• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

When are the traitors leaving?

- People wanting to hear the black boxes from the planes

The black boxes have been released.

- Firefighters asked for medical support of their injuries

And what exactly does that have to do with 9-11 being an inside job?

I'm not quite certain if there was more that the other was referring to...

Well what you don't know is quite a bit apparently.


The point is that he was asked to go under oath to ask questions, that doesn't necessarily mean he'd have to reveal classified information... hell, he could say 'that's classified, sorry.'... the point is that by refusing to go publicly with this raises questions, and if he had gone and answered questions under oath, THEN it would be easier to determine if he had lied.

Yes he's not above murdering 3000 Americans but is above lying under oath. Do you twoofers ever even listen to yourselves?

No, they just only accepted the information that would force them to conclude the rediculous (ie : 1000C fire melting steel that melts at a higher temperature, that would have been weakened because of a lack of fireproofing, and then experienced global collapse of the entire structure, even though, a building on fire won't collapse in it's own footprint)

There was no melted steel there were claims of molten metal but molten doesn't necessarily mean melted and metal doesn't necessarily mean steel, then you have the cropped photos with the steel workers with blow torches edited out.



Call me when they have a peer reviewed paper in a scientific jouranl, and FYI peer reviewed doesn't mean reviewed by fellow twoofers on a website.

And in conclusion :

Pfft the dust particles prove it? You must be joking. Wow you twoofers really are grasping at straws now. :roll: And in conclusion these supposedly high temperatures were created by magical silent explosives, and these people have the audacity to call themselves scientists? HA!

Seriously pal don't quote "scholars for 9-11 truth" in general and Steven Jones in particular if you want to be taken seriously, these people have been shown as the cranks that they are and their pseudoscience as already been debunked:

Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Myths - Steven E. Jones - Scholars for 9/11 truth


But, no longer having the evidence they'd be accused of lying.

:roll:



YouTube - WTC - demolition - the real proof UNSEEN before
Listen to this video as it goes...

It's like BOOOM... BOOM BOOM BOOOM BOOOM...
There's 2 points you could argue :
a) That was the above floors hitting the floor below (but why no reduction of speed?)
b) That you're listening to a controlled demolition... VERY intricately timed

Listen to this one next to it :
YouTube - CDI Beirut Hilton hotel implosion

Or c) twoofers are disgusting human beings with no lives and they dubbed the sound of explosives into the video, hmm what's this? Oh the same ****ing video with completely different audio, you people really need some new material this bull**** has already been debunked:

YouTube - WTC Collapse Best Angle - InfoDebug.com


They did say that when they finally acknowledged WTC7 collapsing, ya, they had a tough time because they're trying to condense the fire theory from the 2 towers and attmpt to apply it to a building that only had 'small fires' throughout the building, was still fully fire-proofed...

Um no they had raging fires that went unfought for several hours not to mention the ten story hole in the side of the building.

(Btw, fireproofing is to a) slow the spread of smoke/fire, b) make a heat barrier between floors of a building and c) to stop overheated metal from transfering that heat to an adjoining area and igniting new fires... as opposed to protecting the steel from melting directly)

This is just another example of taking 'accepted' information and basing a theory on that information... to hell with the physics involved (ie : steel melting a few hundred degrees cooler than it takes to melt steel)

The only people who claim melted steel are twoofers. FYI steel can lose more than 50% of its structural integrity at the temperatures which were recorded at the WTC's on 9-11.



Again, if they were sure to gather 100 pieces of steel that would conform to the official explanation, then having NIST gather pieces is really just a show.

If who would gather it? The NIST? How many people are in on this little conspiracy of yours jack?
 
Last edited:
And what exactly does that have to do with 9-11 being an inside job?
That in itself nothing, but it is pretty horrific treatment of the heroes that day...
Well what you don't know is quite a bit apparently.

You're in the same boat buddy... as we'll see in a sec. I wasn't even going to respond to this 'attempt' at dealing with the issues raised if not for this blatant attempt at an attack.

Yes he's not above murdering 3000 Americans but is above lying under oath. Do you twoofers ever even listen to yourselves?

You tried that one before... to which I replied : had he at least gone under oath publicly then at least the right questions could have been asked, and his answers scrutinized.

I could almost promise that he would have lied under oath, why else would he have to team up with Cheney behind closed doors, other than making sure that they kept their stories straight...

There was no melted steel there were claims of molten metal but molten doesn't necessarily mean melted and metal doesn't necessarily mean steel, then you have the cropped photos with the steel workers with blow torches edited out.

I've shown a video where you can clearly see molten something pouring out of the building... that NIST denied any molten metal is rather nonsensical in view of the video.

Call me when they have a peer reviewed paper in a scientific jouranl, and FYI peer reviewed doesn't mean reviewed by fellow twoofers on a website.

Who do you want to talk to :
-Archetects and engineers
- Pilots
- Firefighters

Fact is that you don't need be a peer-reviewd physicest to understand that when they say : steel melts at X degrees and the fire was burning at less then that for a matter of a couple hours when buildings have burned overnight and NOT collapsed... especially not into their own footprint... (ya I looked at one of the 'debunker' sites that showed otherwise even tho none of the 'fire collapses' mentioned were the same pile of dust leftovers as we saw on 9-11)

Seriously you want peer review, go get yourself a science book... in particular pay attention to the section on the melting points of various substances.

Pfft the dust particles prove it? You must be joking. Wow you twoofers really are grasping at straws now. :roll: And in conclusion these supposedly high temperatures were created by magical silent explosives, and these people have the audacity to call themselves scientists? HA!

I can tell that you're quite the scientist here... first, the dust was tested independantly to determine what people had been breathing that day... second, since the guy explained pretty clearly that what he witnessed in the dust particles could ONLY be explained under those set circumstances, third, it's the only evidence left, since I'm sure NIST isn't gonna share the metal they collected for a 'peer-review' of their findings.

Seriously pal don't quote "scholars for 9-11 truth" in general and Steven Jones in particular if you want to be taken seriously, these people have been shown as the cranks that they are and their pseudoscience as already been debunked:

I haven't quoted 'scholars for 9-11 truth'... just the architects, engineers, pilots, and firefighters that had legitimate questions, who warned the public away from the building because of 'secondary devices', that KNOW that when a building collapses from fire it's not STRAIGHT DOWN at near freefall speeds, does NOT shoot out pulverized concrete, and the pilots that question the maneuvors the planes took as they approached, etc.

LMAO, good debunking job... nothing more than a hit piece. I expected to see some peer-reviewed rebuttals rather than 5 pages of ad hom. Especially that I haven't mentioned the guy.

:roll:

Or c) twoofers are disgusting human beings with no lives and they dubbed the sound of explosives into the video, hmm what's this? Oh the same ****ing video with completely different audio, you people really need some new material this bull**** has already been debunked:

OMG... so, now you're an audio tech as well... so what evidence is there that it was audio modified?? Oh wait, you just can't deal with the actual arguments without ad hom, so you thought this would be clever... nice attempt.

Um no they had raging fires that went unfought for several hours not to mention the ten story hole in the side of the building.

"Raging fires" ?? You mean the whopping 3-5 windows of the entire building that seemed to have a few licks of flame?? We've got vastly different impressions of what is implied by 'raging fires'/

The only people who claim melted steel are twoofers. FYI steel can lose more than 50% of its structural integrity at the temperatures which were recorded at the WTC's on 9-11.

Actually, looking at the evidence again, it seems it would have been molten aluminem from the plane that the fires would have been hot enough to melt... but the fact is that you can SEE the molten metal pourin out the side of the building and yet the 'science' claims that this didn't happen??? Who are you gonna trust? Video evidence, or a government employee that will go with the flow or be at risk of losing his job??

Is there any video SIGNS that the steel had lost its integrity and warped that much? Let's say it did collapse like that... the mass of the building would fall straight down, and then crash against the first solid floor it hit and the top would crumble/collapse accordingly, if not fall over the side... kinda like how the architects and engineers describe the physics of the type of proposed collapse.

How many people are in on this little conspiracy of yours jack?

That depends on how you mean, there would be different categories of people involved...
a) The people with full knowledge, the will and the position to manipulate this event into occuring... I would speculate maybe a dozen people pulling the strings.
b) the people that had a job to do within the plan not knowing specifics as to how their job fit in the grand scheme
c) People guilty after the fact... helping in the cover-up, turning legitimate dissenters into 'twoofers', 'tin foil hat wearers',etc, and encouraging the 'blind flag-waving patriots' that if they don't support the US and their wars that they are a terrorist or in league with them.
 
You tried that one before... to which I replied : had he at least gone under oath publicly then at least the right questions could have been asked, and his answers scrutinized.

I could almost promise that he would have lied under oath, why else would he have to team up with Cheney behind closed doors, other than making sure that they kept their stories straight...

Excuse me but why would going under oath allow different questions to be asked? The fact of the matter is that the POTUS shouldn't have gone under oath in front of a blue ribbon panel asking questions related to national security matters.


I've shown a video where you can clearly see molten something pouring out of the building... that NIST denied any molten metal is rather nonsensical in view of the video.

The NIST denied melted steel, not melted metal. Several types of metal melt at much lower temperatures than steel.


Who do you want to talk to :
-Archetects and engineers

I have thousands of architects and engineers who have wrote a peer reviewed paper called the NIST report, you have twoofer pseudoscientists off of a fringe website who peer review themselves.


I have pilots and not nutter ones who formed some fringe web site.

- Firefighters

You mean their out of context quotes?

Fact is that you don't need be a peer-reviewd physicest to understand that when they say : steel melts at X degrees and the fire was burning at less then that for a matter of a couple hours when buildings have burned overnight and NOT collapsed... especially not into their own footprint... (ya I looked at one of the 'debunker' sites that showed otherwise even tho none of the 'fire collapses' mentioned were the same pile of dust leftovers as we saw on 9-11)

:roll: Once again THERE WAS NOT MELTED STEEL and there is no evidence of any.

Seriously you want peer review, go get yourself a science book... in particular pay attention to the section on the melting points of various substances.

There was no melted steel.


I can tell that you're quite the scientist here... first, the dust was tested independantly to determine what people had been breathing that day... second, since the guy explained pretty clearly that what he witnessed in the dust particles could ONLY be explained under those set circumstances, third, it's the only evidence left, since I'm sure NIST isn't gonna share the metal they collected for a 'peer-review' of their findings.

I'm going to have to go with NASA scientist Ryan Mackey who addresses Steven Jones cold fusions pseudoscientists's "Iron Spheres":

"Iron Spherules: Another curious phenomenon thought to be linked to the structural steel is creation of tiny spheres of steel or iron, found in the dust after collapse. Several researchers report this, including Lowers and Meeker who documented a few examples of particles found to be nearly pure iron and quite spherical, approximately 7 microns in diameter; and the RJ Lee Group, who identified small, round iron particles as evidence of high temperatures. The significance of these spheres is still debated, along the following lines:

 As discussed previously, there is no evidence at all for large amounts of melted steel. If the spheres are formed by melting steel, it must be surface melting or some other highly localized process.

