when you won't even read the report. I know, 500+ pages, too long for you; right? Admit it; if you can't get it spoon fed to you, you don't want it; hence you-tube. Simply put, you're lazy. And it shows; big time. Now back to your insult-fest. The only thing you're good at.

I fin it hilarious when you go out spouting your insane and ridiculous rhetoric to people who question this corrupt system of Government. I realize that with people such as yourself, it doesn't matter what you say or prove, that pathetic state of mind you have would never allow you to see past the biased wall that conceals you from thinking efficiently.

In reality you happen to be a condescending buffoon. And I've enough of your silly remarks. All you have to back up your claims is that false ense of security of this Government. Tell me something.

Do you think the Government has potential to stage an attack on America?

Not a 9/11 attack. Too many moving parts, too little to gain. Too unnecessary. And If you would tell me your version of events, I would also add in too far-fetched and flat out crazy; which is why you run from the question, isn't that right?

But the government hasn't always dealt straight with the Country. On that narrow point; you're right. Gee...enjoy your victory. In your mind, you've twisted this into a murder of 3,000 people. I'm sure they have medication for what ails you. You should investigate that.

Or are you just delusional? Do you really have that much faith in this corrupt system? I somehow have a hunch that you'd totally dismiss Operation Northwwods. You might just be jealous that we'eve shed the "skin" of living in total denile, and that we know it's quite scary when you lose faith in Government.

Northwoods was never approved by any civilian authority, never got anywhere near being implemented, and the guy who thought it up was dismissed.

It's dismissed. As are you.

 

[sephiroth2009]

What information was withheld? How can you make such a statement when you won't even read the report. I know, 500+ pages, too long for you; right? Admit it; if you can't get it spoon fed to you, you don't want it; hence you-tube. Simply put, you're lazy. And it shows; big time. Now back to your insult-fest. The only thing you're good at.



Not a 9/11 attack. Too many moving parts, too little to gain. Too unnecessary. And If you would tell me your version of events, I would also add in too far-fetched and flat out crazy; which is why you run from the question, isn't that right?

But the government hasn't always dealt straight with the Country. On that narrow point; you're right. Gee...enjoy your victory. In your mind, you've twisted this into a murder of 3,000 people. I'm sure they have medication for what ails you. You should investigate that.



Northwoods was never approved by any civilian authority, never got anywhere near being implemented, and the guy who thought it up was dismissed.

It's dismissed. As are you.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006

George Washington's Blog: Lehman: Commission <i>Purposely</i> Set Up So that 9/11 Staff Had Conflict of Interest

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08graham.html?_r=1

The rest you can read for yourself. I'll post the link again, hopefully you aren't so self-engrossed in your logic that you end up refusing to look at the links again.

» Highly Credible People Question 9/11 Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

But than again. You'll be busy complaining to me that I didn't read a rushed, and failed report.

 

[usda select]

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

CNN.com - 9/11 panel distrusted Pentagon testimony - Aug 2, 2006

George Washington's Blog: Lehman: Commission <i>Purposely</i> Set Up So that 9/11 Staff Had Conflict of Interest

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08graham.html?_r=1

The rest you can read for yourself. I'll post the link again, hopefully you aren't so self-engrossed in your logic that you end up refusing to look at the links again.

» Highly Credible People Question 9/11 Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

But than again. You'll be busy complaining to me that I didn't read a rushed, and failed report.

Okay...

Do you stand behind all of the links 100%--one of which is a blog? Too freaking much. And you wonder why your movement is the sad joke that it is. :lamo:lamo:lamo:lamo

Why not just come out and write what you think happened? Are you illiterate? Can you not spell? Can you not form a sentence? I mean, it's the oldest form of communication in the world.

Obviously, you're too scared to read contradictory information and, I guess, too scared to take a stand so you hide behind links.

Do you stand behind all of them 100%?

 

[sephiroth2009]

Okay...

Do you stand behind all of the links 100%?

Why not just come out and write what you think happened? Are you illiterate? Can you not spell? Can you not form a sentence? I mean, it's the oldest form of communication in the world.

Obviously, you're too scared to read contradictory information and, I guess, too scared to take a stand so you hide behind links.

Do you stand behind all of them 100%?

They all are credible sources. But I suppose you must be the biggest hypocrite ever. You apparently believe 100% the commission report and the Government when the commissionors themselves even had doubts. To me, you just blindly follow our leaders, and the media, and honestly, theres no hope for you. You've wasted my time here. If you can't read what I've spoon fed you, than you don't deserve to be debating with anyone.

That is all. and Im done feeding the troll.

We have nothing to lose by making stuff at all. Most of us are bipartisan, and don't rely on funding. I guess you must be smarter than a lot of well known people like scientists, engineers, etc. And honestly, you sound really arrogant. I don't have the time to play silly games with you.