 It is also not known when the iron spheres were produced. The RJ Lee Group report considers samples taken several months after the collapses, and it is certain that torch-cutting of steel beams as part of the cleanup process contributed some, if not all, of the spherules seen in these samples.

 There appear to be several plausible candidate sources of the iron spherules in office materials or other building contents. Perhaps the most obvious is the flyash itself used in structural concrete, a residue of combusted coal, which contains iron spheres in a variety of sizes that would have been liberated as the concrete was destroyed. Another example is magnetic printer toner, used to print financial instruments, that could have been present in printer cartridges or found in a large volume of paper documents. This candidate has the advantage of matching the size, shape, uniformity, and elemental composition of the observed spherules from one report. We also cannot discount their origin in building contents, rather than building structure, without much more careful study.

 The quantity of these spherules is unknown, but thought to be very small – the iron-rich content of all dust samples was between 0.1 and 1.3%, most of which was not in the form of spherules. A large quantity would suggest melting of steel on large scales, but a small quantity suggests otherwise.

 Small quantities of structural steel or other iron-rich objects could be partially melted through sheer friction, originating in the aircraft impact or the collapses.

 Much like the sulfidized samples, it is impossible to tell whether these spherules were created prior to collapse, after collapse, or both. After collapse, it is plausible for the debris to have reached much higher temperatures.

 As mentioned above, there is potential site contamination from salvage operations, in which numerous steel pieces were cut, involving nontrivial amounts of melted steel. It is also possible for the spherules to have been left over from the buildings’ original construction.

 Iron that appears to have melted may have merely oxidized, and surface chemistry effects of merely heated iron may give rise to tiny amounts of melting even at moderate temperatures.

 Chemical factors, combined with heat, could lead to eutectic mixtures of iron with other elements (such as sulfur) melting and dissociating at relatively low temperatures, potentially creating the iron spherules.​

For purposes of this discussion, we will focus on the latter two inferences, and speculate that the spherules may be a result of a chemical process, catalyzed by moderate heat but below the actual melting temperature of steel. It is, therefore, possible (but unproven) that the spherules and the sulfidized steel are related.To further understand sulfidization, we should begin by attempting to understand the source of the sulfur. Sulfur is an abundant element, with numerous possible sources. The following is a brief list of some possible origins of sulfur:

 Diesel fuel, found in emergency generators and in vehicles in the WTC parking garages, contained a fairly high concentration of organosulfuric compounds, providing a possible source of sulfur in an energetically favorable form. WTC 7, where all but one of the sulfidized samples came from, had exceptionally large stores of diesel fuel to power emergency command and control equipment.

 Large banks of batteries existed in a few locations, as backup for computers involved in the financial services, and could plausibly have provided a significant quantity of sulfuric acid.

 Acid rain could have potentially exposed some surfaces to low concentrations of sulfuric acid over many years.

 Ocean water, bearing sulfate salts, was pumped onto the burning debris piles as part of the firefighting effort.

 Gypsum wallboard, omnipresent in large buildings, is almost entirely composed of sulfur-bearing minerals. However, this sulfur is not in an energetically favorable form, and some other chemical process would be required to react with steel structural members.​

The Worcester Polytechnic Institute is continuing to experiment with sulfur compounds in an effort to recreate the reactions seen in the recovered steel. Given the complexity of the debris fires and the many chemicals present, it appears plausible that sulfidization could have occurred after collapse. Whether or not this could occur prior to collapse remains an open question, and if true, could be a factor in future building fires.

A related possibility, voiced by Dr. Greening, is that of burning plastics or other chemicals giving rise to other caustic compounds, such as creation of hydrogen chloride (which in contact with water forms hydrochloric acid) from burning PVC (polyvinyl chloride). This is relevant because large quantities of PVC, along with other plastics, are found in modern offices. Chemicals such as this could potentially catalyze sulfur reactions, and also lead to a chemical weakening of steel structural elements, an additional hazard. A historical example of this is the Plastimet Fire in Hamilton, Ontario, in July of 1997. In this fire, roughly 200 tons of PVC and other plastics burned over a period of a few days. Among the fire’s effects were reports of localized metal corrosion, linked to the creation of HCl gas which was measured at 53 to 930 micrograms per cubic meter.

The volume of PVC burned in this fire was comparable to the amount of plastics in the WTC fire floors, and it is also conceivable that caustic chemicals would be trapped within the structure, raising their concentrations to this level or possibly much higher.

However, the use of PVC in construction is not new, and there have been numerous studies on its effects in fires. Industry sources question its ability to weaken a structure through chemical means:

Burning PVC has resulted in corrosion damage to electrical equipment in the vicinity. This has led to suggestions that PVC should not be used in construction applications. Against this should be set other factors. PVC components can be formulated to combine a good technical performance and high resistance to ignition and flame-spread. Formulations can also be designed to reduce the quantity of hydrogen chloride emitted. There have been suggestions that hydrogen chloride from burning PVC may damage steel reinforcement in concrete, or significantly weaken unprotected steel structures. The UK Fire Research Station has shown that reinforcement is not normally affected. It has also been confirmed that unprotected steel structures are distorted and weakened by heat rather than by hydrogen chloride.

For applications with very high fire risks, for example oil rigs and nuclear installations, more expensive, high performance insulating materials are preferred to PVC. The cost of post-fire clean-up operations must be included in assessing the total cost of fire damage. Just as soot can be removed from affected equipment, so chloride corroded parts can be reconditioned. This is well recognized by fire salvage consultants and by insurance companies.​

The author is of the opinion that chemical processes had a negligible effect on the WTC collapses. However, this too is an open question and deserves further attention. The ongoing work of Dr. Biederman et al. may provide further insight into the sulfidized steel and other unusual phenomena seen in the WTC fires. The upcoming NIST report on WTC 7 may also address this problem directly. While the NIST Report does not require any chemical weakening mechanism to explain the collapses, a more thorough understanding of the chemical processes in a modern office fire will lead to better recommendations on future construction."
 
BmanMcfly said:
I haven't quoted 'scholars for 9-11 truth'... just the architects, engineers, pilots, and firefighters that had legitimate questions,

Your "metal spherules" bull**** was from Steven Jones.

who warned the public away from the building because of 'secondary devices', that KNOW that when a building collapses from fire it's not STRAIGHT DOWN at near freefall speeds,

Now you must say "near free fall speeds" because your "free fall speeds" twoofer theory has been completely debunked. I'm going to have to go with the findings of Dr. Keith Seffen senior lecturer on structural engineering at Cambridge University who determined in an actual peer reviewed scientific paper entitled "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis" that appeared in the February 2008 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that the towers could and would collapse at the speeds we witnessed:


Resistance to collapse

Dr Keith Seffen set out to test mathematically whether this chain reaction really could explain what happened in Lower Manhattan six years ago. The findings are to be published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.

Previous studies have tended to focus on the initial stages of collapse, showing that there was an initial, localised failure around the aircraft impact zones, and that this probably led to the progressive collapse of both structures.

Once the collapse began, it was destined to be "rapid and total"

In other words, the damaged parts of the tower were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts.

"The initiation part has been quantified by many people; but no one had put numbers on the progressive collapse," Dr Seffen told the BBC News website.

Dr Seffen was able to calculate the "residual capacity" of the undamaged building: that is, simply speaking, the ability of the undamaged structure to resist or comply with collapse.

His calculations suggest the residual capacity of the north and south towers was limited, and that once the collapse was set in motion, it would take only nine seconds for the building to go down.

This is just a little longer than a free-falling coin, dropped from the top of either tower, would take to reach the ground.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 9/11 demolition theory challenged


does NOT shoot out pulverized concrete,

Debunked:

Pulverised Concrete


and the pilots that question the maneuvors the planes took as they approached, etc.

You have twoofer pilots, respectable commercial airline pilots with referencable credentials beg to differe with their bull****.

LMAO, good debunking job... nothing more than a hit piece. I expected to see some peer-reviewed rebuttals rather than 5 pages of ad hom. Especially that I haven't mentioned the guy.

:roll:

Do you even read your own god damn sources? Your "Iron Spherules" source and link came from Steven Jones.

OMG... so, now you're an audio tech as well... so what evidence is there that it was audio modified?? Oh wait, you just can't deal with the actual arguments without ad hom, so you thought this would be clever... nice attempt.

You posted a fake ****ing video and it's been proven, deal with it.


"Raging fires" ?? You mean the whopping 3-5 windows of the entire building that seemed to have a few licks of flame?? We've got vastly different impressions of what is implied by 'raging fires'/

No I mean the fires that went unfought for about 10 hours.

Actually, looking at the evidence again, it seems it would have been molten aluminem from the plane that the fires would have been hot enough to melt... but the fact is that you can SEE the molten metal pourin out the side of the building and yet the 'science' claims that this didn't happen??? Who are you gonna trust? Video evidence, or a government employee that will go with the flow or be at risk of losing his job??

Oh well golly gee I guess you really got me there except that the melting point of aluminum is 660.32 °C (1220.58 °F) and the NIST reported temperatures of 1000 °C (1800 °F):

7a. How could the steel have melted if the fires in the WTC towers weren’t hot enough to do so?

OR
7b. Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit and Underwriters Laboratories (UL) certified the steel in the WTC towers to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours, how could fires have impacted the steel enough to bring down the WTC towers?


In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example, see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36).

However, when bare steel reaches temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, it softens and its strength reduces to roughly 10 percent of its room temperature value. Steel that is unprotected (e.g., if the fireproofing is dislodged) can reach the air temperature within the time period that the fires burned within the towers. Thus, yielding and buckling of the steel members (floor trusses, beams, and both core and exterior columns) with missing fireproofing were expected under the fire intensity and duration determined by NIST for the WTC towers.

UL did not certify any steel as suggested. In fact, in U.S. practice, steel is not certified at all; rather structural assemblies are tested for their fire resistance rating in accordance with a standard procedure such as ASTM E 119 (see NCSTAR 1-6B). That the steel was “certified ... to 2000 degrees Fahrenheit for six hours” is simply not true.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions

Is there any video SIGNS that the steel had lost its integrity and warped that much?

Ya that would be the collapse of the building.



That depends on how you mean, there would be different categories of people involved...
a) The people with full knowledge, the will and the position to manipulate this event into occuring... I would speculate maybe a dozen people pulling the strings.
b) the people that had a job to do within the plan not knowing specifics as to how their job fit in the grand scheme
c) People guilty after the fact... helping in the cover-up, turning legitimate dissenters into 'twoofers', 'tin foil hat wearers',etc, and encouraging the 'blind flag-waving patriots' that if they don't support the US and their wars that they are a terrorist or in league with them.

Yes so which category would the people who were told to collect steel which comports to the mainstream theory in? Certainly not b) as it would have been kind of a tell if they were told to only collect steel that doesn't show evidence of explosives wouldn't it? So you must believe these steel collectors are in category a) meaning that you believe that the NIST is involved in an intentional coverup of the murder of 3000 of their fellow citizens.
 
I used to go around debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories...but then I got bored.

I got bored because everything the Truthers ever claimed has been thoroughly debunked--but the Truthers simply ignore the debunkings and go on trucking. When someone debunks the Truthers, they just say it was a "hit piece" and move on.

For the record, I have never seen a debunking of Truther myths that looked or sounded like a "hit piece." The Truthers, by contrast, call anyone who dares to disagree with their brilliant theories an idiot or an agent.

Here are my three favorite 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking sites. They will cure a normal person in a few minutes:
911Myths
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
911 Links - Links for 9/11 Research

Another oddity of the Truth Movement is that no two Truthers agree on the theory. In fact, virtually no two Truthers in the world agree on any of the details of the story--who did 9/11, how they did it, the evidence for a conspiracy, anything. It's different for each and every Truther. Truthers make lists of 9/11 "smoking guns"--but no two of them are the same.

Truther like to say they have tons of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. But if there were really so much evidence, they could agree on the story, or at least on what the evidence is.

But they don't. If you look around the web, you'll see that Truthers attack one another and call one another simpletons and CIA agents all the time. It's really very funny.

And now for something completely bonkers:
YouTube - Going Bonkers
 
Last edited:
I used to go around debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories...but then I got bored.

I got bored because everything the Truthers ever claimed has been thoroughly debunked--but the Truthers simply ignore the debunkings and go on trucking. When someone debunks the Truthers, they just say it was a "hit piece" and move on.

For the record, I have never seen a debunking of Truther myths that looked or sounded like a "hit piece." The Truthers, by contrast, call anyone who dares to disagree with their brilliant theories an idiot or an agent.

Here are my three favorite 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking sites. They will cure a normal person in a few minutes:
911Myths
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
911 Links - Links for 9/11 Research

Another oddity of Truthers is that no two of them agree on the theory. In fact, virtually no two Truthers in the world agree on any of the details of the story--who did 9/11, how they did it, the evidence for a conspiracy, anything. It's different for each and every Truther. Truthers make lists of 9/11 "smoking guns"--but no two of them are the same.

Truther like to say there is tons of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. But if there were really so much evidence, they could agree on the story, or at least on what the evidence is.

But they don't. If you look around the web, you'll see that Truthers attack one another and call one another simpletons and CIA agents all the time. It's really very funny.

And now for something completely bonkers:
YouTube - Going Bonkers

Its not that I buy any of the theories of 911, but isnt also the official story just a bit too convenient?
Isnt all the aftermath pretty weird? Things like people now believing Al Quaeda is behind all terrorist attacks globally. And the use of Al Quaeda and terrorism to archieve other goals than those stated just coincidentally when the timing is perfect? Dont you find is strange for example that most people in the US was fooled to believe just before the war in Iraq that Saddam, 911 and Al Quaeda was connected? Did you see any of the administration speeches before the Iraq war? Have you followed the administration intensly the last 8 years, and gone through their speeches and ways of having things done?(they far surpass nazis in propaganda and truth distortion in my opinion).. Dont you find it sad that your country has such massive focus and energy on just one issue? Dont you find it sad that intellectual development in your country have declined so strongly since 911 on the back of being told everything by the administration and either being in support or not in support? Dont you find it sad that your country is more split than ever? Dont you find it sad that more of your taxpayers money is spent in Iraq than is spent on infrastructure and improvements and new projects at home?

I dont buy any explenation, but find everything was just very convenient for the administration, and I hate what I see going on now.. Its like a record with a scratch, just terrorism, terrorism, terrorism all the time, which have also most unfortunately spread to Europe. Who is ever talking about ending poverty or illnesses any more? Who cares about finding REAL solutions to problems anymore? Terrorism is just all around in everyones head and just so darn unimportant and issue on a global scale that is makes me emberressed to be a human being now since all we focus on is such an unimportant thing..


edit. Why arent there new investigations not inititated by the same administration? Why isnt the government debunking any of the 911 conspiracy theories and all their "facts"?
 
Last edited:
Its not that I buy any of the theories of 911, but isnt also the official story just a bit too convenient?
Isnt all the aftermath pretty weird? Things like people now believing Al Quaeda is behind all terrorist attacks globally.

No one that I know believes that however, they do believe (as I do) that the global jihadists whether they be AQ or not all pretty much have the same agenda IE bringing the world into the fold of dar al-Islam under puritanical sharia through offensive jihad.

And the use of Al Quaeda and terrorism to archieve other goals than those stated just coincidentally when the timing is perfect? Dont you find is strange for example that most people in the US was fooled to believe just before the war in Iraq that Saddam, 911 and Al Quaeda was connected?

Most people believe in a lot of things that aren't so, however, the administration never once claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11.

Did you see any of the administration speeches before the Iraq war? Have you followed the administration intensly the last 8 years, and gone through their speeches and ways of having things done?(they far surpass nazis in propaganda and truth distortion in my opinion).. Dont you find it sad that your country has such massive focus and energy on just one issue?

:roll: no I don't as the global jihad is currently the largest threat to the free world, but it's o.k. Europe will be a majority Muslim entity by the end of this century so just accept your sharia and third class status like a good little dhimmi.

Dont you find it sad that intellectual development in your country have declined so strongly since 911 on the back of being told everything by the administration and either being in support or not in support? Dont you find it sad that your country is more split than ever? Dont you find it sad that more of your taxpayers money is spent in Iraq than is spent on infrastructure and improvements and new projects at home?

Source? I suggest you check out the national budget sport.

I dont buy any explenation, but find everything was just very convenient for the administration, and I hate what I see going on now.. Its like a record with a scratch, just terrorism, terrorism, terrorism all the time, which have also most unfortunately spread to Europe.

Well then blame the global jihadists sport, it's "terrorism terrorism terrorism all the time" because there is not a day which passes in which the global jihadists do not strike between 5-6 times a day in every corner of the globe.

Who is ever talking about ending poverty or illnesses any more? Who cares about finding REAL solutions to problems anymore? Terrorism is just all around in everyones head and just so darn unimportant and issue on a global scale that is makes me emberressed to be a human being now since all we focus on is such an unimportant thing..

Well because it's not just terrorism it's an ancient threat of global jihad which has destroyed countless civilizations and cultures from north Africa to Indonesia and now this threat has its sites squarely on the west, you may choose to ignore Islamist expanisionism and imperialist endeavors but some of us see the bigger picture.

edit. Why arent there new investigations not inititated by the same administration? Why isnt the government debunking any of the 911 conspiracy theories and all their "facts"?

Because they already have with 3 official investigation IE the 9-11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST report, you wish to waste more taxpayer dollars to appease some nutbag conspiracy theorists? Sorry jack, but we as individual citizens have taken up where the government has left off and today there is not a single twoofer lie that has not been completely debunked as every response on this thread by me has clearly demonstrated, the twoofers bring absolutely nothing new to the table just the same old **** and it's getting really old, I truly feel sorry for you peoplem and I do include you because your OP clearly shows that you are a twoofer the fact that you're to embarrassed to admit it now now because your bull****s been debunked in this thread changes nothing, you'll be back in another thread in a couple weeks still claiming the same old tired horse ****.
 
You misrepresent opposition to the war as 'support for Saddam'... He was a tyrant... but a tyrant that was empowered by the US... So, the only REAL justification for the war was that 'we created him, we decide when to destroy him'. That's something the mainstream wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.

A) We didn't install Saddam Hussein.

B) Saddam Hussein didn't receive aid from the United States until 1983 after we took him off of the state sponsors of terrorism list.

C) The U.S. only provided .5% of all foreign arms sales to Iraq, the bulk of his weapons came from the Soviet Union, France, and China, this is why he had MIGs not F14 Tom Cats, T-54s and not A1-M1 Abrams, and AK47s not M16s, in fact the majority of U.S. aid came in the form of dual use items; such as, helicopters and bulldozers, Saddam was the Soviets boy, prior to the Iranian revolution we favored the Shah.

D) Not one drop of U.S. made chemicals made it into the Iraqi WMD program as proven by Iraq's own U.N. disclosures, moreover, we didn't give him the technology or the expertise to turn these legal chemicals into illegal WMD's.

E) Only one U.S. bank gave federally backed loans to Saddam and it was an Italian Bank with a U.S. branch called the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro, and the loans were illegal and the man responsible named Christopher P. Drogoul was arrested, tried, and convicted. Now the U.S. did offer import-export credits to the Baathist regime, but this went primarily to industrial and agricultural development as these credits only allowed him to purchase U.S. goods and like I said we only provided .5% of his weapons mainly consisting of dual use items weaponized after the fact.
 
Last edited:
I got bored because everything the Truthers ever claimed has been thoroughly debunked--but the Truthers simply ignore the debunkings and go on trucking. When someone debunks the Truthers, they just say it was a "hit piece" and move on.

I've seen a few of them that were nothing more than a 'hit piece'... especially when you have an architect showing a BASIC example of how strucutres support their weight, gets called fake??

I mean even the links that a person sent was 'debunking' through rhetoric... nothing more.

For the record, I have never seen a debunking of Truther myths that looked or sounded like a "hit piece." The Truthers, by contrast, call anyone who dares to disagree with their brilliant theories an idiot or an agent.

Oh, and how anyone who DARES question the official story is called a 'twoofer', 'tinfoil hat wearer', an 'ally of the terrorists', or worse... often simply for ASKING questions??????

For me, a proper 'debunking' of all questionable aspects of this event and investigations would be able to use their own videos against them, the physics involved, and/or an adequate thorough explanation.

Here are my three favorite 9/11 conspiracy theory debunking sites. They will cure a normal person in a few minutes:
911Myths
Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage
911 Links - Links for 9/11 Research

Three sites loaded with rhetoric, hit pieces, and well... only addresses maybe HALF of the legitimate issues raised in a half-assed 'debunking' style. Kinda like how it was someone from the Bush administration that 'debunked' the downing street memos by simply claiming that they were fake.

Another oddity of the Truth Movement is that no two Truthers agree on the theory. In fact, virtually no two Truthers in the world agree on any of the details of the story--who did 9/11, how they did it, the evidence for a conspiracy, anything. It's different for each and every Truther. Truthers make lists of 9/11 "smoking guns"--but no two of them are the same.

They all have a common thread : they see the government explanation for what it is; inadequate, unprecedented, and/or a cover-up.

The explanations will vary based off what the person actually believes (Yes, there are 'truthers' out there that have come up with some pretty rediculous theories, 'no planers' especially as in the ones that think that it was some sort of hologram encompasing a missile to be shaped like a plane)... the firefighters on camera on scene were talking about 'secondary devices' in the buildings, heard explosions, injured by explosions in the basement... YET STILL people will deny that there was explosives... to mention 1 example.

Truther like to say they have tons of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. But if there were really so much evidence, they could agree on the story, or at least on what the evidence is.

The government can't even decide if the hijackers had faked their identity or not follow this logic :
a) Hijackers used false names on their tickets
b) No FILM of the hijackers in the airport???
c) Their car had a flight training manual yet they were all trained (failed) pilots that executed extremely skillful maneouvers but needed a training manual on the way to the hijacking???
d) Terrorists used their credit cards to go to a stripclub for a night of drinking and such the night before they were gonna get their 72 virgins??