 

[usda select]

They all are credible sources. But I suppose you must be the biggest hypocrite ever. You apparently believe 100% the commission report and the Government when the commissionors themselves even had doubts. To me, you just blindly follow our leaders, and the media, and honestly, theres no hope for you. You've wasted my time here. If you can't read what I've spoon fed you, than you don't deserve to be debating with anyone.

That is all. and Im done feeding the troll.

We have nothing to lose by making stuff at all. Most of us are bipartisan, and don't rely on funding. I guess you must be smarter than a lot of well known people like scientists, engineers, etc. And honestly, you sound really arrogant. I don't have the time to play silly games with you.

Yes you do, you have nothing but time.

If you call being right arrogant, then I'm guilty as charged.

I asked you to state your beliefs. You ran.

Instead you posted links.

I asked if you stood by the links 100%. You ran.

Some "movement" you've got there sport....lots of running but you never get anywhere.

Yeah, I think it would be in your best interest to keep on running.

 

[sephiroth2009]

Yes you do, you have nothing but time.

If you call being right arrogant, then I'm guilty as charged.

I asked you to state your beliefs. You ran.

Instead you posted links.

I asked if you stood by the links 100%. You ran.

Some "movement" you've got there sport....lots of running but you never get anywhere.

Yeah, I think it would be in your best interest to keep on running.

What you think is right is made of garbage. You live in that state of mind that if Government says so, they're right.

I told you what my beliefs were.

You asked me to post links.

I told you what I felt by it all completely.

No one ran from anything. But I'm not gonna sit here and try to prove myself to someone who drinks fluoridated water out of their little sippy cup and absorb all the disinfo they recieve from the media especially when they tell me I'm wrong. My research is wrong. My ideology is wrong, just becuse the Government says so.

You'd fit right with the Globalists, because you'd do anything you're told. (is that you in the avatar? Or is that Nacny Paloeski?)

You talk as if the Commission Report has all the answers, and that Government doesn't lie. You talk as if the Government has NEVER plotted to stage attacks or even start them(1930, attack the British)

This is my opninion and I talk with the upmost respect I can possibly give. You seem like an idividual, who wants to knock people down, just because what you think is absolutely right. You believe in a silly half-assed report where much information was withheld and destroyed by the CIA, yet when we question or bring about our sources that proves our theories, they all are crap or irrelovent. Again, you're posing yourself to be smarter than many Scientists, Engineers and others(did the Government have scientists and engineers study the evidence or anything of that nature? Oh wait, no, no they didn't). You believe people who lie and do whatever it takes to get into power, but you refuse to even acknowledge a true US patriot who just wants answers.

Shame on you, how dare you choose Government over your own people. If anybody is a traitor, its certainly you.

And now, I'm done with you. Until you do some research instead of relying on a half-assed source, than this discussion between us is over.

 

[usda select]

What you think is right is made of garbage. You live in that state of mind that if Government says so, they're right.

Yet you never read it so you know what is in it. I see your "logic".

I told you what my beliefs were.

Beyond "government-bad' no you didn't. You haven't told me what you think happened that day. You ran. And still are running.

You'd fit right with the Globalists, because you'd do anything you're told. (is that you in the avatar? Or is that Nacny Paloeski?)

It's Representative Nancy Pelosi (mix in a spell check once in a while).

You talk as if the Commission Report has all the answers, and that Government doesn't lie. You talk as if the Government has NEVER plotted to stage attacks or even start them(1930, attack the British)

No, just correct on all of the major points. But then again, how would you know? You're too lazy to read contradictory material. You ran.

This is my opninion and I talk with the upmost respect I can possibly give. You seem like an idividual, who wants to knock people down, just because what you think is absolutely right.

Only because on this topic, I am.

You believe in a silly half-assed report where much information was withheld and destroyed by the CIA, yet when we question or bring about our sources that proves our theories, they all are crap or irrelovent.

Okay, what have you proven? Tell me what it is and how it's been proven. Or are you going to run...yet again? Oh yeah, you don't have time. Gotcha.

Again, you're posing yourself to be smarter than many Scientists, Engineers and others(did the Government have scientists and engineers study the evidence or anything of that nature? Oh wait, no, no they didn't). You believe people who lie and do whatever it takes to get into power, but you refuse to even acknowledge a true US patriot who just wants answers.

I am certainly smarter on this subject than people who claim to be scientist and some engineers who have largely turned this into their only income.

Shame on you, how dare you choose Government over your own people. If anybody is a traitor, its certainly you.

You hate America. It shows.

And now, I'm done with you. Until you do some research instead of relying on a half-assed source, than this discussion between us is over.

Gee, what a surprise, you're running again.

Adios.