Also, their ID's were found at the base of the building (one at least)... So, they faked their names to get on the plane yet still carried around their REAL ID's?? They went out to bars the night before their 'big mission' (so to speak), to spite the religion before making themselves martyrs to be guaranteed a good spot in the afterlife according to their religion???

I could go on, but for brevity...

But they don't. If you look around the web, you'll see that Truthers attack one another and call one another simpletons and CIA agents all the time. It's really very funny.

Again, there is counter-intel and disinfo groups calling themselves truthers to help in trying to put the group as some sort of 'lunatic fringe'...

The government wouldn't really attack it's own people to suit its purpose... NO, the government loves you, they want to protect you untill you're old so they can send you your social security checks untill you die... they love you, they would NEVER think of using you just because they can.

No one that I know believes that however, they do believe (as I do) that the global jihadists whether they be AQ or not all pretty much have the same agenda IE bringing the world into the fold of dar al-Islam under puritanical sharia through offensive jihad.

I hear the kool-aid comes in purple?

Seriously though, YES there are terrorists that hate america, YES there are terrorists that would take away our security because we as a country have destroyed their freedom, or keep them so deep in poverty that they can barely sustain themselves and their families... however, the description of alquaida, with sleeper cells everywhere, etc... well, if that's not a description of the CIA, I don't know what is.

Most people believe in a lot of things that aren't so, however, the administration never once claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11.

No, never claimed, but implied the connection repeatedly... to the point that a portion of the population BELIEVED the connection. Even better since now people will defend the action saying 'they never said there was a connection, so why are you asking what Iraq had to do with 9-11'

:roll: no I don't as the global jihad is currently the largest threat to the free world, but it's o.k. Europe will be a majority Muslim entity by the end of this century so just accept your sharia and third class status like a good little dhimmi.

:roll: NO, the 'free world' is the largest threat to the free world... because of it's smug sense of superiority, it will bomb countries at the cost of the citizens UNTILL the populations of the western world are living in the third class police state that is coming to fruition.

You'll deny that too, but that's ok... when the cops walk around asking 'papers please' you'll gladly present them, cause you're not a terrorist'

Well then blame the global jihadists sport, it's "terrorism terrorism terrorism all the time" because there is not a day which passes in which the global jihadists do not strike between 5-6 times a day in every corner of the globe.

No, this is part of a formula : Presented problem (p) + guided reaction(r) + preplanned solution(s) = public manipulation (m)

In this case p = 'global terrorism', r = people feeling insecure, s = patriot act spying powers... so p+r+s = POLICE STATE / Martial law.

Well because it's not just terrorism it's an ancient threat of global jihad which has destroyed countless civilizations and cultures from north Africa to Indonesia and now this threat has its sites squarely on the west, you may choose to ignore Islamist expanisionism and imperialist endeavors but some of us see the bigger picture.

yet, historically, it's been us white folks going to the middle east for 'crusades'... how many attempts have there been in history?

Because they already have with 3 official investigation IE the 9-11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST report, you wish to waste more taxpayer dollars to appease some nutbag conspiracy theorists?

Many of the VICTIMS FAMILIES also feel that the investigations were inadequate... so, you would rob them of the chance to have all their questions answered so that they can properly mourn their loss??


Sorry jack, but we as individual citizens have taken up where the government has left off and today there is not a single twoofer lie that has not been completely debunked

Saying : LIES,LIES, LIES is NOT debunking in my humble opinion.

as every response on this thread by me has clearly demonstrated, the twoofers bring absolutely nothing new to the table just the same old **** and it's getting really old,

It's funny how you can even deny things like PNAC documents, video evidence, witness video taped testimony the day of, etc... that FLIES IN THE FACE of the goverment fabrication, and somehow you'll just deny these things out of existance and call it debunked??? It's gettng really old trying to explain logic and simple physics to people that have fallen so hard for the lie...

"I truly feel sorry for you peoplem" but I sympathize, I would like to deny evil is part of this world too, but in the near future this type of escapism is going to come back and bite us ALL in the a$$, whether or not you're a 'truther'.

and I do include you because your OP clearly shows that you are a twoofer the fact that you're to embarrassed to admit it now now because your bull****s been debunked in this thread changes nothing, you'll be back in another thread in a couple weeks still claiming the same old tired horse ****.

And when it comes back, you'll just link youre rhetoric filled hit pieces passing them off as legitimate sources thinking that you present a valid argument because the guys at NIST, and your other 'investigations' would like you to believe their story.

Ultimately we'll never know what really happened, who is culpable, who helped, and who covered up information... not so much to save 'taxpayer money' since we'd much rather spend the money blowing up some third world village than to spend it on things that might actually prove a benefit to the human species.
 
Now you must say "near free fall speeds" because your "free fall speeds" twoofer theory has been completely debunked. I'm going to have to go with the findings of Dr. Keith Seffen senior lecturer on structural engineering at Cambridge University who determined in an actual peer reviewed scientific paper entitled "Progressive Collapse of the World Trade Center: Simple Analysis" that appeared in the February 2008 issue of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics that the towers could and would collapse at the speeds we witnessed:

9-10 seconds vs 12-15 seconds... Wow... that's a drastic difference.

Hell, that difference could litterally be the 'friction' part of the equation taking place. Ya, if you jumped you'd have fallen faster, but a person wouldn't have to drop through the wood planks every 10-15 feet.

Look, I couldn't say with 100 % certainty that there were explosives on the scene, BUT the evidence to SUPPORT that case is actually fairly strong. IN SPITE of NIST explaining otherwise, they flatly denied


From an admitted non-expert... so it seems that noone that was qualified to do the job was/is ON THE JOB concerning the issue.


You have twoofer pilots, respectable commercial airline pilots with referencable credentials beg to differe with their bull****.

Oh I get it, because they looked at the flightpaths and said 'No... that'd STALL THE ENGINES' rather than 'I can't believe those f&&&& sand n&&&^^ did this to AMERICA! We're gonna fly those planes to bomb the shyt out of Osama Bin Laden,,,, I mean Saddam Hussein... I mean... whoever the hell runs pakistan... By the grace of GOD I'm gonna go kill those mofo's for attacking AMERICA! F&*^ em! up real good."


Do you even read your own god damn sources? Your "Iron Spherules" source and link came from Steven Jones.
I read through the paper to see how he proceeded, his tecniques, his findings and a result... as I remember having to do for school at one point. That he was thorough in his explanations, and that he didn't go too far on his conclusions (IE : NIST's statements must be reevaluated) made it reputable enough that I hadn't noticed/remembered his name.

To write that kind of paper KNOWING how he would be defamed like that takes a level of intellectual courage. You can't deny the attacks, you help perpetrate them.


You posted a fake ****ing video and it's been proven, deal with it.

Why, cause you say it's fake? Which video was fake, what evidence do you have that it was faked beyond your claim?? I love how you came up with that rather than addressing the issue. Classic 'debunkers' technique.

No I mean the fires that went unfought for about 10 hours.
So I posted a picture of a building that burned for 20 hourse and stood.

Oh well golly gee I guess you really got me there except that the melting point of aluminum is 660.32 °C (1220.58 °F) and the NIST reported temperatures of 1000 °C (1800 °F):

'NIST reported'... the majority of the jet fuel would have been vaporized and burned up mostly in the first few seconds and then getting smaller but still uncontrolled. Other sources also say MAX 800C evidenced with the color of the visible flames and the thick black smoke (although a portion would be from plastics). Also happens to match the molten aluminem that was seen on video pouring out the side was seemingly the color it would be when heated to about 800C... still very shy from melting steel.

Why are you so eager to downplay the structure of the building?? You'd make people happy to think that the outside wall was the majority support... but in reality, the core holds the structure, and the exterior added later... not too mention the huge number of columns, supporting walls, office walls, etc. if anything, buildings, especially HUGE buildings like that are OVER engineered in case of the worst.

Yes so which category would the people who were told to collect steel which comports to the mainstream theory in? Certainly not b) as it would have been kind of a tell if they were told to only collect steel that doesn't show evidence of explosives wouldn't it? So you must believe these steel collectors are in category a) meaning that you believe that the NIST is involved in an intentional coverup of the murder of 3000 of their fellow citizens.

People follow orders. You work so many years to get to a position, it becomes your identity, you have something to lose... ESPECIALLY when Bush is on TV saying 'you're either with us or with the terrorists'. So when told what pieces of metal to gather it's a matter of a supervisor saying 'grab metal from that area', Even the supervisor might only be told 'gather this type of metal for analysis'. The investigations coordinator would be the only person that would NEED to know what to avoid and why.

Again, maybe they all just legitimately 'dropped the ball' with the investigation... I don't know, but I wouldn't be so easy to dismiss the possibility. Think about it... do you really know what your superiors discuss?? What about the head of the company you work for?? Have you ever even talked to the guy (or girl)? In the boardroom?

If not, that's ok, cause I don't know either (although I do know he just 'bought' the company into existance.)
 
9-10 seconds vs 12-15 seconds... Wow... that's a drastic difference.

Hell, that difference could litterally be the 'friction' part of the equation taking place. Ya, if you jumped you'd have fallen faster, but a person wouldn't have to drop through the wood planks every 10-15 feet.

What ever's clever, the lead lecuturer of structural engineering at Cambridge wrote a scholarly paper which was peer reviewed by a reputable scientific engineering journal that says that it could fall in the time alotted.

Look, I couldn't say with 100 % certainty that there were explosives on the scene, BUT the evidence to SUPPORT that case is actually fairly strong. IN SPITE of NIST explaining otherwise, they flatly denied

No the evidence against there being explosives is rather strong considering the time it would have taken to place said explosives in three of the most secure buildings in the world and considering that the NIST found no trace of explosives in the tons of steel they analyzed.

From an admitted non-expert... so it seems that noone that was qualified to do the job was/is ON THE JOB concerning the issue.

Go to the bottom of the link for Dr Greenings paper on the subject debunking Jones et al.


Oh I get it, because they looked at the flightpaths and said 'No... that'd STALL THE ENGINES' rather than 'I can't believe those f&&&& sand n&&&^^ did this to AMERICA! We're gonna fly those planes to bomb the shyt out of Osama Bin Laden,,,, I mean Saddam Hussein... I mean... whoever the hell runs pakistan... By the grace of GOD I'm gonna go kill those mofo's for attacking AMERICA! F&*^ em! up real good."

No because I have pilots with referencable credentials who say different than your pilots whose credentials we have to take their word for because they can not be referenced.


I read through the paper to see how he proceeded, his tecniques, his findings and a result... as I remember having to do for school at one point. That he was thorough in his explanations, and that he didn't go too far on his conclusions (IE : NIST's statements must be reevaluated) made it reputable enough that I hadn't noticed/remembered his name.

To write that kind of paper KNOWING how he would be defamed like that takes a level of intellectual courage. You can't deny the attacks, you help perpetrate them.

Jone's speciality is cold fusion the man is a crank and he's been debunked by reputable sources, not even his own university wants anything to do with him.


Why, cause you say it's fake? Which video was fake, what evidence do you have that it was faked beyond your claim??

I have the same video without the ****ing explosives dubbed in, you know the original untampered with version, that's how I know that it's twoofer bull****.

So I posted a picture of a building that burned for 20 hourse and stood.

Good for ****ing that, it wasn't of the same design as WTC 7 so it bares no relevance to this debate.

'NIST reported'... the majority of the jet fuel would have been vaporized and burned up mostly in the first few seconds and then getting smaller but still uncontrolled.

The NIST reported temperatures of 1000 °C (1800 °F) end of story.

Other sources also say MAX 800C evidenced with the color of the visible flames and the thick black smoke (although a portion would be from plastics).

More twoofer bull**** that's been thoroughly debunked by the NIST:


9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?


Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.

The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.

NIST's Investigation of the Sept. 11 World Trade Center Disaster - Frequently Asked Questions



Also happens to match the molten aluminem that was seen on video pouring out the side was seemingly the color it would be when heated to about 800C... still very shy from melting steel.

There was no melted steel and there is no evidence that there was any that was aluminum or copper wiring. The only people who claim that there was melted steel are twoofers.
Why are you so eager to downplay the structure of the building?? You'd make people happy to think that the outside wall was the majority support... but in reality, the core holds the structure, and the exterior added later... not too mention the huge number of columns, supporting walls, office walls, etc. if anything, buildings, especially HUGE buildings like that are OVER engineered in case of the worst.

A) WTF does this have to do with the fact that the fires were more than hot enough to melt aluminum?

B) The fires were, also, more than hot enough to severely reduce the structural integrity of the steel.

People follow orders.

To coverup the murder of 3000 of their fellow citizens? Sure thing pal. :roll: That's the thing about you twoofers, whenever someone debunks your disinformation you label them as part of the conspiracy.

You work so many years to get to a position, it becomes your identity, you have something to lose... ESPECIALLY when Bush is on TV saying 'you're either with us or with the terrorists'. So when told what pieces of metal to gather it's a matter of a supervisor saying 'grab metal from that area', Even the supervisor might only be told 'gather this type of metal for analysis'. The investigations coordinator would be the only person that would NEED to know what to avoid and why.

Um what type of metal would he have them find? "Hay guys only gather steel that doesn't prove that 9-11 was an inside job and that explosives wer not used." :roll: Listen to yourself.
 
Last edited:
I hear the kool-aid comes in purple?

Seriously though, YES there are terrorists that hate america, YES there are terrorists that would take away our security because we as a country have destroyed their freedom,

For example?

or keep them so deep in poverty that they can barely sustain themselves and their families... however, the description of alquaida, with sleeper cells everywhere, etc... well, if that's not a description of the CIA, I don't know what is.

The standards of living in places like Saudi Arabia where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from are actually rather high, they have decent per capita GDPs, they have massive welfare states, they have free education through university level, and they have universal healthcare.

No, never claimed, but implied the connection repeatedly... to the point that a portion of the population BELIEVED the connection. Even better since now people will defend the action saying 'they never said there was a connection, so why are you asking what Iraq had to do with 9-11'

Yes now it's "implied" there's a reason why Bush mentioned Saddam and terrorism in the same speeches, that would be because Saddam was in fact sponsoring terrorists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the Iraq war.

I suggest you read the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.


http://www.nysun.com/foreign/report-details-saddams-terrorist-ties/72906/


Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6


Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the no-fly zone on an almost daily basis, was in material breach of numerous U.N. resolutions, was in fact harboring AQ operatives who had attacked the U.S. on our own soil, and had even once attempted to assasinate our former head of state one George Herbert Walker Bush.
 
Bmanmcfly said:
:roll: NO, the 'free world' is the largest threat to the free world... because of it's smug sense of superiority, it will bomb countries at the cost of the citizens

The U.S. and western countries in general do everything within their power to minimize civilian casualties, the global jihadists do everything they can to maximize them.

UNTILL the populations of the western world are living in the third class police state that is coming to fruition.

You'll deny that too, but that's ok... when the cops walk around asking 'papers please' you'll gladly present them, cause you're not a terrorist'

Ya ya, people have been claiming the coming of the American dictatorship since the time of John Adams and the alien and seditions act, SOS just another day.

No, this is part of a formula : Presented problem (p) + guided reaction(r) + preplanned solution(s) = public manipulation (m)

In this case p = 'global terrorism', r = people feeling insecure, s = patriot act spying powers... so p+r+s = POLICE STATE / Martial law.

Yes the infamous Patriot Act that does such nefarious things like allowing for intelligence agencies to better track international money transfers, say it isn't so. :roll:

yet, historically, it's been us white folks going to the middle east for 'crusades'... how many attempts have there been in history?

Buy a god damn history book, the First Crusade didn't begin until 1095, hundreds of years before the Islamic Imperialists made their first incursions into Christendom including Europe itself, not to mention all the pagan lands they conquered and still occupy to this very day IE Umayyad Conquest of North Africa which started in around 600 A.D. the conquest of Hispania which occurred in the 700's, and the invasions of Southern Italy which occurred in the 800's, the crusades didn't start until 1000 AD.

The Rashidun first in engaged in the unprovoked war of aggression against the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire of Persia they conquered Persia and Mesopotamia between 633 and 656, they then conquered Syria in 637, then they conquered Armenia in 639, then they conquered Egypt in 639, then they conquered North Africa in 652.

Under the Umayyads they finished their conquest of North Africa in 665, then between 662 and 709 they conquered Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southwest Kazakhstan, then between 664 and 712 they conquered the Indian sub-continent, then between 711 and 718 they conquered the Iberian Peninsula of Hispania, they then laid siege to Constantinople between 717 and 718, then between 711 and 750 they conquered the Caucasus, they then conquered Tbilisi in 736, and they then conquered southern Italy in 827.

Many of the VICTIMS FAMILIES also feel that the investigations were inadequate... so, you would rob them of the chance to have all their questions answered so that they can properly mourn their loss??

I have answered every single "question" and disproven everyone of your lies.

Saying : LIES,LIES, LIES is NOT debunking in my humble opinion.

No providing contrary evidence from reputable sources completely refuting your disinformation from fringe websites = debunking.


It's funny how you can even deny things like PNAC documents,

:roll: Debunked:

New Pearl Harbour


video evidence,

Video evidence with magical silent explosives, or video evidence with the sounds of explosives dubbed in as proven by the original untampered with version of the same video.

witness video taped testimony the day of, etc...

Witness taped testimony easily explained by sounds one might hear in a building that's about to collapse.

that FLIES IN THE FACE of the goverment fabrication, and somehow you'll just deny these things out of existance and call it debunked??? It's gettng really old trying to explain logic and simple physics to people that have fallen so hard for the lie...

Physics from a cold fusion specialist who has been disowned by his own university and which has been thoroughly debunked by hundreds of reputable engineers from the NIST and even NASA scientists.

"I truly feel sorry for you peoplem" but I sympathize, I would like to deny evil is part of this world too, but in the near future this type of escapism is going to come back and bite us ALL in the a$$, whether or not you're a 'truther'.

You are the one denying that the evil exists, you are the one who seeks to blame your own government for the actions of Islamic Imperialists thereby allieving them of their responsibility for the murder of 3,000 of your fellow citizens, disgusting.


And when it comes back, you'll just link youre rhetoric filled hit pieces passing them off as legitimate sources thinking that you present a valid argument because the guys at NIST, and your other 'investigations' would like you to believe their story.

Yes why listen to hundreds of reputable engineers when we have some nutters on a fringe website? :roll:

Ultimately we'll never know what really happened,

No you'll never know because you're a delusional twoofer who won't budge on his preconcieved opinion even when presented with irrefutable fact.
 
Bmanmcly said:
a) Hijackers used false names on their tickets

Source?

b) No FILM of the hijackers in the airport???

Bull****:


YouTube - 9/11 hijackers at Dulles Airport

YouTube - 9/11 - Airport Security Footage Showing Hijackers

c) Their car had a flight training manual yet they were all trained (failed) pilots that executed extremely skillful maneouvers but needed a training manual on the way to the hijacking???

Every single one of them had a pilots license,

Flight School Dropouts

and flight training manuals would be something that the hijackers would be studying a lot, who says it was only in the car because they had to cram before the big exam?

d) Terrorists used their credit cards to go to a stripclub for a night of drinking and such the night before they were gonna get their 72 virgins??

BFD, Strip clubs

Also, their ID's were found at the base of the building (one at least)...

One ID, and numerous documents survived that crash that day:

Passport Recovered

So, they faked their names

Source?
 
No one that I know believes that however, they do believe (as I do) that the global jihadists whether they be AQ or not all pretty much have the same agenda IE bringing the world into the fold of dar al-Islam under puritanical sharia through offensive jihad.

And you don't use any drugs do you? You are certainly paranoid.. This is just unrealistic.. Crazy Jihadist doesn't account for any mentionable size of the Islamic population.. And you believe that such a small group of perhaps maximum 100.000 people is going to take over the world and bring it down? :rofl

There are far greater threats in the world than global Jihad, if you can't see that you are clearly blind.

Most people believe in a lot of things that aren't so, however, the administration never once claimed that Iraq was behind 9-11.

Before the Iraq war they intensely linked Iraq, 911 and Saddam directly but especially indirectly.

He even linked them in the state of the union speech. But truly, most linking was indirect and made the US people believe there was a link, when there wasnt. This link is the most clear one.

YouTube - Bush denies linking Saddam and 9/11

If you search you tube you will find tons of lies surrounding Iraq, Saddam and 911 cough on tv. German propaganda was lies and deception, US propaganda is clever secondary version with careful planning and deceiving the people over time with vague statements, small lies and carefully planned convenient hints of links between Saddam and 911 and Al Quaeda.. Same goes for the reasons to go to war in Iraq, lies, same type of clever propaganda. Just look it up, its far more clear than the linking of 911 and Saddam.. The WMDs, nuclear materials, weapons programs and so on, and the aftermath when they tried to conveniently lie their way out of the web of lies. And what was said before 911? At that time Saddam was no threat and had no such capabilities at all, even problems keeping the army under control, much less to advance its capabilities, not even project power against neighbours..


:roll: no I don't as the global jihad is currently the largest threat to the free world, but it's o.k. Europe will be a majority Muslim entity by the end of this century so just accept your sharia and third class status like a good little dhimmi.

Again your paranoia hitting in here. I feel completely safe. We have 2 million well trained men currently in our armies, and mandatory military service in Europe over the last decades which most Europeans have been in. I dont worry at all about a small group of extremists, if you do, you certainly have no faith in the US military and let this spread to the European one. Its just paranoia, you will get over it, it was created by propaganda in the first place..

How do you figure there will be a muslim majority in Europe? Thats just a large gap of logic. I hope we turn into Jews when we realize that Jesus was a con man, and when catholics worship God instead of a single man, Jesus and his pictures and statues like forbidden in the ten commandments.


Source? I suggest you check out the national budget sport.
2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror

# $69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
hmmm... Larger slice in your wars than on health and human services, interesting.

# $35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
largest infrastructure post in budget, dwarfed by "global war on terror"

$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
More defence..

"The Iraq war and the Afghanistan war are not part of the defense budget; they are appropriations."
What does that even mean?

Definition: #
# A legislative act authorizing the expenditure of a designated amount of public funds for a specific purpose. Adding another large post of expenditures on defense and war.

I suggest YOU take a look at your budgets and start complaining that you dont even have free healthcare in your country for everyone.

Total expenditures defense related;
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror
$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
$39.4 billion (+18.7%) - United States Department of Veterans Affairs
approved $88 billion, Iraq and Afghanistan 2008
needing another $70 billion for the first part of FY 2009(2008 fiscal year)

calculator....................
$727,3 billion

even outstripping mandatory social security spendings..
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
which is taxed at another rate
$927.2 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

Leaving a gap in social security spending which clearly goes to something else..

2008 Iraq War supplemental funding bill - Congresspedia
Cost of Iraq War 2008


Well then blame the global jihadists sport, it's "terrorism terrorism terrorism all the time" because there is not a day which passes in which the global jihadists do not strike between 5-6 times a day in every corner of the globe.

They dont, thats just a lie.. the negative effect of terrorism in general is much less than the negative effect of our focus on it, dictating we should just go on and let them continue but spend more in security at home as a result, and disaster relief and such, which would be a much cheaper solution. Terrorism isnt such a big problem. Only 4 large attacks including the one in India since 2000.


Well because it's not just terrorism it's an ancient threat of global jihad which has destroyed countless civilizations and cultures from north Africa to Indonesia and now this threat has its sites squarely on the west, you may choose to ignore Islamist expanisionism and imperialist endeavors but some of us see the bigger picture.
:rofl

Islamic expansionism? Islam is far more peaceful a religion than Christianity, so I beg to differ here. Christians have led most wars and done most war time killings throughout history. Most likely because we were good Jews led astray by a single man whom is now worshiped.




Because they already have with 3 official investigation IE the 9-11 Commission Report, the FEMA report, and the NIST report, you wish to waste more taxpayer dollars to appease some nutbag conspiracy theorists?

Yeah, I do want that.. At least it would make them shut up and answer their questions...

Just, why not? A large minority of the US population believe these things and a small majority of the New York population also, don't we owe it to them, and the victims?
 
And you don't use any drugs do you? You are certainly paranoid.. This is just unrealistic.. Crazy Jihadist doesn't account for any mentionable size of the Islamic population..

And you believe that such a small group of perhaps maximum 100.000 people is going to take over the world and bring it down? :rofl

There are far greater threats in the world than global Jihad, if you can't see that you are clearly blind.

A) Even if only 1% of Muslims are willing to kill people and blow themselves up for their goals that's still 18 million not 100 thousand.

B) The fact of the matter is the majority of Muslims are in fact Islamists, they are not moderates by any meaning of the word in that they support theocracy IE the implementation of Sharia law. Just because you aren't willing to blow yourself and others up to achieve that end doesn't mean you are not a radical, they may not support the Jihadists tactics (all though they don't vocally condemn them all that much at least not as much as they condemn cartoons) but they certainly do by a wide margin support their goals.


Before the Iraq war they intensely linked Iraq, 911 and Saddam directly but especially indirectly.

He even linked them in the state of the union speech. But truly, most linking was indirect and made the US people believe there was a link, when there wasnt. This link is the most clear one.

YouTube - Bush denies linking Saddam and 9/11

There's a reason why Bush mentioned Saddam and terrorism in the same speeches, that would be because Saddam was in fact sponsoring terrorists (including AQ affiliates) to attack the U.S. right up to the Iraq war.

I suggest you read the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," which demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:

WASHINGTON — A Pentagon review of about 600,000 documents captured in the Iraq war attests to Saddam Hussein's willingness to use terrorism to target Americans and work closely with jihadist organizations throughout the Middle East.

The report, released this week by the Institute for Defense Analyses, says it found no "smoking gun" linking Iraq operationally to Al Qaeda. But it does say Saddam collaborated with known Al Qaeda affiliates and a wider constellation of Islamist terror groups.

The report also undercuts the claim made by many on the left and many at the CIA that Saddam, as a national socialist, was incapable of supporting or collaborating with the Islamist al Qaeda. The report concludes that instead Iraq's relationship with Osama bin Laden's organization was similar to the relationship between the rival Colombian cocaine cartels in the 1990s. Both were rivals in some sense for market share, but also allies when it came to expanding the size of the overall market.

The Pentagon study finds, "Recognizing Iraq as a second, or parallel, 'terror cartel' that was simultaneously threatened by and somewhat aligned with its rival helps to explain the evidence emerging from the detritus of Saddam's regime."

A long time skeptic of the connection between al Qaeda and Iraq and a former CIA senior Iraq analyst, Judith Yaphe yesterday said, "I think the report indicates that Saddam was willing to work with almost any group be it nationalist or Islamic, that was willing to work for his objectives. But in the long term he did not trust many of the Islamist groups, especially those linked to Saudi Arabia or Iran." She added, "He really did want to get anti-American operations going. The fact that they had little success shows in part their incompetence and unwilling surrogates."

A former Bush administration official who was a member of the counter-terrorism evaluation group that analyzed terror networks and links between terrorists and states, David Wurmser, said he felt the report began to vindicate his point of view.

"This is the beginning of the process of exposing Saddam's involvement in Islamic terror. But it is only the beginning. Time and declassification I'm sure will reveal yet more," he said. "Even so, this report is damning to those who doubted Saddam Hussein's involvement with Jihadist terrorist groups. It devastates one of the central myths plaguing our government prior to 9-11, that a Jihadist group would not cooperate with a secular regime and vice versa."

The report concludes that Saddam until the final months of his regime was willing to attack America. Its conclusion asks "Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against the United States?" It goes on, "Judging from Saddam's statements before the 1991 Gulf War with the United States, the answer is yes." As for after the Gulf War, the report states, "The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam's 'coercion' tool box." It goes on, "Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces." The report does note that it is unclear whether Saddam would have authorized terrorism against American targets in the final months of his regime before Operation Iraqi Freedom five years ago. "The answer to the question of Saddam's will in the final months in power remains elusive," it says.


Report Details Saddam's Terrorist Ties - March 14, 2008 - The New York Sun


Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6


If you search you tube you will find tons of lies surrounding Iraq, Saddam and 911 cough on tv. German propaganda was lies and deception, US propaganda is clever secondary version with careful planning and deceiving the people over time with vague statements, small lies and carefully planned convenient hints of links between Saddam and 911 and Al Quaeda..

:roll: The administration never once claimed that Saddam was responsible for 9-11 end of story, they linked Saddam to terrrorism directed at the U.S.. because Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism against the U.S..

Same goes for the reasons to go to war in Iraq, lies, same type of clever propaganda. Just look it up, its far more clear than the linking of 911 and Saddam.. The WMDs, nuclear materials, weapons programs and so on,

We found the WMD programs just not the stockpiles, Saddam was in material breach of the cease fire agreement.

and the aftermath when they tried to conveniently lie their way out of the web of lies. And what was said before 911? At that time Saddam was no threat and had no such capabilities at all, even problems keeping the army under control, much less to advance its capabilities, not even project power against neighbours..

Huh? The neo-cons supported the overthrow of Saddam as far back as 1998.




Again your paranoia hitting in here. I feel completely safe. We have 2 million well trained men currently in our armies, and mandatory military service in Europe over the last decades which most Europeans have been in. I dont worry at all about a small group of extremists, if you do, you certainly have no faith in the US military and let this spread to the European one. Its just paranoia, you will get over it, it was created by propaganda in the first place..

It's not paranoia it's statistical fact, the majority of Muslims support Sharia and Europe will be majority Muslim by the end of the century due to immigration influx, declining birth rates of non-Muslim Europeans, and huge birth rates for Muslim immigrant Europeans. Sharia is already on the march in a few European countries and it was done without a shot being fired.

How do you figure there will be a muslim majority in Europe? Thats just a large gap of logic. I hope we turn into Jews when we realize that Jesus was a con man, and when catholics worship God instead of a single man, Jesus and his pictures and statues like forbidden in the ten commandments.

I suggest you read Mark Steyn's "The End of the World as We Know It" democraphic statistics don't lie.


2008 United States federal budget - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

$261 billion (+9.2%) - Interest on National Debt
$481.4 billion (+12.1%) - United States Department of Defense
$145.2 billion (+45.8%) - Global War on Terror

# $69.3 billion (+0.3%) - Health and Human Services
hmmm... Larger slice in your wars than on health and human services, interesting.

# $35.2 billion (+1.4%) - US Department of Housing and Urban Development
largest infrastructure post in budget, dwarfed by "global war on terror"

$34.3 billion (+7.2%) - Department of Homeland Security
More defence..


$727,3 billion

even outstripping mandatory social security spendings..
$608 billion (+4.5%) - Social Security
which is taxed at another rate
$927.2 billion - Social Security and other payroll taxes

Leaving a gap in social security spending which clearly goes to something else..

2008 Iraq War supplemental funding bill - Congresspedia
Cost of Iraq War 2008

You left out medicaid, medicair, and welfare, nice try but no cigar, including Social Security defense spending isn't even 1/4 of the annual budget.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
They dont, thats just a lie..

Just because you're ignorant doesn't make me a liar there were 6 attacks today alone:

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World

the negative effect of terrorism in general is much less than the negative effect of our focus on it, dictating we should just go on and let them continue but spend more in security at home as a result, and disaster relief and such, which would be a much cheaper solution. Terrorism isnt such a big problem. Only 4 large attacks including the one in India since 2000.

Well you obviously haven't been paying attention then sport, there is at least one attack carried out every day (and usually more) by the global jihadists.

:rofl

Islamic expansionism? Islam is far more peaceful a religion than Christianity, so I beg to differ here. Christians have led most wars and done most war time killings throughout history. Most likely because we were good Jews led astray by a single man whom is now worshiped.

Bull****, there is not a single conflict on the planet today that does not involve the global Jihad in some manner. Furthermore; Islamic Imperialism is far far worse historically than European Imperialism. Offensive Jihad has killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined. For example one of (if not the largest) genocides in human history was perpetrated by the Muslim imperialists in the Indian subcontinent, estimates assert that the Indian population declined by 80 million people under Islamic rule.

Koenraad Elst quotes Professor K.S. Lal's "Growth of Muslim population in India", who writes that according to his calculations, the Hindu population decreased by 8O MILLION between the year 1000 and 1525. INDEED PROBABLY THE BIGGEST HOLOCAUST IN THE WHOLE WORLD HISTORY. (Negat.34)

80 million Hindus massacred by Muslims. The West is next.

These were not all the result of disease like in the Americas this was the result of a systematic genocide in which all non-Muslims were either killed, converted, or subjugated as dhimmi third class citizens under the 20 humiliations. One example is the murder of 100 thousand prisoners by the Shah Timur as recorded by Timur himself:

Timur himself recorded the invasions in his memoirs, collectively known as Tuzk-i-Timuri.[21] In them, he vividly described the massacre at Delhi:

In a short space of time all the people in the [Delhi] fort were put to the sword, and in the course of one hour the heads of 10,000 infidels were cut off. The sword of Islam was washed in the blood of the infidels, and all the goods and effects, the treasure and the grain which for many a long year had been stored in the fort became the spoil of my soldiers. They set fire to the houses and reduced them to ashes, and they razed the buildings and the fort to the ground....All these infidel Hindus were slain, their women and children, and their property and goods became the spoil of the victors. I proclaimed throughout the camp that every man who had infidel prisoners should put them to death, and whoever neglected to do so should himself be executed and his property given to the informer. When this order became known to the ghazis of Islam, they drew their swords and put their prisoners to death.

One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolators, were on that day slain. Maulana Nasiruddin Umar, a counselor and man of learning, who, in all his life, had never killed a sparrow, now, in execution of my order, slew with his sword fifteen idolatrous Hindus, who were his captives....on the great day of battle these 100,000 prisoners could not be left with the baggage, and that it would be entirely opposed to the rules of war to set these idolaters and enemies of Islam at liberty...no other course remained but that of making them all food for the sword.[22]

According to Malfuzat-i-Timuri,[23] Timur targeted Hindus. In his own words, "Excepting the quarter of the saiyids, the 'ulama and the other Musalmans [sic], the whole city was sacked". In his descriptions of the Loni massacre he wrote, "..Next day I gave orders that the Musalman prisoners should be separated and saved."

Persecution of Hindus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact the Hindus got off lucky that they could become dhimmis under the Hanafite school of Islamic jurisprudence, because under all other schools of Sharia dhimmi status was reserved only for Christians and Jews.

Furthermore; this occupation and oppression continues to this very day, half of India has been permanently colonized by dar al-Islam IE Pakistan which even in the continues the genocide of Hindus that the Sultans started eg between 300 hundred thousand and 3 million Hindus were killed in 1971 during operation searchlight in Bangladesh.

1971 Bangladesh atrocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the recent terrorist attacks in India allthough tragic it is important to remeber that it is only part of a larger picture and a drop in the bucket compared with the ongoing Islamist genocide and occupation of the Indian subcontinent. And this is only a single region in the global jihadist grand strategy of bringing the entire world into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad eg Umayyad Conquest of North Africa which started in around 600 A.D. the conquest of Hispania which occurred in the 700's, and the invasions of Southern Italy which occurred in the 800's, the crusades didn't start until 1000 AD.

The Rashidun first in engaged in the unprovoked war of aggression against the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire of Persia they conquered Persia and Mesopotamia between 633 and 656, they then conquered Syria in 637, then they conquered Armenia in 639, then they conquered Egypt in 639, then they conquered North Africa in 652.

Under the Umayyads they finished their conquest of North Africa in 665, then between 662 and 709 they conquered Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southwest Kazakhstan, then between 664 and 712 they conquered the Indian sub-continent, then between 711 and 718 they conquered the Iberian Peninsula of Hispania, they then laid siege to Constantinople between 717 and 718, then between 711 and 750 they conquered the Caucasus, they then conquered Tbilisi in 736, and they then conquered southern Italy in 827.

And there's more, one often hears about the evils of the European slave trade, however, how many people have ever heard of the Arab slave trade which was just as long lasting and larger in scale than the European slave trade. It is estimated that the Arabs traded between 11 and 18 million slaves between 650 AD and 1900 AD compared to the estimates of 9.4 to 14 million slaves traded in the transatlantic slave trade.

Approximately 18,000,000 Africans were delivered into the Islamic trans-Saharan and Indian Ocean slave trades between 650 and 1905.

Welcome to Encyclopdia Britannica's Guide to Black History

Slavery in the east

Between 1450 and 1850 at least 12 million Africans were taken across the notorious Middle Passage of the Atlantic - mainly to colonies in North America, South America, and the West Indies.

However, Europe did not have a monopoly on slavery. Muslim traders also exported as many as 17 million slaves to the coast of the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and North Africa.

BBC News | AFRICA | Focus on the slave trade

Over time, sub-Saharan Africa became the principal source of involuntary labor. Muslims were not the first people to enslave black Africans -- the ancient Egyptians had done it -- but they were the first to engage in it systematically on a massive scale. Going back to Islam's birth in the 7th century, historian Raymond Mauvy estimates that 14 million black slaves have been sold to Muslims. (This compares to Paul E. Lovejoy's estimate of 10 to 11 million Africans shipped in chains to the Western Hemisphere between 1650 and 1900; the vast majority of them were sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, and half a million to British North America and the U.S.)

The Unknown Slavery: In the Muslim world, that is — and it's not over | National Review | Find Articles at BNET

How many people were enslaved?

A database compiled in the late 1990s put the figure for the transatlantic slave trade at more than 11 million people, but numbers are still contested.

The total number taken from eastern Africa and enslaved in the Arab world is considered to be between 9.4 and 14 million. The figures are uncertain due to the lack of written records.

BBC NEWS | Africa | Quick guide: The slave trade


Yeah, I do want that.. At least it would make them shut up and answer their questions...

Every single one of your questions has been answered in this thread and every single one of your lies has been exposed, you have absolutely nothing to offer which has not been debunked time and time again.

Just, why not? A large minority of the US population believe these things and a small majority of the New York population also, don't we owe it to them, and the victims?

We don't owe you **** twoofer, your lies have been debunked, it's over, deal with it, your movement is dead, it's sad at this point.
 
The fact of the matter is the majority of Muslims are in fact Islamists, they are not moderates by any meaning of the word in that they support theocracy IE the implementation of Sharia law.

Source?

.....
 
I suggest you read the Pentagon Review of the DOCEX release entitled the "Iraqi Perspectives Project, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents (Redacted)," which demonstrates that Iraq was in fact collaborating with Islamist extremists and actively working with them to attack the U.S.:


Here's a link to the full report the pertinent information is located in the first volume of this five volume DOCEX:

Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism

Here's a rather telling document from DOCEX which shows how Saddam was recruiting suicide volunteers right up until at least 2001 to attack U.S. interests:

Wednesday, April 05, 2006

March 2001 Document: Saddam Regime Recruits Suicide Terrorists to Hit US Interests (Translation)


Page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654 is a Top Secret letter dated March/11/2001 six months prior to 9/11/2001, proves that not only Saddam Regime supported terrorists organization like Hamas and Al Qaeda as we have learned from other documents but also they were recruiting Suicide Terrorist Bombers to hit US interests. Saddam Regime was a TERRORIST REGIME and there was no other way but to destroy it after 9/11.

Beginning of the translation of page 6 from document BIAP 2003-000654

In the Name of God the Merciful The Compassionate

Top Secret

The Command of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
No 3/6/104
Date 11 March 2001
To all the Units

Subject: Volunteer for Suicide Mission

The top secret letter 2205 of the Military Branch of Al Qadisya on 4/3/2001 announced by the top secret letter 246 from the Command of the military sector of Zi Kar on 8/3/2001 announced to us by the top secret letter 154 from the Command of Ali Military Division on 10/3/2001 we ask to provide that Division with the names of those who desire to volunteer for Suicide Mission to liberate Palestine and to strike American Interests and according what is shown below to please review and inform us.

Air Brigadier General
Abdel Magid Hammot Ali
Commander of Ali Bin Abi Taleb Air Force Base
Air Colonel
Mohamad Majed Mohamadi.
End of translation of page 6

What is rather telling is that April 5, 2006 translation document you cited isn't in the report.

However, it is the very same thing you posted here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/618821-post83.html

and here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/605941-post170.html

and here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/618387-post16.html

and here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/626210-post71.html

and here:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/631392-post111.html

and in other posts you created when you went by the handle "Trajan Octavian Titus" before you were permanently banned from this forum.

Or are you going to argue this interpretation is another "famous rebuttal" of Democrat lies?

Heh heh
 
Last edited:
What ever's clever, the lead lecuturer of fall in the time alotted.

The question is : did he establish the physics involved in the start of collapse to the end, or did he take the end result and figure out how it could have happened??

It's a subtle difference, but it's one thing to take the physics to explain a situation than taking a situation and showing how it matches physics.

NIST found no trace of explosives in the tons of steel they analyzed.

Except the videos that were shown on the news were you could see demolition charges going off MANY floors BELOW the collapsing structure.

Go to the bottom of the link for Dr Greenings paper on the subject debunking Jones et al.

well, you weren't using the Dr as a source, you used the claimed 'non-expert'

I wish I hadn't used that 'Jones' source that I found by accident, since you're argument against 9-11 being an inside job relies QUITE HEAVILY on him being like the Emperor of the 'truth' movement.

No because I have pilots with referencable credentials

core group @ pilotsfor911truth.org
Credentials and Experience @ pilotsfor911truth.org

John Lear... son of the founder of Lear Jets is NOT credible?? Is this in spite of the position he took, or BECAUSE of it??

I have the same video without the ****ing explosives dubbed in, you know the original untampered with version,

You didn't link to it, so I call BS.... or are you claiming YOU filmed the video and someone changed it?? Look, I get asked to source just about everything... and I have sourced quite a bit already... if you're going to claim a video is fake at least TRY to prove it or show evidence of alteration ... best would be you're 'unedited' video next to the one I posted.

Good for ****ing that, it wasn't of the same design as WTC 7 so it bares no relevance to this debate.

OH... so all the countless steel workers, cement workers, framers, architects, engineers, inspectors ALL shyt the bed while making the WTC buildings that made them vulnerable to TOTAL COLLAPSE in it's own footprint because of fire and a 3 floor hole in the side of the building??? Now who's sounding like a conspiracy theorist.


The NIST reported temperatures of 1000 °C (1800 °F) end of story.

Yes, that's what they 'reported'... talk about throwing a number up in the air and hoping it sticks...

How Hot Did The Jet Fuel Heat The World Trade Center?
Even though I'm sure you'll attribute this to that Jones character...

He makes his calculations with a few assumptions :
a) that FEMA was accurate in saying that 3000 gallons of jet fuel was left after the initial fireball
b) that the fuel was contained on 1 floor
c) that NO heat escaped to other floors or to the outside
d) that the flame was PERFECTLY oxidized (as in pure oxygen rather than air)
e) That the fuel would have been pooled on the ground (rather than being a flammable vapor
f) That there was LESS steel on the floor in question

Given these assumptions and the calculations of the heat generated he arrived at the conclusion that the steel would have heated to about 250C... given these IDEAL assumptions IN FAVOR of NIST's argument.

So, essentially it's not even possible that the metal heated to 800C that would have weakened the steel, much less the thousand that NIST claims which is STILL less than the 1200-1400C required to melt the steel in the first place.


This time, rather than quoting one of your bunk debunker sites, how about you read that one, and challenge his assumptions and equations??

More twoofer bull**** that's been thoroughly debunked by the NIST:

You got that backwards... it's the 'twoofer bullshyt' that has thoroughly debunked NIST.

There was no melted steel and there is no evidence that there was any that was aluminum or copper wiring.

Because of the VIDEO where you can CLEARLY see molten metal pouring out the side of the building... it's a slap in the face to anything reasonable to say that there was no melted metal when there's VIDEO of the stuff coming out of the building???

YouTube - WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner

Or are you gonna say this video was edited too??

A) WTF does this have to do with the fact that the fires were more than hot enough to melt aluminum?
The planes outer shell is mostly aluminem.

B) The fires were, also, more than hot enough to severely reduce the structural integrity of the steel.

And the concrete? and the supporting columns? and the rest of the structure NOT affected by the fire?

That's the thing about you twoofers, whenever someone debunks your disinformation you label them as part of the conspiracy.

I never said 'ordered to cover-up the murder of 3000 people... many of the people that would have been USED in a cover-up very likely didn't know that they were even PART of a coverup. Because people are out to do a good job, and when your boss asks you to do a job, you say 'yes, I'll get started on it.' You don't ask questions like 'why'... you just DO IT.

Look, even the CIA calls this human trait 'compartmentalization'... as in each area is only 1 compartment of the whole... each compartment has all it needs to function independantly of each other compartment, and may not even be aware that other compartments ARE related nevermind how the compartment fits into a total agenda.

I actually SPARED many of the people you'd like me to accuse from the accusation...Where you're thinking it would HAVE to be the entirety of goverment, down to the whitehouse janitor, I'm trying to say that only a very small group of powerful people NEEDED to know the entirety of the plan where the rest simply were told to do their jobs that they've worked hard to earn and wouldn't risk losing... think of the term 'useful idiot'
 
Um what type of metal would he have them find? "Hay guys only gather steel that doesn't prove that 9-11 was an inside job and that explosives wer not used."

Except if you ARE complicit in something MAJOR like this, you're not going to make some retarted confession of guilt to your office inferiors like you'd like to assume would be necessary.

The standards of living in places like Saudi healthcare.

I'd comment on this, but you'll turn around and say 'but it wasn't saudi arabia, it was OBL and Saddam working together in a cave in Iraqistan.' or some other feeble minded attempt to 'debunk'...

Yes now it's "implied" there's a reason why Bush mentioned Saddam to the Iraq war.

I love how you 19 hijacker conspiracy theorists run any sane-minded person into these loops of logic...

a) Saddam helped orchestrate 9-11
b) Bush lied
c) Saddam never had a connection to 9-11
d) Bush implied it
e) he did because Saddam was allied with AQ that perpetrated the attacks

Not to mention the fact that Saddam had fired on our aircraft in the of state one George Herbert Walker Bush.

I love that you added that last point... which is the most legitimate view. Saddam Hussein was an honor killing, Bush reclaiming his fathers honour. Something you're going to deny because I agree with you, I'm sure...

The U.S. and western countries in general do jihadists do everything they can to maximize them.

Are you sure about that?

Ya ya, people have been claiming the coming of the American dictatorship since the time of John Adams and the alien and seditions act, SOS just another day.

As long as americans have the right to bear arms this CANNOT happen. Even 1-3% of the armed population could decimate americas police forces and cause a revolution. It's coming, it's an incrementalized process, but it IS coming.

This really is another discussion though.

Yes the infamous Patriot Act that does such nefarious things like transfers, say it isn't so. :roll:

LMAO... if that was ALL the patriot act was about, well... I wouldn't be nearly as opposed to it. Read the act yourself and you'll see that the first and fourth amendments are all but nullified under the act (or potentially nullified since the power has only been abused in small seemingly beneficial ways)

I have answered every single "question" and disproven everyone of your lies.

You get an E for effort.

No providing contrary evidence from reputable sources completely refuting your disinformation from fringe websites = debunking.

More like using rhetoric and denialism you've refused to accept the flaws contained in the mainline story.



That's a problem we have... if debunked means "I have a different opinion so YOU are wrong.' then sure you can debunk all you want... but don't call it convingly disproven untill you step it up a notch.


Video evidence with magical silent explosives, or video evidence with version of the same video.

Let's see your 'untampered' video... if the video had actually been tampered with, since all we have on that is your opinion. I mean an argument including :
- the unedited vs the edited footage
- the evidence of tampering

You know... something to back up your claim that it was an altered video... because I've seen the videos from most every angle of the buildings collapsing, including the ones that were live coverage on tv... and they all say the same thing (hell, even the original newscasters (some of them) initially compared the collapse to 'a controlled demolition like you've seen on the las vegas strip').

So, are you going to start answering some of the questions or do you plan on coming up with more 'debunking' (your implied definition)?

Witness taped testimony easily explained by sounds one might hear in a building that's about to collapse.

Oh you mean that silent 'groaning' sound you'd expect to hear with tons of steel bending apart from the structure???

You seem to be clutching onto various bunk evidence hoping that something might 'stick'.


Physics from a cold fusion specialist who has been disowned by his reputable engineers from the NIST and even NASA scientists.

Now, are these respected scientists that came to that conclusion, or scientists that came to the right conclusion to maintain their respected status?>? Same for Jones...

I wish I hadn't used that source, which, if accurate (I found no flaws in his essay, and you're sticking with the ad hom rather than challenging his findings... so remains seemingly accurate), is DAMNING evidence.

You are the one denying that the evil exists, you are the one who fellow citizens, disgusting.

Listen, EVIL isn't something that only happens in the middle east.... EVERYONE is capable of evil. I'm not denying that there aren't evil people, people that cheered at the attacks, people that would like to kill a vast majority of the world population, down to your street level psychos.

However, YOU ar the one that denies that EVIL might have taken hold in america, and deny evidence that would support that case using your modified use of the term 'debunked'. Hell, I never even truly denied that the hijackers ARE islamic fundamentalists (although, I do question how this was determined)


Yes why listen to hundreds of reputable engineers when we have some nutters on a fringe website? :roll:

Ok, so they lose their reputation for pointing out that the 'emporer has no clothes'... so in this case their stepping forward and putting their reputations on the line is an act of COURAGE NOT insanity like you are trying to argue. (unless of course you are qualified to make that determination)

No you'll never know because you're a delusional twoofer who won't budge on his preconcieved opinion even when presented with irrefutable fact.

You haven't shown very much in terms of irrefutable facts... plenty of rhetoric and ad hom, a hint of speculation, and the government fiction.

and flight training manuals would be something because they had to cram before the big exam?

So, you'll argue that they were all certified pilots but then argue that they needed to bring a training manual to 'cram' before the mission??? Hell, since they were such accomplished pilots and noone would be asking for their certification, they could have brought the book with them.

See what I mean... either they were trained pilots that wouldn't have NEED of a manual, or they were dropouts that would have needed it... NOT BOTh.


That was a pile of inconclusiveness that amounts to : islamic fundamentalists will give up those fundamentals to 'fit in'... regardless...

One ID, and numerous documents survived that crash that day:

Passport Recovered

Survived coming out of the guys pocket / luggage, through the plane, through the fireball, and landing on the ground unscathed? Do you play the lottery? Cause, this sounds about as possible was winning the jackpot 2 draws in a row... if not more unlikely.
[/QUOTE]
 
Just because you're ignorant doesn't make me a liar there were 6 attacks today alone:

TheReligionofPeace.com - Islam: Making a True Difference in the World



Well you obviously haven't been paying attention then sport, there is at least one attack carried out every day (and usually more) by the global jihadists.



Bull****, there is not a single conflict on the planet today that does not involve the global Jihad in some manner. Furthermore; Islamic Imperialism is far far worse historically than European Imperialism. Offensive Jihad has killed more people than Mao and Stalin combined. For example one of (if not the largest) genocides in human history was perpetrated by the Muslim imperialists in the Indian subcontinent, estimates assert that the Indian population declined by 80 million people under Islamic rule.



These were not all the result of disease like in the Americas this was the result of a systematic genocide in which all non-Muslims were either killed, converted, or subjugated as dhimmi third class citizens under the 20 humiliations. One example is the murder of 100 thousand prisoners by the Shah Timur as recorded by Timur himself:



In fact the Hindus got off lucky that they could become dhimmis under the Hanafite school of Islamic jurisprudence, because under all other schools of Sharia dhimmi status was reserved only for Christians and Jews.

Furthermore; this occupation and oppression continues to this very day, half of India has been permanently colonized by dar al-Islam IE Pakistan which even in the continues the genocide of Hindus that the Sultans started eg between 300 hundred thousand and 3 million Hindus were killed in 1971 during operation searchlight in Bangladesh.

1971 Bangladesh atrocities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

With the recent terrorist attacks in India allthough tragic it is important to remeber that it is only part of a larger picture and a drop in the bucket compared with the ongoing Islamist genocide and occupation of the Indian subcontinent. And this is only a single region in the global jihadist grand strategy of bringing the entire world into the fold of dar al-Islam through offensive Jihad eg Umayyad Conquest of North Africa which started in around 600 A.D. the conquest of Hispania which occurred in the 700's, and the invasions of Southern Italy which occurred in the 800's, the crusades didn't start until 1000 AD.

The Rashidun first in engaged in the unprovoked war of aggression against the Zoroastrian Sassanid Empire of Persia they conquered Persia and Mesopotamia between 633 and 656, they then conquered Syria in 637, then they conquered Armenia in 639, then they conquered Egypt in 639, then they conquered North Africa in 652.

Under the Umayyads they finished their conquest of North Africa in 665, then between 662 and 709 they conquered Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and southwest Kazakhstan, then between 664 and 712 they conquered the Indian sub-continent, then between 711 and 718 they conquered the Iberian Peninsula of Hispania, they then laid siege to Constantinople between 717 and 718, then between 711 and 750 they conquered the Caucasus, they then conquered Tbilisi in 736, and they then conquered southern Italy in 827.

And there's more, one often hears about the evils of the European slave trade, however, how many people have ever heard of the Arab slave trade which was just as long lasting and larger in scale than the European slave trade. It is estimated that the Arabs traded between 11 and 18 million slaves between 650 AD and 1900 AD compared to the estimates of 9.4 to 14 million slaves traded in the transatlantic slave trade.












Every single one of your questions has been answered in this thread and every single one of your lies has been exposed, you have absolutely nothing to offer which has not been debunked time and time again.



We don't owe you **** twoofer, your lies have been debunked, it's over, deal with it, your movement is dead, it's sad at this point.

All this is neo-Nazi bull**** and an unfair crusade against Islam. Aside from that, I never said what I believe about 911, I dont buy either stories, I just think all theories, including the official ones is important and should be heard, I also think when the situation is as it is, we could demand more transparancy and so more investigation to answer some peoples question.. As for being "twoofer", look at your own post and your enourmous paranoia, what you are saying is not happening...

I think you are George W; Bush concealed as a "normal" member of society, here to spread more propaganda.
Not only are we safe in Europe, but we even have Germany if needed, and who have ever beat Germany? Only the US have done that, with 10 other large nations, and that was just about. Some small group of extremist aint going to have any chance, not even at the Italians. lol
 
Back
Top Bottom